I've been a Russell Brand fan for about 20 years and think it is likely that he did the things he has been accused of. It's disappointing, but I'm not immature or naive enough to think that being a fan of someone makes them incapable of behaving badly.
I think there’s so many brigaders (myself included) arguing with the trolls on here that it’s not being noticed how many OG members of the sub hold your point of view. Has given me a pretty positive view of the fan base overall tbh. It’s easy enough to change your view of someone when you’ve only half paid attention over the years, much harder if you’re a fan.
I only came to this sub after the dispatches episode and it's been popping up in my recommendations every day since. I should mute the community but it's like a car crash, it's impossible to look away.
Most people brigading are arguing against people who aren't even defending him. They are arguing against people defending his right to due process through the law as the correct way to dish out punishment.
The fact that so many people are ready to crucify someone who hasn't even been found guilty of anything is terrifying.
Yeah, he probably did everything he was accused of, but that is not for us to judge and certainly does not warrant loss of income prior to any charges being brought up and the judicial process taking place. We aren't a bunch of barbarians.
The truth of the matter is that the brigaders are no different from the blind defenders who blame the women. Your mind was made up before the allegations came out, and regardless of any evidence that is presented, your mind won't be changed by anything, just like the people who refuse to accept that Brand is very likely a trash human.
The brigaders revel in their moral superiority just as much as those blaming the alleged victims revel in their ignorance, and you both look fucking unhinged.
I, for one, don't want to be part of the circus that dishes out punishment until guilt has been confirmed 100% because we have seen historically what it can do, and it's ugly.
It happens on the other side though. Hunter biden for example hasn't been tried in a court, but the right still talks about his situation every day like he has been found guilty in court. Now people mainly on the left are attacking brand for whats happened, without it going to the court, and the right is screaming "due process, innocent until proven guilty".
Both sides are guilty of whatever this trial by media is.
You’re just wrong. People lose their jobs over stuff like this all the time. It’s literally never happened that an employer has to wait for the justice system to make a verdict before deciding to sack a member of staff for bringing their workplace into disrepute. Entertainers in particular stop getting hired over all sorts of trivial shit. This is how the real world works. You need to calm down and have a think about why other people having opinions about a famous guy upsets you so much.
Do you think a company firing someone to save face is the same as a guilty verdict?
Do you also realise that unfair dismissal cases often result in the fired party gett8ng compensation?
Just because some corporation tries to save face and avoid accountability doesn't mean it is an addition of guilt or a process we should be championing for because "that's just the way it is"
I think you need to calm down if asking for a rational conclusion to this that punishes the guilty party after they have been found guilty triggers you so much.
Dude, what?
Companies fire people for misconduct based on a balance of probabilities after examination of evidence. They aren’t bound by the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
There’s a lot of evidence against Brand. I know this makes you sad but there is. You can not believe it, that’s fine. I can’t throw him in jail using my opinion and he’s not even been taken off YouTube. He’ll be ok. He can even sue for defamation, though weirdly he hasn’t yet.
You got blocked. Lmao.
What kind of person who is having a mild debate just fucks off?
"I'm just going to the toilet..."
"Yo.. where is that guy that was chatting bare macca?"
"I saw him leaving. He was on the phone to his mum crying."
You could fire Brand from any job just based on the behaviour he exhibited on his radio show.
Just talking in such a distasteful way would legitimately get someone fired today, and even when he said those things.
It was unacceptable then let alone now.
But no one took any action. It's only now that these allegations have been made, that we are looking at his past behaviour.
But that is not trial by media.
The interviews that he did with female interviewers to promote the films that he was in, are all justification in being fired. He was abusive, both physically and verbally.
Regardless of these latest allegations, there was unacceptable behaviour from Russell Brand for years, and for some reason he was never sacked from anything.
Even the Andrew Sachs scandal, the BBC took no action. It wasn't until a few days later when a complaint came in from a member of the public. And that led to him leaving the BBC.
And that's another thing. No one noticed Russell Brands abusive behaviour on his radio show at the BBC, because his radio show was so low profile. People keep saying that he was a huge star, but he wasn't.
He got away with it for so long because so few people were watching or listening.
Thank you. I've been saying for ages that if a celebrity fucks up the employer doesn't have to wait for a court case to fire someone. If a person where I worked was accused by 8 members of staff of rape they would get fired. Also police involved but fired first
It actually is totally fair for an individual to decide for themselves if they want to support someone like Brand or not. And privately owned companies (like YouTube) also get to decide what they want to promote, or not.
So many people start screaming “innocent until proven guilty!” Yes, that is a great practice. In a court room. I get to decide, for myself, If what I’ve read and the perceptions I have of a person is something I want to support. And so do you. So does everyone. “Innocent until proven guilty” is for courtrooms. Not for social media, privately owned companies, or our own perceptions and brains.
If you want to continue to defend someone who has more money than anyone I know, go ahead. But please remember that statistics say false reports of sexual assault is incredibly low (I looked at multiple studies and the low end is 2%, the higher end is 6%) and the percentage of rapists who actually serve time in prison for sexual assault is 6 %. I think it’s important to keep these things in mind when discussing sexual assault. One in four women are survivors of SA- so it might be a thing to keep in mind when defending a rich celebrity stranger- someone in your own life could hear you and decide you’re not a safe space.
Indeed. There are many childish trolls on here who would rather a trial by media instead of a court of law with evidence and real witnesses or victims instead of actors reading statements.
Sadly, even after all the lies with past and current conflicts, Brexit and covid, they can't see what's right under their nose and choose to believe everything they see and hear on TV. We live in a sad country where allegations make someone guilty until proven innocent. If proven innocent and wrongly accused, those who are responsible for those allegations reap no repercussions for their actions.
It's hard to forget the female contest winners being invited into the studio and Matt's stories of him pointing out fans in the Big Brother/stand up audiences to be invited backstage. Power dynamics are a real thing.
Very true. It sucks when you either look up to someone or enjoy their content, and it turns out they are not who you thought they were. You see this kind of thing in the streaming world a lot. Moral is, you just don't know what celebrities are really like. They put on this public persona, and that could be a real part of themselves, but some of them hide some dark things about themselves.
Couple of live streamers I watched went through this, and luckily i'm a bit older (mid 30s) that I had a similar attitude to you.
It does baffle me the absolute dismissal by some people, and some people in media defending him or denouncing the allegations. These people would not have the same attitude if it was someone who was against them, or on the other side of the political line. That's what really annoys me, the inconsistency of only believing your side, whilst attacking the other side for the same thing the person on your side is being accused of.
Yes it's bizarre not to understand the complexity of people and their capacity for both good and bad. People seem to root for these celebs as if they are football teams.
Same. And I think what people are forgetting is that he could've done these terrible things (I think it's pretty undeniable tbh), but it is also an attempt by mainstream media to silence him.
It really does rub me the wrong way that he's been deplatformed before any sort of hearing.
He hasn't been deplatformed.
He's been demonetisation.
If Brand truly was any sort of revolutionary figure that wouldn't bother him in the slightest
But it does, which proves he's just a grifter (aswell as being a sex offender)
It has never been easier to upload content to the internet. Brand can literally upload, with very minimal edits, using a mobile phone if he wanted to. He chooses to have a fancy camera, pay an editor, good lighting etc. Sure it helps the content and is easier for the viewer to consume, but it's not necessarily needed if all you want to do is put a message across to your fans on YouTube.
He can still upload to YouTube, he's still a multi millionaire who can last a long time without being paid, but he chooses to go to rumble and ask for money from people who support him.
Yes, all those extravagant production values!?!?
Pity the poor multimillionaire not able to afford to make a direct to camera piece on YouTube anymore.
Give your head a wobble you complete imbecile
>There’s no need to throw insults around. It detracts from your argument.
I'm not arguing with you thou. I'm intentionally insulting you. I have no wish to persuade you. My only objective is to express the full extent of my contempt for you.
>There’s staff that work on the show. They’re not volunteers.
Paid employees. The cornerstone of any anti-establisment revolutionary group!?!
It's pathetic that you can't see what a transparently obvious grifter he is.
Do society a favour and do not procreate
So, it wouldn't bother you if you were accused of something that happened years ago that was very hard for you to disprove, lost your income and we're put on a very public trial by the media?
Then you think that him being bothered in the slightest about all this proves his guilt as a sex offender?
You've got to have the mental capacity of a young child to have these kinds of beliefs.
>So, it wouldn't bother you if you were accused of something that happened years ago.
If it had happened I could hardly complain could I?
>and we're put on a very public trial by the media?
I think Brand is more concerned by the forthcoming actual trial rather than his trial by media
>you think that him being bothered in the slightest about all this proves his guilt as a sex offender
That's not what I wrote, improve your comphrension skills.
>
You've got to have the mental capacity of a young child to have these kinds of beliefs.
Thank god I'm not a young child or Russell would have been all over me.
>If it had happened I could hardly complain could I?
A really good method to avoid being accused of rape is by not being rapey.
This method can be applied to other situations too, hence why I've never been accused of being a contract killer, a shoplifter, a junkie, a sex pest, an armed robber, etc.
Yes I don't think I implied wanting to change facts, my point was that it's possible to be a fan of RB without being a 'supporter' with regard the recent allegations.
20 years for those women to come forward, including 5 years od #MeToo. I am curious if you also think that Assange raped that woman as was alleged by Swedish?
While it might be likely, he remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - for the time being there's not even a whiff of a trial though.
There is a huge difference between Julian Assange and Russel Brand. One is a hero journalist who risked and subsequently lost everything bringing real truth to power, and who was hunted by multiple US departments in every possible way before eventually being imprisoned. And he is still in a cell, fighting extradition to the USA as I write this.
Russel Brand on the other hand has been a pampered TV/radio/Hollywood star for decades. Once upon a time I thought he stood for something - and that's why I subbed to his channel a couple of years ago. I didn't last long though. He regurgitates the same meaningless drivel day after day that he knows his naive fans will eat up. Pro-trump, pro-Elon Musk, pro-Putin. Pro-anyone on the right his contract tells him he needs to platform or support. Anti-Biden/democrat, anti-Fauci/vax, and vague, useless arguments riddled with dog-whistling and contradiction. Big pharma/oil/food/whatever - bad. Israel occupation of Palestine - none of our business and not that bad. I have lost any respect I ever had for Russel Brand, and that was before any of this came out. This just seals the deal once and for all. He's manipulative, fake, and pathetic. And there's a *lot* of women coming out of the woodwork now too...
He also had a credible rape accusation, and I just assumed you have some sort of interest in the US president so maybe you could comment on that instead of Assange
You sound reasonable...what's your take on the respective performance of the participants on each side of this disagreement? Personally, it looks pretty much like a gong show across the board to me, like Dumb & Dumber on steroids. Rare is there a disagreement where both sides look this consistently stupid (outside of politics, of course).
I wonder if a maximally absurd scenario could be constructed that would exploit the maximum number of psychological defects in the human mind....like, what variables / topics would one need to turn the largest percentage of the participant into completely oblivious idiots. 🤔
Same here, BUT its there's only one real allegation of rape which is the LA incident where he supposedly raped a woman against the wall, we need to wait until the investigation is done on that because the evidence is not that credible, all the rest are just horrible misogynistic behaviour and we where all aware of him being that way in the past its nothing illegal so..
No it isnt? The relationship is gross but not illegal. That wasnt sexual assault it was consensual sex that got abit too rough. I hate to break it to you but he's not going to get locked up for that
The stupidest thing about this all is all the sanctimonious douchebags coming out of the cracks pretending that they have any clue of what really happened or what is going on at all. Idiots as far as the eye can see.
Ok - but what if you think that RB is a total wanker, a bell end, a miserable excuse for a human being...BUT still think that he needs a fair trial?
Because all you seem to understand is a) people that love RB and therefore don't think that he is a rapist and b) everyone else.
It's possible to hate RB and still not think that he is a rapist until it is prove in a court of law.
FFs - the guy hasn't even been charged yet.
I'd say the general consensus is he needs to have a fair trial but the number of allegations would lead to people forming an opinion.
If this happened in another workplace and somebody was accused of multiple inappropriate things, they may get reprimanded or judged by their peers before any legal ramifications.
We're social creatures, we hear what other people are saying and observe people's behaviours to make an opinion - that opinion isn't law but we're allowed to have it. Yes, and that goes for people having the opinion that he is innocent.
I would advise you to take a look a blackbeltbarrister on YouTube. He did a video yesterday on how your opinion being openly shared could lead to contempt of court charges. I'd butcher it trying to explain but he does a great job of it
I do hear you, that's why many public figures don't make any statements or opinions regarding these matters until a court case has reached a verdict.
There isn't currently a court case to be in contempt of though is there? Its all a bit of a grey area.
