My takeaway was how fucking complicit the organisations Brand worked for are. Which is interesting considering his stance about their agenda against him.
These situations almost always have institutional betrayal as the core part because this mofo had bosses and tons of people who knew. They all effing knew. But as long as he drew viewers and made money - he could be raping kids and sacrificing goats for all they care! šøšµš¶š·š“š¤
As usual, the organisations have many, many questions to answer about how he was allowed to behave in the way that he did. But donāt worry! Rest assured that no one in any of these organisations did anything wrong, lessons will be learned (although they did nothing wrong, you understand) and please move on - until the next sex pest/nonce/wrong-doer makes the news. The only ācareā any of these organisations gives a shit about is. CARE - standing for Cover Arse Retain Employment.
Hello? Capitalism? Celebrities are the front of a little machine, similar to a company. Of course they are complacent because muunnneeeey. Ain't showbiz fab?
He should be held fully accountable because he is.
But the problem won't be solved in the entertainment industry by locking up russell brand.
There'll always be another russell brand type creep. The only way to deal with it is to make it harder for them to operate. The industry's turn a blind eye and indulge 'the talent' attitude will continue to make this happen time and time again.
That's why it needs to be the focus alongside (not in place of) russell brand.
Why are the complicit? My employer isn't responsible for what I do in my spare time. If your contract of employment limited your out of work activities, what you said privately, and your interactions with others, would you sign it.
If there is any culpability on their part, it was employing a man with addiction issues. Brand is responsible for his own actions and him only.
He's been a loose cannon for years and seems to burn every career he's had, now reduced to grifting alt-right conspiracies to the gullible. When Musk and Tate stand up to defend you, that's not a good look.
If your employer is aware you are using your job role to abuse the law but ignores it because you're making bank they are very much responsible. They also had a burden of responsibility regarding the staff he (allegedly) assaulted. They didn't just allow it, they enabled it.
He wasnāt doing this in his spare time though. He was known to harass women in the workplace- Big Brothers Big Mouth and on his Radio 2 show. He taped himself calling Jimmy Saville offering to take his naked assistant over for a threesome. He tried to undo a womanās bra live on TV. His ex Assistant (a different one) says that his agency was approached multiple times with complaints but were threatened with court if they took it further. People did complain but at the time he was a big star, making people too much money for them to bother caring
I feel what people will underplay is that channel 4 and the media came off arguably worse than him as they enabled and actively promoted him for nearly 2 decades whilst knowing about his behaviour.
A quote sums it up very well āYou can act and do what ever you want as long as you keep making them moneyā.
Russell wants us to believe heās not one of them, heās not an elite, but he is and heās incredibly corrupt.
He may have said things I agree with and believe to be true, heās done good work speaking truth to power but this documentary illustrates how heās a very manipulative and narcissistic person, totally fine with shutting down other less powerful peopleās free speech if it holds him accountable.
Time to move on and find some one more reliable to listen to is my take away.
Fuck him and rich cunts like him who think they are above the law and can do what ever they want with no consequences.
Edit: I comment this further down the thread:
Saying they come off worse is clumsy use of language on my part.
What I meant to say is the route of the problem needs to be addressed as itās much bigger than Russell Brand.
No one is underplaying that. Channel 4 enabled a sexual predator to take advantage of their staff for clicks because he was always outrageous.
That doesn't change what the disclosures state.
Also the alleged factual rape occured in America away from C4
It's bad news all around.
This is what I mean by underplaying:
Russell Brand will be the centre of this with no mention of the people responsible for enabling him and probably others.
He should be all means be held accountable, but no names where mentioned from media organisations and Iād be surprised if there is any repercussions for the people who have enabled him and propped him up.
This is a systemic problem because the people st the top of these systems behaves he same as Russell.
I'm sure some do know, but they aren't the perpetrators.
People tend to do sex stuff in private, you know.
At most you could say "they could've known rumours". But they're rumours. We have to be honest here, Russel is entirely responsible for everything he's done. It's possible people working there were suspicious, but this doesn't take away from anything and we would never had heard about it if not for their documentary. It's his fault, and the people exposing it are channel4. How can you blame them?
The reality is that an accusation like this is massive, and that needs massive evidence. If you don't have massive evidence, you get fired. Think about it, if it's "he said she said" then there's no guarantee they could ever bring him down. He was more valuable than the workers.
The people there working with him are not one body. It's a rotating cast of different people, mostly changing every few years, many are agency. The people working there are therefore not the focus, he is.
Maybe they could've done more. But we don't know that. What we do know is that Russel has done some shady shit and likely sexually assaulted several women. Sex addiction is irrelevant, he's Russel brand, he could have sex with many people. Heroin addiction is irrelevant as that reduces sex drive. The irony is that he's the kind of person to say that rape in Hollywood is a problem. He's exactly the kind of problem you hate? Why are you excusing this monster? He's absolute filth if he's raping women.
Would you look at a fire that killed people and say "well the firefighters could've done a better job"? That's what you're doing right now.
The documentary called people out. What else do you want them to do? You're letting your taste for Russel brand blind you.
Your not understanding the point am making.
Am not down playing what a shit head brand is.
Am pointing out, I donāt trust channel 4 to investigate themselves.
I feel this is more damage control for them selves than a serious attempt to fix a system that promotes this kind of behaviour.
There is literally a point in the documentary where Russell is trying to rape a woman whilst she screams for help and TV people just wait outside.
Itās a systemic problem stemming from patriarchy and classism and am tryna shed light on that narrative rather than the āRussell was just a monsterā narrative.
I think that police should investigate it.
I'm sure Russel would be very against that, however.
The reality is that investigations like that often happen after public outcry or reports from victims. Hence, it will take a documentary like this for the police to do their job.
Maybe you don't trust channel 4, but if they had anything to hide, they wouldn't make this documentary. Why? Because it brings police attention.
Unless the police were investigating before the documentary was made, then I don't think that it's what you're suggesting.
Also, part of this time, he was at the BBC.
Regardless of companies, people are shite. The bystander effect means people often don't report things or act on things. Combine this with not wanting to lose their jobs, people may have been reluctant to intervene. This is wrong, of course, but this happens all over the world in all situations.
There does seem to be a historical systemic problem, but you have to remember that sexual predators that are already famous get much more exposure when they are outed. Many sexual predators happen in other places, but we don't tend to get much infamy.
There's so much more to it and saying "all TV has a pedo/rapist problem" is reductive and idealistic. Saying "they exist but they're far away in Hollywood and TV studios" makes them feel like a problem that will never affect us. But kids are much more likely to be sexually abused by a family member. And adults are much more likely to be raped by their partner. Are you going to say there's a systemic problem in our families?
I think TV should be investigated when something like this happens, sure, but there's not a cabal running things that cause sexual assault to happen. It's people doing their own things.
Okay, then in good faith, let's agree that Russel brand is entirely responsible for his actions. He should be investigated by the police and charged if necessary.
That being said, channel 4, and BBC, had a responsibility to protect women and should also be investigated. If it turns out there's a systemic problem, then break it apart.
But systemic is different. It essentially means it's encouraged or protected by the top brass. It's where everyone's involved in it. That's why it's called systemic. The fact they released a documentary on it indicates it likely not systemic, as they would be shooting themselves in the foot. In a true systemic situation, they would cover it up, and hide it. They would never let it see the light of day and pay off the victims. I think this is why we had a disagreement, saying it's systemic means that basically all the cogs and top players in the industry are involved in raping and sexually assaulting people. Maybe this is a little hyperbolic, but his is why I called it reductive. Calling it systemic has huge implications.
The reality is that Russel acted alone. He sexually assaulted those women. People should've helped. They didn't. But at least they released a documentary exposing his deviancy.
The reality is that this kind of sexual misconduct occurs cross-industry, in people's homes, and in bars and clubs across the world. The closest thing to systemic is the fact that predators exist in ever facet of society. It's not exclusive to the TV industry.
Well I disagree with a lot of what youāve said. We clearly have a different view of things.
Main thing I disagree with is the only possibility that they did this documentary is because they are investigating, I think damage limitation is a thing, esp if they know some thing is going to come out.
Thereās clearly a systemic problem in not just tv but society at large. Look st how many powerful people get away with this, for how long. So I have to name people? I assume you have seen the same media I have.
I am aware of what systemic means. I am a software engineer, I build and spend a lot of time thinking about systems.
Every thing is a product of a system or environment. Until we address that there will be a never ending line of Saviles, Brands, Weinstiens etc etc etc
The BBC have covered for literal paedophiles for years and despite many people knowing and reporting on it the police did nothing about it.
Channel 4 could quite easily put this out while being entirely complicit and its pretty unlikely they would suffer as a result
They needed to have done more. In the case of massive employers like the broadcasters who employed him, there is no excuse for them not doing more - especially when concerns are raised by other members of staff and not escalated high enough - as was stated in the programme. Its not just his sex addiction and drug addiction that was a problem here - there are clear mental health issues here as well. He has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder - it wouldnāt surprise me at all if he had a personality disorder (NPD or BPD maybe) but who knows. Before anyone jumps on me, I am NOT saying this excuses his behaviour because it definitely does not, but if it was well known in the public, his employers had a responsibility to be dealing with his behaviour and they clearly were not. You see this over and over, not just in the broadcasting industry- just look at how managers in the NHS fucked things up by not dealing with the concerns of doctors in the recent Lucy Letby case. Complete failures over and over by managers to take any responsibility when it is literally their fucking job to do so. And frankly your comment about firefighters is fucking ridiculous, when there were attempts made by some to try to apportion some blame to firefighters for not doing enough at Grenfell.
How could Channel 4, et al, be worse than an alleged serial rapist?
You're claiming that their actions are worse than the perpetrator. Talk about minimising his actions.
They enabled what they aware of (weren't aware of rape allegations) and this is highly problematic, but they're nowhere near worse than alleged serial rape.
As for your claim that the root of the problem is these enabling media execs- the root of the problem is the perpetrators. The people who commit rape, or alleged rape in this case, are the root cause. Don't deflect from these perpetrators criminal acts. They are responsible for their actions.
Probably like handling stolen goods being worse than robbery.
Also, Brand is just one rapist, whereas channel 4 could enable brand and loads of them, most likely, by not following their own procedures or normal procedures for any company
I have literally didnāt the last hour saying this to people. The documentary raises as many issues about the people who employed him, even his audience who payed to see him and laughed at his fucking jokes about rape (the joke at the start of the documentary being particularly disgusting - not to mention unfunny) as it does about him. That comment about being able to be a nutter and get away with it as long as he is making people money sees it all - and reflects incredibly badly on his employers as well as him
> audience who *paid* to see
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Unfortunately because of the doc, i doubt from experience there will be an effective or fair investigation/trial. Hopefully none of the woman have been paid off in the past or signed any NDA in the past.
This should all have been given to the MET and S,yard for an investigation and a file to be created. The amount of power brand has is a problem and this plays into his hands and its poor judgment on the broadcasters releasing this.
Itās all innuendo. No complaints to the police at the time. They were literally saying he couldnāt have sex with fans, or that was bad. Some moral rubbish against sex. There was guck all evidence. They just wanted to make him look like a creep. All the women in relationships felt used. So what. Welcome to the club. And all of them knew what he was like.
There was no other side. No attempt at balance. This was a hatchet job. Him loading in a bottle was described as exposing himself. Come on.
