Accused of rape, Russell Brand speaks of 'distressing' week

It's funny how people who advocate against society's injustices and corporations' corruptions, get reported to the media for "crime", never the police.

Then on Thursday, a woman accused Brand of exposing himself to her in 2008.

Like some of Brand's anti-corporatocracy takes, disagree with others.

The charges seem to fall short of the predation of many people who were in positions of power.

Brand's case again seems to show placing your livelihood in the hands of media /tech/SNS companies whom you produce content for is inherently precarious.

What does Katy Perry have to say about this? Didn’t their marriage coincide with some of these allegations? The guy always seemed like a tool but the allegations don’t really seem to add up. I guess British media is worse than their American counterparts because they don’t have to worry so much about libel and defamation if their reporting isn’t entirely fact checked and verified!

Brands insufferable vanity and ego, his misogyny, has finally manifested in societies unflinching need to demand responsibility for his own actions Brand cannot escape from.

Four accusers has now become eight. In a time frame from a media perspective is barely the blink of an eye.

Russell Brand defence of, "deep state and corporate collusion" and "media corruption and censorship", will be afforded the short shrift gibberish associated with conspiracy theorist ranting of a delusional mind,

All lashing out in a disparate attempt to save what is left of his sphere of social media driven influence.

All before the police/judiciary have barely got their teeth into Brand disheveled carcass.

YouTube demonetise prior to the government request. They did it of their own back. Because it broke several contact rules they said in a release. One, embarrasse a races of group of people. But Jonny Samaiea don't get demonetise. YouTube will get sue because of showing bias on the contract rules. They Think not deplatforming will save them from any legal action. How wrong they are.

Regardless of what you think about Brand, hopefully this draws more attention to the Online Safety Bill, a UK legislation that gives the government sweeping surveillance and censorship powers, a law that has already been passed and is evidently being used to target, control, choke and shut down independent media organizations.

Hopefully it also draws attention to the Trusted News Initiative, a coordinated collaboration between Big Tech platforms and legacy media to determine what they believe constitutes acceptable information.

I miss the days when Orwell's 1984 was considered just a fantastical work of fiction, not a window into the actual existence we're dangerously close to living in.

Online Safety Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

That has not one iota of relevance to the seriousness of the criminal accusation of rape, serious sexual assaults Brand is accused of, Detailed here……  

What is rape and sexual assault?

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/rape-and-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault/

Neither does the legislation, however intrusive, bare any possible indication of Russell Brand guilt or innocence, nor any excuse for the misogyny detailed published in Brand own words, over the past decades.

Brand is a sorry excuse for a human being.

Read Russell Brand My Booky Wook/2, an account of Brand scumbaggery

The problem with the Brand story is there are several people making accusations, not just one.

I feel a right naive plonker, I spent goodness knows how many posts/comments defending Brand right of/to presumed innocence.

I managed to acquire digital copies of My Booky Wook/2, read Brand stomach churning misogyny/abuse of trust, persecution, distasteful behavior.

And then tell me Brand is not at least capable of rape.

JayToday  08:29 am JST

Regardless of what you think about Brand, hopefully this draws more attention to the Online Safety Bill, a UK legislation that gives the government sweeping surveillance and censorship powers, a law that has already been passed and is evidently being used to target, control, choke and shut down independent media organizations.

Hopefully it also draws attention to the Trusted News Initiative, a coordinated collaboration between Big Tech platforms and legacy media to determine what they believe constitutes acceptable information.

Whoever the writer of this article is (in credible media the author's name is provided) conveniently left out the fact that in his video Brand specifically mentions the Online Safety Bill and Trusted News Initiative, which provides the relevant context for [ Brand criticized the British government for asking tech companies to take action against him.

Denouncing what he described as "deep state and corporate collusion" and "media corruption and censorship"], the absence of which leads one to believe that Brand is simply fabricating his claim.

So yes, it does seem the media has a dog in this race, even here, which not only implies this has been created by the UK media in collusion with the UK gov't, but also that as usual media organizations coordinate with each other to support a shared agenda, whether it concerns tar and feathering an anti-establishment figure like Brand or brewing up support for a war with Iraq (i.e. headlines affirming the presence of WMD, which we all found out after the fact was false).

the joint investigation by The Times, Sunday Times and Channel 4 

Investigations into allegedly criminal behavior are the hands of the media rather than the police. Yeah, that's a good idea. Gotta love the state of today's liberal democracy.

I feel a right naive plonker, I spent goodness knows how many posts/comments defending Brand right of/to presumed innocence

I don’t see this as the behaviour of a plonker. In these cases, I don’t know what else you should do.