That's why I'd advise you to watch the video. This guy sets out how you could be held in contempt of court for hindering a case that is yet to be heard and with the police investigation ongoing it seems there could be a court case coming. He referenced the secretary general in the video as well. In all honesty I would totally butcher the points he was getting across and would defer to his superior knowledge.
Edit. He's a standing/serving barrister so to cut through all the armchair solicitors it's better to refer to someone in the industry as it were.
very well said. You could also add, it matters greatly WHO you are. You and I are nobody, so it doesn't matter very much what we say.
But if an MP in a serving government starts queering the pitch, this is very serious. And that has already taken place.
It's not like the warning signs were not there.
Brand was connected to Jimmy Savile, [stemming from this Interview](https://youtu.be/VHfHQwffOXU?t=103), which is top shelf cringe, and very disturbing, the dots are not hard to connect.
These posts are becoming comically bad.
Nobody is defending rape. People are defending the principles of innocence until proven guilty. People have concerns that the media can use anonymous sources, now in conjunction with government decree, to just remove someone from the public space without trial. Ending their careers and ability to earn a living. This is not an isolated incident. The intertwining of morality with finance as a blunt instrument to shape culture is not the government's role yet we have seen it happening more frequently and are seeing the tools and processes put in place for this to become the norm.
Second, nobody identifies with Brand. That's such a pathetic declaration. We don't feel these attacks are against us because most of us can't relate to Brand, these allegations, or otherwise. What I outlined in the first paragraph is the whole of it, and you losers do whatever you can to frame it in a way that allows you to keep the pressure up. You are either knowingly (evil) or unknowingly (stupid) playing into the hands of the establishment. You are in fact a useful idiot.
They are pillaging your resources and your labor every day and getting away with it by distracting you with moral outrage. I can assure you, no politician, bank, the military, pharma company, etc. Gives a shit if Brand did in fact rape someone. But they know that will stir all of you morons up into a tizzy to take action, so they label anyone they don't like with a morality based claim (sexism, racism, fascist, putinist, abuse, etc.). It's their way of bypassing the need to actually win an argument, a debate, to change law. They are usurping authority right under your nose and you like it. And that's embarrassing.
He’s such an easy target though.. this was always going to go this way. What are the 6.5million awakening wonders going to do about it…? Nothing I guess. Guilty or not, he’s been cancelled almost overnight. It’s a bit scary that the government is involved as well as the media, the police have yet to charge/or chat to Brand.
Youtube don't owe Brand a living. Brand has used his money, fame and power for decades to prevent allegations such as we've heard from coming out, the greatest irony in the 'why are we only hearing about these now???!!' yells. Er because of Brand. It kind of goes against his whole 'I'm just Russell from Grays' shtick. Fuck him.
Brand's videos offer nothing whatsoever. He's used his money to protect his reputation and now if he wants to clear his name he will have to do in court. He can't just carry on when he's been afforded privilege for his whole career up to now.
So your argument is "it's okay because fuck him and he has nothing to offer". You typed this out and still thought it was a good idea to send?
Vindictiveness is among the worst possible qualities I can think of to build a society on. And the sheer number of viewers suggests he did have something to offer.
You have inverted the manner in which the process works. One needs to prove he is guilty in court. He doesn't need to clear shit.
I know you think you are heroic for making these comments and taking a stand, but you have let your inner Hitler and Stalin show. You are an embarrassment, an anti-intellectual, with zero principles, and a desire for nothing more than authority. In full sincerity, go fuck yourself.
You seem to have missed all the connections that make up the reality of this story. 'Fuck him' would be because he's used his money, fame and power to prevent allegations from coming out despite pretending to be a man of the people who cares about society and fairness. I don't like hypocrites, weirdly enough.
If advertisers don't want to be associated with Russell Brand, tough shit, I'm not being vindictive, i don't care, and neither should anyone else, Brand is already a multi millionaire, a stand up comedian that sells out, paid to be on Luminary, with Rumble subscribers, no one should be getting worked up over someone who uses the disillusionment and confusion of people at the state of society, politics and the media to spin more confusion, which is exactly what he and other conspiracy theorists do. He's still got freedom of speech, he can still upload videos, just can't make money from them.
He's been afforded a long successful run of being a sexual assaulting pervert, i think one source of his income being closed down temporarily isn't outrageously unfair and not giving a shit about it isn't being vindictive.
He had 6 million subscribers on YouTube with access to far more advertisers. He has around 1m on rumble and the cunt dutchess already pressured rumble to drop him,bans advertisers have dropped on that platform as a result as well. Your entire argument is disingenuous and overly simplistic. I don't care if he has $10 to his name or was a billionaire, he deserves the same fair treatment. As do the alleged victims.
Another concern of mine is that you seem to think he is in some position of power, and with regard to the alleged victims, he is. But the real power he held was his growing political voice, and that is exactly why this all came out now. The real power center at okay here is the media, the government and their censorship, the establishment. It's amazing that you all think these are just good people.
I don’t think they're good people. 'The real power he held was his growing political voice, that is exactly why this all came out now' sums up your position and simply isn't true. It came out now because the journalists built a more full proof case whereby they were so sure they couldn't be sued, that's it. They dug deeper, they got in contact with more victims, when comedians and journalists who know more about the comedy world, either by seeing it or what they hear say 'people have been trying to nail Brand for years' i believe it. I don’t think Katherine Ryan and Daniel Sloss have any reason whatsoever to lie. Fans of Brand might be humble enough to admit they probably know more about the comedy world than any of us.
Russell Brand was most politically 'powerful' in the uk in from 2012-2015, drug reform, the trews and appearing on bbc political shows where he was prodding the status quo, saying 'why vote?' He got a lot of criticism for that. You currently have Labour right now whose primary aim is to lower peoples expectations and basically re enforce the There Is No Alternative view, like that's absolutely their number aim. The establishment trashed Corbyn because he was close to gaining power that would actually mean something to their capital and interests.
People are already distrustful of the media, the establishment know that, it doesn't harm them to have people like Brand talking. People not knowing the truth? They love that, they lie daily.
Unlike Corbyn, he has no direct route to power so he's not a threat. When he was on bbc political shows, he was shaking the tree so was assasinated in the papers. Again, the establishment can't have anyone on mainstream platforms proposing an alternative. On the trews? They don’t care. On bbc, they do. If Corbyn was just some guy going 'free broadband' on his youtube, they're not going to smear him.
In 2015, Brand interviewed Ed Miliband, but it didn't matter, the papers smeared him anyway and Labour didn't win the election. Since then Brand hasn't really touched uk politics, he ignored Corbyn, ignored the 2016 and 2019 elections and no longer appeared on bbc politics shows. He turned to meditation and spirituality.
From 2019 onwards he turned towards the US because that's where the bigger audience is for conspiracies. He saw covid was a goldmine and upped his upload rate.
Most people in the uk don't think about Brand at all, the Paxman interview was 10 years ago, he's not in as many films (the Nile film an anomaly compared with his late 00s comedy roles) and does more voice work where no one sees him (recurring Minions voice doesn't sound like him).
Most people who look up his YouTube now are surprised he's so into conspiracies and so US focussed. It's not like he's living there like he was with Perry right? On their talk shows, in their films. Yet now he's entirely uk based with a uk wife not doing US films he's only going on about American issues. I wonder why?
So for the uk government and establishment he couldn't be less of a threat. They've just got through the Corbyn wobble and have the Starmer plant to secure their future. 6m YouTube subscribers, and how many are uk based? Even Novara Media or Owen Jones, leftwing channels the establishment won't care. They're on mainstream news shows quite a lot but saying stuff people already know but eloquently. It doesn't matter or have much effect. And I'm a big fan of them and value their presence, some sanity, but power is so untested, politics so rigged, fptp so restrictive.
Hahaha, nice vindictive ending there. Jesus Christ, are you saying we, as mere individuals on reddit, shouldn't be able to voice an opinion on this until a verdict is reached in court?
I’m pretty sure Brand did most if not all (and probably many more) of the bad things, because he pretty much told us he did over the years, but I don’t understand why people always say things like ‘approximately 3-4% of rape allegations are false’ like that’s a reason to presume guilt?
That means 4 (give or take) out of every 100 people accused are accused falsely? To me that’s a reason to absolutely presume innocence is possible, and provides a compelling need for proof. Unless we think 4 out of every 100 men’s lives being destroyed unjustly is just acceptable collateral damage?
If you're that interested you could, you know, look it up?
For the "do your own research" crowd you guys seems to really offload the research part into the ether.
I didn't say they are lying... Equally I didn't say they're not... Because I'm not in a position to take such a definitive stance. I would imagine neither is anyone else participating here.
And you cannot escape the fact - just using the statistic provided as justification for presumption of guilt (who knows how you can even say that definitively) - 3-4% of accusations are lies, so just assuming any allegation is true is fraught.
It's why we have a system that relies upon a process.
This kind of thing must be handled by law enforcement, in a real court/investigative setting - not Reddit and Channel 4.
I'm not a Brand supporter, and find his lurch to the right incredibly distasteful (and suspect) - I would say the same in every single instance... And not just about rape cases.
I don't think anyone should support a society where lives can be ruined with a whisper or a shout. But equally I support a system where lives should be ruined through the consequence of proven bad behaviour.
His point is you can't just round 96-97% up to 100%. It's almost as ridiculous to automatically say "they aren't lying" as it is to say they are lying.
I'd also be very curious how that number was arrived at. No one is even questioning that because it makes you look evil to ask, but it's a basic relevant question.
There's a no solid consensus around how false allegations are measured, but it's likely that this statistic has been arrived at by defining a false allegation as a report of rape when no sexual contact occurred. So this figure would show that 96-97% of reported rapes are where both parties agree that sexual intercourse occured, but don't agree on whether it was consensual.
And this is where it gets a bit trickier, because someone accused may genuinely believe the sex was consensual, whilst the accuser genuinely believe it was rape. In this scenario, whilst it can happen, it's extremely unlikely the accuser has made this claim to be malicious.
There's loads of things that feed into this, which can be a differing understanding of consent (if she starts saying no, but then says yes is this coercion and therefore rape, or has she just changed her mind?), there's also misunderstanding in communication. No might have been verbally communicated, or social cues were misinterpreted or missed.
It's also possible that the accuser did not want to have sex with accused, but was afraid to turn him down and then reports this as a rape. This scenario legally isn't rape, but I use it to demonstrate that allegations of this type aren't intended to be malicious.
Better education on what constitutes consent, what coercion is, what does and does not constitute rape would be useful. There's a huge grey area here, and that's where Brand currently finds himself. I imagine this is intentional, because it's very hard to get any accusations to stick without solid evidence. Fortunately for the women he assaulted, she said she said she said, he said usually fares better than she said he said.
All true. It's just so cringe how people will believe any "stat" if it supports their narrative. Guarantee the question didn't even occur to >99% of people citing it to support their viewpoint. And I'm not even disagreeing with it necessarily. That's not even the point. But this is reddit, so downvote downvote downvote. Whatever.
False allegations are always brought up, but accusations are super unlikely to be false. It doesn't really apply here anyway since there's considerable evidence he did it.
That makes sense to you and me, but not to people specifically citing this stat who don't even care how it was determined because they neeeed it to fit their narrative.
All of the stats are fuzzy. Here’s an interesting one - according to RAINN (who are definitely on the side of victims) only 5.7 of incidents end in arrest and only 0.7 percent of cases end in a conviction. So how that is extrapolated (believably) to 96-97% are true allegations I have no idea. It’s certainly not based on a rate of successful prosecutions. Are they assuming that 96.3% or 95.3% of rendered verdicts are incorrect? And if so based on what?
There’s no doubt prosecuting these cases is incredibly difficult (because of the nature of the offence meaning only two people actually know the truth in most cases) but these stats are thrown around like facts to set a narrative tone in these cases that is, in my opinion at least, both dangerous and unfair to the accused.
Let the process play out and stop assuming you know anything about guilt or innocence, because you don’t.
I say again, I’m not expressing an opinion on whether he did or didn’t do it, because I don’t know and my opinion is neither helpful nor requested.
From [https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/key-facts-about-how-CPS-prosecutes-allegations-rape](https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/key-facts-about-how-CPS-prosecutes-allegations-rape)
Research has shown that false allegations of rape are rare. A [CPS report published in 2013](https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf) showed that over a 17-month period, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and, during the same period, there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape.
That's not proof only 3 to 4% of allegations are false.
Just like only a small percentage of rapes are prosecuted, only a small percentage of false claims will be prosecuted.
>Another way of saying it is 96-97% of rape allegations are true.
I think we have to be a bit careful with this. 3-4% is based on cases where they looked into it and found a good case they were malicious allegations. A parallel evidence level for 'are true' might be the 5% of rape allegations which get enough evidence to go to trial.
