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

[denislawsbackheel]

Does Channel 4 make a profit?

No, it is a publicly owned non profit making organisation.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

Should these allegations have gone to the police first?

they sound true, but it seems a bit like it’s trial by media

 

[Corky]

No, it is a state owned non profit making organisation.

Which means they will call it a surplus instead and it can go on bonuses and big wage increases. It may be Not-for Profit but people do profit.

 

[BlueHammer85]

It's strange to say that Brand has moved towards the far-right, I assume this is a tactic used by those on the left to differentiate from Brand but the fact is he sits very much on the left. He was a big supporter of Corbyn and subsequent losses for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 is where his conspiracy stories began.

He quite famously took apart Nigel Farage on immigration on Question Time so putting both of these now in the same bracket seems pretty far-fetched.

And that’s where I liked him , ok could tell he was never the most smartest guy when it comes to politics but he was on the left side and as a high profile celeb it was good to see.

Last few years however he’s now Anti-Biden, Anti Vax , against big pharma etc, not far off QAnon and all the conspiracy stuff. I assumed for the total grift of getting millions/views clicks and just to make money out of it.

 

[M18CTID]

The entertainment industry is weird. We pay people to entertain us; to provide us with a service. but I think one the major problems with the entertainment industry as a whole is the way these that a lot of these front of house staff (aka presenters) are treated.

For a start they are referred to industry wide as 'the talent', and treated like some sort of rare, protected species. I just can't think of any other industry where the people we pay to provide us with goods and services are treated any differently than the rest of us, except perhaps professional sport (which also has it's issues). It's like paring a mechanic to fix your car and then rolling out the red carpet at the garage.

They are put on a pedestal and are treated as some kind of protected entity. "Mustn't upset the talent darling...", and it's not just the BBC, who are somewhat under the microscope, but the entertainment industry as a whole. It's absolutely toxic with someone like Brand whose whole personality centres around his massive ego. It seems like at every turn he was allowed to get away with more and more; things that would get most people sacked from any other job in the world.

I'm not absolving Brand of any blame here. He's absolutely at fault for his own behaviour, but those who allowed him to continue to get away with his abhorrent behaviour also bear some responsibility for what has happened. The MTV saga should have absolutely been the end of him in the industry, but instead of binning the cnut, he was given another high profile job, even though it seems that EVERYONE knew EXACTLY who he was.

What’s also intriguing is that Brand now paints himself as anti-MSM. Yet as you say that same MSM has employed him in the past and he’s made an absolute fortune out of them. That makes him a hypocrite but it also raises the question as to why he took that decision to go down the anti-MSM, anti-establishment road he’s currently on. Is it because he knew these allegations would come out eventually so he can claim “They’re all out to get me because I rail against the MSM and establishment”? It’s interesting that one of the complainants last night said she got in touch with his publicists in 2020 to make a complaint. That’s close to the time that Brand launched his new career as a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

 

[inbetween]

Does Channel 4 make a profit?

If Channel 4 didn't attract viewers and therefore didn't have an income because advertisers would abandon it then unlike the BBC it wouldn't exist. Of course money is a motivation, it doesn't have to be about profits.

 

[lazerblue]

What’s also intriguing is that Brand now paints himself as anti-MSM. Yet as you say that same MSM has employed him in the past and he’s made an absolute fortune out of them. That makes him a hypocrite but it also raises the question as to why he took that decision to go down the anti-MSM, anti-establishment road he’s currently on. Is it because he knew these allegations would come out eventually so he can claim “They’re all out to get me because I rail against the MSM and establishment”? It’s interesting that one of the complainants last night said she got in touch with his publicists in 2020 to make a complaint. That’s close to the time that Brand launched his new career as a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

infamy, infamy, they've all got it......

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be reported. I'm arguing that these things should be passed onto the Police and then let's see where it goes from there? I won't pass judgement on Brand because I don't know the truth, I don't care about movements, I only care about the truth and we don't and can't possibly know the truth at the moment.

I don't agree that information should be freely distributed in the media because let's face it the media doesn't run these stories to help victims, they actually do it to gain views on advertisements and sell newspapers. You have been duped if you think otherwise.

When it comes to these subjects there is no room for the expression of opinion or claims on guilt because we have laws on that too, it's called defamation and slander.

I don’t think the media runs the stories to help the victims. And I agree the accusations should be passed on to authorities for investigation. But public pressure is often the only reason that (or the investigations themselves) take place at all. So arguing that the media should not report or debate them is essentially arguing against the accusations being taken seriously, fully stop.

I understand how the system of information dissemination has worked in the past and am not so naive as to believe it was better for society.

And there is absolutely room for expressing opinions on guilt—that is not at all covered by defamation or slander law, and for good reason.

Are you arguing against free exchange of information and free speech?

I have denounced the likes of Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Piers Morgan, and Russell Brand for being the dangerous grifters they are. But I have never said their right to speech should be curtailed, even now in Brand’s response to the allegation.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Having read the first few pages of this thread yesterday, I didn't have Brand down as driving a Robin Reliant.

 

[bluenova]

I never liked the guy. He’s just not for me.
However as a few have said in here, there is a difference between allegations of a crime, a crime being reported to the police, being charged with a crime, and being convicted with a crime.
If a crime is reported, charges will be made by the state prosecution if it is deemed that they have enough evidence to bring it to court.
If it gets that far, the accused is still innocent all the way through trial until a jury says otherwise after deliberation.

I don’t like him, but in the eyes of the law, as things stand he’s innocent.

I appreciate where you're coming from and can understand giving people the benefit of the doubt, but why should the only test be if he is found guilty in a court?

Suggesting that Brand is right now innocent, simply because he's not been convicted, is taking his side over the multiple women who have accused him.

Most people are aware that only something like 1% of reported rapes end up with a conviction. And that's the ones that get reported. The majority are never reported, so by suggesting the only standard of proof that we can consider is a legal one, means we're applying a ridiculously high bar for the women who have accused him.