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

[SebastianBlue]

Hahahahahaha, you leave Harry out of this mate he's done nothing wrong for at least 3 years ;)

Speaking of grifters, I am sure William and Harry attended some of Brand’s private workshops.

 

[paulchapo]

To be fair, I responded to your post in it’s entirety, referencing every element, respectfully.

I don’t think you responded, though, I may have missed it.

I'll have a look. Late night I'm still bloody tired and catching up.

 

[mexico1970]

Genuine question: was Jimmy Saville just a not very nice person who used his television persona and regular access to sexually abuse lots of children?

There should be a LOT more emphasis on the mechanisms that allowed Brand (IF true) to order schoolgirls like pizzas, the lessons learned mob are still probably in a job after the Savile debacle.

Someone somewhere phoned a taxi to pick a girl up from a school to have her delivered to him, and nobody wants to know what the mechanism is that allowed that?

 

[mexico1970]

Speaking of grifters, I am sure William and Harry attended some of Brand’s private workshops.

I reckon it really does go THAT deep, lessons learned and all that ehh?

 

[SebastianBlue]

There should be a LOT more emphasis on the mechanisms that allowed Brand (IF true) to order schoolgirls like pizzas, the lessons learned mob are still probably in a job after the Savile debacle.

Someone somewhere phoned a taxi to pick a girl up from a school to have her delivered to him, and nobody wants to know what the mechanism is that allowed that?

I think most people want to know the mechanism that allowed that.

I certainly do.

And, up till now, the justice system wasn’t getting us closer to that information, or stopping it from happening, despite it apparently being a known thing happening across the entertainment industry (and even, in certain cases, law enforcement).

 

[west didsblue]

Whether he’s guilty of rape or not, the fact that he entered into a relationship with a child when in his 30s makes him a nonce as far as I’m concerned. The fact that the child had turned 16 only makes him a legalised nonce, but a nonce nonetheless. I also strongly suspect he’s guilty of all the accusations made against him by the 5 women so far based on what I’ve seen, and I hope that a court gets to see the evidence and make a legal judgment.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I reckon it really does go THAT deep, lessons learned and all that ehh?

I don’t think it is at all a conspiracy theory to assert that the royal family, including two sons that have had absolutely horrific upbringings from a psychological perspective, have their fair share of skeletons in the closet.

Prince Andrew alone will have a Natural History Museum wing.

 

[paulchapo]

Genuine question: was Jimmy Saville just a not very nice person who used his television persona and regular access to sexually abuse lots of children?

On the contrary, the vast majority of this country thought Saville was a saint. He did lots for charity blah blah blah, Jim will fix it, TOTP they loved and couldn't get enough of the fucker. He was even knighted. Personally I always thought he was a wrong un and a not very nice ****. Seems I was right but lots loved him and were taken in by him.

As for your question of course he used his fame to abuse anybody he could. Lots of famous people do, the Epstein island regular visitors need a look.

 

[mexico1970]

I don’t think it is at all a conspiracy theory to assert that the royal family, including two sons that have had absolutely horrific upbringings from a psychological perspective, have their fair share of skeletons in the closet.

Prince Andrew alone will have a Natural History Museum wing.

We need to look at the seemingly effortless way that conditions can be in place where famous people or people heading or at the top of companies and establishments can procure satisfaction by victimising other people.

We've also got to try to understand why so many people are employed in these organisations who genuinely look the other way until the shit hits the fan and they suddenly do an Esther.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think there’s a wider and worthwhile debate around the impact that has had on Brand, especially in terms of his right to earn a living, without any legal proceedings yet being commenced.

I’m not suggesting it’s a straightforward issue, but I am uneasy that his income has been cut off in the way it has, and ministers are publicly commenting on this, based, as we currently are, simply on a TV programme and a newspaper story. That doesn’t sit right with me.

Whilst I don’t seek to undermine this documentary or necessarily challenge its veracity (or merit) that’s all we have at the moment. We are heading down a very dangerous path where that alone is sufficient to impact on someone’s life in this way, in the absence of anything else (as is currently the case).

Whilst I dislike Brand for lots of reasons, this isn’t just about him, and I am uncomfortable more generally about the power of the media to influence public opinion in a way that appears to be wholly unchecked, and extremely dangerous for us all.

 

[paulchapo]

Have you done any reading or research into the allegations?

No have you? That's down to the police and judicial system not people on a football forum, unless you're assigned to the case if one happens.

 

[SebastianBlue]

On the contrary, the vast majority of this country thought Saville was a saint. He did lots for charity blah blah blah, Jim will fix it, TOTP they loved and couldn't get enough of the fucker. He was even knighted. Personally I always thought he was a wrong un and a not very nice ****. Seems I was right but lots loved him and were taken in by him.

As for your question of course he used his fame to abuse anybody he could. Lots of famous people do, the Epstein island regular visitors need a look.

I am glad we agree Saville was a monster of a similar ilk to Epstein.

But he was never convicted of anything. So if we apply the same stand to him that you wish everyone to apply to Brand, he was just a not very nice person.