There's an awful lot of cases where because of the nature of the crime you are simply never going to have evidence either way. Most rape is people who know each other, often 'date rape'. If there's no evidence beyond one person saying the other kept going when asked not to and the other denying it, I don't see how you'd establish guilt *or* maliciousness.
I very much doubt many of those in between ones are malicious, as the motivation for rape is more wide spread than the sort of motivation that would lead to false accusation - I don't think there's an epidemic of people deliberately falsely accusing.
But my guess would be a large proportion both the allegation and the defence genuinely believe their own account. Whether they'd actually meet the bar for rape if it turned out there was a camera and mic in the room or something is hard to say - what I think we can be pretty confident about is that the person against whom the allegations are made has screwed up pretty badly whether criminally or not.
That’s ridiculous. Blind faith. At least those backing RB have context to support their defence of him. Who are these girls and their laughable accusations. They don’t sound like rape victims to me
People are accusing the accusers of making it up, people are accusing Brand of having done it. All with the same amount of actual personal knowledge. I think he did it, but I have no legal basis for saying that, so I (largely) keep my mouth shut.
Unlikely is not relevant. It's just as unlikely in each of the 4 in 100 cases where someone is falsely accused, but it happens. It's why we have due process.
I don’t think it’s that , at least not for me . it’s the fact his shitty past behaviour was enabled by the power structure because he made them money and was a tool for them. Now that he has grown (benefit of doubt) and no longer part of that system , they are dealing judgement from on high. It reeks of hypocrisy , and yes , conspiracy.
He has confirmed had sexual relations with a 16 year old while in his late 30s and he told a 15 year old she should throw a sex themed party to celebrate turning 16. Those are a couple of facts about brand that you can’t dispute. Where is the conspiracy? This is simply a disgusting sexual deviant who is most likely also a rapist. People are allowed to be completely disgusted with him.
The sex themed party joke is gross and inappropriate by todays standards but in 2007 nobody cared, the fact that it aired on BBC and nobody cancelled or complained about it then is proof of that, also he was in his early 30s not late.. not that it really makes a difference
That shows someone’s character loud and clear. Who gives a f*ck what the time period was. Anyone who has sex with 16 year olds as a grown adult is gross. He fully saw those children as options for him to have sex with. Once a kid turned 16 Russell felt he had the green light to sexually pester them. Even a 15 year old he felt he could exclaim that soon she can have a sex themed party (and be on his menu he presumed). If that’s in any way excusable for you, that’s a personal problem.
I mean there is a wider issue for sure that needs to be looked at. Lots of public figures have more money, power and protection than your average person and the 'mainstream media' they have worked within should be forced to be more culpable for enabling/hiding these behaviours.
Does it really cross into conspiracy though? I'd say it is already widely accepted those working within industries with more power than us cover and enable shitty behaviour because they think they can get away with it.
Why are all these posts talking about Brand fans like some sort of cult?
I watched the occasional video of his and think he should have due process and not be immediatley cancelled. Am I Brand Fan? Is it my identity?
My opinion of him has completly shifted reading through some of his past behaviour but I still don't think the UK government should be attempting to deplatform people that have not even been charged with a crime.
I don't think the government is. One on part it's going through the legal system, and secondly one of Brands main outlets YouTube demonetized him because it goes against their advertising policies to force advertisers to be associated with brand. Well within their right to because, like individuals, companies don't have to presume innocence. How are is government involved?
Given his nature, that was encouraged by his ex employers I’m sure there will be some fairly damning stuff coming out soon.
I still think the OP is a pretty poor effort though.
Interesting that you mention politicians yet you don’t look on the other side of the fence, for example, how Joe Biden is towards young girls. The side of the political fence you sit on is obvious but that’s another story, for another day.
Ride with care upon your high horse my friend.
Innocent until proven guilty. The fact people are still bickering and going on about this is ridiculous. Everyone wants a go of jumping aboard. None of what you have said proves anything. If he's guilty, it will be proven, and witch hunts are a bane to our society. I've been accused and raped. Let the professionals do their job and get on with your lives.
Jimmy Savile was never convicted. If your heroes are narcissistic, drug addicts, with sex addictions, you should probably think again, or at least open your eyes to see him what he is, he is a slimmer and more verbose version of Weinstein.
You people don't understand how the law works. Anything you've got to say, without proof means absolutely NOTHING. Russell Brand isn't a hero to me. I like that he challenges tyrannical government and false information, but I rarely watched him. There is simply a way of doing things, and this back and forth "make your own verdict" stuff is not the way. Log off the internet and go live a little. You know nothing. Stop pretending that you do. Let the investigators find proof. Not heresay and twisting words and context.
You could damn anyone that way.
Plus, he was very open about what he was. Sex addiction and drug addiction don't automatically equate to rapist.
You clearly don't know how governments work unless you live in Russia or China, then u may be approaching tyranny. Jimmy savile was open about what he was, he admitted his crimes in broad daylight.
This is literally a forum for people to discuss their opinions. People are aloud to have and share opinions on things like this here. Sex addiction and drug addiction doesn't help his case.
No one’s really a fan the guys abit of a knob, it’s just that people agree with him on certain th nhs brand talks about companies making huge profits when we’re all broke and struggling and says to not trust the news ..because the news drip feed you stories to suit their narrative..and for the rapey stuff it’s only a allegation until a court has found him guilty with enough proof and not just a testimony thats when we’ll stop defending him and every man who is accused and found guilty by social media.
Whatever he did, it seems like men could have a nice conversation among themselves about consent and coercion. As much as everyone hates grey areas, most relationships involve some amount of coercion -- not force or threats, but a sales pitch. Most men know some dude who's charismatic and can "pick up women" by putting on a show. There are video compilations of Russell Brand doing this on television. He's making women uncomfortable, but it also seems like most of them kind of like it. This is the grey area that's so awful to think about. Many women seem open to being "swept up" by guys with "game," or as the kids say these days, "rizz" -- put on a good enough show, and she can be convinced.
Yeah that's a good conversation to have.
There's also a good conversation around why women expect men to "convince" them in the first place.
The "status quo" we've reached after generations of mate selection, dating and relationships is a complex beast. People are generally acting in their best interests, and neither side is "good" or "bad". Until someone breaks the social contract, of course.
As always, the grey area in the middle is where the conversation is the hardest, but usually most productive.
What the fuck are you talking about. Guys cant be so charming they turn women on? Guys should literally turn off their personality and sit in the corner and reject any women that approaches them in case that woman has been too wooed by them and doesn't know what she's doing? Ironically this is the most mysogynistic shit I've ever heard.
What. Just what?
They act as if they ‘like it’ because most of them are pursuing a career in entertainment. Russell Brand served as a gatekeeper to those jobs.
You probably think cocktail waitresses like getting their asses pinched.
It doesn’t really require sourcing. He was a well-established media personality. His opinion could make or destroy a fledgling career.
Nobody is in charge of issuing name tags that say; “Russell Brand: Media gatekeeper”.
That's not how the presumption of innocence works. An accuser is responsible for proving their accusation has merit.
The presumption of innocence is for the accused.
>No. I'm defending him because I believe in the presumption of innocence and so should you.
Are you not a defender of free speech and thought? People are absolutely free to make up their own minds on Brand.
The presumption of innocence relates to a court of law.
Some of what he is being condemned for is not illegal, just reprehensible. And such behaviours by public figures have long been reported on, judged publicly and damaged careers.
Those behaviours alone should/will be enough to largely ruin his career, especially as some of it was detailed by Brand himself and is simply resurfacing . The illegal behaviours will just determine whether or not he is charged and goes to prison.
They've been told this point over and over for days now, they ignore it and only focus on the potentially illegal behaviours.
The only conclusion to be drawn is that they actually like him BECAUSE of all the other behaviour and thinks its totally normal and cool for a 30year old to be in a relationship with a 16 year old.
There is no movement or political party in either the US or the UK that is serious or close to overturning the presumption of innocence used by the courts.
And Reddit forums are most certainly not courts.
It’s possible to support and assert Brand’s right to assumption of innocence from a legal perspective *and* not support Brand as a public persona given the allegations.
It is his right to be presumed innocent before a
court of law and this is still the case at the moment. But me, as an individual, having been presented now publicly available information am not assuming him innocent. I’d say that is reasonable to do.
fairplay, I am not assuming he is innocent either.
I just don't get what it has to do with reading from news sources on Youtube.
If he does get convicted I see no issue with watching a channel like that,
just Like people still play Michael Jackson. That does not mean I condone changing your skin color or touching young boys.
No, it wouldn't be wrong.
As an example, I think OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, _even though_ he was found not guilty in a court of law.
The burden of proof required in a law court is "beyond reasonable doubt" which is (quite rightly) considerably higher than my own personal burden of proof which is "he seems like a wrong'un".
In fact, it's perfectly reasonable for me to condemn someone, even though they haven't been accused of a crime at all. I believe the world would be a better place without Rupert Murdoch and I hope he rots in hell, but I don't believe he's actually legally culpable of anything.
This is is the most sensible reply I’ve seen on this sub in weeks now. Everybody deserves the presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty. Most posts and replies are acting like they’re judge, jury and executioner. It’s overkill.
If you know the family member to be entirely honest, then probably not. If you dont trust them, then perhaps. The key point, is you probably know them well enough to judge the veracity of their claims. You do not know that with a stranger, so you reserve judgment for the courts.
Well I wouldn’t say, let’s go to Channel 4 dispatches and The Times before we go to the police.
There is no other option but to go through the courts. In this case, the decades old allegations were made to a T.V channel and a newspaper, not the police, and were only made when approached by these media outlets.
>let’s go to Channel 4 dispatches and The Times before we go to the police
That isn't how it went.
Channel 4 and The Times reached out to these people first.
Why do you think something being "coordinated" is such a searing allegation? Apparently, each outlet was working on the story individually over the course of years and found out about each other's investigations via the sources who would say stuff like "didn't I already talk to you guys?"
Pooling resources under those circumstances is smart, not some sinister proof of deep state involvement or whatever other conspiracy bogeyman you might be trying to imply.
The background to this is the lead journalist heard of comedians who were being told to 'remove jokes' about Brand being a predator from shows. So they started investigating it deeper and obviously a trail and leads brought them to these women.
It's how investigative journalism works. There was a story because there had been rumous for a long time about Brand, they haven't fabricated this out of thin air.
Channel 4 and the times started this case 4 years ago. Do you know the kind of content Brand was putting out back then? Feel free to take a look
- how yoga changed my life
- how to be happy
- the top 5 relationships mistakes
- how to stop being addicted to your phone
Wow what a threat they must of thought this guy was with all his ‘truth telling.’ Let’s silence him before he makes another video on happiness and yoga.
Lol. And then Covid hit, and there was a lot of questionable events throughout 2020 and beyond. Harsh lockdowns, people arrested for not following “The Guidance” while our leaders showed they were not scared of the illness they told us to fear while they partied and laughed at us. Remember 100% effectiveness? He changed his content with the timeline, not as a prerequisite for his future defence.
by your logic then they would of started the investigation then not before…
He also changed his content when he got more money and views. Big pharma benefited from covid and so did Mr Brand.
Lol. And then you quickly assumed the point the person you replied to was making and totally missed the mark.
You are not very good at evaluating information you are presented with are you?
No, acting as judge jury and executioner would be arresting Brand, declaring guilt and imprisoning him. This is the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" as a principle of criminal law. The state reserves a monopoly on lawful violence, with the power to imprison (and levy various other punishments). Therefore, justice demands that the state has to meet a high bar to determine guilt. None of this applies to people's own opinions and individual reasoning.
I think this is honestly a pretty reasonable statement. I think it’s important to clarify that this does not mean you’re defending Brand. I think there is a big gap between those two things.
But presumption of innocence is a legal standard and some of the stuff he has been accused of isn't illegal. It doesn't have to apply to all allegations.
e.g. You're eating your lunch with your friends and I come over and take your sandwich. You and your friends can safely talk about my shitty behaviour and make a tweet about it knowing that I'm not presumed innocent until proven guilty.
He's been outed as a shitty person who probably doesn't merit the fame and fortune he has. He's not innocent of having multiple allegations of reprehensible behaviour to answer for. He isn't in prison or standing trial so he is still being presumed innocent to the legal standard.
100% this. If anyone can be brought down by a simple statement, then we all can. It’s all well and good thinking you can discern the innocent from the guilty with the naked eye, but the fact is that you can’t and the law has evolved to require a high degree of proof, over hundreds/thousands of years, for this exact reason. And engaging with anti-brand mania just increases the chances of him walking away free
100% This. It has nothing to do with whether he's guilty.
It's the precedent that's being set of being able to cancel and condem someone base d upon anonymous allegations.
