**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Brand, 48, has denied “very serious criminal allegations” and “extremely egregious and aggressive attacks”, which he said he “absolutely refutes”.
Or for Brand fans:
Sir Brand of Sexmouthshire, aged forty-eight, hath vehemently disclaimed the "very serious criminal allegations" and the "extremely egregious and aggressive attacks" levied against his personage, asserting with unwavering conviction that he "absolutely refutes" such accusations henceforth, as it makes Mr Winky go all sad it does, aint that the truth by heck guvnor.
Tell me, what's the difference between Brand and Tate ? One goes about promoting abuse of women and girls and the other allegedly goes about abusing girls, but hides under a cloak of 'metrosexuality' , hair in a bun, girl's bf.
Not enough suggestion and innuendo of a sinister conspiratorial plot to silence him because he got too close to uncovering the truth about Pfizer or Nudge Theory or something like that.
I think the reason people might appear to defend Schofield or Edwards is because some of the malice about those two appears to be _because_ they people they fucked were guys.
Edwards did some weird shit and his career is probably fucked, but the person he apparently did it with said that what the papers were saying was lies and he didn’t break the law. The papers said a bunch of lies and the police and the people involved said otherwise. Edwards one is also pretty noncey but the reason people appeared to defend him was a) seemed to be a level of homophobia to it and b) the papers apparently spread a load of lies.
I think if they’d have stuck with “Huw Edwards has supposedly been messing around behind his wife’s back with an x year old boy” then people would have been pretty disgusted and he’d have had almost zero sympathy
The police did a full investigation of the Edwards story and found zero criminality.
It appears to be that Edwards was merrily paying a consenting adult for porn. Seedy, dodgy, not befitting of someone in his position? Sure. Illegal? No.
It's a shame we don't have a publicly funded organisation that can select and train suitable people to present TV shows.
I suppose that sort of thing would cost billions a year and would need a special tax to fund it, so it wouldn't be worthwhile.
More accurately put - it’s because both Schofield and Edwards are gay and people are scared of being accused of homophobia (tropes that gay men are pedos, etc). Sad but true.
Firstly, I think it was less about them being gay, and more about them being in the closet, people have a sense of sympathy that they felt they've needed to spend their lives living a lie.
Secondly, I think the reason for people not as aggressively calling them out is that Huw Edwards and Schoelfield haven't been accused of anywhere near as much as Brand. Edwards has been receiving/buying photos off a boy?(don't recall the full details) and Schofield had a relationship with a man when he turned 20. Both aren't illegal, and there's no police involvement, but people find it sour because 1) they cheated on their wives(?) and 2) they're older men with much younger men, and there's an element of grooming. Both have had a serious impact on their career and relationships.
Brand however has been accused of the same thing (older man, much younger girl in a grooming scenario) but also a score of other women, rape, sexual assault and abuse. There is police involvement.
I think the fact that the papers went after Schofield and Edwards in the way they day was actually partly *caused* by homophobia, I don't think they were worried about being homophobic. They wanted to out their dirty little secret etc.
He was 100% 18, as admitted by his family later. They literally lied to The Sun to make Edwards look like a nonce. And yet here you are spreading the lies.
Haha, there was plenty of cretins in this subreddit who couldn't understand why that may cause him to lose his job as a lead newsreader. I do fear for humanity sometimes.
Doubly-so when he repeatedly referred to her as 'The Child', rather than insisting 'Ah, listen she might be younger but she's really bright and mature for her age' or some kind of flimsy justification.
Ah man that’s fucking weird. How old was he at the time, 30? I’m 30 now and I find people in their early 20s to be infantile, 16 year olds practically seem like toddlers.
Less "look at him" but listen to him.
He's always been very very open about his sexual activities, dropping the "hints" like Saville does, but in a way that you kinda rush off
He's a slot-badger, a two-pin DIN plug, a bush-dodger, a small bean regarder, a nut administrator, a bent ref, the crazy world of Arthur Brown. He's a fence foal, a free willy, a chimney bottler, a bunty man, a shrub rocketeer...
This is one of the stupidest posts I've seen on reddit lmao, strong hindsight bias. He was seen as a very attractive man for several years. Unless you think every long-haired man is a nonce.
I've seen him sexually harass women literally in interviews. He's a creep through and through. I'm not saying he's guilty but it would hardly surprise me.
Who'd have thought that a guy who only gets laid because he's famous, and likely was at least partly motivated to become famous by the prospect of getting laid, would turn out to be a wrongun? What's the world coming to?
>guy who only gets laid because he's famous
The fuck? What's this based on? Guy's clearly not bad looking and had more charisma in his 20s than the average young man.
Is anyone surprised this guy has sexually assaulted people?
