Russell Brand allegations

[DaisyDay]

Lets say you are person with some fame, you woudln't want anyone because their are envious or whatever, just accuse you like that, and get your reputation and job ruined, because someone lied.

It wasn't just anyone.

 

[Pommer]

Would you like to take the microphone away form a person who hasn't done those things, but who was alledged to have done those things regardless?

This would require me to give more thought to a subject/personage I don’t care about enough to form a weighty opinion, so therefore won’t.

 

[Divide]

were encouraged by media outlets to "come forward" because they were looking to get a "scoop" on a high profile person)

What high profile person? I was about to post who's Russel Brand? I never heard of him, lol. I gather from the thread that he is an actor but he can't be high profile because I've never even heard of the guy.

I know who Tom Hanks is. Jim Cavazeil, Sylvester Stallone, Sally Field, Meg Ryan, Sandra Bullock. Who's russel brand, lol?

Sometimes girls bite off more than they can chew. But it's high stakes for them so, sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. And sometimes bad things happen.

Men who are not famous do the same things. These stories are distractions from the enemy to keep peole focused on anything except God.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What high profile person? I was about to post who's Russel Brand? I never heard of him, lol. I gather from the thread that he is an actor but he can't be high profile because I've never even heard of the guy.

I know who Tom Hanks is. Jim Cavazeil, Sylvester Stallone, Sally Field, Meg Ryan, Sandra Bullock. Who's russel brand, lol?

Sometimes girls bite off more than they can chew. But it's high stakes for them so, sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. And sometimes bad things happen.

Men who are not famous do the same things. These stories are distractions from the enemy to keep peole focused on anything except God.

He was a little more famous as an actor back from 2006-2013...then fell into obscurity, but recently reemerged over the past few years and gained popularity as a podcaster and "wellness influencer" of sorts.

Some numbers
YouTube subscribers: 6.6 million
Various other platforms (like Spotify, Podcasts, Rumble)... another 1.5 million

(perhaps his popularity was more so in England than it was here given he's British... sort of like Steve Coogan isn't exactly mainstream in the US apart from a few small roles, but in the UK, his well-known character "Alan Partridge" is something of a household name.)

So while he's not putting up "Rogan numbers" in that media space, he still has a substantial following.

 

[Divide]

He was a little more famous as an actor back from 2006-2013...then fell into obscurity, but recently reemerged over the past few years and gained popularity as a podcaster and "wellness influencer" of sorts.

Some numbers
YouTube subscribers: 6.6 million
Various other platforms (like Spotify, Podcasts, Rumble)... another 1.5 million

(perhaps his popularity was more so in England than it was here given he's British... sort of like Steve Coogan isn't exactly mainstream in the US apart from a few small roles, but in the UK, his well-known character "Alan Partridge" is something of a household name.)

So while he's not putting up "Rogan numbers" in that media space, he still has a substantial following.

He's got Fans! Did you ever realize that Fan is short for Fanatiic?

I am not a fan of anyone and I don't watch much TV. If I am to be a fan, then it will be of Yeshua.

Poor Russel. It must be hard to be famous in tis day and age, lol. they rake you across the coals!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Firms pull ads from Rumble platform over Russell Brand videos​

Burger King, Asos and HelloFresh remove ads from site in wake of allegations about comedian

YouTube suspended Brand’s ability to earn money on its platform on Tuesday but Rumble has rejected calls to do the same.

His literary agent, tour promoter and book publisher have also dropped him.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

He's got Fans! Did you ever realize that Fan is short for Fanatiic?

I am not a fan of anyone and I don't watch much TV. If I am to be a fan, then it will be of Yeshua.

Poor Russel. It must be hard to be famous in tis day and age, lol. they rake you across the coals!

It’s definitely hard to think you’re going to get away with forcing yourself on women, and then don’t…

 

[Pommer]

It’s definitely hard to think you’re going to get away with forcing yourself on women, and then don’t…

I heard someone say that “they let you get away with ‘it’ [sexual-touching] if you’re a ‘celebrity’!” Can’t quite recall, where, though.

 

[stevevw]

Russell Brand allegations: What is the star accused of?