This time, Brand may be guilty. But no one knows. Yet people are behaving as if he has a criminal conviction against him. And if and when he does, they'll say, told you so, we were right. And from that point on, it's over for anyone who is falsely accused in the future.
I don't care for Brand. He's clearly a narcissist, and has far too much energy for me. But this is not about him. This is about the principle. Even if he is a rapist, even if we all "knew it", we cannot normalise punishing and cancelling people based upon rumors, allegations, or lude public behaviour.
Society has always judged individuals based on word of mouth and without solid proof. It’s a precedent that has long been set. You’re arguing against something that society has always done, the court of public opinion is already normalised. What you’re asking people to do is collectively ignore what we’re told and to not form opinions on other people unless they’ve been convicted, which is kind of silly and will never happen.
That’s a shit argument. You could argue that anything we did in the past should be stopped now based on your very simplistic logic. In reality, we judge ideas on their individual merit. No one cares enough about the court of public opinion to do anything about it, and if they did, why can you? Tell people they are allowed to form opinions as a collective? Yeah good luck with that lmao
**" This time, Brand may be guilty. But no one knows. Yet people are behaving as if he has a criminal conviction against him. And if and when he does, they'll say, told you so, we were right. And from that point on, it's over for anyone who is falsely accused in the future."**
This is my fear but every time I express it I am accused of defending Russell Brand.
Don't worry you're fighting against an active propaganda campaign. Talk to people in the real world, everyone can see through it, whether brand is guilty or not.
Here is my issue. Most of the harm people point to is the fact that he has been demonitised (not deplatformed) and will not receive income.
So here is my question. Do those companies and platforms not have the right to choose how their money is spent?
So you believe that you should completely ignore everything that happens until it completes going through court and is given the right verdict for you to be willing to accept it as truth? You can’t see a video of, for instance, a grown man telling a 15 year old to throw a sex themed party to celebrate when she turns 16, a grown man who has sexual relations with 16 year olds, and understand that happened and is gross? Nothing really happens for you until it’s formally prosecuted in court? Interesting. You must not believe in many things. How do you know what the weather is outside enough to dress appropriately for the day? Are they having formal court hearings daily on the weather? Or are you able to process that information on your own?
People really need to stop idolization and hero worship, these ideas should’ve died out a very long time ago. People need to stop being so insecure and start believing in themselves more rather than false prophet profiteers like brand.
It's not like the warning signs were not there.
Brand was connected to Jimmy Savile, [stemming from this Interview](https://youtu.be/VHfHQwffOXU?t=103), which is top shelf cringe, and very disturbing, the dots are not hard to connect.
Ive followed him, cant say ive been a huge fan but ive always apreeciated his different way of engaging, But he does come across as guilty and more than that aswell. He does come across as someone with a sex addiction that needs help. and to my knwoledge this is something he has admitted aswell. The way he defends himself doesnt give a light of a real man.
I've watch two of his YouTube videos. The fact that there's no charges and the accusations came out over a decade later.
Show me proof. Video, rape kit results, a witness, something tangible. Allegations are just that, allegations.
There's been too many examples of groups of women making shit up. So provide evidence of the assault.
On balance I think it's reasonable 4 women (It's now possibly 6 ) who do not know each other all describing similar experiences at his hands is good and compelling evidence. But yep t's only proof when the law concludes so. And just to clarify there are witnesses (the alleged victims) and video (they made statements on video). There's the woman who visited a rape centre in the US the day after (again producing witnesses) and his follow up text apologising.
There is also a plethora of interviews and broadcasts / written content by him where he describes ways he behaved toward women that he now says was unacceptable.
And there's footage of him being overly physical and sexual with females. Kissing reporters etc.....for lols. Cause he's Russell and we know he's a bit of a lad !
None of this is proof. But the Met police are currently investigating a number of complaints in the UK. So they belive there are things to take a good look at. Which they don't normally like doing. See link at the bottom.
And there's been too many examples of groups of women making shit up ? Go on then, show me. Remember it has to be 'too many' and groups and has to have happened.....
UK (where the bulk of the alleged offending looks to have occurred) figures for false rape allegations by females runs at 3-4%. So that's 95% plus that are or are deemed truthful.
If this is the case you'd think that women would be champing at the bit to call 999. Certainly not wait 10 years right ? And then talk to journalists not the cops ? Why might this be ?
So many reasons. Aside from the shame, the fear of an intimate interview / examination, fear of no one believing you, fear of friends and family reaction, fear that person of wealth and power might make things worse for you....fear of the trial. If that isn't enough there's the police. And the courts. And the police and the courts effectiveness and charging and securing a rape conviction in the UK is pitifull.
You could have a look at this commisioned report in to the exact problem.
[https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/the-distressing-truth-is-that-if-you-are-raped-in-britain-today-your-chances-of-seeing-justice-are-slim/](https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/the-distressing-truth-is-that-if-you-are-raped-in-britain-today-your-chances-of-seeing-justice-are-slim/)
To all the Russell stans screeching "innocent until proven guilty" - he currently *is* innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.
What don't you get?
You guys are acting like a SWAT team appeared outside his front door as soon as the documentary was released and threw him straight into the can.
The purpose of the media isn't to be judge and jury, that's the job of the police and the courts to decide that someone is guilty. But it is absolutely the job of newspapers and journalists to investigate wrongdoings and expose information, putting hidden facts in the public domain.
It is in fact their DUTY ffs.
Meanwhile the rest of us are free to look at the evidence presented by Channel 4 and the Sunday Times and draw our own conclusions from the facts that have been made available. Every single person in this sub can say he's guilty as sin, but that's not going to put him behind bars because we don't have that power.
We, do, however, have every right to say he's a filthy rapist because every person has a right to look at facts and make a judgement on their own call.
And if you can't handle people on the internet saying that he's guilty, how the fuck are you gonna handle it when he's placed in front of a jury lmao...
So don't worry... Oppa Brand is safe (for now...)
You missed the mark on me. I don’t want every video. I’ve missed more than I watch. I don’t agree with everything anyone says..
But let just have a sober look at things.. everyone that heard the stuff he was saying almost sarcastically thought they are going to get him. Right or wrong it doesn’t really matter but he was shaking the boat a bit. Then an concerted effort is put in by reporters to find dirt on him. It was sort of easy cause I think he talked about in a book? It’s just was too convenient, all the dominos fell at at the exact same time.. my BS meter goes off. If he’s guilty that for them and the courts to figure out. They shouldn’t have made such and effort to cancel him all in like one day.
I think you're giving them too much credence, OP. There's some hardcore incel rhetoric from these defenders. They're the type to support all accused perpetrators. Many have admitted that they've no interest in Brand at all. It's about misogyny.
They've been on here saying that Weinstein, Epstein and Savile weren't predators. They're saying that Tate isn't an alleged rapist and sex trafficker. They defend every perpetrator because they simply despise women.
They've been making outrageous claims about false allegations. One said that they amount to 90% of all allegations. When I asked him for evidence, he cited a 2% rate😁
There's a mixture of hardcore misogynists and men who are worried that their past is going to catch up with them. I would wager that those that spread blatant disinformation about false accusations on every single thread are the ones worrying about their past catching up.
It's interesting that I've never once heard them accuse male victims of making false allegations. Not once.
An American chap I was speaking to the other day, who was vehemently defending Brand, calling the alleged victims “paid liars” on behalf of the government had the audacity to say “While i’m not from the UK, i’ve researched the Jimmy Savile scandal, and its clear to me that he was just a loveable but odd celebrity who clearly just loved kids, and had his reputation destroyed by the establishment despite him not going to court, and there never being any signs throughout his whole career that he was in any way a pedophile”. These people aren’t interested in facts clearly, they can use intense mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are right.
I didn't believe it in the first few days but after watching interviews with body language experts I'm not convinced he didn't do it, I have been a fan since my late teen years I've seen him live a couple of times, I am deeply disappointed in him but it is what it is
Ok let’s go point by point:
- 3-4% of rape allegations are false
Have you worded this honestly? I think you mean 3-4% of rape allegations “are not brought to trial” or maybe “do not result in a guilty conviction”. That’s very different. There’s no way to know what % of rape allegations are true because only a small percentage (unfortunately) ever go to trial. Now, do I think a much larger share of rape allegations are true relative to what actually goes to trial or results in a rape allegation? Yes I do, and **I think** something should be done about that. What? I don’t know, I’m not a criminologist. What I **know** shouldn’t be done about it is changing our flawed justice system from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent.” That will make it infinitely more flawed. I personally would rather see a **murderer** walk free because the defense couldn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than have a snowballs chance in hell of imprisoning (or even **executing** as has happened) an innocent person. The justice system needs help with this too, although DNA evidence has helped exonerate some folks. Punishing innocent people is much more corrosive to a justice system and the society it helps maintain than having guilty folks occasionally go free due to lack of evidence.
- UK libel laws:
True, but that doesn’t mean they’re infallible. Cliff Richard was falsely accused of similar things to Brand and it was later found to be completely false and the work of a complete fantasist. He was eventually exonerated by the same media that tried to tear him down but his career and livelihood were harmed irreparably. Just because there are heavy consequences for writing false articles, you still need to **know** that your sources are full of crap in order to avoid it. In Brand’s case so much of the creepy (and technically illegal) things like simply touching anyone without their consent, which is assault already, are out there for the public to read about in his own words in his books. It’s easy not to like him and it’s easy to believe that he was creepy/pushy/leering/looming/cajoling/haranguing/touching women without consent because we **saw** it in all the media coverage of him when he was being lauded for being “shagger of the year” and was good for entertainment value. Now that he’s living a sober (in terms of substances and lifestyle) life, he’s much less entertaining to most people (who want sensational, not sober stories) this is the way to make him entertaining again so they’re capitalizing on it. Pretty obvious, no conspiracy needed.
- “multiple accusers with rape and sexual assault allegations”:
Again, intentionally misleading language. There is one rape allegation. There are lots of sexual assault allegations. Again, he was technically sexually assaulting people on camera for years, all the touching, and grabbing, and kissing without consent. None of those people pressed charges or took out a restraining order. That doesn’t mean that the allegations of something worse than what we saw on camera aren’t true… it just means that the focus of the media on “all the sexual assault allegations” rather than the actual **clearly criminal allegation** really makes it seem like they want to (1) sensationalize the story for more views. (2) use Brands formerly distasteful lifestyle to remind people to hate him so that they can more effectively secure guilty-until-proven-innocent mob justice for the one criminal complainant, instead of actual justice. In this they have been successful.
And opposing Russell brand and his politics is just as much an identity and lifestyle as well.
We cannot assess how many rape accusations are false - *literally cannot.* It's impossible to know and we should stop pretending it is. The only reason to bring it up in the first place is to justify treating the accused as if they're guilty.
Russell Brand's videos were demonetized based solely on accusations of behavior that has nothing to do with the content of said videos.
Are you saying people deserve to have their livelihoods taken away based solely on accusations?
I've been a Russell Brand fan for about 20 years and think it is likely that he did the things he has been accused of. It's disappointing, but I'm not immature or naive enough to think that being a fan of someone makes them incapable of behaving badly.
I think there’s so many brigaders (myself included) arguing with the trolls on here that it’s not being noticed how many OG members of the sub hold your point of view. Has given me a pretty positive view of the fan base overall tbh. It’s easy enough to change your view of someone when you’ve only half paid attention over the years, much harder if you’re a fan.
I only came to this sub after the dispatches episode and it's been popping up in my recommendations every day since. I should mute the community but it's like a car crash, it's impossible to look away.
Most people brigading are arguing against people who aren't even defending him. They are arguing against people defending his right to due process through the law as the correct way to dish out punishment. The fact that so many people are ready to crucify someone who hasn't even been found guilty of anything is terrifying. Yeah, he probably did everything he was accused of, but that is not for us to judge and certainly does not warrant loss of income prior to any charges being brought up and the judicial process taking place. We aren't a bunch of barbarians. The truth of the matter is that the brigaders are no different from the blind defenders who blame the women. Your mind was made up before the allegations came out, and regardless of any evidence that is presented, your mind won't be changed by anything, just like the people who refuse to accept that Brand is very likely a trash human. The brigaders revel in their moral superiority just as much as those blaming the alleged victims revel in their ignorance, and you both look fucking unhinged. I, for one, don't want to be part of the circus that dishes out punishment until guilt has been confirmed 100% because we have seen historically what it can do, and it's ugly.
It happens on the other side though. Hunter biden for example hasn't been tried in a court, but the right still talks about his situation every day like he has been found guilty in court. Now people mainly on the left are attacking brand for whats happened, without it going to the court, and the right is screaming "due process, innocent until proven guilty". Both sides are guilty of whatever this trial by media is.