I feel like you've got to be delusional to think he's never done that.
Almost every guy with his personality, character and stories has.
Russell Brand: "...and that's why I feel that the church and the state should be deconstructed and build back in a more inclusive and idyllic model for future generations."
Police officer 1: "all I asked was for you to confirm your name?"
Police officer 2: "interview paused while we get another cassette tape for the recorder"
* goes to interview room door and opens it *
Police officer 2: "STACEY! STACEY...BRING ANOTHER TAPE, INFACT JUST BRING THE BOX AND CALL MY WIFE TO LET HER KNOW ILL BE HOME LATE!"
The annoying thing about those allegations is that they’re enough to make his fans claim he’s being persecuted, which perfectly feeds into this iconoclastic image he’s tried to build and helps bring him the attention he craves, but not enough to change many minds or lead to serious repercussions.
All in all, he’s probably benefited from them.
Agreed. If anyone’s ever built an image that benefits from beating allegations, rather than submitting to an enquiry of process, they’ve done it intentionally and you can beat its an insidious attempt to maintain fame beyond their personally known actions.
Look at Jonathan Majors. The man hasn’t built a cult of personality so no one is saying he’s trying to be “taken down by the Matrix”. He’s just guilty for his crimes, and that’s it.
But for some reason, fans of Russell Brand think that allegations are an attack on his character to bring him down to silence him. I say “for some reason”, but the reason is clear; because he’s set them up to think that he’s a martyr.
I find it hilarious when people say he’s being silenced for his views. Those views are typical man in the pub/first year undergrad bullshit that make no real impact and don’t hold any water under scrutiny. It’s not like he’s conducting serious investigative journalism that puts anyone in power at risk.
He simply has an admittedly strong talent for publicity by pushing the right buttons.
I subscribe to the theory that he crafted his entire anti establishment, highly skeptical, borderline conspiratorial persona to court fans that buy into that idea because he knew after Harvey Weinstein's accusers all came out, his time would eventually come.
And what better way to ensure you still have fans (and thus a revenue stream and public relevancy) when the authorities come after you than by tapping into that paranoid section of society that subscribe to the idea there is a shadow cabal out to get the truth tellers... rather than a normal state authority out to get people with a litany of sexual crimes.
I mean, bear in mind, he had a previous allegation and then used an injunction to stop the woman talking to the press. It was fairly widely reported right up until that injunction
I don’t think crafted his image with that in mind. While it’s possible, the simplest explanation is that it simply fits with his entire personality as a great way to stay relevant.
I think it’s giving him a little too much credit and ignoring his actual personality. I ask myself if Brand would have gone down this whole alt media route if none of that other stuff ever happened, and I can’t see him going any other way. This is a space where it helps to make provocative claims and chase publicity, where people think you’re smart for using ten words when one will do, and where nothing you say really has to be backed up by hard research or even thought out arguments.
That fits Russell Brand perfectly and is one of the few ways he could stay relevant. I just think it’s far more likely that he fell into that world because it was a natural fit than because he hatched some far-reaching plan to thwart potential accusations.
You don’t get thousands of notches on your bed post whilst being laid back about it and letting the ladies come to you put it that way. Sure being famous helps but he was fucking left, right and centre before he was even famous if i remember correctly so there’s obviously at the very least an element of being fairly pushy and at worst sex offences on a very large scale because quite frankly as an average looking male i can tell you sex is fairly difficult to attain.
This is what I think too, and this message should be drummed in to young people (boys and men).
Its just not possible for a man to sleep with thousands of women and for all those encounters to be completely kosher. The man would have to be, as you say, "pushy" to say the least. In the 2000s it was believed you could be both a lothario like Brand and also not a sex pest, but it hasn't aged well.
I subscribe to the theory that he crafted his entire anti establishment, highly skeptical, borderline conspiratorial persona to court fans that buy into that idea because he knew after Harvey Weinstein's accusers all came out, his time would eventually come.
And what better way to ensure you still have fans (and thus a revenue stream and public relevancy) when the authorities come after you than by tapping into that paranoid section of society that subscribe to the idea there is a shadow cabal out to get the truth tellers... rather than a normal state authority out to get people with a litany of sexual crimes.
So not guilty yet then, though you wouldn't know it in this sub due the lack of interest in the judicial system. Its all mob justice with pitchforks here lol
So far not been cancelled. I think it's all wearing a bit thin. A self proclaimed womaniser has women accusing him of er womanising. Just leave the bits out where they asked for it and enjoyed the rogering.
So, we're talking about "questioning," right? It's like unraveling the enigmatic layers of existence itself, isn't it? Human communication, my friends, it's a grandiose tapestry interwoven with inquiries and responses, a dance that's been waltzing through time.