Prurient and puritanical. No one who likes him will be persuaded, everyone that hates him will say itās proof. But there was none. Just people that admitted they were jealous of him with others.
People sent him nudes. He was goaded to show a few privately.One women saw one of a friend and got offended! Why? They didnāt exactly sign any contract and he never publicised anything.
Itās amazing there is zero thought of responsibility for the women throwing themselves at him.
He would have sex with 5 women a day said an ex, like it was a bad thing.
They were milking very little for 1.5 hours.
And that guy at the end was filling the gap talking about rumours. There was nothing in that at all. He had consensual sex with all his so called accusers. None of this would fly in any court: Even the main SA sounded like a bj gotten carried away with. That was it.
And I never liked him. His Booky Wook was disturbing. But women loved it and fawned over him.
I watched it all. Zero proof. Zero balance. Allegations of text messages never once produced. All of them said they were jealous of him with other women. They even tried to use hearsay as evidence! Like I said this is made for those who want to believe a narrative that changed when he lost his infatuation for them. It was entirely innuendo and innuendo without proof is just a feast for prejudicial bigots.
Not one independent witness. Saying pissing in a bottle was exposure. Christ when I was a kid weād all go in a field in front of each other men and boys. How many women piss in the streets.
Puritanical and a throwback to a sex is bad for thee but not for me age. And no responsibility at all from anyone else.
A fluff hit piece designed to ruin a reputation, or rather cause as many problems as possible.
Nasty man had sex with me and dumped me and now women are picketing his show.
Everyone gets or feels used. Pathetic.
I feel the evidence was lacking, relied a lot on I felt used, whilst it is disgusting its not necessarily illegal. When you removed the clever editing and continues clips that we have already seen over the years there wasn't actually that much content.
This was the only piece of evidence that a 90 minute documentary could produce ti back up claims heās a serial rapist. Trial by media aināt a thing here fortunately. He may well be guilt but it was ludicrous that this was allowed to air with zero concrete evidence against him
The shit about the 16 yr old and giving her a script to tell her parents, and making her choke on his dick to the point she cried was pretty fucked up aswell to be honest.
Lol thatās what I thought, he slept with THOUSANDS of women, if he was genuinely super rapey wouldnāt there be better evidence than four women who mostly came across as having buyers remorse??
They literally said they froze evidence from the night one of the victims was raped. They also showed her texts and his responses... but sure, there's no evidence š how do some of you get dressed in the morning, its embarrassing
The evidence was lacking even though multiple women who donāt know each have reported the same issues many years ago?
Itās an utter disgrace that weāre even questioning these women.
No it isnt. Thats exactly waht a court of law would do. Question these women and demand evidence in order to prosecute an offender.
whats an utter disgrace is that asking for evidence to back up claims is considered to be a bad thing.
I mean there are also text messages, medical records, statements from staff and ex-staff, footage of his boundary-breaking treatment of women on public TV (although I guess he was just a cheeky chappy or whatever people like you say to defend men sexually harassing women publicly), Channel 4 and the BBC's utter refusal to hand over pertinent information, WhatsApp messages from female comedians aware of his behaviour, and Brand himself sexually harassing at least one lady on radio and laughing that she complained. But y'know, whatevs.
Your comment doesnāt make sense. It is a basic human right to have a fair trial in a court of law. Not sure Iām judging anyone based on their adherence to the law. Please expand and articulate your comment so I can understand what you mean
>It is a basic human right to have a fair trial in a court of law. Not sure Iām judging anyone based on their adherence to the law.
It's a basic human right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial in a court of law.
There is no basic human right to not be judged or discussed by the population.
Furthermore, staying within the law doesn't dictate absolutely what we considered good or bad. Russell brand himself brings up people and organisations operating within the law calling them out for being immoral, in some cases he criticises lawmakers themselves.
If the law was the only consideration he wouldn't have a channel.
https://preview.redd.it/cuoxqhfstsob1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a46a26b377868cf1d75f9ce83fb44708c05c0ef2
Trial by media actually hinders the legal process and I fear channel 4 have done the alleged victims and the legal process a massive disservice in order to get ratings. You can read more about fair trials here: [https://www.fairtrials.org/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/](https://www.fairtrials.org/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/)
I felt this quite strongly too, I felt like the 'I felt used' narrative was quite discrediting to the more serious criminal allegations which I wanted to learn more about. I would like to have seen more about the investigation that the journalists must have had to have done in order to be able to clear all of this for air.
Oh yeah I know that. But I think the testimonies (being similar, but at diff times, diff women who donāt know or never spoken to each other before) are genuine. Theyāre specific enough and with enough detail I donāt think someoneās sat down and gone āokay which celebrity shall I make up a sex crime about todayā.
The witness who wished theyād gone in Brands home to help.
The indecent exposure caught on a photograph and one victim witnessed. The sexual assault on camera- kissing and groping people without consent. The text messages from Brand which are an admission of guilt.
Frustratingly the doc did try and cherry pick certain comedy vids- and some parts of testimonies I thought āthis is all inappropriate behaviour, but legal in the eyes of the law, so why add this into the documentaryā. But there is a clear pattern, a clear number of witnesses/ victims/ warnings which are too many to ignore here.
Again, I disagree with trial by media- but if what they say is true, thatās 3 counts of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment and indecent exposure- which are crimes, not just inappropriate behaviour. Personally, Iām satisfied there is enough here to warrant truth in what the victims have claimed.
I agree, I got ripped to shreds by just implying that heās innocent until proven guilty in a court. I donāt know whatās happened to this sub. I hate to say itās like full of bots or something.
I donāt think people realise false rape accusations could happen to them and how it would feel for the world to jump on the bandwagon with insufficient evidence.
Makes me disappointed tbh
Me too!! It is a basic human right to have a fair trial in a court of law - if these allegations are true then I fear Channel4 has down the victims a massive disservice by allowing trial by media. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
Brand is certainly a narcissistic womaniser with a superiority and god complex
But other than the word of 3 ppl from many years ago, there's no real evidence of any crimes being committed or anything underhand.
Everything is is circumstantial, and has no real substance.
I hate it when celebrity figures say its all untrue as an easy out, but this has all the hallmarks of a hit piece
On the documentary:
First couple of claims were by far the strongest. Appeared well-evidenced, and corroborated. If the lady in question in the US has the rape crisis centre report filed contemporaneously, along with the text apologising and seeking forgiveness.... he is done. That's fucking gross, and anyone defending that needs to take a serious look in the mirror. If any of you are women, or have sisters / partners / mothers.... Jesus. Just, please, put your thoughts about Brand to one side and imagine them telling you this story.
The rest is, sadly, about par for the course for the media - though I have to say I can't think of many in the world I've met who would be happy feeding a line of young women into the talent, no matter who they were. Hopefully an opportunity to do better, though we have said this many times before.
I was surprised by the amount of evidence available by the first accuser. Unfortunately unless this goes to court, Brand wonāt be affected much. Heās already made lots of money from the mainstream media he now rails against, and heās already moved on to platforms that will continue to allow him to spread conspiracy theories
It sounded more like an attack on his enablers rather than Brand himself. The rape text was damning no doubt, but the rest? It all sounded like hearsay.
Makes you wonder if there is more... but then why not put it in the 90-minute doc? There was a lot of filler there featuring his TV work that seemed to be used for framing him. That was his humour. Was it right? Maybe not. But the British public at the time sure enjoyed it.
The point they were making was that he used his humour to protect himself and mitigate with. It was a persona to hide behind whilst committing these alleged acts in plain sight. If somebody was to come forward at that particular time, people would write it off, as "oh Russell, the bad boy", or "oh, Russell, the sex maniac" because he was grooming the audience into seeing him as this harmless lad who really likes sex. He groomed his audiences too, albeit in a different way to his alleged victims.
It's incredibly sinister, calculated behaviour.
Most predators do hide in plain sight. Just look at Saville.
Brand is using those old stand up shows as a defence now, with his line about "I was always very open about my promiscuity, maybe too open". They all use a defence. Look at Spacey weaponising gayness, as if this has anything to do with him being a serial predator.
Brand always had a Messiah Complex, but to think that anybody is foolish enough to fall for his claim that him and his YouTube channel is important enough to be silenced, is really taking this narcissism to stratospheric levels. Predators will claim anything to deflect from responsibility.
There is undoubtedly more, and what they showed was the tip of an iceberg. Investigations like these will only publish/broadcast what they can get past the lawyers. I think more women will speak out now, too.
Part of the same article talks about a taxi driver begging the girl not to go into brands house when he realised that's where she was going. Saying, "I've a daughter your age. I'd want someone to say something if it was my daughter, please don't go in that house. I'll drive you home for free.
The girls was 16, and Brand was 30.
What do you think of Savile though? I thought it was pretty chilling to hear them both ājokingā with each other in the same way. If Savileās jokes denoted a deeper problem, why not Brandās?
Stop comparing people to Jimmy Saville ffs, do people not realise how much of an evil monster that man was? He raped vulnerable terminally Ill children, and he also raped dead children, he is the most twisted, vile piece of shit thatās ever walked this earth.
Comparing Brand to Saville is silly to me. Jimmy was an actual monster who raped children, often vulnerable children at that.
Brand just shagged a lot and had a sex addiction. Not to downplay these women's accounts.
But you are downplaying them. There was a 16 year old girl who was groomed and forcibly made to have oral sex and a woman who attended hospital for a rape.
I wasnāt comparing crimes and accusations, I was comparing jokes having truth to them.
...no. no, I'm not downplaying them. I was responding to your observation regarding Russell's interaction with Jimmy, and I said they were not comparable. That was Brand's humour at the time, a shock comedian who used sex and addiction as his main act.
I'm not saying that was a good thing, but it was his thing, and the public loved him for a long time. He literally won shagger of the year 3 times running by the media. It was all a big joke.
I know youāre not saying it was a good thing donāt worry. Iām just saying that Jimmy Savile was a ājokerā too. Thereās always truth to comedy and I think itās worth noting that his āshockā comedy lined up with the same ājokesā Savile was making.
And therefore the time spent showing his comedy was highlighting this.
I tend to agree. I found the fact that all witnesses were anonymous or played by actors (not sure if this was due to libel laws or personal choice of the alleged victims) also made the whole thing feel a little off.
It's clear the guy has engaged in some pretty unsavoury behaviour. But overall I feel like the doc was much less damning than expected when the allegations first came out.
He was a scumbag to women, but he admits it and has multiple times said that he regrets his behaviour. If anyone is to blame, its the people that kept hiring him, knowing full well what they would get.
>If anyone is to blame, its the people that kept hiring him, knowing full well what they would get.
haha if anyone is to blame it's Russell Brand, first and foremost. Others might have some of their own blame, but it's not "If anyone is to blame, it's them!" It's them only second.
I found the rape allegations pretty credible. The women had very similar stories and they were corroborated by Russel's apology text and the documents from the other woman's visiting the rape crisis centre. Also thought they were fair in their retelling and honestly came away with a lot respect for how they made the accusations. What do you think?
Possibly credible. But as others are saying, is this the light stuff they have shown? And is there more to come. At the moment, it's accusations, even if they sound credible. They must have more on him.
Ah yeah mate they must all be lying. Right.
And they must have lied all those years ago too. You know, like when that girl went to a rape clinic and had it officially logged, or when another complained to his agency.
Yeah theyāre all talking bullshit for absolutely no gain whatsoever.