It is better than immediately presuming he is guilty or adopting the hive mind mentality of the conspiracy theorists and parroting what you are programmed to say.

I did see a poll from the bastion of morality the Mail Online which asked if it is acceptable for a 30-something man to have sex with a 16-year-old.

You do wonder about the types who said yes.

But he did not comment on the joint investigation by The Times, Sunday Times and Channel 4 television in which four women made claims of rape, sexual assaults and emotional abuse against him.

He has not been charged in court officially?

But govt is getting involved.

Maybe he's a real d"*chebag but if they have a case against him would have hauled him off to court already.

He can’t get a fair trial in the US. He should stay in the UK and fight extradition.

Very little has happened to Brand so far.

Everyone was surprised when Bill Cosby was charged with rape.

Not a presumption of Russell Brand guilt or innocence.

We all base our opinions on the assumption if Brand is capable of the alleged crimes he is accused of.

The media will, always has, sensationalized such presumptions, innuendo, Brands demeaning misogynistic sexual remarks.

Is the public not trending water until the moment the crown prosecution service receives a case file to decide Russell Brand fate?

So far Russell has not been charged but the media is already Branding him.

One woman said he exposed himself to her and said he was going to **** her. She said no you're not. Then right after, he went on a BBC radio broadcast, laughed, and joked about it with the show host. He can't deny it. It's on transcript so sounds like evidence that shows a pattern of behavior. The show host has also apologized for his behavior. As usual the BBC did nothing at the time.

I dint so much about this since being away from U.K. for years. Was never keen on him and didn’t know why so many people though he was so funny. Always seemed too much of a show off for my liking and also incredibly vulgar.

I do remember him and Jonathan Ross upsetting Andrew Sachs who was of very advanced years at the time. I found that to be disgraceful and should have needed the careers of himself and Mr Ross.

I heard about his YouTube channel a while ago and had a look but it was weird and he seemed to think he had turned into a guru for the masses. Maybe he’s a narcissist and his ego has grown so big he thinks he’s untouchable.

Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and many big wigs visiting Epstein island and the refusal to reveal the client list:

One girl's opinion of Russell Brand 17 years ago:

UPROAR

Trial by media instead of actual evidence.

Investigations into allegedly criminal behavior are the hands of the media rather than the police. Yeah, that's a good idea. Gotta love the state of today's liberal democracy.

The Times is owned by Murdoch. You know, that right wing icon who owns Fox.

Looks like the Right are going after one of their own. Brand mustn’t be pushing their agenda hard enough.

It seems a little strange that British media is praised on this site for reporting the behavior of Johnny Kitagawa but criticized for reporting the behavior of Russell Brand.

Looks like the Right are going after one of their own. Brand mustn’t be pushing their agenda hard enough.

Brand was never embraced by “the right”. Hes until recently been a darling of the left.

That is until he realized how demented the left has become and opened his eyes. Hes an intelligent man now seen as a danger to the left/woke and is paying the price now.

Hes an intelligent man now seen as a danger to the left/woke and is paying the price now.

Lol! So why is the right wing media making him ‘pay the price’?

Maybe he’s still too woke for you?

Police interviewed him 9 years ago.

Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and many big wigs visiting Epstein island and the refusal to reveal the client list:

crickets*

One girl's opinion of Russell Brand 17 years ago:

UPROAR

You conveniently missed naming certain people there. In any case it's just nonsense and whataboutery.

One woman said he exposed himself to her and said he was going to **** her. She said no you're not. Then right after, he went on a BBC radio broadcast, laughed, and joked about it with the show host. He can't deny it. It's on transcript so sounds like evidence that shows a pattern of behavior. The show host has also apologized for his behavior. As usual the BBC did nothing at the time.

Yep.

The BBC covered up for Brand, it seems. Just like they did for his predecessor in filth - Jimmy Savile.

Their sickness and abuse always get found out in the end.

Just imagine the distress the women he allegedly abused felt….

Making fun of a serious situation does not cut it.

He's slept with 1000+ women, what percentage are unhappy?

Chibakun

He's slept with 1000+ women, what percentage are unhappy

Even if only 1 was non-consensual, that's all that matters.

N. Knight Sep. 24 11:56 pm JST

Conspiracy Rapey Russell blames the "deep state" and all his faithful lemmings all get in lockstep.

Let's see, he talked about the Hawaii fires and exposed Bill Gates plans.......and then, all of a sudden, these decades old allegations start coming out.

As I mentioned before in another article on JT, powerful people don't like it when someone points out the elephant in the room.

