Dispatches/Sunday Times investigation: Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

[Alan Harper's Tash]

So he's guilty then?

As is Mendy? Kevin Spacey?

Yes, assuming those women are genuine, I have nothing but admiration for them, but with nothing more than (currently) unsubstantiated allegations, he should not be treated as guilty, no matter how big a **** he is in other ways

Suspending someone doesn’t mean the suspended person is guilty of a crime.

The suspension allows any investigation to run its course whilst keeping the reputation of the company intact.

See Benjamin Mendy for an example.

Do you think Mason Greenwood should be playing for the rags now?

 

[flook]

So what are you saying then? That it's a complete coincidence that they've decided to cut his revenue stream a couple of days after the allegations surfaced and that they haven't done it because of the allegations? I'm struggling to see what the alternative reason is.

Thats exactly the opposite of what i'm saying if you read my first post

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

So he's guilty then?

As is Mendy? Kevin Spacey?

Yes, assuming those women are genuine, I have nothing but admiration for them, but with nothing more than (currently) unsubstantiated allegations, he should not be treated as guilty, no matter how big a **** he is in other ways

The allegations are a lot closer to Jimmy Savile and Harvey Weinstein than they are to Kevin Spacey.

The ‘cancellation’ of Spacey always seemed a bit harsh and premature to me but it was clear from day one that Savile and Weinstein were evil predators.

 

[flook]

Suspending someone doesn’t mean the suspended person is guilty of a crime.

The suspension allows any investigation to run its course whilst keeping the reputation of the company intact.

See Benjamin Mendy for an example.

Do you think Mason Greenwood should be playing for the rags now?

Greenwood is a different case, we've all heard the audio and its pretty certain he's got off on a technicality

Suspension without pay is something which is difficult to be comfortable with on the basis of accusations only, we're talking big names with big money here, but apply that to your average working man. Their life could be ruined and they could subsequently be found not guilty. Doesn't sit right with me I'm afraid

 

[M18CTID]

Thats exactly the opposite of what i'm saying if you read my first post

Fair enough but I'm not sure what you're getting at. They've every right to take whatever action they deem necessary if they feel his behaviour or even alleged behaviour brings their channel into disrepute. As it happens, they've not banned him outright and he can still use them to spout all his unfounded conspiracy theories.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Greenwood is a different case, we've all heard the audio and its pretty certain he's got off on a technicality

Suspension without pay is something which is difficult to be comfortable with on the basis of accusations only, we're talking big names with big money here, but apply that to your average working man. Their life could be ruined and they could subsequently be found not guilty. Doesn't sit right with me I'm afraid

No, you’ve decided his guilt. He hasn’t been found guilty of any crime.

Brand can’t be suspended without pay as he is self employed. He merely can’t make money out of his grift currently.

 

[Crooked_rain]

Seriously, WTF?

I think you misunderstood

I was saying he hasn't raped every woman he slept with clearly, it seems he slept with hundreds or thousands of women but there's only a handful of allegations and one actual rape allegation that we know of, which lends itself to the majority of his sex life being consensual and they're the ones his friends probably knew about...i doubt he's gone around telling his mates he's raped somebody

You should learn to read in context of the conversation and you might have an easy time following.

The point I was making is somebody was saying his mates should be ashamed and I was saying why should they be ashamed for something they maybe didn't know about? Maybe they just thought he was a very promiscuous guy, which everybody already knew, it doesn't necessarily mean they knew he was some rapist, if he is

the point I was talking about is specific in reply to why his friends are not to blame or should be ashamed because they might not have even known anything about these allegations. but you took something I said out of context or didn't follow the conversation and you just made yourself look stupid now.

Read more books. It's good for the brain.

 

[bluenova]

Now I'm not a fan of Brand at all, in fact I think he's a talentless twat, but this is wrong

YouTube suspends Russell Brand from advert income

The BBC has also removed some shows featuring the comedian and actor from its streaming services.

www.bbc.co.uk

Innocent until proven guilty is no longer a thing unfortunately

If you mean "Innocent until proven guilty" in a criminal court, then it doesn't really apply.

In terms of a court case (as with Mendy), guilt is based on "beyond reasonable doubt", which is generally considered that everyone has to be around 99% sure something happened. That's a really high bar, and one of the main reasons that crimes such as rape, where there may be little evidence beyond the two sides of the story, rarely end in a guilty verdict.

If YouTube block him, then that's likely based on a contract, which would be decided on the balance of probabilities. So, they can look at both sides and decide who they believe - even if it's marginal - so a 51%-49% decision. It's almost certain that the contract contains elements about reputational damage, or similar, which lowers the bar even further.

Brand in those cases can take legal action against YouTube, but it would also be based on the balance of probabilities, and I don't think I'd bet on him winning.

 

[M18CTID]

I think you misunderstood

I was saying he hasn't raped every woman he slept with clearly, it seems he slept with hundreds or thousands of women but there's only a handful of allegations and one actual rape allegation that we know of, which lends itself to the majority of his sex life being consensual and they're the ones his friends probably knew about...i doubt he's gone around telling his mates he's raped somebody

You should learn to read in context of the conversation and you might have an easy time following.