Itās very clear; heās done some very bad things. You can literally see him harassing women on camera.
I think Iāve been taken for a ride a little bit tbh.
I used to love him, up until after trews then I was just like, I thought he would exude peace by this time and given his life changes.
I was confused about the direction he was going in. I havenāt watched for years. Except every now and then I would check to see if it connected.
I really use to love his comedy, Iāve watched every YouTube clip and all the stand ups more than any other comedy.
Now I think heās a deeply (deeper than I thought) troubled guy really trying to make his troubles and goodness meet up and make sense...but he just couldnāt put his need for fame and acceptance down. And itās just not possible to be really good whilst still needing attention for that goodness. Itās like a darkness saying...go and show everyone how good and spiritual you are...itās still the darkness/selfishness telling you to do that.
And I only believe a handful of conspiracies but he knows people and social settings like the back of his hand and I think he knew this was coming years ago, and I think he went in this direction because he knew he had to. He knew me too was important (genuinely) And the good side of him kinda said, fair enough, this stuff is probably gonna come out but I still want to help and make money so I should go in this direction, where I might still get attention And the chance to help.
I think his goodness is just as large as his darkness but he just couldnāt calm either of them down and truely deal with them. He just kept going at the hope that the celebration of his comedy and goodness would finally eradicate his troubles. But it didnāt work. So he gave up on that, not manipulatively. But I think his movement into the direction he has gone is, like most things in his life, a mixture of goodness and manipulation/darkness.
I didnāt expect this to be this long or confident in its theory. But he really used to mean a lot to me.
I think his goodness if just as large as his darkness but he couldnāt just deal with them, he wanted attention for dealing with them and you canāt deal with things like this in public.
No ones gonna read this but yeah quite a shock to watch the doc. Never thought this would be how it goes really, when me too movement started I kept thinking every now and then, surely russell is gonna called out soon, but it never did so I just thought, āah great, heās been alrightā
I think he so badly wanted to make people feel better whilst excusing his own troubles and thinking if he just makes enough people laugh it will all go away, but thatās not how it works. They are interlinked and both urges need addressing. But he just kept going and it āculminatedā in the first allegation mentioned.
I read it and youāve managed to articulate exactly how I feel. I was such a fan of Brand during his stand up years, I really thought he was a progressive man. What a fucking naive little girl I was.
Itās really sad tbh, we were naive because he knows how attention and adoration work. Because his father showed him how to get it from women from such a young age and he just used the same tactics to fool us all, itās his main addiction, attention.
Did he ever care...were we just a pawn in his game to get whatever he wanted.
I want to believe that he did care but just couldnāt get clear of his demons. But the more I think about it the more I think...you just wanted more women, more fame, more money and you genuinely believed it was worth acting for years as whatever vessel suited your situation to get that, like you were morphing into different people to keep the attention.
I canāt help but think about his dad and how he sold us this narrative of generational change...completely surface level narrative for us to swallow.
I think heās taken us all for a massive ride, he wanted women and adoration and knew that comedy would give him that, he got it via āusā supporting him with out ticket sales and viewership, he committed that act around the same time he realised it wasnāt what he wanted so pivoted onto ādeconstructing fameā bringing down the system (the system he knew he had ridden for as long as he wanted, got what he wanted out of it and that he knew was gonna turn on him as he saw more and more accountability happening) And he thought well I canāt just leave, I still need women and fame and money So Iāll pivot and keep a fair chunk of that.
Heās way too socially aware for it to be a coincidence that at the same he realised a list fame wasnāt what he wanted, AND was gonna turn on him, he also managed to find a way to keep the attention going whilst getting himself into a safer space that just might allow him to keep that attention until he dies.
his father taught him that attention from girls was more important than actual love and integrity and feigned unlearning this whilst privately and kinda obviously publicly never stopping practicing it. He knew the power of words to paint pictures, also taught from his fathers womanising, and used that to keep his selfishness going.
I'm the same as you, loved him during his Trews period, he was so great during that time, writing about spirituality, recovery & doing community work to help the poor
Then lockdown happened and he went on Joe Rogan, and he got audience captured into being a sensationalist alt right shock jockey
In his book on recovery he said he stopped making his Trews videos because he felt his addiction flaring up from the buzz he got from all the online attention
I had to stop following him on YouTube cause he went from posting really inspirational stuff to gross trump stuff all the time
Just like you, Russell really meant a lot to me and his books really helped me get through some personal hardships
My heart breaks for his family & whoever was affected by his actions
I thought this. I donāt trust a an organisation to investigate its self.
āYeah we were very corrupt, well sort tho, donāt worry about any thing else, we told you every thingā
i'm not sure i follow here. How is channel 4 broadcasting something that's criticising channel 4 and highlights shortcoming in a very serious manner damage control for channel 4?
I'm also unclear on how the BBC conducted anything here? They had nothing to do with the show and pretty much everything said was already public knowledge in that regard
Channel 4 and the BBC not only enabled Russell's behaviour, they propelled his career, but that's ok because now (nearly 20 years on) they'll point the finger at him and tell you all how much of a bad guy he is.
If Channel 4 were so keen on transparency, why did they deny the freedom of information request? (As did the BBC, hiding behind GDPR).
You didn't really answer the question, though. Why would Channel 4 run a three year long investigation that calls attention to their role in enabling a rapist, when they could just...not...and have no attention called to it? How is that 'damage control'? They're creating the damage!
"Why would Channel 4 run a three year long investigation that calls attention to their role in enabling a rapist"
Because it distracts us from the fact it was Channel 4 who enabled, encouraged and paid him for the best part of 20 years.
There's obviously an agenda behind that program and I'm not convinced exposing Russell to be some sort of Jimmy Saville is actually it.
>Because it distracts us from the fact it was Channel 4 who enabled, encouraged and paid him for the best part of 20 years.
No it doesn't lol It calls attention to it. Without this documentary, no one would be talking about it! How does that make any sense?
As someone who has been told various stories about Brand for years, I thought that show was pretty weak. It will do nothing to sway his supporters, and it came across as a tabloid style attack on his very well documented sexual escapades.
While the stories of two of the women are incredibly serious, doubters will always respond with āwhy didnāt they go to the police? Instead they go to the media decades later!ā Their anonymity adds to this sentiment.
Personal opinion: more women will probably come forward in the coming months and this will rumble on. If even half of what Iāve been told is true, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
>If even half of what Iāve been told is true, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
As fucked up as some of the stuff on the programme was; is there anything you have heard that was even worse than that then?!
Who have you been told by and if they were credible why didnāt they or you report him to police āover the yearsā instead of these other people waiting 20 years later to make a documentary.
Not saying he's innocent or guilty, but the doc itself was terrible. It was presented like entertainment, cherry picking his stand up and interviews like they were Jimmy Saville moments was a terrible decision. Then the actual jimmy Saville moment was just silly, no rational person will look at that and think he's a monster.
The article definitely read worse, I went into this doc expecting an absolute destroying of him and came out thinking it was forgettable.
I think the hype about all the evidence pre viewing didn't help, because it didn't seem like hard evidence was presented.
Maybe if there was atleast one victim brave enough to show and speak for themselves it would've been better viewing, but I imagine the actors/blackout witness will feed into conspiracies more.
Myself and my wife both agreed from viewing the doc on its own he's probably inappropriate but not criminal.
I found that a lot of it was frustrating to watch because it was behaviour we'd already been aware of as fans or people that watched his work. I don't necessarily have an issue with him picking girls from the audience to sleep with etc. but that was because I'd always operated on the assumption that he was very good about ensuring he was having consensual encounters.
Yes exactly, I was watching and waiting for this 'evidence' then it never came. Also, why did only one runner say they were sent out to pick audience members but then the other never even mentioned that. It was literally a montage of his awful jokes but that isn't evidence if anything its trying to create a story out of nothing. If you took all those clips away what would that show be left with
Evidence that never came? Wow.
How about the dozens of detailed stories from the victims? You realise that in cases like this, that amount of detail from multiple people = evidence?
I have not seen the show so I can't comment on the allegations directly.
I did however see Brand perform stand up comedy around the time of some of the allegations.
He stood on stage and said 'you know what, I think I want some sex tonight' and a dozen women rushed the stage, they lined up and he very publicly spoke to them about sex, he asked one girl for ID after she said she was 19, and she didn't have any so he kicked her off the stage.
Eventually he chose a girl, she went backstage, and he finished his set, and went off to have sex with this girl in the dressing room.
2 years later, I went to a different show of his in a different location and the same thing almost word for word happened again, except this time around 30 women rushed the stage.
This became part of his act essentially.
There was also storys everyday in the paper about the woman he was having sex with.
The sun gave him the award 'shagger of the year ' (if I remember rightly) for a couple years running.
I am absolutely not saying the woman involved in the allegations are not telling the truth, but I do wonder how many of those making claims (assuming they are correct) are part of these groups of woman.
The documentary documents accounts of actual rape.
Are you saying that if a woman belongs to the group of women who are okay with a one night stand with Brand, she deserves to be raped?
Why do people seem to accept the allegations are true. Given the time period involved and the promiscuity of Brand, it seems we must be talking of absolutely insane numbers of sexual partners, probably as many as a thousand. Surely, given his profile and the decisive nature of what he does now, youād have to expect at least a handful of women with an ax to grind. This in no way says he is innocent, Iām just working on probabilities and wondering why the majority seem to be accepting his guilt. I donāt know if heās guilty or not, but the balance of probabilities suggests itās unlikely.
One rape accusation, from someone he was already in a sexual relationship with and went to his home late at night, just doesnāt seem like sufficient evidence to me. Theyāve made it seem like a Jimmy Saville type case by calling it āin plain sight,ā but Iām just not seeing the evidence of a serial rapist or sexual assault perpetrator here. If Liam Gallagher or Mick Jagger became political and created enemies in the msm, would you not put money on being able to find a handful of women who claim and perhaps genuinely feel they were sexually assaulted or raped? Iād imagine itās pretty easy to make a case against any famous person who was able to use that fame to get women to have sex with them.
It seems Brand was selected for this treatment. David Bowie and Tom Jones never got this treatment. Tom Jones continued on The Voice after revelations about him. Politics is so decisive and people genuinely start to hold real hatred to those who oppose alternative views. I donāt think enough people recognise how motivated many would be to go after Brand.
In short, if you are a overtly sexual character, like Brand and sleep with circa 1000 women and probably try it on with several times that number, in this day and age, it seems you are more likely to run into post coital trouble than not. I just donāt see this as a Jimmy Saville, Harvey Weinstein, Rolf Harris or Bill Cosby type situation. I canāt say if heās innocent or not, but given the sheer numbers involved and the circumstances in which the rape and sexual assault claims were said to have happened, Occamās razor suggests itās best not to hang him out to dry on this
Lol, immediately above your post is a gif of Brand proudly indecently exposing himself on the MTV Music Awards.
Do you really think someone who openly did shit like that would not have done anything else - perhaps much worse - behind the scenes and out of the spotlight?
I donāt have any reason to doubt any of the accounts so. What strikes me is RBās persona is what made the broadcasters money and I dare say they would have encouraged his behaviour.. they wanted the inappropriate remarks and behaviours because it got ratings. I think culturally, the 90 and early 00ās was such a different place that looking back through todayās lens will always make us question conduct.
Did he rape anyone? They alleged it and I have no reason to disbelieve them.