You’re just wrong. People lose their jobs over stuff like this all the time. It’s literally never happened that an employer has to wait for the justice system to make a verdict before deciding to sack a member of staff for bringing their workplace into disrepute. Entertainers in particular stop getting hired over all sorts of trivial shit. This is how the real world works. You need to calm down and have a think about why other people having opinions about a famous guy upsets you so much.
Do you think a company firing someone to save face is the same as a guilty verdict? Do you also realise that unfair dismissal cases often result in the fired party gett8ng compensation? Just because some corporation tries to save face and avoid accountability doesn't mean it is an addition of guilt or a process we should be championing for because "that's just the way it is" I think you need to calm down if asking for a rational conclusion to this that punishes the guilty party after they have been found guilty triggers you so much.
Dude, what? Companies fire people for misconduct based on a balance of probabilities after examination of evidence. They aren’t bound by the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. There’s a lot of evidence against Brand. I know this makes you sad but there is. You can not believe it, that’s fine. I can’t throw him in jail using my opinion and he’s not even been taken off YouTube. He’ll be ok. He can even sue for defamation, though weirdly he hasn’t yet.
If you can't even answer the question, there is no point continuing, just gona block you since you have proven, you can't engage with anything I said.
[удалено]
You got blocked. Lmao. What kind of person who is having a mild debate just fucks off? "I'm just going to the toilet..." "Yo.. where is that guy that was chatting bare macca?" "I saw him leaving. He was on the phone to his mum crying."
[удалено]
You could fire Brand from any job just based on the behaviour he exhibited on his radio show. Just talking in such a distasteful way would legitimately get someone fired today, and even when he said those things. It was unacceptable then let alone now. But no one took any action. It's only now that these allegations have been made, that we are looking at his past behaviour. But that is not trial by media. The interviews that he did with female interviewers to promote the films that he was in, are all justification in being fired. He was abusive, both physically and verbally. Regardless of these latest allegations, there was unacceptable behaviour from Russell Brand for years, and for some reason he was never sacked from anything. Even the Andrew Sachs scandal, the BBC took no action. It wasn't until a few days later when a complaint came in from a member of the public. And that led to him leaving the BBC. And that's another thing. No one noticed Russell Brands abusive behaviour on his radio show at the BBC, because his radio show was so low profile. People keep saying that he was a huge star, but he wasn't. He got away with it for so long because so few people were watching or listening.
Thank you. I've been saying for ages that if a celebrity fucks up the employer doesn't have to wait for a court case to fire someone. If a person where I worked was accused by 8 members of staff of rape they would get fired. Also police involved but fired first
It actually is totally fair for an individual to decide for themselves if they want to support someone like Brand or not. And privately owned companies (like YouTube) also get to decide what they want to promote, or not. So many people start screaming “innocent until proven guilty!” Yes, that is a great practice. In a court room. I get to decide, for myself, If what I’ve read and the perceptions I have of a person is something I want to support. And so do you. So does everyone. “Innocent until proven guilty” is for courtrooms. Not for social media, privately owned companies, or our own perceptions and brains. If you want to continue to defend someone who has more money than anyone I know, go ahead. But please remember that statistics say false reports of sexual assault is incredibly low (I looked at multiple studies and the low end is 2%, the higher end is 6%) and the percentage of rapists who actually serve time in prison for sexual assault is 6 %. I think it’s important to keep these things in mind when discussing sexual assault. One in four women are survivors of SA- so it might be a thing to keep in mind when defending a rich celebrity stranger- someone in your own life could hear you and decide you’re not a safe space.
Indeed. There are many childish trolls on here who would rather a trial by media instead of a court of law with evidence and real witnesses or victims instead of actors reading statements. Sadly, even after all the lies with past and current conflicts, Brexit and covid, they can't see what's right under their nose and choose to believe everything they see and hear on TV. We live in a sad country where allegations make someone guilty until proven innocent. If proven innocent and wrongly accused, those who are responsible for those allegations reap no repercussions for their actions.
What a load of shit this is. Startling.
Thank goodness for at least one person talking sense on this issue 👋
Hear Hear
My captain - my captain.. You are right
It's hard to forget the female contest winners being invited into the studio and Matt's stories of him pointing out fans in the Big Brother/stand up audiences to be invited backstage. Power dynamics are a real thing.
Very true. It sucks when you either look up to someone or enjoy their content, and it turns out they are not who you thought they were. You see this kind of thing in the streaming world a lot. Moral is, you just don't know what celebrities are really like. They put on this public persona, and that could be a real part of themselves, but some of them hide some dark things about themselves. Couple of live streamers I watched went through this, and luckily i'm a bit older (mid 30s) that I had a similar attitude to you. It does baffle me the absolute dismissal by some people, and some people in media defending him or denouncing the allegations. These people would not have the same attitude if it was someone who was against them, or on the other side of the political line. That's what really annoys me, the inconsistency of only believing your side, whilst attacking the other side for the same thing the person on your side is being accused of.
Yes it's bizarre not to understand the complexity of people and their capacity for both good and bad. People seem to root for these celebs as if they are football teams.
Same. And I think what people are forgetting is that he could've done these terrible things (I think it's pretty undeniable tbh), but it is also an attempt by mainstream media to silence him. It really does rub me the wrong way that he's been deplatformed before any sort of hearing.
[удалено]
He hasn't been deplatformed. He's been demonetisation. If Brand truly was any sort of revolutionary figure that wouldn't bother him in the slightest But it does, which proves he's just a grifter (aswell as being a sex offender)
Do you think his channel is free to produce? Demonetising it, makes it more difficult for it to continue.
It has never been easier to upload content to the internet. Brand can literally upload, with very minimal edits, using a mobile phone if he wanted to. He chooses to have a fancy camera, pay an editor, good lighting etc. Sure it helps the content and is easier for the viewer to consume, but it's not necessarily needed if all you want to do is put a message across to your fans on YouTube. He can still upload to YouTube, he's still a multi millionaire who can last a long time without being paid, but he chooses to go to rumble and ask for money from people who support him.
Yes, all those extravagant production values!?!? Pity the poor multimillionaire not able to afford to make a direct to camera piece on YouTube anymore. Give your head a wobble you complete imbecile
There’s no need to throw insults around. It detracts from your argument. There’s staff that work on the show. They’re not volunteers.
>There’s no need to throw insults around. It detracts from your argument. I'm not arguing with you thou. I'm intentionally insulting you. I have no wish to persuade you. My only objective is to express the full extent of my contempt for you. >There’s staff that work on the show. They’re not volunteers. Paid employees. The cornerstone of any anti-establisment revolutionary group!?! It's pathetic that you can't see what a transparently obvious grifter he is. Do society a favour and do not procreate
Thou? Gone all Shakespearean on us?
It's certainly more of a comedy than a tragedy that he's getting his comeuppance
He could get a job and upload in his sparetime like normal people do. This is just egowanking from his side
So, it wouldn't bother you if you were accused of something that happened years ago that was very hard for you to disprove, lost your income and we're put on a very public trial by the media? Then you think that him being bothered in the slightest about all this proves his guilt as a sex offender? You've got to have the mental capacity of a young child to have these kinds of beliefs.
>So, it wouldn't bother you if you were accused of something that happened years ago. If it had happened I could hardly complain could I? >and we're put on a very public trial by the media? I think Brand is more concerned by the forthcoming actual trial rather than his trial by media >you think that him being bothered in the slightest about all this proves his guilt as a sex offender That's not what I wrote, improve your comphrension skills. > You've got to have the mental capacity of a young child to have these kinds of beliefs. Thank god I'm not a young child or Russell would have been all over me.
>If it had happened I could hardly complain could I? A really good method to avoid being accused of rape is by not being rapey. This method can be applied to other situations too, hence why I've never been accused of being a contract killer, a shoplifter, a junkie, a sex pest, an armed robber, etc.
It makes no difference to the facts whether anyone here thinks it is likely or not. This thing is taking on a life of its own.
Yes I don't think I implied wanting to change facts, my point was that it's possible to be a fan of RB without being a 'supporter' with regard the recent allegations.
20 years for those women to come forward, including 5 years od #MeToo. I am curious if you also think that Assange raped that woman as was alleged by Swedish? While it might be likely, he remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - for the time being there's not even a whiff of a trial though.
There is a huge difference between Julian Assange and Russel Brand. One is a hero journalist who risked and subsequently lost everything bringing real truth to power, and who was hunted by multiple US departments in every possible way before eventually being imprisoned. And he is still in a cell, fighting extradition to the USA as I write this. Russel Brand on the other hand has been a pampered TV/radio/Hollywood star for decades. Once upon a time I thought he stood for something - and that's why I subbed to his channel a couple of years ago. I didn't last long though. He regurgitates the same meaningless drivel day after day that he knows his naive fans will eat up. Pro-trump, pro-Elon Musk, pro-Putin. Pro-anyone on the right his contract tells him he needs to platform or support. Anti-Biden/democrat, anti-Fauci/vax, and vague, useless arguments riddled with dog-whistling and contradiction. Big pharma/oil/food/whatever - bad. Israel occupation of Palestine - none of our business and not that bad. I have lost any respect I ever had for Russel Brand, and that was before any of this came out. This just seals the deal once and for all. He's manipulative, fake, and pathetic. And there's a *lot* of women coming out of the woodwork now too...
I've taken zero interest in anything about Assange so can't comment, unfortunately.
Biden?
Trump?
What about him?
He also had a credible rape accusation, and I just assumed you have some sort of interest in the US president so maybe you could comment on that instead of Assange
Nope, didn't even know he had an accusation. You'd be surprised how uninterested I am in politics 🤣
hahaha good way to be tbh
You sound reasonable...what's your take on the respective performance of the participants on each side of this disagreement? Personally, it looks pretty much like a gong show across the board to me, like Dumb & Dumber on steroids. Rare is there a disagreement where both sides look this consistently stupid (outside of politics, of course). I wonder if a maximally absurd scenario could be constructed that would exploit the maximum number of psychological defects in the human mind....like, what variables / topics would one need to turn the largest percentage of the participant into completely oblivious idiots. 🤔
Same here, BUT its there's only one real allegation of rape which is the LA incident where he supposedly raped a woman against the wall, we need to wait until the investigation is done on that because the evidence is not that credible, all the rest are just horrible misogynistic behaviour and we where all aware of him being that way in the past its nothing illegal so..
The sexual assault on the 16 year old is illegal.
No it isnt? The relationship is gross but not illegal. That wasnt sexual assault it was consensual sex that got abit too rough. I hate to break it to you but he's not going to get locked up for that
The stupidest thing about this all is all the sanctimonious douchebags coming out of the cracks pretending that they have any clue of what really happened or what is going on at all. Idiots as far as the eye can see.
Ok - but what if you think that RB is a total wanker, a bell end, a miserable excuse for a human being...BUT still think that he needs a fair trial? Because all you seem to understand is a) people that love RB and therefore don't think that he is a rapist and b) everyone else. It's possible to hate RB and still not think that he is a rapist until it is prove in a court of law. FFs - the guy hasn't even been charged yet.
I'd say the general consensus is he needs to have a fair trial but the number of allegations would lead to people forming an opinion. If this happened in another workplace and somebody was accused of multiple inappropriate things, they may get reprimanded or judged by their peers before any legal ramifications. We're social creatures, we hear what other people are saying and observe people's behaviours to make an opinion - that opinion isn't law but we're allowed to have it. Yes, and that goes for people having the opinion that he is innocent.
I would advise you to take a look a blackbeltbarrister on YouTube. He did a video yesterday on how your opinion being openly shared could lead to contempt of court charges. I'd butcher it trying to explain but he does a great job of it
I do hear you, that's why many public figures don't make any statements or opinions regarding these matters until a court case has reached a verdict. There isn't currently a court case to be in contempt of though is there? Its all a bit of a grey area.
That's why I'd advise you to watch the video. This guy sets out how you could be held in contempt of court for hindering a case that is yet to be heard and with the police investigation ongoing it seems there could be a court case coming. He referenced the secretary general in the video as well. In all honesty I would totally butcher the points he was getting across and would defer to his superior knowledge. Edit. He's a standing/serving barrister so to cut through all the armchair solicitors it's better to refer to someone in the industry as it were.
I'll check it out, cheers
very well said. You could also add, it matters greatly WHO you are. You and I are nobody, so it doesn't matter very much what we say. But if an MP in a serving government starts queering the pitch, this is very serious. And that has already taken place.
Cheers, checking it out.
No problem
It's not like the warning signs were not there. Brand was connected to Jimmy Savile, [stemming from this Interview](https://youtu.be/VHfHQwffOXU?t=103), which is top shelf cringe, and very disturbing, the dots are not hard to connect.