Even if only 1 was non-consensual, that's all that matters.

So if any are about as credible as Amber Heard, what ever?

I bet to differ.

Also, proving sex between two people with no witnesses, no video, no audio no nothing was consensual or not is completely impossible. Even a confession could be false. Thus the empty claims and complete lack of filed charges.

I did some looking but it got old real fast. Firm details are hard to find and looking at empty article after article is no fun.

One claims he assaulted her, whatever that means, kept seeing him, but then found him in bed with another woman, and THEN got so mad she broke off. Okay. Whatevs. I guess sexual assault is tolerable but NOT cheating. Fun which one is against the law and which isn't. Also funny how I get all this detail about the cheating but not the sexual assault.

I am just going to declare this a hoax and move on...until SOMEBODY can give me something solid.

Consensual...

Lzw for me is based on proof. Everything else is assumption.

Justice by accumulating evidence too buy it must be challenged itself.

Here allegations until now. So what.

Epstein was abusing young girls who worked for him and could not escape.

What about those women ?

What a clown..

I guess British media is worse than their American counterparts because they don’t have to worry so much about libel and defamation if their reporting isn’t entirely fact checked and verified!

@gaijinlamd - it's actually the other way round - libel laws are much stricter in Britain. You can get away with much more in the US without being successfully sued.

For example, a politician was sued for defamation for the following tweet: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? innocent face"

That was it.

The Times would not publish this unless it was very comfortable with the evidence.

What this article doesn't show is the text messages between Brand and the alleged victims, such as one the day after:

She wrote “when a girl says no, it means no,” and Brand replied that he was “very sorry.” 

Bit of course Brand is currently a darling of the far right, so he will be defended, just like Andrew Tate, regardless of the enemy.

Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and many big wigs visiting Epstein island and the refusal to reveal the client list:

crickets*

One girl's opinion of Russell Brand 17 years ago:

UPROAR

In British that is very little interest in Epstein because hardly anyone knows who he is. Pretty much everyone has some familiarity with Russell Brand.

And the Sunday Times has a fine history of doing investigative journalism and breaking big stories.

In British that is very little interest in Epstein because hardly anyone knows who he is.

Prince Andrew is in the corner shaking his head "no".

She wrote “when a girl says no, it means no,” and Brand replied that he was “very sorry.”

And? Anyone who has dated anyone knows that sometimes you have to apologize for stuff that never happened. Its called appeasment and its an everyday thing. Its often done in response to made up or misinterpreted events done as conscious or subconscious attempts to assert dominance. Sometimes its just to calm someone down in the moment that has freakout for no good reason.

Those of us with actual dating experience have all taken lumps we didn't deserve to preserve the peace.

all Men should start worrying about any past relationships that went South , and perhaps caused mental distress to the woman involved, and was that consensual sex you had

If you are unsure whether sex you had was consensual then you most certainly do have a problem and should be worried.

No means no, it’s simple. Even if it’s a marriage partner.

I feel a right naive plonker, I spent goodness knows how many posts/comments defending Brand right of/to presumed innocence.

I managed to acquire digital copies of My Booky Wook/2, read Brand stomach churning misogyny/abuse of trust, persecution, distasteful behavior.

It's naive to put someone on a pedestal just because they express ideas you like. It's equally naive to then trash them when you discover they are not perfect.

His behavior and that book refer to events of 15 or 20 years ago, when he was a left-wing darling. Everyone was fine with it then. Ask "why now?" Especially now that he appears to have changed and become a father and family man. Is that why? Or is it because he has millions of viewers (not followers - a ridiculous concept) and questions state-backed narratives?

I see bad behavior that is not unlike the behavior of many young men who become rich and famous in their 20s. Why has Brand been selected for outrage - especially so many years after the fact and so many years after he even confessed to such behavior?

If you really think this is some sort of conspiracy against Brand for being against corporations, I can guarantee you they couldn't care less about the minuscule impact he has overall.

How can you guarantee that? Do you have some special knowledge that others don't? Is your guarantee backed by any funds? I'd like a piece of that.

Seen a lot of guys outing themselves as weirdos throughout this whole thing by claiming you'll start to need some sort of signed contract before engaging in any sexual activity lol consent is very straightforward.

If consent were straight forward we would not be having heated debates about the whole thing would we? But we have been for very regularly on the internet for like 20 years or something so no, you are obviously wrong and its not straightforward. Thus the idea of the consent contract to make it straight forward.

What is a main point of such a contract? Well keep reading as I respond to another:

No means no, it’s simple.