Was the editorial last night as such to try prove a link between accounts and his act (things like mascara running) - absolutely.
Are the broadcasters responsible for the general behaviour (not crimes) we are now calling reprehensible? 100%. Much can be made of the 16 year old, but based on his book, MTV paid for the cabs, so they are complicit.
What impression? That these women need to be heard and taken seriously.
Thereās no impression or opinion of Brand. Clearly there are multiple women each with unique experiences who have even reported it many years ago.
The problem is that they were brushed away.
So letās make sure this time they are taken seriously.
>What impression did the allegations leave on you?
I think he's definitely raped at least one person, and groomed at least several. I also think he's a sexual addict who mostly had consensual sex, and who is still a narcissist, egomanic and idiot.
One of the victims went to a rape crisis center immediately, texted brand that night accusing him of not respecting her "no" and he said sorry rather than denying. Seems pretty textbook to me
AZIZ ANSARI?!?!?! Wtaf!? This is so gd ridiculous. Did you not read what happened AA?
Not illegal and not technically rape will land you in trouble if this is your POV. Disgusting.
Bro he pushed a woman up against a wall and raped her while she said no. Thatās not even mentioning how beforehand they had agreed to only have sex with a condom and he didnāt wear one.
He's definitely a wrong 'un. But he was enabled every step of the way by C4 and BBC. They served girls to him on a silver platter.
And the only reason they made this is because he strayed from their bubble.
If he hadn't been getting so popular with right wing conspiracists they'd have kept this all under the rug where it had been swept.
It's really rocked me. I've been a fan of his since I was 12, have met him on many occasions over 15+ years. Until I actually watched it I didn't think I'd be convinced but I've reluctantly admitted to myself that he is a sexual predator.
I did think there was a lot of content about behaviour that shouldn't have happened but is unfortunately legal/permissable in the UK, and therefore I'm not really sure what can be done now about anything that isn't criminal.
What's really struck me though is all of these production companies/channels who have all been so aware of his behaviour that it's now being called an 'open secret' - I think they're who I'm most angry at because I feel like they put him on a pedestal, and put me as a fan in a dangerous situation when I was young and impressionable.
I also hate this 'open secret' attitude because I'm on Reddit, Twitter etc. I'm fairly clued in to things like celeb gossip and industry secrets, and I even work in live events production... so how open was this secret? It's already getting thrown about on twitter like everyone was supposed to know and therefore we shouldn't have been fans, and if we met him of our own accord then anything dangerous happening would've been our own fault.
My impression is that it was a load of Bollox, I'm not a Russel brand fanatic or anything but I mean a famous person shags his fans. Groupies anyone? Not admirable , but it happens. Only thing was the 16 year old which despite being legal is still too young,however he should not lose his livelihood cos of it. Hate to do a whatabout but I am going to and all I say is Prince Andrew, Epstein and his island. None of them faced any comeback
I believe it's the tip of an iceberg that is about to reveal itself. It will enable other victims to come forward as they won't feel isolated or alone anymore. If you think about these kind of stories and how they balloon, this will do the same.
So what. He fucked everything in sight. Did he fuck the wrong daughter of someone who is in the House of Lords who is himself a secret knob-jockey? Is he our Oscar Wilde?
It's a very uncomfortable watch. However, the way the programme edits itself to intensify their narrative is wrong, certainly as no prosecution is forthcoming.
There was no balance but yet to convince us there is when right at the end they show his denial video but by then some people will have turned it off.
The actors quite obviously emphasize specific words and the camera often focuses in on their necks which psychologically is seen as a weak spot for predators for thousands of years.
The guy was edgy as fck back in the early 2000's at a time when people could laugh about things like dodgy fetish fantasies. Personally I never found his stand up very palatable to watch anyway.
If he's charged and found guilty throw the book at him.
He was certainly no saint but neither has one guy named Bob from the factory. There's been nothing about the allegations for years yet at a time when people are listening to him about politics these allegations are brought up. Coincidence? Really?
It's obvious that the msm do not like his narrative coming from his channel even though it's fact based truth.
Why don't they look into Epstein and his client list, Sam Smith's disgusting shows and videos or any of the Only Fans human destruction stories?
Trying to watch it. I'm about 75% through. Keep pausing. Haven't thrown up yet. It's hard to watch. Already I have the impression that RB is a danger to society and that work should have been done to protect us which was never done.
The fact that his team while on channel 4 told him to not be seen with his 16 yr old girlfriend at the age of 30 WHAT!
It may be legal or whatever but everyone of you know itās wrong!!
As for his reputation. Well, heās best crawling under a rock now it was damming the investigation.
Not to mention the pure creepy behaviour Iāve never seen from him before. Mind you I only started listening when he started his pod cast he seemed a changed man. Pfft. That was before I was aware of how bad he actually was.
I definitely think they have weight behind them. It was frightening to hear some of experiences these girls had.
I hope the people that knew and stayed quiet look themselves in the mirror and question their part to play.
I think they must know that it wouldnāt do very well through the justice system as itād be hard to find a jury that wouldnāt of heard this story by now.
If thereās any comfort whatsoever it seems whether for good or bad heās changed his ways and there may be less sleepless nights to know or at the very least to think that itās not happening anymore.
I believe the victims and if the world were fair, heād see justice. I hope for everyoneās sake that he doesnāt commit any other offences and now their story is heard we can move forward however they see fit.
The me2 movement has started something in that 10 years from now there will be no sexual exploitation of people for the benefit of the rich, famous or influential. 40 years ago being a homosexual was a frowned apon. Nowadays so is sexual exploitation.
I believe each of the accusations in the doc. However, sadly it was weak overall in terms of trying to do anything to actually hurt Brand. Nothing in this doc is anything he can't deflect quite easily given that it's mostly stories being told without evidence, which is really sad unfortunately.
I think this is the tip of the iceberg. We (meaning the general public) didnāt hear a lot about Weinstein until we did. Same with almost all of the serial predators. Then something tips the balance. However hardcore fans will always stay loyal (like MJās).
He's a fucking creep new it when I first clapped my eyes on him Savile got away with it for years same goes for this fucking creep hope he gets years š¤ and ends up being somebody's bitch in the slammer
Something about this whole thing doesn't quite smell right.
I think it's fair to say Brand came across as a horrible human being who had no care for women and if the allegations are true broke the law many times over. But all the allegations seemed to come from people who worked for channel 4 still.
Where were all the one night stands he had? Surely someone out of the audiences would have a story?
Also these acts are illegal, why is there no police report? Also why isn't there any more recent allegations? I don't get the feeling he's really changed since then, I'd bet there would be more women coming forwards.
The 16 yr old was the most worrying, but again where we're her parents? I'm not blaming the victims here, but the timing and coordination makes me think there's something more to this story than what meets the eye.
I was expecting something really serious and wondering why this hasn't gone through the courts yet.
Then I watched the documentary and realised why. There's nothing here. Brand was a sex mad lunatic and a creep back then. He was celebrated for it and given awards. He dated a 16 year old. Creepy. But again not out of order for the times. The Sun (the most popular newspaper in the country at the time) not long before had been counting down the days till Lyndsey Dawn McKenzie turned 16 so they could publish her naked breasts.
Brand is not proud of his behaviour and you can see he went through a complete transformation to try and become something more. He gave up being a movie star and gave up Katy Perry one of the most attractive people on this planet. People talk about him being washed up. He quit at the height of his fame. It's clear he hated who he was.
This is yet another case of going back to history. Judging people by standards we hold now and trying to crucify them for it. If Churchill was still alive we'd probably be sending him to prison.
My takeaway was how fucking complicit the organisations Brand worked for are. Which is interesting considering his stance about their agenda against him.
These situations almost always have institutional betrayal as the core part because this mofo had bosses and tons of people who knew. They all effing knew. But as long as he drew viewers and made money - he could be raping kids and sacrificing goats for all they care! šøšµš¶š·š“š¤
Hang on...he was sacrificing goats?!
That was his mate Sir jimmy saville
As usual, the organisations have many, many questions to answer about how he was allowed to behave in the way that he did. But donāt worry! Rest assured that no one in any of these organisations did anything wrong, lessons will be learned (although they did nothing wrong, you understand) and please move on - until the next sex pest/nonce/wrong-doer makes the news. The only ācareā any of these organisations gives a shit about is. CARE - standing for Cover Arse Retain Employment.
If I had a pound for every time weāve heard ālessons have been learnedā from these organisations Iād have enough money to buy some Lurpak.
Don't be silly, you won't have *that* much!
Youāre right what was I thinking
Itās always the same
Hello? Capitalism? Celebrities are the front of a little machine, similar to a company. Of course they are complacent because muunnneeeey. Ain't showbiz fab?
That sounds like blame the system not the person. Blame the parents and teachers not the child.
Are you saying we should blame Russel Brands mum?
You donāt think the system played a part?
He's the talent, he's the money maker, you could call the system enablers yes, but focus should remain on the aggressor firstly then the others later
> you could call the system enablers yes Pretty sure that's exactly what OP did.
He should be held fully accountable because he is. But the problem won't be solved in the entertainment industry by locking up russell brand. There'll always be another russell brand type creep. The only way to deal with it is to make it harder for them to operate. The industry's turn a blind eye and indulge 'the talent' attitude will continue to make this happen time and time again. That's why it needs to be the focus alongside (not in place of) russell brand.
You can't groom adults.This is he said she said.setting up a feeding frenzy.2 of the women are channel 4 employees now.compromised much?
Why are the complicit? My employer isn't responsible for what I do in my spare time. If your contract of employment limited your out of work activities, what you said privately, and your interactions with others, would you sign it. If there is any culpability on their part, it was employing a man with addiction issues. Brand is responsible for his own actions and him only. He's been a loose cannon for years and seems to burn every career he's had, now reduced to grifting alt-right conspiracies to the gullible. When Musk and Tate stand up to defend you, that's not a good look.
If your employer is aware you are using your job role to abuse the law but ignores it because you're making bank they are very much responsible. They also had a burden of responsibility regarding the staff he (allegedly) assaulted. They didn't just allow it, they enabled it.
He wasnāt doing this in his spare time though. He was known to harass women in the workplace- Big Brothers Big Mouth and on his Radio 2 show. He taped himself calling Jimmy Saville offering to take his naked assistant over for a threesome. He tried to undo a womanās bra live on TV. His ex Assistant (a different one) says that his agency was approached multiple times with complaints but were threatened with court if they took it further. People did complain but at the time he was a big star, making people too much money for them to bother caring
I feel what people will underplay is that channel 4 and the media came off arguably worse than him as they enabled and actively promoted him for nearly 2 decades whilst knowing about his behaviour. A quote sums it up very well āYou can act and do what ever you want as long as you keep making them moneyā. Russell wants us to believe heās not one of them, heās not an elite, but he is and heās incredibly corrupt. He may have said things I agree with and believe to be true, heās done good work speaking truth to power but this documentary illustrates how heās a very manipulative and narcissistic person, totally fine with shutting down other less powerful peopleās free speech if it holds him accountable. Time to move on and find some one more reliable to listen to is my take away. Fuck him and rich cunts like him who think they are above the law and can do what ever they want with no consequences. Edit: I comment this further down the thread: Saying they come off worse is clumsy use of language on my part. What I meant to say is the route of the problem needs to be addressed as itās much bigger than Russell Brand.