The point I was making is somebody was saying his mates should be ashamed and I was saying why should they be ashamed for something they maybe didn't know about? Maybe they just thought he was a very promiscuous guy, which everybody already knew, it doesn't necessarily mean they knew he was some rapist, if he is

Fair enough and I've read that post back now. However, you've not exactly covered yourself in glory as you've also tried to politicise this topic which is completely irrelevant to the allegations, no matter how much Brand tries to claim otherwise.

 

[meltonblue]

So he's guilty then?

As is Mendy? Kevin Spacey?

Yes, assuming those women are genuine, I have nothing but admiration for them, but with nothing more than (currently) unsubstantiated allegations, he should not be treated as guilty, no matter how big a **** he is in other ways

They’re not unsubstantiated though, channel 4 and the times wouldn’t have gone anywhere near publishing it if they weren’t confident in the corresponding evidence which they also published and provided more of to Brand and his lawyers before going to print.

If you mean unsubstantiated in a criminal court then fair enough but then that’s not going to happen unless more people come forward. It doesn’t need to be done in a criminal court for employers or companies to act though. His agency has dropped him and accused him of deliberately misleading them too.

 

[Crooked_rain]

Fair enough and I've read that post back now. However, you've not exactly covered yourself in glory as you've also tried to politicise this topic which is completely irrelevant to the allegations, no matter how much Brand tries to claim otherwise.

I'm not politicising anything, earlier in the thread I actually said that I think brands past is probably catching up with him but that's not for me to be the judge, just my feeling or opinion if you held a gun to my head and asked my feeling about him.

I still doesn't change my opinion that people with certain political beliefs get targeted more than others by the media and get their platforms targeted etc .....or some get protected more than others, whichever way you want to see it. and that's not really about Russell Brand, but it's just a general opinion.

As for Russell Brand, the only thing to do is let it go to court and a proper process. But the public have already decided it seems. Youtube have de-monetised him on the back of the allegations, yeah they will try to find something in their ever changing terms of service to throw at it, but we all know why he's really magically had his revenue stopped less than 48 hours after the story, unless you're naive. I don't think that's a good precedent to set when people haven't even had a chance to defend themselves yet. That's my opinion, its not about Brand specifically.

Of course YouTube has the right to do what it wants. But I think if the shoe was on the other foot and someome made allegations about you, which are still just allegations at this point, and people started blocking your ability or avenues to make money like you used to, I think you would feel a sense of injustice when you've not even had your time to defend yourself. I take Brand out of the scenario and just think generally and don't particularly like depending something that we ourselves would feel some injustice over if were happening to us when it's still the allegations stage.


I don't care about covering myself in glory or not, I'm allowed an opinion. For you to determine who covers themselves in glory or not shows you're probably limited in your ability to think objectively or at least hear other people out and it means think your viewpoint is the right one. I don't think my viewpoint holds any more weight than anyone else's, its just my own thoughts from my own observation..

 

[SebastianBlue]

Greenwood is a different case, we've all heard the audio and its pretty certain he's got off on a technicality

Suspension without pay is something which is difficult to be comfortable with on the basis of accusations only, we're talking big names with big money here, but apply that to your average working man. Their life could be ruined and they could subsequently be found not guilty. Doesn't sit right with me I'm afraid

I have always found that the people most uncomfortable with people facing consequences for their bad (or, in this case, horrific) behaviour are the ones most worried about eventually having to face consequences for their own bad behaviour.

“Do we really want to live in a world where any person you have sexually abused or raped can accuse you of sexual abuse or rape!?”

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'm not politicising anything, earlier in the thread I actually said that I think brands past is probably catching up with him but that's not for me to be the judge, just my feeling or opinion if you held a gun to my head and asked my feeling about him.

I still doesn't change my opinion that people with certain political beliefs get targeted more than others by the media and get their platforms targeted etc .....or some get protected more than others, whichever way you want to see it. and that's not really about Russell Brand, but it's just a general opinion.

As for Russell Brand, the only thing to do is let it go to court and a proper process. But the public have already decided it seems. Youtube have de-monetised him on the back of the allegations, yeah they will try to find something in their ever changing terms of service to throw at it, but we all know why he's really magically had his revenue stopped less than 48 hours after the story, unless you're naive. I don't think that's a good precedent to set when people haven't even had a chance to defend themselves yet. That's my opinion, its not about Brand specifically.

I don't care about covering myself in glory or not, I'm allowed an opinion. For you to determine who covers themselves in glory or not shows you're probably limited in your ability to think objectively or at least hear other people out and it means think your viewpoint is the right one. I don't think my viewpoint holds any more weight than anyone else's, its just my own thoughts from my own observation..

He had a chance to defend himself against a four year journalistic investigation and declined to do so.

 

[Bazzmand Show]

I thought the right were obsessed with "protecting children" and yet Brand was fucking a 16 year old and sending cabs round to her school to get her?