This works, at least in part, if you think all or an overwhelming majority of people are too honest to lie about it later. And that is simply insane thinking with lots of proof such as the cases of Wanetta Gibson, Sarah-Jane Parkinson, Treva Throneberry and many, many more less notable cases.

What consent contracts accomplish is that someone cannot "change their mind" about what happened, sometime afterward, and casually ruin someone's life and career just by doing an interview that gets published in an article.

Nobody wants to take this step, but there are those who have made it necessary. Its like locking your door. Its a solid response to theives and other miscreants who really do exist.

At least one of Brand's accusations, the worst one if I am not mistaken, is precisely this. And a consent contract would have saved most if not all of the current heartache.

I know nothing of this man having never watched or seen him on anything......my choice. Obviously I have heard of him and his views, so that is why I chose not to bother with him. He is, in my view, an out an out misogynist, but that does not make him a rapist or a physical abuser. As a woman, I tend to believe the witnesses now coming forward and they good reasons for not doing so earlier. And the press reaction, well, what can I say, filth writing about filth, its all about profit for them.

He is only accused, by so far anonymous accusers, and not convicted of anything. What happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Seems to have been reversed for regime critics.

opheliajadefeldt

I know nothing of this man having never watched or seen him on anything......my choice. Obviously I have heard of him and his views, so that is why I chose not to bother with him. He is, in my view, an out an out misogynist,

So you make a strong judgement based you have never watched or seen him on anything... so what is your strong opinion based on, other than mainstream media headlines?

Russell Brand and why the allegations took so long to surface

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/24/russell-brand-and-why-the-allegations-took-so-long-to-surface

I believed this to be a fair and balanced opinion piece from Alexandra Topping.

“One of the standard ploys, which one particular law firm in London is doing, is to sue or threaten to sue the individual woman, not the journalist or the newspaper,” says Stephens, who represented Zelda Perkins, a former assistant to the disgraced US film producer Harvey Weinstein.

How, should police/courts deal with probable cause when deciding to prosecute if the alleged victim/s are at the mercy of a threatened law suit, to dissuade them from testifying?

He is only accused, by so far anonymous accusers, and not convicted of anything. What happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

You are legally presumed innocent. But if you are arrested for a crime, you can be detained until trial, particularly if the crime is serious, or there is a risk of absconding. It is a technical presumption of innocence. In this sense, Jimmy Saville was innocent of all of his crimes because he never stood trial in his lifetime and died without a criminal record.

Saying that, I am not particularly comfortable with companies automatically treating people as guilty based on an accusation, especially without criminal charges being leveled.

And? Anyone who has dated anyone knows that sometimes you have to apologize for stuff that never happened. Its called appeasment and its an everyday thing.

@Keepyer Internetpoints

This is quite an egregious example of being an apologist for a potential rapist. A young woman writes the next day after their sexual encounter that "no, means no" - a very clear reference to both a well-known anti-rape slogan, and the fact that she must have said "no" the night before.

He apologised, which you dismiss as "appeasement" - something you have decided without any evidence other than an assumption that Brand did no wrong.

Let me ask you (or anyone reading this) - have you ever apologised to a woman when she sent you text messages implying that you raped them in order to "appease" them?

Kniknaknokkaer

Can't stand the guy, never have done so good riddance.

So persecution, censorship, destruction of income is OK for someone because you "dont like them"? Did I read that right?

So persecution, censorship, destruction of income is OK for someone because you "dont like them"? Did I read that right?

Seeing as he didn't say those things, and there is no way to logically conclude that his words had that intent, no, it does not actually seem you read that right.

Attorney General makes Russell Brand contempt warning despite no active proceedings

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/attorney-general-russell-brand-contempt-warning/

This is interesting........

O’Neill of The Times questioned in response to the Attorney General’s statement: “Is the government telling reporters to stop interviewing women who have courageously come forward, stop pursuing legitimate and important public interest journalism? Meanwhile, Brand is free to pontificate on social media channels.”

He described it as a “shocking overreach”, adding: “It is not her job to tell reporters to stop reporting on issues where there is merely the ‘potential’ for criminal proceedings. It is the job of reporters to uncover misconduct and wrongdoing, to gather evidence that could lead to criminal trials. What will she do next? Curtail all reporting of crime and criminal justice? Or is she only concerned with cases involving celebrities?”

Has Russell Brand's toxic poisonous public persona, the failure of broadcast media, BBC, C4, cynical nauseous brand of self interest, will finally eat them all alive?

The contemptuous need to criminally ignore fragrant misogyny, creating the environment for sexual assault to flourish unabated, unchecked?