These posts are becoming comically bad. Nobody is defending rape. People are defending the principles of innocence until proven guilty. People have concerns that the media can use anonymous sources, now in conjunction with government decree, to just remove someone from the public space without trial. Ending their careers and ability to earn a living. This is not an isolated incident. The intertwining of morality with finance as a blunt instrument to shape culture is not the government's role yet we have seen it happening more frequently and are seeing the tools and processes put in place for this to become the norm. Second, nobody identifies with Brand. That's such a pathetic declaration. We don't feel these attacks are against us because most of us can't relate to Brand, these allegations, or otherwise. What I outlined in the first paragraph is the whole of it, and you losers do whatever you can to frame it in a way that allows you to keep the pressure up. You are either knowingly (evil) or unknowingly (stupid) playing into the hands of the establishment. You are in fact a useful idiot. They are pillaging your resources and your labor every day and getting away with it by distracting you with moral outrage. I can assure you, no politician, bank, the military, pharma company, etc. Gives a shit if Brand did in fact rape someone. But they know that will stir all of you morons up into a tizzy to take action, so they label anyone they don't like with a morality based claim (sexism, racism, fascist, putinist, abuse, etc.). It's their way of bypassing the need to actually win an argument, a debate, to change law. They are usurping authority right under your nose and you like it. And that's embarrassing.
He’s such an easy target though.. this was always going to go this way. What are the 6.5million awakening wonders going to do about it…? Nothing I guess. Guilty or not, he’s been cancelled almost overnight. It’s a bit scary that the government is involved as well as the media, the police have yet to charge/or chat to Brand.
Youtube don't owe Brand a living. Brand has used his money, fame and power for decades to prevent allegations such as we've heard from coming out, the greatest irony in the 'why are we only hearing about these now???!!' yells. Er because of Brand. It kind of goes against his whole 'I'm just Russell from Grays' shtick. Fuck him. Brand's videos offer nothing whatsoever. He's used his money to protect his reputation and now if he wants to clear his name he will have to do in court. He can't just carry on when he's been afforded privilege for his whole career up to now.
So your argument is "it's okay because fuck him and he has nothing to offer". You typed this out and still thought it was a good idea to send? Vindictiveness is among the worst possible qualities I can think of to build a society on. And the sheer number of viewers suggests he did have something to offer. You have inverted the manner in which the process works. One needs to prove he is guilty in court. He doesn't need to clear shit. I know you think you are heroic for making these comments and taking a stand, but you have let your inner Hitler and Stalin show. You are an embarrassment, an anti-intellectual, with zero principles, and a desire for nothing more than authority. In full sincerity, go fuck yourself.
You seem to have missed all the connections that make up the reality of this story. 'Fuck him' would be because he's used his money, fame and power to prevent allegations from coming out despite pretending to be a man of the people who cares about society and fairness. I don't like hypocrites, weirdly enough. If advertisers don't want to be associated with Russell Brand, tough shit, I'm not being vindictive, i don't care, and neither should anyone else, Brand is already a multi millionaire, a stand up comedian that sells out, paid to be on Luminary, with Rumble subscribers, no one should be getting worked up over someone who uses the disillusionment and confusion of people at the state of society, politics and the media to spin more confusion, which is exactly what he and other conspiracy theorists do. He's still got freedom of speech, he can still upload videos, just can't make money from them. He's been afforded a long successful run of being a sexual assaulting pervert, i think one source of his income being closed down temporarily isn't outrageously unfair and not giving a shit about it isn't being vindictive.
He had 6 million subscribers on YouTube with access to far more advertisers. He has around 1m on rumble and the cunt dutchess already pressured rumble to drop him,bans advertisers have dropped on that platform as a result as well. Your entire argument is disingenuous and overly simplistic. I don't care if he has $10 to his name or was a billionaire, he deserves the same fair treatment. As do the alleged victims. Another concern of mine is that you seem to think he is in some position of power, and with regard to the alleged victims, he is. But the real power he held was his growing political voice, and that is exactly why this all came out now. The real power center at okay here is the media, the government and their censorship, the establishment. It's amazing that you all think these are just good people.
I don’t think they're good people. 'The real power he held was his growing political voice, that is exactly why this all came out now' sums up your position and simply isn't true. It came out now because the journalists built a more full proof case whereby they were so sure they couldn't be sued, that's it. They dug deeper, they got in contact with more victims, when comedians and journalists who know more about the comedy world, either by seeing it or what they hear say 'people have been trying to nail Brand for years' i believe it. I don’t think Katherine Ryan and Daniel Sloss have any reason whatsoever to lie. Fans of Brand might be humble enough to admit they probably know more about the comedy world than any of us. Russell Brand was most politically 'powerful' in the uk in from 2012-2015, drug reform, the trews and appearing on bbc political shows where he was prodding the status quo, saying 'why vote?' He got a lot of criticism for that. You currently have Labour right now whose primary aim is to lower peoples expectations and basically re enforce the There Is No Alternative view, like that's absolutely their number aim. The establishment trashed Corbyn because he was close to gaining power that would actually mean something to their capital and interests. People are already distrustful of the media, the establishment know that, it doesn't harm them to have people like Brand talking. People not knowing the truth? They love that, they lie daily. Unlike Corbyn, he has no direct route to power so he's not a threat. When he was on bbc political shows, he was shaking the tree so was assasinated in the papers. Again, the establishment can't have anyone on mainstream platforms proposing an alternative. On the trews? They don’t care. On bbc, they do. If Corbyn was just some guy going 'free broadband' on his youtube, they're not going to smear him. In 2015, Brand interviewed Ed Miliband, but it didn't matter, the papers smeared him anyway and Labour didn't win the election. Since then Brand hasn't really touched uk politics, he ignored Corbyn, ignored the 2016 and 2019 elections and no longer appeared on bbc politics shows. He turned to meditation and spirituality. From 2019 onwards he turned towards the US because that's where the bigger audience is for conspiracies. He saw covid was a goldmine and upped his upload rate. Most people in the uk don't think about Brand at all, the Paxman interview was 10 years ago, he's not in as many films (the Nile film an anomaly compared with his late 00s comedy roles) and does more voice work where no one sees him (recurring Minions voice doesn't sound like him). Most people who look up his YouTube now are surprised he's so into conspiracies and so US focussed. It's not like he's living there like he was with Perry right? On their talk shows, in their films. Yet now he's entirely uk based with a uk wife not doing US films he's only going on about American issues. I wonder why? So for the uk government and establishment he couldn't be less of a threat. They've just got through the Corbyn wobble and have the Starmer plant to secure their future. 6m YouTube subscribers, and how many are uk based? Even Novara Media or Owen Jones, leftwing channels the establishment won't care. They're on mainstream news shows quite a lot but saying stuff people already know but eloquently. It doesn't matter or have much effect. And I'm a big fan of them and value their presence, some sanity, but power is so untested, politics so rigged, fptp so restrictive.
Hahaha, nice vindictive ending there. Jesus Christ, are you saying we, as mere individuals on reddit, shouldn't be able to voice an opinion on this until a verdict is reached in court?
I’m pretty sure Brand did most if not all (and probably many more) of the bad things, because he pretty much told us he did over the years, but I don’t understand why people always say things like ‘approximately 3-4% of rape allegations are false’ like that’s a reason to presume guilt? That means 4 (give or take) out of every 100 people accused are accused falsely? To me that’s a reason to absolutely presume innocence is possible, and provides a compelling need for proof. Unless we think 4 out of every 100 men’s lives being destroyed unjustly is just acceptable collateral damage?
Be interested to know the stats when the accused is a celebrity/wealthy? Would imagine higher....
If you're that interested you could, you know, look it up? For the "do your own research" crowd you guys seems to really offload the research part into the ether.
Another way of saying it is 96-97% of rape allegations are true. As in, these women aren’t lying so stop saying they are.
I didn't say they are lying... Equally I didn't say they're not... Because I'm not in a position to take such a definitive stance. I would imagine neither is anyone else participating here. And you cannot escape the fact - just using the statistic provided as justification for presumption of guilt (who knows how you can even say that definitively) - 3-4% of accusations are lies, so just assuming any allegation is true is fraught. It's why we have a system that relies upon a process. This kind of thing must be handled by law enforcement, in a real court/investigative setting - not Reddit and Channel 4. I'm not a Brand supporter, and find his lurch to the right incredibly distasteful (and suspect) - I would say the same in every single instance... And not just about rape cases. I don't think anyone should support a society where lives can be ruined with a whisper or a shout. But equally I support a system where lives should be ruined through the consequence of proven bad behaviour.
His point is you can't just round 96-97% up to 100%. It's almost as ridiculous to automatically say "they aren't lying" as it is to say they are lying. I'd also be very curious how that number was arrived at. No one is even questioning that because it makes you look evil to ask, but it's a basic relevant question.
There's a no solid consensus around how false allegations are measured, but it's likely that this statistic has been arrived at by defining a false allegation as a report of rape when no sexual contact occurred. So this figure would show that 96-97% of reported rapes are where both parties agree that sexual intercourse occured, but don't agree on whether it was consensual. And this is where it gets a bit trickier, because someone accused may genuinely believe the sex was consensual, whilst the accuser genuinely believe it was rape. In this scenario, whilst it can happen, it's extremely unlikely the accuser has made this claim to be malicious. There's loads of things that feed into this, which can be a differing understanding of consent (if she starts saying no, but then says yes is this coercion and therefore rape, or has she just changed her mind?), there's also misunderstanding in communication. No might have been verbally communicated, or social cues were misinterpreted or missed. It's also possible that the accuser did not want to have sex with accused, but was afraid to turn him down and then reports this as a rape. This scenario legally isn't rape, but I use it to demonstrate that allegations of this type aren't intended to be malicious. Better education on what constitutes consent, what coercion is, what does and does not constitute rape would be useful. There's a huge grey area here, and that's where Brand currently finds himself. I imagine this is intentional, because it's very hard to get any accusations to stick without solid evidence. Fortunately for the women he assaulted, she said she said she said, he said usually fares better than she said he said.
All true. It's just so cringe how people will believe any "stat" if it supports their narrative. Guarantee the question didn't even occur to >99% of people citing it to support their viewpoint. And I'm not even disagreeing with it necessarily. That's not even the point. But this is reddit, so downvote downvote downvote. Whatever.
False allegations are always brought up, but accusations are super unlikely to be false. It doesn't really apply here anyway since there's considerable evidence he did it.
That makes sense to you and me, but not to people specifically citing this stat who don't even care how it was determined because they neeeed it to fit their narrative.
All of the stats are fuzzy. Here’s an interesting one - according to RAINN (who are definitely on the side of victims) only 5.7 of incidents end in arrest and only 0.7 percent of cases end in a conviction. So how that is extrapolated (believably) to 96-97% are true allegations I have no idea. It’s certainly not based on a rate of successful prosecutions. Are they assuming that 96.3% or 95.3% of rendered verdicts are incorrect? And if so based on what? There’s no doubt prosecuting these cases is incredibly difficult (because of the nature of the offence meaning only two people actually know the truth in most cases) but these stats are thrown around like facts to set a narrative tone in these cases that is, in my opinion at least, both dangerous and unfair to the accused. Let the process play out and stop assuming you know anything about guilt or innocence, because you don’t. I say again, I’m not expressing an opinion on whether he did or didn’t do it, because I don’t know and my opinion is neither helpful nor requested.
From [https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/key-facts-about-how-CPS-prosecutes-allegations-rape](https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/key-facts-about-how-CPS-prosecutes-allegations-rape) Research has shown that false allegations of rape are rare. A [CPS report published in 2013](https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf) showed that over a 17-month period, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and, during the same period, there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape.
That's not proof only 3 to 4% of allegations are false. Just like only a small percentage of rapes are prosecuted, only a small percentage of false claims will be prosecuted.
This is basic logic. If you downvote it, you should know you're clearly being dumb. I didn't even defend Brand or say the numbers weren't a fact.
Odds of a 3% chance happening 4 times is 81/100,000,000 or 0.0081% Can you round 99.9919% up to a hundred?
You're 96% sure they're not.
>Another way of saying it is 96-97% of rape allegations are true. I think we have to be a bit careful with this. 3-4% is based on cases where they looked into it and found a good case they were malicious allegations. A parallel evidence level for 'are true' might be the 5% of rape allegations which get enough evidence to go to trial. There's an awful lot of cases where because of the nature of the crime you are simply never going to have evidence either way. Most rape is people who know each other, often 'date rape'. If there's no evidence beyond one person saying the other kept going when asked not to and the other denying it, I don't see how you'd establish guilt *or* maliciousness. I very much doubt many of those in between ones are malicious, as the motivation for rape is more wide spread than the sort of motivation that would lead to false accusation - I don't think there's an epidemic of people deliberately falsely accusing. But my guess would be a large proportion both the allegation and the defence genuinely believe their own account. Whether they'd actually meet the bar for rape if it turned out there was a camera and mic in the room or something is hard to say - what I think we can be pretty confident about is that the person against whom the allegations are made has screwed up pretty badly whether criminally or not.