Claims which he has in no way denied.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I'm not politicising anything, earlier in the thread I actually said that I think brands past is probably catching up with him but that's not for me to be the judge, just my feeling or opinion if you held a gun to my head and asked my feeling about him.

I still doesn't change my opinion that people with certain political beliefs get targeted more than others by the media and get their platforms targeted etc .....or some get protected more than others, whichever way you want to see it. and that's not really about Russell Brand, but it's just a general opinion.

As for Russell Brand, the only thing to do is let it go to court and a proper process. But the public have already decided it seems. Youtube have de-monetised him on the back of the allegations, yeah they will try to find something in their ever changing terms of service to throw at it, but we all know why he's really magically had his revenue stopped less than 48 hours after the story, unless you're naive. I don't think that's a good precedent to set when people haven't even had a chance to defend themselves yet. That's my opinion, its not about Brand specifically.

Of course YouTube has the right to do what it wants. But I think if the shoe was on the other foot and someome made allegations about you, which are still just allegations at this point, and people started blocking your ability or avenues to make money like you used to, I think you would feel a sense of injustice when you've not even had your time to defend yourself. I take Brand out of the scenario and just think generally and don't particularly like depending something that we ourselves would feel some injustice over if were happening to us when it's still the allegations stage.


I don't care about covering myself in glory or not, I'm allowed an opinion. For you to determine who covers themselves in glory or not shows you're probably limited in your ability to think objectively or at least hear other people out and it means think your viewpoint is the right one. I don't think my viewpoint holds any more weight than anyone else's, its just my own thoughts from my own observation..

Which people with which beliefs?

And how is that more important than a guy who has been accused of rape and other serious crimes?

 

[west didsblue]

I knew he was an unfunny **** masquerading as a comedian when I saw him on TV occasionally in the 2000s and have avoided any programme with him on it since. Having watched the Dispatches programme, it has reminded me how shit his act was. Why the fuck do people laugh at a succession of lewd comments made in a screeching voice while he waves his arms about. What’s funny about listening to some **** tell an audience what sex acts he wants to perform. There’s must be a lot of weird fuckers around who liked him that enabled him to become a Hollywood star. Just fucking bizarre. Noel Gallagher and Jonathan Ross must feel a bit fucking stupid today.

 

[M18CTID]

I'm not politicising anything, earlier in the thread I actually said that I think brands past is probably catching up with him but that's not for me to be the judge, just my feeling or opinion if you held a gun to my head and asked my feeling about him.

I still doesn't change my opinion that people with certain political beliefs get targeted more than others by the media and get their platforms targeted etc .....or some get protected more than others, whichever way you want to see it. and that's not really about Russell Brand, but it's just a general opinion.

As for Russell Brand, the only thing to do is let it go to court and a proper process. But the public have already decided it seems. Youtube have de-monetised him on the back of the allegations, yeah they will try to find something in their ever changing terms of service to throw at it, but we all know why he's really magically had his revenue stopped less than 48 hours after the story, unless you're naive. I don't think that's a good precedent to set when people haven't even had a chance to defend themselves yet. That's my opinion, its not about Brand specifically.

Of course YouTube has the right to do what it wants. But I think if the shoe was on the other foot and someome made allegations about you, which are still just allegations at this point, and people started blocking your ability or avenues to make money like you used to, I think you would feel a sense of injustice when you've not even had your time to defend yourself. I take Brand out of the scenario and just think generally and don't particularly like depending something that we ourselves would feel some injustice over if were happening to us when it's still the allegations stage.


I don't care about covering myself in glory or not, I'm allowed an opinion. For you to determine who covers themselves in glory or not shows you're probably limited in your ability to think objectively or at least hear other people out and it means think your viewpoint is the right one. I don't think my viewpoint holds any more weight than anyone else's, its just my own thoughts from my own observation..

As @Gorton_Tubster said, which people and which beliefs? And who is getting more of a free pass than Brand?

By the way, Brand is lucky that YouTube haven't binned him off altogether, regardless of whether the accusations have been proven or not at this point.

 

[lazerblue]

i thought kissing a woman without asking is classed as sexual assault now

 

[M18CTID]

I knew he was an unfunny **** masquerading as a comedian when I saw him on TV occasionally in the 2000s and have avoided any programme with him on it since. Having watched the Dispatches programme, it has reminded me how shit his act was. Why the fuck do people laugh at a succession of lewd comments made in a screeching voice while he waves his arms about. What’s funny about listening to some **** tell an audience what sex acts he wants to perform. There’s must be a lot of weird fuckers around who liked him that enabled him to become a Hollywood star. Just fucking bizarre. Noel Gallagher and Jonathan Ross must feel a bit fucking stupid today.

Yep. Allegations aside, I find it astonishing that he gained so much popularity. His act was dogshit. Sure, he's not the only one who tells lewd jokes too but most of the rest tend to have a lot of other material as well. Brand was just a one-trick pony and an unfunny one at that. I never followed him particularly closely so a lot of the stuff passed me by but seeing it aired over the past few days makes me wonder why he ever got as far as he did.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

i thought kissing a woman without asking is classed as sexual assault now

Always was