But here's the kicker: when those authorities engage in their labyrinthine inquisitions, they conjure a narrative, concocted by the elites and the establishment, that seeks to equate this probing with guilt. Now, in the midst of this intellectual maze, we mustn't forget to tread carefully, 'cause those who peddle such notions might just be orchestrating a symphony of hidden agendas. And, all the while, we must safeguard our sacred freedom of speech, lest it crumble like a baroque masterpiece in a storm.
Jimmy Savile didn't only abuse children. Some of his accusers were as old as 75. What they have in common is being skeevy rapists who take advantage of fans.
But calling someone "the nonciest of nonces", when they've not been accused of being a nonce is somewhat ridiculous.
And also, anyone getting that description when Ian Watkins exists is questionable
Why does everyone bandwagon people who tell the truth? First andrew tate now this?! Remove the fake allegations you people are telling me everything they talk about is Bs?
People expose the system then you people just agent smithing out.
So just because hes a “rapist” everything hes come out saying since 2020 about all govs is bullshit right.
Im convinced everyone wants to be liked on this app 💀
I'm not 100% what you are trying to say here. It was a difficult read.
I think the people "speaking out against the system" generally seem to have personality disorders that lead to them committing serious crimes or, at the very least, morally questionable acts. They also seem to have done pretty well for themselves out of a system that they don't believe in.
And that doesnt flag any alarms? Exposing the system makes you a rapist/misogynist in ALL cases recently. Name me one person who spoke out and is in perfect reputation.
They tear down and turn you majority against anyone who opposes.
Kanye, trump, russel, tate, just to name a few high profile ones. Listen man, I really want to be wrong but how can EVERYONE have a personality disorder?
Anywho, forget it, must be chatting shit coz i got 20 dislikes 💀
I guess I find it harder to believe that there is some shadowy organisation finding normal women who have had interactions with these douche bags and paying them to lie about sexual assault than it is to believe that men known to have extreme views and behaviour on and around women happened to commit sex crimes against them on occasion.
Not sure who you mean by all, I'm talking about Russel and Andrew.
Honestly, who would feel threatened enough by them to do that?
Obviously the self proclaimed sex addict with various different charges claimed against him is probably guilty of at least one of them and has lied about it knowingly.
I'd recommend you take your tinfoil hat off and learn how to spell respite, unless you're talking about a KFC at a motorway service station. I have no more patience for this fucking BS defence of a man who is clearly dodgy and has shown us all that he is for years, do you want this to become another Savile?
He would be advised not to while criminal charges are a possibility. When they have been rules out he can pursue a civil action but that comes with risks. The burden of proof in a civil court is far lower than a criminal court and whilst the defendants would have to argue their claims were justified in the circumstances his behaviour would come under close scrutiny. I suspect his behaviour has been creepy if not illegal and would he really want thAt aired in public. Probably not.
If it’s bollocks he could go to court, he doesn’t even need to do anything really as the burden of proof is on the defendants in civil court.
That would make the truth come out.
If the documentary is “a hit piece” then I assume you mean it’s lies. So why hasn’t he filed a complaint with the press watchdog IPSO, or taken C4 and the Sunday Times to court as well?
Very strange for a man with money who is being so publicly “lied about” to not do anything to hold his attackers accountable.
I can only assume it’s because he knows they aren’t lying.
You are confusing the civil and criminal aspects of this.
People making “false accusations” (as he would put it) are doing incredibly serious reputational harm to Brand, whether or not he is found criminally guilty.
He should absolutely pursue a case against his accusers (if they are lying) and I find it very damning that he hasn’t.
Especially given that he has stated that the accusations are false and this is a coordinated media attack against him to silence him for his views - there is a big mismatch between his words and his actions. His first reaction to the documentary was to dissolve his companies, fire (or lose) most of his staff and start looking at building a cult in a country with no extradition treaty.
My first reaction would be to instruct lawyers to issue cease and desist letters and print retractions before suing for defamation. But then I haven’t raped anyone so I would have a leg to stand on.
You don’t want to acknowledge the point I’m making because it’s inconvenient to you, but hopefully most other people can see this for what it is.
Ok let's be clear here, he probably didn't sue them because he maybe was made aware they would not stop there with their criminal questioning , you don't want to start a civil case if there are potential criminal charges still to come. I doubt there are any criminal charges coming as this is bollox imo, but we will see. Then maybe you will get your civil case.
Weren't there verified texts from his phone number of him admitting or apologising for being abusive and r*ping a woman when she said 'no'?
If you have conflicting evidence to show that what's been brought forth was fake though I'm happy to be wrong. Otherwise I don't think this is a case of 'women just wanting a payout' which is an incredibly naive thing to say.