I.e. no matter who many women come forward to accuse Brand, no matter how much reputable information arises to support their claims, as long as he is never convicted, he is just a not very nice person?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Okay a big ****. Not a nice person. Same as Mendy was in his treatment of women. It didn't make him a rapist though as two separate juries found him not guilty. The same as Brand isn't until legally convicted, in spite of the lynch mob having him already hanged. For the hard of hearing and the ones who get outraged at sections of my post, right at the start I said it wasn't a defence of Brand. Does he come across as a narcissist, a vile person and has he treated women like throwaway commodities in the past? Yes without a doubt. Do I find that behaviour acceptable? Absolutely not. Sadly, If such behaviour was worthy of a prison sentence there wouldn't be enough space to hold everyone.

Rape is an entirely different kettle of fish, but until he's legally convicted of such Brand is, or was, just a not very nice person who used his looks, fame and power to sleep with lots of women.

Didn't you blow your top and basically want Zouma locked up for life? Seems strange a contradiction that you don't really trust these women.

Although Der Fuhrer was famously very kind to animals so maybe not such a strange position to take. :)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No have you? That's down to the police and judicial system not people on a football forum, unless you're assigned to the case if one happens.

I guess this logic means we can’t form an opinion on Savile either, given that all the evidence we have seen was through the media.

 

[abu13]

What this highlights to me is just how quickly someones life can be turned upside down or completely destroyed by the media, i'm not for one minute saying he is innocent in all of this but it isn't as if he has been charged or found guilty of anything yet.

What if this all turned out to be people trying to destroy his reputation and nothing more, quite worrying how this can happen.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I think there’s a wider and worthwhile debate around the impact that has had on Brand, especially in terms of his right to earn a living, without any legal proceedings yet being commenced.

I’m not suggesting it’s a straightforward issue, but I am uneasy that his income has been cut off in the way it has, and ministers are publicly commenting on this, based, as we currently are, simply on a TV programme and a newspaper story. That doesn’t sit right with me.

Whilst I don’t seek to undermine this documentary or necessarily challenge its veracity (or merit) that’s all we have at the moment. We are heading down a very dangerous path where that alone is sufficient to impact on someone’s life in this way, in the absence of anything else (as is currently the case).

Whilst I dislike Brand for lots of reasons, this isn’t just about him, and I am uncomfortable more generally about the power of the media to influence public opinion in a way that appears to be wholly unchecked, and extremely dangerous for us all.

Even in the face of media historically being the main driver of most sexual misconduct and abuse being investigated at all. That is, absent media exposure of allegations, and the subsequent pressure placed on authorities by more aware citizens, an even smaller proportion of sex crimes would be investigated, much less lead to legal proceedings (keep in mind in 2022 ~98% of sexual crimes reported to police did not lead to charges, and those were merely the ones reported)?

 

[mexico1970]

I guess this logic means we can’t form an opinion on Savile either, given that all the evidence we have seen was through the media.

He was attacked for having the opinion that he should be punished by a court, nothing wrong with that opinion is there?

 

[paulchapo]

I think there’s a wider and worthwhile debate around the impact that has had on Brand, especially in terms of his right to earn a living, without any legal proceedings yet being commenced.

I’m not suggesting it’s a straightforward issue, but I am uneasy that his income has been cut off in the way it has, and ministers are publicly commenting on this, based, as we currently are, simply on a TV programme and a newspaper story. That doesn’t sit right with me.

Whilst I don’t seek to undermine this documentary or necessarily challenge its veracity (or merit) that’s all we have at the moment. We are heading down a very dangerous path where that alone is sufficient to impact on someone’s life in this way, in the absence of anything else (as is currently the case).

Whilst I dislike Brand for lots of reasons, this isn’t just about him, and I am uncomfortable more generally about the power of the media to influence public opinion in a way that appears to be wholly unchecked, and extremely dangerous for us all.

Absolutely. They can make or break whoever they like and that has been the case for decades. It doesn't even have to be the mainstream media. The internet has created people with far more sway than they hold and everyone's an expert when in fact many aren't.

 

[SebastianBlue]

No have you? That's down to the police and judicial system not people on a football forum, unless you're assigned to the case if one happens.

So you feel there is nothing problematic about commenting on the allegations or the nature of the response to the allegations without knowing anything about them (or their veracity)?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I think there’s a wider and worthwhile debate around the impact that has had on Brand, especially in terms of his right to earn a living, without any legal proceedings yet being commenced.

I’m not suggesting it’s a straightforward issue, but I am uneasy that his income has been cut off in the way it has, and ministers are publicly commenting on this, based, as we currently are, simply on a TV programme and a newspaper story. That doesn’t sit right with me.

Whilst I don’t seek to undermine this documentary or necessarily challenge its veracity (or merit) that’s all we have at the moment. We are heading down a very dangerous path where that alone is sufficient to impact on someone’s life in this way, in the absence of anything else (as is currently the case).

Whilst I dislike Brand for lots of reasons, this isn’t just about him, and I am uncomfortable more generally about the power of the media to influence public opinion in a way that appears to be wholly unchecked, and extremely dangerous for us all.

That's just the reality of life. Brand doesn't need to continue to earn a living and has plenty of money to live on.

If it was a local newspaper or regional newspaper making similar allegations against a local business man or self-employed professional, their client base would disappear overnight unless they were locked into cast iron contracts.