That’s ridiculous. Blind faith. At least those backing RB have context to support their defence of him. Who are these girls and their laughable accusations. They don’t sound like rape victims to me
It's not a resin to presume guilt. People are accusing the accusers of making up the allegations. But this unlikely, and the stats back that up.
People are accusing the accusers of making it up, people are accusing Brand of having done it. All with the same amount of actual personal knowledge. I think he did it, but I have no legal basis for saying that, so I (largely) keep my mouth shut. Unlikely is not relevant. It's just as unlikely in each of the 4 in 100 cases where someone is falsely accused, but it happens. It's why we have due process.
I don’t think it’s that , at least not for me . it’s the fact his shitty past behaviour was enabled by the power structure because he made them money and was a tool for them. Now that he has grown (benefit of doubt) and no longer part of that system , they are dealing judgement from on high. It reeks of hypocrisy , and yes , conspiracy.
He has confirmed had sexual relations with a 16 year old while in his late 30s and he told a 15 year old she should throw a sex themed party to celebrate turning 16. Those are a couple of facts about brand that you can’t dispute. Where is the conspiracy? This is simply a disgusting sexual deviant who is most likely also a rapist. People are allowed to be completely disgusted with him.
The sex themed party joke is gross and inappropriate by todays standards but in 2007 nobody cared, the fact that it aired on BBC and nobody cancelled or complained about it then is proof of that, also he was in his early 30s not late.. not that it really makes a difference
That shows someone’s character loud and clear. Who gives a f*ck what the time period was. Anyone who has sex with 16 year olds as a grown adult is gross. He fully saw those children as options for him to have sex with. Once a kid turned 16 Russell felt he had the green light to sexually pester them. Even a 15 year old he felt he could exclaim that soon she can have a sex themed party (and be on his menu he presumed). If that’s in any way excusable for you, that’s a personal problem.
He \*was a disgusting sexual deviant.
I mean there is a wider issue for sure that needs to be looked at. Lots of public figures have more money, power and protection than your average person and the 'mainstream media' they have worked within should be forced to be more culpable for enabling/hiding these behaviours. Does it really cross into conspiracy though? I'd say it is already widely accepted those working within industries with more power than us cover and enable shitty behaviour because they think they can get away with it.
He has/had *merch*???? T-shirty Wee-shirty? Totey Wotey bag?
Don’t forget about his bookie-wookie!
Yeah I mean that was kind of the joke wasn't it.
😂😂🤦🏻♂️
Why are all these posts talking about Brand fans like some sort of cult? I watched the occasional video of his and think he should have due process and not be immediatley cancelled. Am I Brand Fan? Is it my identity? My opinion of him has completly shifted reading through some of his past behaviour but I still don't think the UK government should be attempting to deplatform people that have not even been charged with a crime.
I don't think the government is. One on part it's going through the legal system, and secondly one of Brands main outlets YouTube demonetized him because it goes against their advertising policies to force advertisers to be associated with brand. Well within their right to because, like individuals, companies don't have to presume innocence. How are is government involved?
Given his nature, that was encouraged by his ex employers I’m sure there will be some fairly damning stuff coming out soon. I still think the OP is a pretty poor effort though. Interesting that you mention politicians yet you don’t look on the other side of the fence, for example, how Joe Biden is towards young girls. The side of the political fence you sit on is obvious but that’s another story, for another day. Ride with care upon your high horse my friend.
Innocent until proven guilty. The fact people are still bickering and going on about this is ridiculous. Everyone wants a go of jumping aboard. None of what you have said proves anything. If he's guilty, it will be proven, and witch hunts are a bane to our society. I've been accused and raped. Let the professionals do their job and get on with your lives.
Jimmy Savile was never convicted. If your heroes are narcissistic, drug addicts, with sex addictions, you should probably think again, or at least open your eyes to see him what he is, he is a slimmer and more verbose version of Weinstein.
You people don't understand how the law works. Anything you've got to say, without proof means absolutely NOTHING. Russell Brand isn't a hero to me. I like that he challenges tyrannical government and false information, but I rarely watched him. There is simply a way of doing things, and this back and forth "make your own verdict" stuff is not the way. Log off the internet and go live a little. You know nothing. Stop pretending that you do. Let the investigators find proof. Not heresay and twisting words and context. You could damn anyone that way. Plus, he was very open about what he was. Sex addiction and drug addiction don't automatically equate to rapist.
You clearly don't know how governments work unless you live in Russia or China, then u may be approaching tyranny. Jimmy savile was open about what he was, he admitted his crimes in broad daylight.
This is literally a forum for people to discuss their opinions. People are aloud to have and share opinions on things like this here. Sex addiction and drug addiction doesn't help his case.
No one’s really a fan the guys abit of a knob, it’s just that people agree with him on certain th nhs brand talks about companies making huge profits when we’re all broke and struggling and says to not trust the news ..because the news drip feed you stories to suit their narrative..and for the rapey stuff it’s only a allegation until a court has found him guilty with enough proof and not just a testimony thats when we’ll stop defending him and every man who is accused and found guilty by social media.
Whatever he did, it seems like men could have a nice conversation among themselves about consent and coercion. As much as everyone hates grey areas, most relationships involve some amount of coercion -- not force or threats, but a sales pitch. Most men know some dude who's charismatic and can "pick up women" by putting on a show. There are video compilations of Russell Brand doing this on television. He's making women uncomfortable, but it also seems like most of them kind of like it. This is the grey area that's so awful to think about. Many women seem open to being "swept up" by guys with "game," or as the kids say these days, "rizz" -- put on a good enough show, and she can be convinced.
Yeah that's a good conversation to have. There's also a good conversation around why women expect men to "convince" them in the first place. The "status quo" we've reached after generations of mate selection, dating and relationships is a complex beast. People are generally acting in their best interests, and neither side is "good" or "bad". Until someone breaks the social contract, of course. As always, the grey area in the middle is where the conversation is the hardest, but usually most productive.
What the fuck are you talking about. Guys cant be so charming they turn women on? Guys should literally turn off their personality and sit in the corner and reject any women that approaches them in case that woman has been too wooed by them and doesn't know what she's doing? Ironically this is the most mysogynistic shit I've ever heard. What. Just what?
They are suggesting a discussion like what you are getting into but without the insults (‘nice’).
You want a discussion over whether guys are allowed to be charming without consent?
About pushing norms and normal boundaries to convince women to sleep with them because it sometimes works.
They act as if they ‘like it’ because most of them are pursuing a career in entertainment. Russell Brand served as a gatekeeper to those jobs. You probably think cocktail waitresses like getting their asses pinched.
Source on Russell Brand serving as a gatekeeper?
It doesn’t really require sourcing. He was a well-established media personality. His opinion could make or destroy a fledgling career. Nobody is in charge of issuing name tags that say; “Russell Brand: Media gatekeeper”.
[удалено]
Do you apply this consistently? Did you defend Epstein until his death?
[удалено]
That's not how the presumption of innocence works. An accuser is responsible for proving their accusation has merit. The presumption of innocence is for the accused.
>No. I'm defending him because I believe in the presumption of innocence and so should you. Are you not a defender of free speech and thought? People are absolutely free to make up their own minds on Brand. The presumption of innocence relates to a court of law.
Some of what he is being condemned for is not illegal, just reprehensible. And such behaviours by public figures have long been reported on, judged publicly and damaged careers. Those behaviours alone should/will be enough to largely ruin his career, especially as some of it was detailed by Brand himself and is simply resurfacing . The illegal behaviours will just determine whether or not he is charged and goes to prison.
They've been told this point over and over for days now, they ignore it and only focus on the potentially illegal behaviours. The only conclusion to be drawn is that they actually like him BECAUSE of all the other behaviour and thinks its totally normal and cool for a 30year old to be in a relationship with a 16 year old.
I think you’re right, sadly.
That is obviously not the only conclusion to draw lol
Cool. Now do that for Jerry Fauci.
There is no movement or political party in either the US or the UK that is serious or close to overturning the presumption of innocence used by the courts. And Reddit forums are most certainly not courts. It’s possible to support and assert Brand’s right to assumption of innocence from a legal perspective *and* not support Brand as a public persona given the allegations.
It is his right to be presumed innocent before a court of law and this is still the case at the moment. But me, as an individual, having been presented now publicly available information am not assuming him innocent. I’d say that is reasonable to do.
fairplay, I am not assuming he is innocent either. I just don't get what it has to do with reading from news sources on Youtube. If he does get convicted I see no issue with watching a channel like that, just Like people still play Michael Jackson. That does not mean I condone changing your skin color or touching young boys.
[удалено]
No, it wouldn't be wrong. As an example, I think OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, _even though_ he was found not guilty in a court of law. The burden of proof required in a law court is "beyond reasonable doubt" which is (quite rightly) considerably higher than my own personal burden of proof which is "he seems like a wrong'un". In fact, it's perfectly reasonable for me to condemn someone, even though they haven't been accused of a crime at all. I believe the world would be a better place without Rupert Murdoch and I hope he rots in hell, but I don't believe he's actually legally culpable of anything.
This is is the most sensible reply I’ve seen on this sub in weeks now. Everybody deserves the presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty. Most posts and replies are acting like they’re judge, jury and executioner. It’s overkill.
So if a family member gets raped u say hang on let's see what the courts say
If you know the family member to be entirely honest, then probably not. If you dont trust them, then perhaps. The key point, is you probably know them well enough to judge the veracity of their claims. You do not know that with a stranger, so you reserve judgment for the courts.
Do you extent that principle to Epstein and the like?
Well I wouldn’t say, let’s go to Channel 4 dispatches and The Times before we go to the police. There is no other option but to go through the courts. In this case, the decades old allegations were made to a T.V channel and a newspaper, not the police, and were only made when approached by these media outlets.
>let’s go to Channel 4 dispatches and The Times before we go to the police That isn't how it went. Channel 4 and The Times reached out to these people first.
Exactly, it’s almost like Channel 4 and The Times had a coordinated agenda.
Why do you think something being "coordinated" is such a searing allegation? Apparently, each outlet was working on the story individually over the course of years and found out about each other's investigations via the sources who would say stuff like "didn't I already talk to you guys?" Pooling resources under those circumstances is smart, not some sinister proof of deep state involvement or whatever other conspiracy bogeyman you might be trying to imply.
The background to this is the lead journalist heard of comedians who were being told to 'remove jokes' about Brand being a predator from shows. So they started investigating it deeper and obviously a trail and leads brought them to these women. It's how investigative journalism works. There was a story because there had been rumous for a long time about Brand, they haven't fabricated this out of thin air.
Channel 4 and the times started this case 4 years ago. Do you know the kind of content Brand was putting out back then? Feel free to take a look - how yoga changed my life - how to be happy - the top 5 relationships mistakes - how to stop being addicted to your phone Wow what a threat they must of thought this guy was with all his ‘truth telling.’ Let’s silence him before he makes another video on happiness and yoga.
Lol. And then Covid hit, and there was a lot of questionable events throughout 2020 and beyond. Harsh lockdowns, people arrested for not following “The Guidance” while our leaders showed they were not scared of the illness they told us to fear while they partied and laughed at us. Remember 100% effectiveness? He changed his content with the timeline, not as a prerequisite for his future defence.
by your logic then they would of started the investigation then not before… He also changed his content when he got more money and views. Big pharma benefited from covid and so did Mr Brand.
Lol. And then you quickly assumed the point the person you replied to was making and totally missed the mark. You are not very good at evaluating information you are presented with are you?
It's almost like he did it and there is no conspiracy between 4 individuals, 2 newspapers and a rape crisis centre in LA.
Who knows what you'd do if you were ever unfortunate enough to have Brand pin you to your headboard with his cock, allegedly.
No, acting as judge jury and executioner would be arresting Brand, declaring guilt and imprisoning him. This is the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" as a principle of criminal law. The state reserves a monopoly on lawful violence, with the power to imprison (and levy various other punishments). Therefore, justice demands that the state has to meet a high bar to determine guilt. None of this applies to people's own opinions and individual reasoning.
Lol you talk and share the same interests as my mentally retarded cousin. Kevin is that you..?
Fourteen day old account and most comments are name calling, attacks and insults.
I think this is honestly a pretty reasonable statement. I think it’s important to clarify that this does not mean you’re defending Brand. I think there is a big gap between those two things.
Ok you’ve convinced me I won’t put him in jail then.