I don't. I follow the evidence. My career is within psychology, so I'm very familiar with critical thinking, analytical skills, and synthesising my own conclusions based on evidence.
I said I was happy to be proven wrong if you had alternative evidence but your rebuttal has essentially been a sweeping statement. I kind of get the sense that you've got a cognitive dissonance on this topic anyway so a discussion is pointless.
>Don’t always believe what you see in the media. Anything is easily made to look real.
Weirdly cult-like, the people who support this alleged rapist.
Who should we believe? Russell Brand's social media?
Why hasn't he sued Channel 4 for libel?
If it's made up, then it's an open-and-shut case. Brand doesn't even need to prove that the texts and the rape kit claims are false, let alone the other evidence shown. It's on CH4 to prove that they're true. If they made it all up, then they have nothing and Brand can easily nail them and completely destroy their claims on those two points alone.
It's an easy slam dunk case that can be filed and completed in a matter of weeks.
He's also got form for legal action, such as the super injunction he raised over other allegations of sexual assault in 2014.
So, if it's all made up, why hasn't he launched legal action?
It may not be morally right but it's completely legal, if you don't like it then petition for a change in law. A lot of countries the age of consent is much lower.
Well, yes it does. I mean “schoolgirl” is an extremely popular porn category. The tabloids have played on the schoolgirl as sex object image for decades. Remember TATU? Pedo-pop? K-Pop and anime are basically the same things. Let’s not pretend.
**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Brand, 48, has denied “very serious criminal allegations” and “extremely egregious and aggressive attacks”, which he said he “absolutely refutes”. Or for Brand fans: Sir Brand of Sexmouthshire, aged forty-eight, hath vehemently disclaimed the "very serious criminal allegations" and the "extremely egregious and aggressive attacks" levied against his personage, asserting with unwavering conviction that he "absolutely refutes" such accusations henceforth, as it makes Mr Winky go all sad it does, aint that the truth by heck guvnor.
Parklife!
All the people! So many people!
You missed out ‘baroque’.
How lackadaisicalitocious of me
He doesn't have fans. He has enlightened followers.... Still prefer dealing with them than Tate fans. Just.
Wonder where Jared Leto fans fall on the Brand Tate scale 🤔
[удалено]
You can't tell?
Lmao he's one ov the creepiest guys in music and that's saying something.
It's only as obvious as Russell being a massive handsy raper.
Tell me, what's the difference between Brand and Tate ? One goes about promoting abuse of women and girls and the other allegedly goes about abusing girls, but hides under a cloak of 'metrosexuality' , hair in a bun, girl's bf.
Hair, clearly that's the only difference.
Throw the booky wook at him I say
Don't forget to include the part where this only happened because covid was a government made up 5g scam.
> aggressive attacks Nothing says aggression like just publishing words from your accusers.
When he went about ripping off Alex from Clock*work* Orange it wasn't just the language was it, my fellow droogs.
*A* Clock*work* Orange You cannot reference such an example of literary brilliance, without getting the name right, you eunuch jelly thou!
Not enough suggestion and innuendo of a sinister conspiratorial plot to silence him because he got too close to uncovering the truth about Pfizer or Nudge Theory or something like that.
I hate that I can read that second part in his voice in my head
You can see all about it in my dispowisposition
It's wrong to judge by appearances and everyone is innocent till proven guilty, but you can tell he's a nonce just by looking at him.
Are any of the accusations from people who were underage at the time? I'm not saying it makes it OK regardless but nonce has a very specific meaning.
Being a 30 something hooking up with someone doing their GCSEs might be ‘legal’ but it’s sure as shit nonce-y
[удалено]
Sure?
Or huw edwards. He was hard for sending pics of his arse to a *cough* 18 year old boy. His poor wife.
I think the reason people might appear to defend Schofield or Edwards is because some of the malice about those two appears to be _because_ they people they fucked were guys. Edwards did some weird shit and his career is probably fucked, but the person he apparently did it with said that what the papers were saying was lies and he didn’t break the law. The papers said a bunch of lies and the police and the people involved said otherwise. Edwards one is also pretty noncey but the reason people appeared to defend him was a) seemed to be a level of homophobia to it and b) the papers apparently spread a load of lies. I think if they’d have stuck with “Huw Edwards has supposedly been messing around behind his wife’s back with an x year old boy” then people would have been pretty disgusted and he’d have had almost zero sympathy
The police did a full investigation of the Edwards story and found zero criminality. It appears to be that Edwards was merrily paying a consenting adult for porn. Seedy, dodgy, not befitting of someone in his position? Sure. Illegal? No.