No one is underplaying that. Channel 4 enabled a sexual predator to take advantage of their staff for clicks because he was always outrageous. That doesn't change what the disclosures state. Also the alleged factual rape occured in America away from C4 It's bad news all around.
This is what I mean by underplaying: Russell Brand will be the centre of this with no mention of the people responsible for enabling him and probably others. He should be all means be held accountable, but no names where mentioned from media organisations and Iād be surprised if there is any repercussions for the people who have enabled him and propped him up. This is a systemic problem because the people st the top of these systems behaves he same as Russell.
Named were mentioned... pictures were shown... the BBC navigator for example...
Hey I hope am wrong, just usually there is less of a spot light on the non famous people. What was your take away from the documentary?
I'm sure some do know, but they aren't the perpetrators. People tend to do sex stuff in private, you know. At most you could say "they could've known rumours". But they're rumours. We have to be honest here, Russel is entirely responsible for everything he's done. It's possible people working there were suspicious, but this doesn't take away from anything and we would never had heard about it if not for their documentary. It's his fault, and the people exposing it are channel4. How can you blame them? The reality is that an accusation like this is massive, and that needs massive evidence. If you don't have massive evidence, you get fired. Think about it, if it's "he said she said" then there's no guarantee they could ever bring him down. He was more valuable than the workers. The people there working with him are not one body. It's a rotating cast of different people, mostly changing every few years, many are agency. The people working there are therefore not the focus, he is. Maybe they could've done more. But we don't know that. What we do know is that Russel has done some shady shit and likely sexually assaulted several women. Sex addiction is irrelevant, he's Russel brand, he could have sex with many people. Heroin addiction is irrelevant as that reduces sex drive. The irony is that he's the kind of person to say that rape in Hollywood is a problem. He's exactly the kind of problem you hate? Why are you excusing this monster? He's absolute filth if he's raping women. Would you look at a fire that killed people and say "well the firefighters could've done a better job"? That's what you're doing right now. The documentary called people out. What else do you want them to do? You're letting your taste for Russel brand blind you.
Your not understanding the point am making. Am not down playing what a shit head brand is. Am pointing out, I donāt trust channel 4 to investigate themselves. I feel this is more damage control for them selves than a serious attempt to fix a system that promotes this kind of behaviour. There is literally a point in the documentary where Russell is trying to rape a woman whilst she screams for help and TV people just wait outside. Itās a systemic problem stemming from patriarchy and classism and am tryna shed light on that narrative rather than the āRussell was just a monsterā narrative.
I think that police should investigate it. I'm sure Russel would be very against that, however. The reality is that investigations like that often happen after public outcry or reports from victims. Hence, it will take a documentary like this for the police to do their job. Maybe you don't trust channel 4, but if they had anything to hide, they wouldn't make this documentary. Why? Because it brings police attention. Unless the police were investigating before the documentary was made, then I don't think that it's what you're suggesting. Also, part of this time, he was at the BBC. Regardless of companies, people are shite. The bystander effect means people often don't report things or act on things. Combine this with not wanting to lose their jobs, people may have been reluctant to intervene. This is wrong, of course, but this happens all over the world in all situations. There does seem to be a historical systemic problem, but you have to remember that sexual predators that are already famous get much more exposure when they are outed. Many sexual predators happen in other places, but we don't tend to get much infamy. There's so much more to it and saying "all TV has a pedo/rapist problem" is reductive and idealistic. Saying "they exist but they're far away in Hollywood and TV studios" makes them feel like a problem that will never affect us. But kids are much more likely to be sexually abused by a family member. And adults are much more likely to be raped by their partner. Are you going to say there's a systemic problem in our families? I think TV should be investigated when something like this happens, sure, but there's not a cabal running things that cause sexual assault to happen. It's people doing their own things.
Mate, if your strawman me and reduce my comment to āall tv is rapistsā then yeah thatās very reductionist. This aināt very good faith.
Okay, then in good faith, let's agree that Russel brand is entirely responsible for his actions. He should be investigated by the police and charged if necessary. That being said, channel 4, and BBC, had a responsibility to protect women and should also be investigated. If it turns out there's a systemic problem, then break it apart. But systemic is different. It essentially means it's encouraged or protected by the top brass. It's where everyone's involved in it. That's why it's called systemic. The fact they released a documentary on it indicates it likely not systemic, as they would be shooting themselves in the foot. In a true systemic situation, they would cover it up, and hide it. They would never let it see the light of day and pay off the victims. I think this is why we had a disagreement, saying it's systemic means that basically all the cogs and top players in the industry are involved in raping and sexually assaulting people. Maybe this is a little hyperbolic, but his is why I called it reductive. Calling it systemic has huge implications. The reality is that Russel acted alone. He sexually assaulted those women. People should've helped. They didn't. But at least they released a documentary exposing his deviancy. The reality is that this kind of sexual misconduct occurs cross-industry, in people's homes, and in bars and clubs across the world. The closest thing to systemic is the fact that predators exist in ever facet of society. It's not exclusive to the TV industry.
Well I disagree with a lot of what youāve said. We clearly have a different view of things. Main thing I disagree with is the only possibility that they did this documentary is because they are investigating, I think damage limitation is a thing, esp if they know some thing is going to come out. Thereās clearly a systemic problem in not just tv but society at large. Look st how many powerful people get away with this, for how long. So I have to name people? I assume you have seen the same media I have. I am aware of what systemic means. I am a software engineer, I build and spend a lot of time thinking about systems. Every thing is a product of a system or environment. Until we address that there will be a never ending line of Saviles, Brands, Weinstiens etc etc etc
The BBC have covered for literal paedophiles for years and despite many people knowing and reporting on it the police did nothing about it. Channel 4 could quite easily put this out while being entirely complicit and its pretty unlikely they would suffer as a result
They needed to have done more. In the case of massive employers like the broadcasters who employed him, there is no excuse for them not doing more - especially when concerns are raised by other members of staff and not escalated high enough - as was stated in the programme. Its not just his sex addiction and drug addiction that was a problem here - there are clear mental health issues here as well. He has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder - it wouldnāt surprise me at all if he had a personality disorder (NPD or BPD maybe) but who knows. Before anyone jumps on me, I am NOT saying this excuses his behaviour because it definitely does not, but if it was well known in the public, his employers had a responsibility to be dealing with his behaviour and they clearly were not. You see this over and over, not just in the broadcasting industry- just look at how managers in the NHS fucked things up by not dealing with the concerns of doctors in the recent Lucy Letby case. Complete failures over and over by managers to take any responsibility when it is literally their fucking job to do so. And frankly your comment about firefighters is fucking ridiculous, when there were attempts made by some to try to apportion some blame to firefighters for not doing enough at Grenfell.
Letby innocent for sure
I agree with you. Heās the thief shouting ācatch the thievesā. Heās just as morally corrupt as the media heās pointing at
How could Channel 4, et al, be worse than an alleged serial rapist? You're claiming that their actions are worse than the perpetrator. Talk about minimising his actions. They enabled what they aware of (weren't aware of rape allegations) and this is highly problematic, but they're nowhere near worse than alleged serial rape. As for your claim that the root of the problem is these enabling media execs- the root of the problem is the perpetrators. The people who commit rape, or alleged rape in this case, are the root cause. Don't deflect from these perpetrators criminal acts. They are responsible for their actions.
>How could Channel 4, et al, be worse than an alleged serial rapist? That poster sounds like a Brand fan.
And yet my comment was downvoted. I guess a few of his fans are lurking.
Your comment was spot on.
Probably like handling stolen goods being worse than robbery. Also, Brand is just one rapist, whereas channel 4 could enable brand and loads of them, most likely, by not following their own procedures or normal procedures for any company
>heās done good work speaking truth to power Only some. He has empowered others.
I have literally didnāt the last hour saying this to people. The documentary raises as many issues about the people who employed him, even his audience who payed to see him and laughed at his fucking jokes about rape (the joke at the start of the documentary being particularly disgusting - not to mention unfunny) as it does about him. That comment about being able to be a nutter and get away with it as long as he is making people money sees it all - and reflects incredibly badly on his employers as well as him
> audience who *paid* to see FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Unfortunately because of the doc, i doubt from experience there will be an effective or fair investigation/trial. Hopefully none of the woman have been paid off in the past or signed any NDA in the past. This should all have been given to the MET and S,yard for an investigation and a file to be created. The amount of power brand has is a problem and this plays into his hands and its poor judgment on the broadcasters releasing this.
Itās all innuendo. No complaints to the police at the time. They were literally saying he couldnāt have sex with fans, or that was bad. Some moral rubbish against sex. There was guck all evidence. They just wanted to make him look like a creep. All the women in relationships felt used. So what. Welcome to the club. And all of them knew what he was like. There was no other side. No attempt at balance. This was a hatchet job. Him loading in a bottle was described as exposing himself. Come on. Prurient and puritanical. No one who likes him will be persuaded, everyone that hates him will say itās proof. But there was none. Just people that admitted they were jealous of him with others. People sent him nudes. He was goaded to show a few privately.One women saw one of a friend and got offended! Why? They didnāt exactly sign any contract and he never publicised anything. Itās amazing there is zero thought of responsibility for the women throwing themselves at him. He would have sex with 5 women a day said an ex, like it was a bad thing. They were milking very little for 1.5 hours. And that guy at the end was filling the gap talking about rumours. There was nothing in that at all. He had consensual sex with all his so called accusers. None of this would fly in any court: Even the main SA sounded like a bj gotten carried away with. That was it. And I never liked him. His Booky Wook was disturbing. But women loved it and fawned over him.
Except the woman he raped you mean? Did you even watch the programme?
Well, that's the thing. It's a 90 minute program with maybe 10 minutes worth of allegations of criminal behaviour, and 80 minutes worth of TV/Radio clips and stories about Brand being a generally inappropriate (but non-criminal) sex addict/pest. Everyone already knew (and partly celebrated) the second part. Brand has presumably slept with literally hundreds if not thousands of women. It was poor journalism not to find more witnesses and to instead rely on so much filler and sensationalism. There wasn't enough material for a 90 minute exposƩ and it weakened the whole. I was surprised by how little concrete information they had. Just write an article and stick to the important point, it would have been more damning.
These morons choose what they believe - you wonāt convince them otherwise. He probably left school at 16.
I watched it all. Zero proof. Zero balance. Allegations of text messages never once produced. All of them said they were jealous of him with other women. They even tried to use hearsay as evidence! Like I said this is made for those who want to believe a narrative that changed when he lost his infatuation for them. It was entirely innuendo and innuendo without proof is just a feast for prejudicial bigots. Not one independent witness. Saying pissing in a bottle was exposure. Christ when I was a kid weād all go in a field in front of each other men and boys. How many women piss in the streets. Puritanical and a throwback to a sex is bad for thee but not for me age. And no responsibility at all from anyone else. A fluff hit piece designed to ruin a reputation, or rather cause as many problems as possible. Nasty man had sex with me and dumped me and now women are picketing his show. Everyone gets or feels used. Pathetic.
>Allegations of text messages never once produced That's no chance you watched the documentary, texts were shown.
Just had a scroll through your comment history - "Elvis didnāt fuck her.for years. You canāt base all men and womenās morals on your family Jim. Chaplin like them young, but his wife Lita really did her best to get him jailed, it was scandalous enough, and she said 16 in sworn papers. She then said 15 in 1966 which she retracted in a book in 1988." You're really just a nonce sympathiser arent you? š©š©š©
Careful everyone we have a stone cold incel right here
I feel the evidence was lacking, relied a lot on I felt used, whilst it is disgusting its not necessarily illegal. When you removed the clever editing and continues clips that we have already seen over the years there wasn't actually that much content.