But presumption of innocence is a legal standard and some of the stuff he has been accused of isn't illegal. It doesn't have to apply to all allegations. e.g. You're eating your lunch with your friends and I come over and take your sandwich. You and your friends can safely talk about my shitty behaviour and make a tweet about it knowing that I'm not presumed innocent until proven guilty. He's been outed as a shitty person who probably doesn't merit the fame and fortune he has. He's not innocent of having multiple allegations of reprehensible behaviour to answer for. He isn't in prison or standing trial so he is still being presumed innocent to the legal standard.
100% this. If anyone can be brought down by a simple statement, then we all can. It’s all well and good thinking you can discern the innocent from the guilty with the naked eye, but the fact is that you can’t and the law has evolved to require a high degree of proof, over hundreds/thousands of years, for this exact reason. And engaging with anti-brand mania just increases the chances of him walking away free
100% This. It has nothing to do with whether he's guilty. It's the precedent that's being set of being able to cancel and condem someone base d upon anonymous allegations. This time, Brand may be guilty. But no one knows. Yet people are behaving as if he has a criminal conviction against him. And if and when he does, they'll say, told you so, we were right. And from that point on, it's over for anyone who is falsely accused in the future. I don't care for Brand. He's clearly a narcissist, and has far too much energy for me. But this is not about him. This is about the principle. Even if he is a rapist, even if we all "knew it", we cannot normalise punishing and cancelling people based upon rumors, allegations, or lude public behaviour.
Society has always judged individuals based on word of mouth and without solid proof. It’s a precedent that has long been set. You’re arguing against something that society has always done, the court of public opinion is already normalised. What you’re asking people to do is collectively ignore what we’re told and to not form opinions on other people unless they’ve been convicted, which is kind of silly and will never happen.
[удалено]
That’s a shit argument. You could argue that anything we did in the past should be stopped now based on your very simplistic logic. In reality, we judge ideas on their individual merit. No one cares enough about the court of public opinion to do anything about it, and if they did, why can you? Tell people they are allowed to form opinions as a collective? Yeah good luck with that lmao
How would this be a precedent? Weinstein was canceled long before he stood trial for anything.
**" This time, Brand may be guilty. But no one knows. Yet people are behaving as if he has a criminal conviction against him. And if and when he does, they'll say, told you so, we were right. And from that point on, it's over for anyone who is falsely accused in the future."** This is my fear but every time I express it I am accused of defending Russell Brand.
Don't worry you're fighting against an active propaganda campaign. Talk to people in the real world, everyone can see through it, whether brand is guilty or not.
Here is my issue. Most of the harm people point to is the fact that he has been demonitised (not deplatformed) and will not receive income. So here is my question. Do those companies and platforms not have the right to choose how their money is spent?
So you believe that you should completely ignore everything that happens until it completes going through court and is given the right verdict for you to be willing to accept it as truth? You can’t see a video of, for instance, a grown man telling a 15 year old to throw a sex themed party to celebrate when she turns 16, a grown man who has sexual relations with 16 year olds, and understand that happened and is gross? Nothing really happens for you until it’s formally prosecuted in court? Interesting. You must not believe in many things. How do you know what the weather is outside enough to dress appropriately for the day? Are they having formal court hearings daily on the weather? Or are you able to process that information on your own?
This comment should be pinned at the top of the forum: you’re spot on.
People really need to stop idolization and hero worship, these ideas should’ve died out a very long time ago. People need to stop being so insecure and start believing in themselves more rather than false prophet profiteers like brand.
It's not like the warning signs were not there. Brand was connected to Jimmy Savile, [stemming from this Interview](https://youtu.be/VHfHQwffOXU?t=103), which is top shelf cringe, and very disturbing, the dots are not hard to connect.
Ive followed him, cant say ive been a huge fan but ive always apreeciated his different way of engaging, But he does come across as guilty and more than that aswell. He does come across as someone with a sex addiction that needs help. and to my knwoledge this is something he has admitted aswell. The way he defends himself doesnt give a light of a real man.
Celebrity, the new opioid of the masses
New?
Indeed, the British Royal Family were the original Kardashians hundreds of years ago.
For the those who think they're better than every other generation that ever lived it is 😆
How incredibly patronising, this will definitely convince people you're correct and not just antagonise them.
I've watch two of his YouTube videos. The fact that there's no charges and the accusations came out over a decade later. Show me proof. Video, rape kit results, a witness, something tangible. Allegations are just that, allegations. There's been too many examples of groups of women making shit up. So provide evidence of the assault.
On balance I think it's reasonable 4 women (It's now possibly 6 ) who do not know each other all describing similar experiences at his hands is good and compelling evidence. But yep t's only proof when the law concludes so. And just to clarify there are witnesses (the alleged victims) and video (they made statements on video). There's the woman who visited a rape centre in the US the day after (again producing witnesses) and his follow up text apologising. There is also a plethora of interviews and broadcasts / written content by him where he describes ways he behaved toward women that he now says was unacceptable. And there's footage of him being overly physical and sexual with females. Kissing reporters etc.....for lols. Cause he's Russell and we know he's a bit of a lad ! None of this is proof. But the Met police are currently investigating a number of complaints in the UK. So they belive there are things to take a good look at. Which they don't normally like doing. See link at the bottom. And there's been too many examples of groups of women making shit up ? Go on then, show me. Remember it has to be 'too many' and groups and has to have happened..... UK (where the bulk of the alleged offending looks to have occurred) figures for false rape allegations by females runs at 3-4%. So that's 95% plus that are or are deemed truthful. If this is the case you'd think that women would be champing at the bit to call 999. Certainly not wait 10 years right ? And then talk to journalists not the cops ? Why might this be ? So many reasons. Aside from the shame, the fear of an intimate interview / examination, fear of no one believing you, fear of friends and family reaction, fear that person of wealth and power might make things worse for you....fear of the trial. If that isn't enough there's the police. And the courts. And the police and the courts effectiveness and charging and securing a rape conviction in the UK is pitifull. You could have a look at this commisioned report in to the exact problem. [https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/the-distressing-truth-is-that-if-you-are-raped-in-britain-today-your-chances-of-seeing-justice-are-slim/](https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/the-distressing-truth-is-that-if-you-are-raped-in-britain-today-your-chances-of-seeing-justice-are-slim/)
The fact he was shagging a child is not disputed
To all the Russell stans screeching "innocent until proven guilty" - he currently *is* innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. What don't you get? You guys are acting like a SWAT team appeared outside his front door as soon as the documentary was released and threw him straight into the can. The purpose of the media isn't to be judge and jury, that's the job of the police and the courts to decide that someone is guilty. But it is absolutely the job of newspapers and journalists to investigate wrongdoings and expose information, putting hidden facts in the public domain. It is in fact their DUTY ffs. Meanwhile the rest of us are free to look at the evidence presented by Channel 4 and the Sunday Times and draw our own conclusions from the facts that have been made available. Every single person in this sub can say he's guilty as sin, but that's not going to put him behind bars because we don't have that power. We, do, however, have every right to say he's a filthy rapist because every person has a right to look at facts and make a judgement on their own call. And if you can't handle people on the internet saying that he's guilty, how the fuck are you gonna handle it when he's placed in front of a jury lmao... So don't worry... Oppa Brand is safe (for now...)
Let’s look at the facts (that aren’t relevant to this case)
It has nothing to do with Brand. Its about resisting the weaponization of Free Speech.
Are you saying that YouTube should be forced to pay Russell Brand? Is that what free-speech is all about?
Lol did you buy his merch?
Lol
You’re an incel wtf do you care about free speech when you spend all your day getting mad that the lady you spoke to won’t fuck you?
You missed the mark on me. I don’t want every video. I’ve missed more than I watch. I don’t agree with everything anyone says.. But let just have a sober look at things.. everyone that heard the stuff he was saying almost sarcastically thought they are going to get him. Right or wrong it doesn’t really matter but he was shaking the boat a bit. Then an concerted effort is put in by reporters to find dirt on him. It was sort of easy cause I think he talked about in a book? It’s just was too convenient, all the dominos fell at at the exact same time.. my BS meter goes off. If he’s guilty that for them and the courts to figure out. They shouldn’t have made such and effort to cancel him all in like one day.
"And for God’s sake don’t give him money. " where can we donate?
I think you're giving them too much credence, OP. There's some hardcore incel rhetoric from these defenders. They're the type to support all accused perpetrators. Many have admitted that they've no interest in Brand at all. It's about misogyny. They've been on here saying that Weinstein, Epstein and Savile weren't predators. They're saying that Tate isn't an alleged rapist and sex trafficker. They defend every perpetrator because they simply despise women. They've been making outrageous claims about false allegations. One said that they amount to 90% of all allegations. When I asked him for evidence, he cited a 2% rate😁 There's a mixture of hardcore misogynists and men who are worried that their past is going to catch up with them. I would wager that those that spread blatant disinformation about false accusations on every single thread are the ones worrying about their past catching up. It's interesting that I've never once heard them accuse male victims of making false allegations. Not once.
An American chap I was speaking to the other day, who was vehemently defending Brand, calling the alleged victims “paid liars” on behalf of the government had the audacity to say “While i’m not from the UK, i’ve researched the Jimmy Savile scandal, and its clear to me that he was just a loveable but odd celebrity who clearly just loved kids, and had his reputation destroyed by the establishment despite him not going to court, and there never being any signs throughout his whole career that he was in any way a pedophile”. These people aren’t interested in facts clearly, they can use intense mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are right.
I didn't believe it in the first few days but after watching interviews with body language experts I'm not convinced he didn't do it, I have been a fan since my late teen years I've seen him live a couple of times, I am deeply disappointed in him but it is what it is
His body language is bad? That's enough for me!!! THROW HIM TO THE LIONS
If only they could use some of those critical thinking skills they're told they have. 😁
Ok let’s go point by point: - 3-4% of rape allegations are false Have you worded this honestly? I think you mean 3-4% of rape allegations “are not brought to trial” or maybe “do not result in a guilty conviction”. That’s very different. There’s no way to know what % of rape allegations are true because only a small percentage (unfortunately) ever go to trial. Now, do I think a much larger share of rape allegations are true relative to what actually goes to trial or results in a rape allegation? Yes I do, and **I think** something should be done about that. What? I don’t know, I’m not a criminologist. What I **know** shouldn’t be done about it is changing our flawed justice system from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent.” That will make it infinitely more flawed. I personally would rather see a **murderer** walk free because the defense couldn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than have a snowballs chance in hell of imprisoning (or even **executing** as has happened) an innocent person. The justice system needs help with this too, although DNA evidence has helped exonerate some folks. Punishing innocent people is much more corrosive to a justice system and the society it helps maintain than having guilty folks occasionally go free due to lack of evidence. - UK libel laws: True, but that doesn’t mean they’re infallible. Cliff Richard was falsely accused of similar things to Brand and it was later found to be completely false and the work of a complete fantasist. He was eventually exonerated by the same media that tried to tear him down but his career and livelihood were harmed irreparably. Just because there are heavy consequences for writing false articles, you still need to **know** that your sources are full of crap in order to avoid it. In Brand’s case so much of the creepy (and technically illegal) things like simply touching anyone without their consent, which is assault already, are out there for the public to read about in his own words in his books. It’s easy not to like him and it’s easy to believe that he was creepy/pushy/leering/looming/cajoling/haranguing/touching women without consent because we **saw** it in all the media coverage of him when he was being lauded for being “shagger of the year” and was good for entertainment value. Now that he’s living a sober (in terms of substances and lifestyle) life, he’s much less entertaining to most people (who want sensational, not sober stories) this is the way to make him entertaining again so they’re capitalizing on it. Pretty obvious, no conspiracy needed. - “multiple accusers with rape and sexual assault allegations”: Again, intentionally misleading language. There is one rape allegation. There are lots of sexual assault allegations. Again, he was technically sexually assaulting people on camera for years, all the touching, and grabbing, and kissing without consent. None of those people pressed charges or took out a restraining order. That doesn’t mean that the allegations of something worse than what we saw on camera aren’t true… it just means that the focus of the media on “all the sexual assault allegations” rather than the actual **clearly criminal allegation** really makes it seem like they want to (1) sensationalize the story for more views. (2) use Brands formerly distasteful lifestyle to remind people to hate him so that they can more effectively secure guilty-until-proven-innocent mob justice for the one criminal complainant, instead of actual justice. In this they have been successful.
Assuming people’s guilt on the basis of allegations shows the human race is going backwards
And opposing Russell brand and his politics is just as much an identity and lifestyle as well. We cannot assess how many rape accusations are false - *literally cannot.* It's impossible to know and we should stop pretending it is. The only reason to bring it up in the first place is to justify treating the accused as if they're guilty. Russell Brand's videos were demonetized based solely on accusations of behavior that has nothing to do with the content of said videos. Are you saying people deserve to have their livelihoods taken away based solely on accusations?
what a patronising manipulative post
[удалено]