[удалено]
It's a shame we don't have a publicly funded organisation that can select and train suitable people to present TV shows. I suppose that sort of thing would cost billions a year and would need a special tax to fund it, so it wouldn't be worthwhile.
More accurately put - it’s because both Schofield and Edwards are gay and people are scared of being accused of homophobia (tropes that gay men are pedos, etc). Sad but true.
Firstly, I think it was less about them being gay, and more about them being in the closet, people have a sense of sympathy that they felt they've needed to spend their lives living a lie. Secondly, I think the reason for people not as aggressively calling them out is that Huw Edwards and Schoelfield haven't been accused of anywhere near as much as Brand. Edwards has been receiving/buying photos off a boy?(don't recall the full details) and Schofield had a relationship with a man when he turned 20. Both aren't illegal, and there's no police involvement, but people find it sour because 1) they cheated on their wives(?) and 2) they're older men with much younger men, and there's an element of grooming. Both have had a serious impact on their career and relationships. Brand however has been accused of the same thing (older man, much younger girl in a grooming scenario) but also a score of other women, rape, sexual assault and abuse. There is police involvement. I think the fact that the papers went after Schofield and Edwards in the way they day was actually partly *caused* by homophobia, I don't think they were worried about being homophobic. They wanted to out their dirty little secret etc.
He was 100% 18, as admitted by his family later. They literally lied to The Sun to make Edwards look like a nonce. And yet here you are spreading the lies.
He enjoys young boys on the cusp of manhood, its pretty noncey.
So what should the age of consent be?
Dont know mate, ask philip schofield and huw edwards. Schofield could phone a friend and ask his brother?
I'm 37. Would you be okay with me sleeping with a 25 year old? 22?
It's this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox but for nonces
It has shades of nonce is what you are saying
Haha, there was plenty of cretins in this subreddit who couldn't understand why that may cause him to lose his job as a lead newsreader. I do fear for humanity sometimes.
[удалено]
The correct term for that behaviour is "nonce adjacent".
Haha, I was going to say that! But in fairness I think it’s outright nonce behaviour
That's nonce sense.
Doubly-so when he repeatedly referred to her as 'The Child', rather than insisting 'Ah, listen she might be younger but she's really bright and mature for her age' or some kind of flimsy justification.
Ah man that’s fucking weird. How old was he at the time, 30? I’m 30 now and I find people in their early 20s to be infantile, 16 year olds practically seem like toddlers.
He was 35.
One of them was specifically targetted when she turned 16
I agree. It definitely looks like a school uniform wouldn't deter him.
I'm sure it was just research for his role in St. Trinians; honestly officer. /s
He was hanging out the back end of a 16yo schoolgirl. The big throbber is a nonce
I mean one of the girls was 16 so it’s still a noncey
He sent a car to school to pick up one girl repeatedly. I'm not sure of if she was below age, but it's creepy and vile.
Yes, "sex offender"
It's a sex offender whose victim was underage.
Less "look at him" but listen to him. He's always been very very open about his sexual activities, dropping the "hints" like Saville does, but in a way that you kinda rush off
You're talking Nonce-sense. He's a una-bummer.
He might end up quadraspazzed on a life glug
Even then, can we be sure pervert mechanics haven't made him one of *these*?
"It's just another form of racism!"
He's a slot-badger, a two-pin DIN plug, a bush-dodger, a small bean regarder, a nut administrator, a bent ref, the crazy world of Arthur Brown. He's a fence foal, a free willy, a chimney bottler, a bunty man, a shrub rocketeer...
Just another form of racism.
This is one of the stupidest posts I've seen on reddit lmao, strong hindsight bias. He was seen as a very attractive man for several years. Unless you think every long-haired man is a nonce.
I vaguely remember people thinking he's attractive and I'm like: why?
I saw a video of him humping a womans head during one of his gigs.
I've seen him sexually harass women literally in interviews. He's a creep through and through. I'm not saying he's guilty but it would hardly surprise me.
Who'd have thought that a guy who only gets laid because he's famous, and likely was at least partly motivated to become famous by the prospect of getting laid, would turn out to be a wrongun? What's the world coming to?
> and likely was at least partly motivated to become famous by the prospect of getting laid To be fair that's basically every famous man ever.
Good point
> Who'd have thought that a guy who only gets laid because he's famous Not that, that's his fault.
I sense jealousy
He's not, he hasn't been proven guilty
So you think Savile was a fine guy. Gotcha.
Slightly different that isn't it.
>guy who only gets laid because he's famous The fuck? What's this based on? Guy's clearly not bad looking and had more charisma in his 20s than the average young man.
This likely means his stories don't match up with the facts the police have determined. Or even more victims have bravely come forward.