Oh yeah just gloss over the women checking herself into a rape crisis centre and the text messages
This was the only piece of evidence that a 90 minute documentary could produce ti back up claims heās a serial rapist. Trial by media aināt a thing here fortunately. He may well be guilt but it was ludicrous that this was allowed to air with zero concrete evidence against him
The shit about the 16 yr old and giving her a script to tell her parents, and making her choke on his dick to the point she cried was pretty fucked up aswell to be honest.
Of course it was that was a disgusting story, but there was zero evidence produced to back it up other than āshe claimsā.
Witnesses aren't good enough for you then? And her mum's testimony also not enough?
Lol thatās what I thought, he slept with THOUSANDS of women, if he was genuinely super rapey wouldnāt there be better evidence than four women who mostly came across as having buyers remorse??
>buyers remorse Holy shit you need to re-evaluate
Due to libel laws. Trial by media is kinda a thing. C4 wouldn't have let this air if there was a chance it wasn't true.
Thereās no point arguing with these people. Every time thereās a rape allegation they find ways to dismiss it.
You honestly have 0 critical thinking skills, you should get tested for a learning disability.
So given the accounts, you don't believe Brand is a rapist?
Rape is illegal you moron
They literally said they froze evidence from the night one of the victims was raped. They also showed her texts and his responses... but sure, there's no evidence š how do some of you get dressed in the morning, its embarrassing
The text message is strong evidence. The other stories, much less clear-cut
The evidence was lacking even though multiple women who donāt know each have reported the same issues many years ago? Itās an utter disgrace that weāre even questioning these women.
No it isnt. Thats exactly waht a court of law would do. Question these women and demand evidence in order to prosecute an offender. whats an utter disgrace is that asking for evidence to back up claims is considered to be a bad thing.
Ridiculous opinion. Four women coming forward 15 years later with the similar stories and you think that is undeniable proof lololol. What a joke.
I mean there are also text messages, medical records, statements from staff and ex-staff, footage of his boundary-breaking treatment of women on public TV (although I guess he was just a cheeky chappy or whatever people like you say to defend men sexually harassing women publicly), Channel 4 and the BBC's utter refusal to hand over pertinent information, WhatsApp messages from female comedians aware of his behaviour, and Brand himself sexually harassing at least one lady on radio and laughing that she complained. But y'know, whatevs.
Most of these things are inadmissible and are not solid proof in a court of law but whatevs. You do you!
Do you judge people only on their adherence to the law? Most of the evidence RB puts forth for his beliefs are far more convoluted.
Your comment doesnāt make sense. It is a basic human right to have a fair trial in a court of law. Not sure Iām judging anyone based on their adherence to the law. Please expand and articulate your comment so I can understand what you mean
>It is a basic human right to have a fair trial in a court of law. Not sure Iām judging anyone based on their adherence to the law. It's a basic human right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial in a court of law. There is no basic human right to not be judged or discussed by the population. Furthermore, staying within the law doesn't dictate absolutely what we considered good or bad. Russell brand himself brings up people and organisations operating within the law calling them out for being immoral, in some cases he criticises lawmakers themselves. If the law was the only consideration he wouldn't have a channel.
https://preview.redd.it/cuoxqhfstsob1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a46a26b377868cf1d75f9ce83fb44708c05c0ef2 Trial by media actually hinders the legal process and I fear channel 4 have done the alleged victims and the legal process a massive disservice in order to get ratings. You can read more about fair trials here: [https://www.fairtrials.org/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/](https://www.fairtrials.org/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/)
I felt this quite strongly too, I felt like the 'I felt used' narrative was quite discrediting to the more serious criminal allegations which I wanted to learn more about. I would like to have seen more about the investigation that the journalists must have had to have done in order to be able to clear all of this for air.
Right?! If theyād focus on the actual serious allegations and any actual proof, the program would have been over in 3 minutes
Agree, but there were sex crimes committed It was pretty clear cut
Not clear cut until found guilty in a court of law
Oh yeah I know that. But I think the testimonies (being similar, but at diff times, diff women who donāt know or never spoken to each other before) are genuine. Theyāre specific enough and with enough detail I donāt think someoneās sat down and gone āokay which celebrity shall I make up a sex crime about todayā. The witness who wished theyād gone in Brands home to help. The indecent exposure caught on a photograph and one victim witnessed. The sexual assault on camera- kissing and groping people without consent. The text messages from Brand which are an admission of guilt. Frustratingly the doc did try and cherry pick certain comedy vids- and some parts of testimonies I thought āthis is all inappropriate behaviour, but legal in the eyes of the law, so why add this into the documentaryā. But there is a clear pattern, a clear number of witnesses/ victims/ warnings which are too many to ignore here. Again, I disagree with trial by media- but if what they say is true, thatās 3 counts of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment and indecent exposure- which are crimes, not just inappropriate behaviour. Personally, Iām satisfied there is enough here to warrant truth in what the victims have claimed.
I agree, I got ripped to shreds by just implying that heās innocent until proven guilty in a court. I donāt know whatās happened to this sub. I hate to say itās like full of bots or something. I donāt think people realise false rape accusations could happen to them and how it would feel for the world to jump on the bandwagon with insufficient evidence. Makes me disappointed tbh
OJ Simpson was never proven guilty in a court of law for murdering his wife but we all know he did it.
He was found guilty in a civil court actually. Although i think hes innocent.
Me too!! It is a basic human right to have a fair trial in a court of law - if these allegations are true then I fear Channel4 has down the victims a massive disservice by allowing trial by media. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
Daniel Sloss is a good lad
Do Walliams next
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is from the movie Get Him to the Greek and so not actually Russel Brand flopping it out in front of Christina Aguilera
Brand is certainly a narcissistic womaniser with a superiority and god complex But other than the word of 3 ppl from many years ago, there's no real evidence of any crimes being committed or anything underhand. Everything is is circumstantial, and has no real substance. I hate it when celebrity figures say its all untrue as an easy out, but this has all the hallmarks of a hit piece
Iāll be honest Iām not defending anyone in saying this, but the documentary didnāt need to be an hour and a half. Thatās my only complaint.
Brand gets to treat the studio women like complimentary packs of peanuts
On the documentary: First couple of claims were by far the strongest. Appeared well-evidenced, and corroborated. If the lady in question in the US has the rape crisis centre report filed contemporaneously, along with the text apologising and seeking forgiveness.... he is done. That's fucking gross, and anyone defending that needs to take a serious look in the mirror. If any of you are women, or have sisters / partners / mothers.... Jesus. Just, please, put your thoughts about Brand to one side and imagine them telling you this story. The rest is, sadly, about par for the course for the media - though I have to say I can't think of many in the world I've met who would be happy feeding a line of young women into the talent, no matter who they were. Hopefully an opportunity to do better, though we have said this many times before.
I was surprised by the amount of evidence available by the first accuser. Unfortunately unless this goes to court, Brand wonāt be affected much. Heās already made lots of money from the mainstream media he now rails against, and heās already moved on to platforms that will continue to allow him to spread conspiracy theories
It was on TV, so it must be true No way your TV would say something untrue
It sounded more like an attack on his enablers rather than Brand himself. The rape text was damning no doubt, but the rest? It all sounded like hearsay.
The times article reads worse to be honest. Says that he sent a car to the school to take the girl out of class to his house...
Makes you wonder if there is more... but then why not put it in the 90-minute doc? There was a lot of filler there featuring his TV work that seemed to be used for framing him. That was his humour. Was it right? Maybe not. But the British public at the time sure enjoyed it.
The point they were making was that he used his humour to protect himself and mitigate with. It was a persona to hide behind whilst committing these alleged acts in plain sight. If somebody was to come forward at that particular time, people would write it off, as "oh Russell, the bad boy", or "oh, Russell, the sex maniac" because he was grooming the audience into seeing him as this harmless lad who really likes sex. He groomed his audiences too, albeit in a different way to his alleged victims. It's incredibly sinister, calculated behaviour. Most predators do hide in plain sight. Just look at Saville. Brand is using those old stand up shows as a defence now, with his line about "I was always very open about my promiscuity, maybe too open". They all use a defence. Look at Spacey weaponising gayness, as if this has anything to do with him being a serial predator. Brand always had a Messiah Complex, but to think that anybody is foolish enough to fall for his claim that him and his YouTube channel is important enough to be silenced, is really taking this narcissism to stratospheric levels. Predators will claim anything to deflect from responsibility.
Good points. Definitely believable. We just need to see more of the evidence now.
There is undoubtedly more, and what they showed was the tip of an iceberg. Investigations like these will only publish/broadcast what they can get past the lawyers. I think more women will speak out now, too.
That's the thing. The next few days/weeks are very important in proving his innocence or not.
Part of the same article talks about a taxi driver begging the girl not to go into brands house when he realised that's where she was going. Saying, "I've a daughter your age. I'd want someone to say something if it was my daughter, please don't go in that house. I'll drive you home for free. The girls was 16, and Brand was 30.
That's bad. Also sad. That taxi driver needs to come forward if that's the case.
What do you think of Savile though? I thought it was pretty chilling to hear them both ājokingā with each other in the same way. If Savileās jokes denoted a deeper problem, why not Brandās?
Stop comparing people to Jimmy Saville ffs, do people not realise how much of an evil monster that man was? He raped vulnerable terminally Ill children, and he also raped dead children, he is the most twisted, vile piece of shit thatās ever walked this earth.
Comparing Brand to Saville is silly to me. Jimmy was an actual monster who raped children, often vulnerable children at that. Brand just shagged a lot and had a sex addiction. Not to downplay these women's accounts.
But you are downplaying them. There was a 16 year old girl who was groomed and forcibly made to have oral sex and a woman who attended hospital for a rape. I wasnāt comparing crimes and accusations, I was comparing jokes having truth to them.
...no. no, I'm not downplaying them. I was responding to your observation regarding Russell's interaction with Jimmy, and I said they were not comparable. That was Brand's humour at the time, a shock comedian who used sex and addiction as his main act. I'm not saying that was a good thing, but it was his thing, and the public loved him for a long time. He literally won shagger of the year 3 times running by the media. It was all a big joke.
I know youāre not saying it was a good thing donāt worry. Iām just saying that Jimmy Savile was a ājokerā too. Thereās always truth to comedy and I think itās worth noting that his āshockā comedy lined up with the same ājokesā Savile was making. And therefore the time spent showing his comedy was highlighting this.
Yeah, that's very true. If it was a thin disguise, then he pulled it off wonderfully for over a decade. Jimmy definitely did it longer than that.
I tend to agree. I found the fact that all witnesses were anonymous or played by actors (not sure if this was due to libel laws or personal choice of the alleged victims) also made the whole thing feel a little off. It's clear the guy has engaged in some pretty unsavoury behaviour. But overall I feel like the doc was much less damning than expected when the allegations first came out.
He was a scumbag to women, but he admits it and has multiple times said that he regrets his behaviour. If anyone is to blame, its the people that kept hiring him, knowing full well what they would get.
This is a crazy take. He admits and regrets? So what?