The comedian and actor denies serious allegations about his behaviour over a period of seven years.

www.bbc.com

The actor and comedian is also said to have behaved inappropriately at work during the height of his fame, including by undressing, making sexual remarks and acting aggressively.
Brand denies the allegations, revealed in a joint investigation by the Sunday Times, the Times and Channel 4's Dispatches, and says his relationships have been "always consensual".

I am not sure of Russel Brands guilt or not but what I find unusual and unfair is that the UK parliament and some media are acting as judge, jury and executioner on this by asking media companies to cancel his income on his media platforms.

I seen something interesting by one commentator mentioning how Brand and a few other controversial figures have been accused around the same time for stuff going back years that has never been the subject of any criminal wrong doings. The question is asked why after all this time. Its as though some went looking for a story.

One reporter for the Washington post admits that a tactic used by journalists is to allude to something negative about someone without specifying to provoke a reaction to get a story. If this is the case then it appears some journalists are taking a negative and biased view to paint things in a negative light. Interpreting the stories of those who may have had dealings with Brand as being up to something. More or less putting words in peoples mouths.

It was also pointed out that the story of Brand supposedly raping some women and how the text showed she went to a rape crisis centre was not about rape but about Brand not wearing a condom. She went there to get a moring after pill. She was going off at Brand for not wearing a condom rather than any non consensual sex. But the journalist only highlighted certain parts of the text to make it look like it was rape.

Now Brand has admitted he wasn't the best behaved bloke when it comes to women and was a sex addict but claims all his encounters were consensual. But the whole point here is its trial by media and not due process. Its a big concern that big companies and the State are now intervening in these situations like they are the moral police while coverup or excusing their own bad behaviour depending on which side of the political ideology you belong.

 

[Ordinary Christian]

I think that there are those who wanted him silenced regarding his Ben Shapiro like commentaries. I'm sure they're trying to find a way to sink Shapiro too, but it's not as easy to frame him as it was Brand.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It was also pointed out that the story of Brand supposedly raping some women and how the text showed she went to a rape crisis centre was not about rape but about Brand not wearing a condom. She went there to get a moring after pill. She was going off at Brand for not wearing a condom rather than any non consensual sex. But the journalist only highlighted certain parts of the text to make it look like it was rape.

Legally, that is considered rape in California:

In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 287, or 289, or former Section 288a, in which consent is at issue, evidence that the victim suggested, requested, or otherwise communicated to the defendant that the defendant use a condom or other birth control device, without additional evidence of consent, is not sufficient to constitute consent.

261.7. Evidence that victim requested that defendant use condom or other birth control device; consent

In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 287, or 289, or former Section 288a, in which consent is at issue, evidence that the victim suggested, requested, or otherwise communicated to the defendant that the defendant use a condom or other birth control device, without additional evidence of...

www.womenslaw.org

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think that there are those who wanted him silenced regarding his Ben Shapiro like commentaries. I'm sure they're trying to find a way to sink Shapiro too, but it's not as easy to frame him as it was Brand.

In Brand's case, I don't even rule out the possibility that he did those things (he's a self admitted former heavy drug user who was very promiscuous)...I just commented on how the timing is conspicuous.

In Shapiro's case, he's well noted for being about the most "straight-laced" as as person can be.... trying to dig up any "sexual impurity" on his part would be impossible I would think (unless there's something he's kept really well hidden, which I doubt)

Typically a sign that "they've got nothing" is when they resort to giving more broad labels like "racist"/"sexist" (like they often have to do for Shapiro).

 

[Ordinary Christian]

In Brand's case, I don't even rule out the possibility that he did those things (he's a self admitted former heavy drug user who was very promiscuous)...I just commented on how the timing is conspicuous.

It is. And of course the reason why Brand's exploits are well known, is because he wrote books about it.

In Shapiro's case, he's well noted for being about the most "straight-laced" as as person can be.... trying to dig up any "sexual impurity" on his part would be impossible I would think (unless there's something he's kept really well hidden, which I doubt)

Typically a sign that "they've got nothing" is when they resort to giving more broad labels like "racist"/"sexist" (like they often have to do for Shapiro).

In his case it would have to be a girl from his high school years he never knew ala Brett Kavanaugh.

 

[Goonie]

In Brand's case, I don't even rule out the possibility that he did those things (he's a self admitted former heavy drug user who was very promiscuous)...I just commented on how the timing is conspicuous.