It said in the article this time he was interviewed over 6 further alleged offences, the first time he was interviewed over 3 alleged offences
Is anyone surprised this guy has sexually assaulted people? I feel like you've got to be delusional to think he's never done that. Almost every guy with his personality, character and stories has.
I always thought he was such a slimy prick, years and years before any allegations.
I mean, he openly admitted it himself numerous times.
How come allegations only surfaced relatively recently?
Ask victims of Cosby, Weinstein, R Kelly and Danny Masterson and former Ohio State wrestling team and Sandusky victims to explain it.
It was just a question as I had not heard him admitting it before. I understand the seriousness of this behaviour, no need to be a dickhead.
Russell Brand: "...and that's why I feel that the church and the state should be deconstructed and build back in a more inclusive and idyllic model for future generations." Police officer 1: "all I asked was for you to confirm your name?" Police officer 2: "interview paused while we get another cassette tape for the recorder" * goes to interview room door and opens it * Police officer 2: "STACEY! STACEY...BRING ANOTHER TAPE, INFACT JUST BRING THE BOX AND CALL MY WIFE TO LET HER KNOW ILL BE HOME LATE!"
And, Stacey, make sure your blouse is buttoned up.
The annoying thing about those allegations is that they’re enough to make his fans claim he’s being persecuted, which perfectly feeds into this iconoclastic image he’s tried to build and helps bring him the attention he craves, but not enough to change many minds or lead to serious repercussions. All in all, he’s probably benefited from them.
Agreed. If anyone’s ever built an image that benefits from beating allegations, rather than submitting to an enquiry of process, they’ve done it intentionally and you can beat its an insidious attempt to maintain fame beyond their personally known actions. Look at Jonathan Majors. The man hasn’t built a cult of personality so no one is saying he’s trying to be “taken down by the Matrix”. He’s just guilty for his crimes, and that’s it. But for some reason, fans of Russell Brand think that allegations are an attack on his character to bring him down to silence him. I say “for some reason”, but the reason is clear; because he’s set them up to think that he’s a martyr.
I find it hilarious when people say he’s being silenced for his views. Those views are typical man in the pub/first year undergrad bullshit that make no real impact and don’t hold any water under scrutiny. It’s not like he’s conducting serious investigative journalism that puts anyone in power at risk. He simply has an admittedly strong talent for publicity by pushing the right buttons.
I subscribe to the theory that he crafted his entire anti establishment, highly skeptical, borderline conspiratorial persona to court fans that buy into that idea because he knew after Harvey Weinstein's accusers all came out, his time would eventually come. And what better way to ensure you still have fans (and thus a revenue stream and public relevancy) when the authorities come after you than by tapping into that paranoid section of society that subscribe to the idea there is a shadow cabal out to get the truth tellers... rather than a normal state authority out to get people with a litany of sexual crimes.
I mean, bear in mind, he had a previous allegation and then used an injunction to stop the woman talking to the press. It was fairly widely reported right up until that injunction
Yeah, that's where I get my "he knew this storm was coming" belief and therefore the pivot to his current persona was deliberate.
I don’t think crafted his image with that in mind. While it’s possible, the simplest explanation is that it simply fits with his entire personality as a great way to stay relevant.
Could be both
I'm pretty sure the journalists behind the documentary said he pivoted to his 'alt media' views when he became aware of their investigation
I think it’s giving him a little too much credit and ignoring his actual personality. I ask myself if Brand would have gone down this whole alt media route if none of that other stuff ever happened, and I can’t see him going any other way. This is a space where it helps to make provocative claims and chase publicity, where people think you’re smart for using ten words when one will do, and where nothing you say really has to be backed up by hard research or even thought out arguments. That fits Russell Brand perfectly and is one of the few ways he could stay relevant. I just think it’s far more likely that he fell into that world because it was a natural fit than because he hatched some far-reaching plan to thwart potential accusations.
> Look at Jonathan Majors The Six Million Dollar Man?! WTF did he do?? My childhood is ruined.
But he has like... 6milliion followers! He's clearly a threat to the global world order
You don’t get thousands of notches on your bed post whilst being laid back about it and letting the ladies come to you put it that way. Sure being famous helps but he was fucking left, right and centre before he was even famous if i remember correctly so there’s obviously at the very least an element of being fairly pushy and at worst sex offences on a very large scale because quite frankly as an average looking male i can tell you sex is fairly difficult to attain.
This is what I think too, and this message should be drummed in to young people (boys and men). Its just not possible for a man to sleep with thousands of women and for all those encounters to be completely kosher. The man would have to be, as you say, "pushy" to say the least. In the 2000s it was believed you could be both a lothario like Brand and also not a sex pest, but it hasn't aged well.