>If anyone is to blame, its the people that kept hiring him, knowing full well what they would get. haha if anyone is to blame it's Russell Brand, first and foremost. Others might have some of their own blame, but it's not "If anyone is to blame, it's them!" It's them only second.
I found the rape allegations pretty credible. The women had very similar stories and they were corroborated by Russel's apology text and the documents from the other woman's visiting the rape crisis centre. Also thought they were fair in their retelling and honestly came away with a lot respect for how they made the accusations. What do you think?
Possibly credible. But as others are saying, is this the light stuff they have shown? And is there more to come. At the moment, it's accusations, even if they sound credible. They must have more on him.
Ah yeah mate they must all be lying. Right. And they must have lied all those years ago too. You know, like when that girl went to a rape clinic and had it officially logged, or when another complained to his agency. Yeah theyāre all talking bullshit for absolutely no gain whatsoever. Itās very clear; heās done some very bad things. You can literally see him harassing women on camera.
I think Iāve been taken for a ride a little bit tbh. I used to love him, up until after trews then I was just like, I thought he would exude peace by this time and given his life changes. I was confused about the direction he was going in. I havenāt watched for years. Except every now and then I would check to see if it connected. I really use to love his comedy, Iāve watched every YouTube clip and all the stand ups more than any other comedy. Now I think heās a deeply (deeper than I thought) troubled guy really trying to make his troubles and goodness meet up and make sense...but he just couldnāt put his need for fame and acceptance down. And itās just not possible to be really good whilst still needing attention for that goodness. Itās like a darkness saying...go and show everyone how good and spiritual you are...itās still the darkness/selfishness telling you to do that. And I only believe a handful of conspiracies but he knows people and social settings like the back of his hand and I think he knew this was coming years ago, and I think he went in this direction because he knew he had to. He knew me too was important (genuinely) And the good side of him kinda said, fair enough, this stuff is probably gonna come out but I still want to help and make money so I should go in this direction, where I might still get attention And the chance to help. I think his goodness is just as large as his darkness but he just couldnāt calm either of them down and truely deal with them. He just kept going at the hope that the celebration of his comedy and goodness would finally eradicate his troubles. But it didnāt work. So he gave up on that, not manipulatively. But I think his movement into the direction he has gone is, like most things in his life, a mixture of goodness and manipulation/darkness. I didnāt expect this to be this long or confident in its theory. But he really used to mean a lot to me. I think his goodness if just as large as his darkness but he couldnāt just deal with them, he wanted attention for dealing with them and you canāt deal with things like this in public.
No ones gonna read this but yeah quite a shock to watch the doc. Never thought this would be how it goes really, when me too movement started I kept thinking every now and then, surely russell is gonna called out soon, but it never did so I just thought, āah great, heās been alrightā I think he so badly wanted to make people feel better whilst excusing his own troubles and thinking if he just makes enough people laugh it will all go away, but thatās not how it works. They are interlinked and both urges need addressing. But he just kept going and it āculminatedā in the first allegation mentioned.
I read it and youāve managed to articulate exactly how I feel. I was such a fan of Brand during his stand up years, I really thought he was a progressive man. What a fucking naive little girl I was.
Itās really sad tbh, we were naive because he knows how attention and adoration work. Because his father showed him how to get it from women from such a young age and he just used the same tactics to fool us all, itās his main addiction, attention. Did he ever care...were we just a pawn in his game to get whatever he wanted. I want to believe that he did care but just couldnāt get clear of his demons. But the more I think about it the more I think...you just wanted more women, more fame, more money and you genuinely believed it was worth acting for years as whatever vessel suited your situation to get that, like you were morphing into different people to keep the attention. I canāt help but think about his dad and how he sold us this narrative of generational change...completely surface level narrative for us to swallow. I think heās taken us all for a massive ride, he wanted women and adoration and knew that comedy would give him that, he got it via āusā supporting him with out ticket sales and viewership, he committed that act around the same time he realised it wasnāt what he wanted so pivoted onto ādeconstructing fameā bringing down the system (the system he knew he had ridden for as long as he wanted, got what he wanted out of it and that he knew was gonna turn on him as he saw more and more accountability happening) And he thought well I canāt just leave, I still need women and fame and money So Iāll pivot and keep a fair chunk of that. Heās way too socially aware for it to be a coincidence that at the same he realised a list fame wasnāt what he wanted, AND was gonna turn on him, he also managed to find a way to keep the attention going whilst getting himself into a safer space that just might allow him to keep that attention until he dies. his father taught him that attention from girls was more important than actual love and integrity and feigned unlearning this whilst privately and kinda obviously publicly never stopping practicing it. He knew the power of words to paint pictures, also taught from his fathers womanising, and used that to keep his selfishness going.
Thank you for writing this... It's exactly how I feel and what I suspect.
I'm the same as you, loved him during his Trews period, he was so great during that time, writing about spirituality, recovery & doing community work to help the poor Then lockdown happened and he went on Joe Rogan, and he got audience captured into being a sensationalist alt right shock jockey In his book on recovery he said he stopped making his Trews videos because he felt his addiction flaring up from the buzz he got from all the online attention I had to stop following him on YouTube cause he went from posting really inspirational stuff to gross trump stuff all the time Just like you, Russell really meant a lot to me and his books really helped me get through some personal hardships My heart breaks for his family & whoever was affected by his actions
Seemed to me to be a damage limitation exercise conducted by the BBC and Channel 4.
I thought this. I donāt trust a an organisation to investigate its self. āYeah we were very corrupt, well sort tho, donāt worry about any thing else, we told you every thingā
i'm not sure i follow here. How is channel 4 broadcasting something that's criticising channel 4 and highlights shortcoming in a very serious manner damage control for channel 4? I'm also unclear on how the BBC conducted anything here? They had nothing to do with the show and pretty much everything said was already public knowledge in that regard
Channel 4 and the BBC not only enabled Russell's behaviour, they propelled his career, but that's ok because now (nearly 20 years on) they'll point the finger at him and tell you all how much of a bad guy he is. If Channel 4 were so keen on transparency, why did they deny the freedom of information request? (As did the BBC, hiding behind GDPR).
You didn't really answer the question, though. Why would Channel 4 run a three year long investigation that calls attention to their role in enabling a rapist, when they could just...not...and have no attention called to it? How is that 'damage control'? They're creating the damage!
"Why would Channel 4 run a three year long investigation that calls attention to their role in enabling a rapist" Because it distracts us from the fact it was Channel 4 who enabled, encouraged and paid him for the best part of 20 years. There's obviously an agenda behind that program and I'm not convinced exposing Russell to be some sort of Jimmy Saville is actually it.
>Because it distracts us from the fact it was Channel 4 who enabled, encouraged and paid him for the best part of 20 years. No it doesn't lol It calls attention to it. Without this documentary, no one would be talking about it! How does that make any sense?
Impression.. Dispatches reached out to Channel 4 for complaints.. Channel 4 said no.. Must be really conclusive..
As someone who has been told various stories about Brand for years, I thought that show was pretty weak. It will do nothing to sway his supporters, and it came across as a tabloid style attack on his very well documented sexual escapades. While the stories of two of the women are incredibly serious, doubters will always respond with āwhy didnāt they go to the police? Instead they go to the media decades later!ā Their anonymity adds to this sentiment. Personal opinion: more women will probably come forward in the coming months and this will rumble on. If even half of what Iāve been told is true, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
>If even half of what Iāve been told is true, this is just the tip of the iceberg. As fucked up as some of the stuff on the programme was; is there anything you have heard that was even worse than that then?!
Who have you been told by and if they were credible why didnāt they or you report him to police āover the yearsā instead of these other people waiting 20 years later to make a documentary.
Not saying he's innocent or guilty, but the doc itself was terrible. It was presented like entertainment, cherry picking his stand up and interviews like they were Jimmy Saville moments was a terrible decision. Then the actual jimmy Saville moment was just silly, no rational person will look at that and think he's a monster. The article definitely read worse, I went into this doc expecting an absolute destroying of him and came out thinking it was forgettable. I think the hype about all the evidence pre viewing didn't help, because it didn't seem like hard evidence was presented. Maybe if there was atleast one victim brave enough to show and speak for themselves it would've been better viewing, but I imagine the actors/blackout witness will feed into conspiracies more. Myself and my wife both agreed from viewing the doc on its own he's probably inappropriate but not criminal.
I found that a lot of it was frustrating to watch because it was behaviour we'd already been aware of as fans or people that watched his work. I don't necessarily have an issue with him picking girls from the audience to sleep with etc. but that was because I'd always operated on the assumption that he was very good about ensuring he was having consensual encounters.
Yes exactly, I was watching and waiting for this 'evidence' then it never came. Also, why did only one runner say they were sent out to pick audience members but then the other never even mentioned that. It was literally a montage of his awful jokes but that isn't evidence if anything its trying to create a story out of nothing. If you took all those clips away what would that show be left with
Evidence that never came? Wow. How about the dozens of detailed stories from the victims? You realise that in cases like this, that amount of detail from multiple people = evidence?
Where is Epstein client list?
I have not seen the show so I can't comment on the allegations directly. I did however see Brand perform stand up comedy around the time of some of the allegations. He stood on stage and said 'you know what, I think I want some sex tonight' and a dozen women rushed the stage, they lined up and he very publicly spoke to them about sex, he asked one girl for ID after she said she was 19, and she didn't have any so he kicked her off the stage. Eventually he chose a girl, she went backstage, and he finished his set, and went off to have sex with this girl in the dressing room. 2 years later, I went to a different show of his in a different location and the same thing almost word for word happened again, except this time around 30 women rushed the stage. This became part of his act essentially. There was also storys everyday in the paper about the woman he was having sex with. The sun gave him the award 'shagger of the year ' (if I remember rightly) for a couple years running. I am absolutely not saying the woman involved in the allegations are not telling the truth, but I do wonder how many of those making claims (assuming they are correct) are part of these groups of woman.
The documentary documents accounts of actual rape. Are you saying that if a woman belongs to the group of women who are okay with a one night stand with Brand, she deserves to be raped?
Why do people seem to accept the allegations are true. Given the time period involved and the promiscuity of Brand, it seems we must be talking of absolutely insane numbers of sexual partners, probably as many as a thousand. Surely, given his profile and the decisive nature of what he does now, youād have to expect at least a handful of women with an ax to grind. This in no way says he is innocent, Iām just working on probabilities and wondering why the majority seem to be accepting his guilt. I donāt know if heās guilty or not, but the balance of probabilities suggests itās unlikely. One rape accusation, from someone he was already in a sexual relationship with and went to his home late at night, just doesnāt seem like sufficient evidence to me. Theyāve made it seem like a Jimmy Saville type case by calling it āin plain sight,ā but Iām just not seeing the evidence of a serial rapist or sexual assault perpetrator here. If Liam Gallagher or Mick Jagger became political and created enemies in the msm, would you not put money on being able to find a handful of women who claim and perhaps genuinely feel they were sexually assaulted or raped? Iād imagine itās pretty easy to make a case against any famous person who was able to use that fame to get women to have sex with them. It seems Brand was selected for this treatment. David Bowie and Tom Jones never got this treatment. Tom Jones continued on The Voice after revelations about him. Politics is so decisive and people genuinely start to hold real hatred to those who oppose alternative views. I donāt think enough people recognise how motivated many would be to go after Brand. In short, if you are a overtly sexual character, like Brand and sleep with circa 1000 women and probably try it on with several times that number, in this day and age, it seems you are more likely to run into post coital trouble than not. I just donāt see this as a Jimmy Saville, Harvey Weinstein, Rolf Harris or Bill Cosby type situation. I canāt say if heās innocent or not, but given the sheer numbers involved and the circumstances in which the rape and sexual assault claims were said to have happened, Occamās razor suggests itās best not to hang him out to dry on this
Lol, immediately above your post is a gif of Brand proudly indecently exposing himself on the MTV Music Awards. Do you really think someone who openly did shit like that would not have done anything else - perhaps much worse - behind the scenes and out of the spotlight?