In Shapiro's case, he's well noted for being about the most "straight-laced" as as person can be.... trying to dig up any "sexual impurity" on his part would be impossible I would think (unless there's something he's kept really well hidden, which I doubt)

Typically a sign that "they've got nothing" is when they resort to giving more broad labels like "racist"/"sexist" (like they often have to do for Shapiro).

In term of timing i dont find it particularly conspicuous. For one thing it takes time given the uks notorious libel laws for a TV programme expose to pass all the legal hurdles to get broadcast. It says something that he has been out of mainstream media(apart from youtube) for over half a decade.

 

[stevevw]

Legally, that is considered rape in California:

261.7. Evidence that victim requested that defendant use condom or other birth control device; consent

In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 287, or 289, or former Section 288a, in which consent is at issue, evidence that the victim suggested, requested, or otherwise communicated to the defendant that the defendant use a condom or other birth control device, without additional evidence of...

www.womenslaw.org

Thats in Canada and as far as I understand these allegations happened in London and around England.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In term of timing i dont find it particularly conspicuous. For one thing it takes time given the uks notorious libel laws for a TV programme expose to pass all the legal hurdles to get broadcast. It says something that he has been out of mainstream media(apart from youtube) for over half a decade.

Per what was linked earlier, one (or more) of the accusers even mentioned the reason for their timing, and like I noted, it's conspicuous
The Sunday Times notes that the women wanted to talk to reporters because of "Brand's newfound prominence as an influencer, with millions of followers on YouTube and other sites."

So basically, to me, this reads like a situation where they would've been content to just let things go and move on had he still been in obscurity. Had he not been gaining newfound popularity as something of an "anti-establishment folk hero" recently (with 8+ million subscribers/followers across the various platforms), would they even have bothered to come out with the allegations?

If there's any truth to what Glen Greenwald was saying, it also sounds like the publications where doing (what Greenwald referred to as) "a full court press" in which they had in their mind what kind of story they wanted to pursue, and went combing through his personal sexual history in search of some witnesses/accusers who would be willing to put pen to paper.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Thats in Canada and as far as I understand these allegations happened in London and around England.

No, it's California, the US state (also abbreviated CA). And the allegation that you referred to, about the woman who went to a rape crisis center, occurred in California.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's California, the US state (also abbreviated CA). And the allegation that you referred to, about the woman who went to a rape crisis center, occurred in California.

I'm not sure. I thought that involved a 30 year old and the 16 year old was in England as they said it wasn't against the l;aw as the age of consent was 16. I can't keep up with it all.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm not sure. I thought that involved a 30 year old and the 16 year old was in England as they said it wasn't against the l;aw as the age of consent was 16. I can't keep up with it all.

You said:

It was also pointed out that the story of Brand supposedly raping some women and how the text showed she went to a rape crisis centre was not about rape but about Brand not wearing a condom. She went there to get a moring after pill. She was going off at Brand for not wearing a condom rather than any non consensual sex. But the journalist only highlighted certain parts of the text to make it look like it was rape.

From the article in the OP, it's pretty clear that you're referring to the first allegation, which happened in California:

Four women are alleging sexual assaults between 2006 and 2013:

• One woman alleges that Brand raped her without a condom against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She says Brand tried to stop her leaving until she told him she was going to the bathroom. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times says it has confirmed via medical records
• A second woman, in the UK, alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship. Looking back, she says, he "engaged in the behaviours of a groomer"
• A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles. She alleges she repeatedly told Brand to get off her, and when he eventually relented he "flipped" and was "super angry". She says he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation
• The fourth woman has alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand in the UK and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her

 

[stevevw]

You said:

From the article in the OP, it's pretty clear that you're referring to the first allegation, which happened in California:

Yeah thats why I said I can't keep up. I have got them mixed up. So the condom incident was in CA. So the question is if this is regarded as rape in not wearing a condom when asked why hasn't he been charged. Why has it taken so long.

Plus the point I was making is that regardless of which case it is how can the UK government and other media outlets interfer and treat Brand as guilty and then punish him when he has not had his day in court.

The UK parliament was actually asking a private company to financially penalize Brand. Not only are they denying a persons right to the assumption of innocent until proven guilty but are also interferring with the rights for Brand or any person to not be arbitrarily denied income.