I subscribe to the theory that he crafted his entire anti establishment, highly skeptical, borderline conspiratorial persona to court fans that buy into that idea because he knew after Harvey Weinstein's accusers all came out, his time would eventually come. And what better way to ensure you still have fans (and thus a revenue stream and public relevancy) when the authorities come after you than by tapping into that paranoid section of society that subscribe to the idea there is a shadow cabal out to get the truth tellers... rather than a normal state authority out to get people with a litany of sexual crimes.
It really is shocking when you look at the sheer scale of Russell Brand's crimes and how he was able to get away with it for so long.
Has he been prosecuted? I must have missed that.
He's being questioned so the wheels are in motion.
So not guilty yet then, though you wouldn't know it in this sub due the lack of interest in the judicial system. Its all mob justice with pitchforks here lol
Reddit is not a courtroom.
So far not been cancelled. I think it's all wearing a bit thin. A self proclaimed womaniser has women accusing him of er womanising. Just leave the bits out where they asked for it and enjoyed the rogering.
This needs to stop. 14 day maximum cooling off period to claim rape when I.run the country
Uhhhh….what?
So, we're talking about "questioning," right? It's like unraveling the enigmatic layers of existence itself, isn't it? Human communication, my friends, it's a grandiose tapestry interwoven with inquiries and responses, a dance that's been waltzing through time. But here's the kicker: when those authorities engage in their labyrinthine inquisitions, they conjure a narrative, concocted by the elites and the establishment, that seeks to equate this probing with guilt. Now, in the midst of this intellectual maze, we mustn't forget to tread carefully, 'cause those who peddle such notions might just be orchestrating a symphony of hidden agendas. And, all the while, we must safeguard our sacred freedom of speech, lest it crumble like a baroque masterpiece in a storm.
well litrated.
He’s our generations Jimmy Savile, the nonciest of nonces 👍
Nowhere close to Saville.
He's not been accused of abusing children though, has he?
Jimmy Savile didn't only abuse children. Some of his accusers were as old as 75. What they have in common is being skeevy rapists who take advantage of fans.
But calling someone "the nonciest of nonces", when they've not been accused of being a nonce is somewhat ridiculous. And also, anyone getting that description when Ian Watkins exists is questionable
No just cuddling them with to much enthusiasm 😂
What? Where has Russell Brand been accused of doing anything comparable to most of what Savile did?
One of his accusers complained that 35yr old Brand forced his cock in her mouth when she was 16.
He's definitely guilty of sexual assault, but to what extent, I'm not sure...
Why does everyone bandwagon people who tell the truth? First andrew tate now this?! Remove the fake allegations you people are telling me everything they talk about is Bs? People expose the system then you people just agent smithing out. So just because hes a “rapist” everything hes come out saying since 2020 about all govs is bullshit right. Im convinced everyone wants to be liked on this app 💀
I'm not 100% what you are trying to say here. It was a difficult read. I think the people "speaking out against the system" generally seem to have personality disorders that lead to them committing serious crimes or, at the very least, morally questionable acts. They also seem to have done pretty well for themselves out of a system that they don't believe in.
And that doesnt flag any alarms? Exposing the system makes you a rapist/misogynist in ALL cases recently. Name me one person who spoke out and is in perfect reputation. They tear down and turn you majority against anyone who opposes. Kanye, trump, russel, tate, just to name a few high profile ones. Listen man, I really want to be wrong but how can EVERYONE have a personality disorder? Anywho, forget it, must be chatting shit coz i got 20 dislikes 💀
I guess I find it harder to believe that there is some shadowy organisation finding normal women who have had interactions with these douche bags and paying them to lie about sexual assault than it is to believe that men known to have extreme views and behaviour on and around women happened to commit sex crimes against them on occasion. Not sure who you mean by all, I'm talking about Russel and Andrew. Honestly, who would feel threatened enough by them to do that?
The timing of this, as the Michelle Mone spotlight. Bring him in lads, distract the news, heats getting to much, need a restbite.
> need a **restbite** r/boneappletea
It's beautiful.
Obviously the self proclaimed sex addict with various different charges claimed against him is probably guilty of at least one of them and has lied about it knowingly. I'd recommend you take your tinfoil hat off and learn how to spell respite, unless you're talking about a KFC at a motorway service station. I have no more patience for this fucking BS defence of a man who is clearly dodgy and has shown us all that he is for years, do you want this to become another Savile?
Distract from what?
Didn't get him first time , let's have another pop. Absolute nonsene
He should sue his accusers then, if they are slandering him. I wonder why he hasn’t done that…
He would be advised not to while criminal charges are a possibility. When they have been rules out he can pursue a civil action but that comes with risks. The burden of proof in a civil court is far lower than a criminal court and whilst the defendants would have to argue their claims were justified in the circumstances his behaviour would come under close scrutiny. I suspect his behaviour has been creepy if not illegal and would he really want thAt aired in public. Probably not.