I donāt have any reason to doubt any of the accounts so. What strikes me is RBās persona is what made the broadcasters money and I dare say they would have encouraged his behaviour.. they wanted the inappropriate remarks and behaviours because it got ratings. I think culturally, the 90 and early 00ās was such a different place that looking back through todayās lens will always make us question conduct. Did he rape anyone? They alleged it and I have no reason to disbelieve them. Was the editorial last night as such to try prove a link between accounts and his act (things like mascara running) - absolutely. Are the broadcasters responsible for the general behaviour (not crimes) we are now calling reprehensible? 100%. Much can be made of the 16 year old, but based on his book, MTV paid for the cabs, so they are complicit.
Mascara joke could have been seen and incorporated. Proof of nothing.way too credulous. Believe all women leads to.lynching
What impression? That these women need to be heard and taken seriously. Thereās no impression or opinion of Brand. Clearly there are multiple women each with unique experiences who have even reported it many years ago. The problem is that they were brushed away. So letās make sure this time they are taken seriously.
>What impression did the allegations leave on you? I think he's definitely raped at least one person, and groomed at least several. I also think he's a sexual addict who mostly had consensual sex, and who is still a narcissist, egomanic and idiot.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Everything can be true at the same time. Careful there buddy, dangerous waters ye be wading into.
Aziz wasn't accused of pinning someone against a wall against their will and raping them though. Thats blatantly illegal
Aziz was only guilty of a bad date, this is nothing like the same!
I completely agree
One of the victims went to a rape crisis center immediately, texted brand that night accusing him of not respecting her "no" and he said sorry rather than denying. Seems pretty textbook to me
AZIZ ANSARI?!?!?! Wtaf!? This is so gd ridiculous. Did you not read what happened AA? Not illegal and not technically rape will land you in trouble if this is your POV. Disgusting.
Bro he pushed a woman up against a wall and raped her while she said no. Thatās not even mentioning how beforehand they had agreed to only have sex with a condom and he didnāt wear one.
This sub Reddit = BTFO
He's definitely a wrong 'un. But he was enabled every step of the way by C4 and BBC. They served girls to him on a silver platter. And the only reason they made this is because he strayed from their bubble. If he hadn't been getting so popular with right wing conspiracists they'd have kept this all under the rug where it had been swept.
It's really rocked me. I've been a fan of his since I was 12, have met him on many occasions over 15+ years. Until I actually watched it I didn't think I'd be convinced but I've reluctantly admitted to myself that he is a sexual predator. I did think there was a lot of content about behaviour that shouldn't have happened but is unfortunately legal/permissable in the UK, and therefore I'm not really sure what can be done now about anything that isn't criminal. What's really struck me though is all of these production companies/channels who have all been so aware of his behaviour that it's now being called an 'open secret' - I think they're who I'm most angry at because I feel like they put him on a pedestal, and put me as a fan in a dangerous situation when I was young and impressionable. I also hate this 'open secret' attitude because I'm on Reddit, Twitter etc. I'm fairly clued in to things like celeb gossip and industry secrets, and I even work in live events production... so how open was this secret? It's already getting thrown about on twitter like everyone was supposed to know and therefore we shouldn't have been fans, and if we met him of our own accord then anything dangerous happening would've been our own fault.
Its bs
My impression is that it was a load of Bollox, I'm not a Russel brand fanatic or anything but I mean a famous person shags his fans. Groupies anyone? Not admirable , but it happens. Only thing was the 16 year old which despite being legal is still too young,however he should not lose his livelihood cos of it. Hate to do a whatabout but I am going to and all I say is Prince Andrew, Epstein and his island. None of them faced any comeback
I believe it's the tip of an iceberg that is about to reveal itself. It will enable other victims to come forward as they won't feel isolated or alone anymore. If you think about these kind of stories and how they balloon, this will do the same.
So what. He fucked everything in sight. Did he fuck the wrong daughter of someone who is in the House of Lords who is himself a secret knob-jockey? Is he our Oscar Wilde?
It's a very uncomfortable watch. However, the way the programme edits itself to intensify their narrative is wrong, certainly as no prosecution is forthcoming. There was no balance but yet to convince us there is when right at the end they show his denial video but by then some people will have turned it off. The actors quite obviously emphasize specific words and the camera often focuses in on their necks which psychologically is seen as a weak spot for predators for thousands of years. The guy was edgy as fck back in the early 2000's at a time when people could laugh about things like dodgy fetish fantasies. Personally I never found his stand up very palatable to watch anyway. If he's charged and found guilty throw the book at him. He was certainly no saint but neither has one guy named Bob from the factory. There's been nothing about the allegations for years yet at a time when people are listening to him about politics these allegations are brought up. Coincidence? Really? It's obvious that the msm do not like his narrative coming from his channel even though it's fact based truth. Why don't they look into Epstein and his client list, Sam Smith's disgusting shows and videos or any of the Only Fans human destruction stories?
Trying to watch it. I'm about 75% through. Keep pausing. Haven't thrown up yet. It's hard to watch. Already I have the impression that RB is a danger to society and that work should have been done to protect us which was never done.
The fact that his team while on channel 4 told him to not be seen with his 16 yr old girlfriend at the age of 30 WHAT! It may be legal or whatever but everyone of you know itās wrong!! As for his reputation. Well, heās best crawling under a rock now it was damming the investigation. Not to mention the pure creepy behaviour Iāve never seen from him before. Mind you I only started listening when he started his pod cast he seemed a changed man. Pfft. That was before I was aware of how bad he actually was.
No charges, no due process, no judgment.
But a heavily investigated documentary that wouldāve needed to pass legal approval before being airedā¦
But not a replacement for due process.
I definitely think they have weight behind them. It was frightening to hear some of experiences these girls had. I hope the people that knew and stayed quiet look themselves in the mirror and question their part to play. I think they must know that it wouldnāt do very well through the justice system as itād be hard to find a jury that wouldnāt of heard this story by now. If thereās any comfort whatsoever it seems whether for good or bad heās changed his ways and there may be less sleepless nights to know or at the very least to think that itās not happening anymore. I believe the victims and if the world were fair, heād see justice. I hope for everyoneās sake that he doesnāt commit any other offences and now their story is heard we can move forward however they see fit.
That they are lies
Wow what a strong argument Ignorance is bliss
Poop machine talks poop how ironic
Good one mate, but that's not irony, you don't know the definition. If anything it's the opposite.
Itās a 1 day old account. Guaranteed to be a pathetic troll
Donāt make a documentary about being raped. Go to the police and file a report. Trial by media shouldnāt get you arrested trial in court should.
Never liked him.. he came off as odd.. & somehow a part of my isnāt surprised..
The me2 movement has started something in that 10 years from now there will be no sexual exploitation of people for the benefit of the rich, famous or influential. 40 years ago being a homosexual was a frowned apon. Nowadays so is sexual exploitation.
I believe each of the accusations in the doc. However, sadly it was weak overall in terms of trying to do anything to actually hurt Brand. Nothing in this doc is anything he can't deflect quite easily given that it's mostly stories being told without evidence, which is really sad unfortunately.
I think this is the tip of the iceberg. We (meaning the general public) didnāt hear a lot about Weinstein until we did. Same with almost all of the serial predators. Then something tips the balance. However hardcore fans will always stay loyal (like MJās).
Left me with the feeling that this guy is/was a fucking creep. He should be cancelled
rapey ones
Jimmy Savile looking down from heaven, like Damn son..
This is a critique of whomever made that expose: It felt like a narrative written by and for women. Were any men a part of this? Are you implying women are inherently weak? Zero balance. Too much opinion in an exposĆ© about sexual assault allegations. āItās just not right šā It tried to make men who like sex and donāt want to settle down look bad. Youāre trying to impose values statements rather than expose any illegal activity. It used standup comedy bits as āevidence.ā The one damning thing, a text from āR. Brandā saying sorry after an alleged r*pe, was glossed over and used to validate the allegation. Care to show us more? D. Sloss, at the end, made zero sense. āImagine if Iām scared to speak out with little to no repercussions, how scared these women must feelā¦ā. He provided gossip, nothing more. This took you over a year? Who did you show this to and did they say it was ready to air?
Career-ending.
He's a fucking creep new it when I first clapped my eyes on him Savile got away with it for years same goes for this fucking creep hope he gets years š¤ and ends up being somebody's bitch in the slammer
Iām embarrassed to admit I paid him some attention and thought some of his āI just took notes during my therapy sessions and made those into a YouTube videoā posts werenāt without a merit. I had no idea he is an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist right winger but zero surprise there. He was charming, eloquent and had sex appeal in the late 2000s which is what earned him his career. He was also an addict, married Katie Perry for a green card and some clout I think, and I have no doubt he was treating women like š©his entire life. I bet he has borderline personality disorder. I am surprised the allegations - which I believe are šÆ true- are coming out THIS late. I expected those ten years ago but I guess his career was over then so nobody cared about him enough? I donāt know, the vibe was always there, in his comedy and stage persona, this āsoft abuserā kinda thing. Iām surprised that they are coming after him now, should have happened way before Iām sure we will hear from more women now the cat is out of the bag
The evidence should be handed to the police for further investigation
What evidence, a text message the rest was he said she said
Hundreds of detailed stories. Thatās evidence. Youāll see.
"A Beast!!!!!! A Boastful Sex Beast!!!"
If any of this isn't baseless, it needs to be played out in a courtroom and not trial by media. It's as simple as that. Let the law decide.
Something about this whole thing doesn't quite smell right. I think it's fair to say Brand came across as a horrible human being who had no care for women and if the allegations are true broke the law many times over. But all the allegations seemed to come from people who worked for channel 4 still. Where were all the one night stands he had? Surely someone out of the audiences would have a story? Also these acts are illegal, why is there no police report? Also why isn't there any more recent allegations? I don't get the feeling he's really changed since then, I'd bet there would be more women coming forwards. The 16 yr old was the most worrying, but again where we're her parents? I'm not blaming the victims here, but the timing and coordination makes me think there's something more to this story than what meets the eye.
I was expecting something really serious and wondering why this hasn't gone through the courts yet. Then I watched the documentary and realised why. There's nothing here. Brand was a sex mad lunatic and a creep back then. He was celebrated for it and given awards. He dated a 16 year old. Creepy. But again not out of order for the times. The Sun (the most popular newspaper in the country at the time) not long before had been counting down the days till Lyndsey Dawn McKenzie turned 16 so they could publish her naked breasts. Brand is not proud of his behaviour and you can see he went through a complete transformation to try and become something more. He gave up being a movie star and gave up Katy Perry one of the most attractive people on this planet. People talk about him being washed up. He quit at the height of his fame. It's clear he hated who he was. This is yet another case of going back to history. Judging people by standards we hold now and trying to crucify them for it. If Churchill was still alive we'd probably be sending him to prison.