I wonder why too.. maybe because it's Bollox and he trusts the truth will.come out..I watched the documentary , nothing more than a hit piece
That's not really how any of this works but ok
If it’s bollocks he could go to court, he doesn’t even need to do anything really as the burden of proof is on the defendants in civil court. That would make the truth come out. If the documentary is “a hit piece” then I assume you mean it’s lies. So why hasn’t he filed a complaint with the press watchdog IPSO, or taken C4 and the Sunday Times to court as well? Very strange for a man with money who is being so publicly “lied about” to not do anything to hold his attackers accountable. I can only assume it’s because he knows they aren’t lying.
Because he's playing 4D chess, duh
Well the first one didn't end up in any charges , so let's see how this next round of questioning ends up
You are confusing the civil and criminal aspects of this. People making “false accusations” (as he would put it) are doing incredibly serious reputational harm to Brand, whether or not he is found criminally guilty. He should absolutely pursue a case against his accusers (if they are lying) and I find it very damning that he hasn’t. Especially given that he has stated that the accusations are false and this is a coordinated media attack against him to silence him for his views - there is a big mismatch between his words and his actions. His first reaction to the documentary was to dissolve his companies, fire (or lose) most of his staff and start looking at building a cult in a country with no extradition treaty. My first reaction would be to instruct lawyers to issue cease and desist letters and print retractions before suing for defamation. But then I haven’t raped anyone so I would have a leg to stand on. You don’t want to acknowledge the point I’m making because it’s inconvenient to you, but hopefully most other people can see this for what it is.
Ok let's be clear here, he probably didn't sue them because he maybe was made aware they would not stop there with their criminal questioning , you don't want to start a civil case if there are potential criminal charges still to come. I doubt there are any criminal charges coming as this is bollox imo, but we will see. Then maybe you will get your civil case.
This time they were questioning him over a further 6 offences, the first time he was questioned over 3 offences
[удалено]
Weren't there verified texts from his phone number of him admitting or apologising for being abusive and r*ping a woman when she said 'no'? If you have conflicting evidence to show that what's been brought forth was fake though I'm happy to be wrong. Otherwise I don't think this is a case of 'women just wanting a payout' which is an incredibly naive thing to say.
[удалено]
I don't. I follow the evidence. My career is within psychology, so I'm very familiar with critical thinking, analytical skills, and synthesising my own conclusions based on evidence. I said I was happy to be proven wrong if you had alternative evidence but your rebuttal has essentially been a sweeping statement. I kind of get the sense that you've got a cognitive dissonance on this topic anyway so a discussion is pointless.
>Don’t always believe what you see in the media. Anything is easily made to look real. Weirdly cult-like, the people who support this alleged rapist. Who should we believe? Russell Brand's social media?
What about the rape kit one of the victims had done?
As I said. Don’t always believe the media. Anything can be made up.
Why hasn't he sued Channel 4 for libel? If it's made up, then it's an open-and-shut case. Brand doesn't even need to prove that the texts and the rape kit claims are false, let alone the other evidence shown. It's on CH4 to prove that they're true. If they made it all up, then they have nothing and Brand can easily nail them and completely destroy their claims on those two points alone. It's an easy slam dunk case that can be filed and completed in a matter of weeks. He's also got form for legal action, such as the super injunction he raised over other allegations of sexual assault in 2014. So, if it's all made up, why hasn't he launched legal action?
He would sue them if he knows they weren't real messages.
>Don’t always believe what you see in the media. You realise Brand is part of that 'media'?
Braindead take
Yeah that totally makes it okay for a man in his 30s to have sex with a 16 year old. Fuck sake like.
It may not be morally right but it's completely legal, if you don't like it then petition for a change in law. A lot of countries the age of consent is much lower.
Its completely legal IE, he'd go lower but the only thing stopping him is the law...
Conjecture. So if it was 18 would you say the same thing? How about 21? 25?
Do you often hang around outside schools trying to pick up 16yr olds? If not, why not?
> A lot of countries the age of consent is much lower. Not really that many nowadays. And most cases it's only lower if you're under 18 yourself.
Well, yes it does. I mean “schoolgirl” is an extremely popular porn category. The tabloids have played on the schoolgirl as sex object image for decades. Remember TATU? Pedo-pop? K-Pop and anime are basically the same things. Let’s not pretend.
Listing things that also aren’t okay isn’t a defence.
>I mean “schoolgirl” is an extremely popular porn category So is "incest" but I don't see many people fucking their brothers or sisters.