• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
My 'toast' judgment was not a legal prediction.

I mean he's cancelled. His name is not now going to appear anywhere 'reputable' without these allegations attached to it, regardless of what ensues in the courts.

Indeed. On the basis of unsourced, decade-old, unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous women.

maximus otter
 
Let's face it - The Powers That Be (that nebulous group-mind) have always protected themselves, and discredited any attempt to protest against this. The media is just exploiting that situation. It's not a matter of being on one side or another - they are on their own side. They're happy to set their attack-journos on celebrity or organisation.
Thing is, it depends on ones own morality how to consider this current situation: is it some all-powerful cabal destroying a freethinking rebel, willing to 'say it like it is'? Or is it a self-proclaimed champion of the people being revealed to be an all-too-human criminal?
If it doesn't go to court? Either the allegations were false or undue pressure by worshippers/media and forced the witnesses to go quiet, or the smear campaign failed.
If it does go to court? Any result will be decried by supporters/opponents.

Ultimately it's Brand's word against his accusers - court case or not, we are expected to believe one or the others. I'm no fan of Brand - nothing I've seen or heard from him neither amuses nor convinces me. I can only go on public persona. However, listening to his accusers accounts - understanding how they must feel to be judged by the TV viewers as well as Brand - isn't pre-judging.

Listen to the responses: "Why didn't they come forward sooner?", "Oh, it's the Establishment trying to get at him!", "I always thought he was a creep!", "But he says so much that makes sense!" etc. etc. Then consider what was being said on radio 'phone ins before Savile died and his influence was removed. Exactly the same things. Now, I'm not saying at all that Brand is guilty of these abhorrent incidents. But attacking any celebrity brings out the same judgemental responses - court case or no. And the same goes for the public body that is considered the target of Media ire. RNLI being 'in the dock' for saving migrants for instance.
Trial by Media has been around a long time. The viewers/listeners/readers aren't the jury to pronounce guilt or innocence - that's the media. The viewers just create the pressure to confirm the sentence ... of obscurity.
And the media do not serve The Powers That Be - they are a power in of themselves.
 
Indeed. On the basis of unsourced, decade-old, unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous women.

maximus otter
What - like JS? I mean, the outcry against him only strengthened after he died and couldn't go to court to defend himself.
 
"I always thought he was a creep!"
That would be me. As I've said; the programme, which I haven't yet seen and might not bother to, seems to back up what I've always thought of him.

First I heard of Brand was his 9/11 terrorist stunt. Saw interviews with him about it and noticed his fake-naive responses. I couldn't understand how everybody else didn't immediately see through him.
 
What charges?

How does Brand respond to anonymous allegations in a telly documentary? It’s trial by TV, and that’s not how we do things in the civilised world.

All we are going to hear is the usual old women knitting by the guillotine, rehashing variants of “No smoke without fire”, and “I allus knew there were summat wrong about ‘im…”

Brand is faced with the classic “When did you stop beating your wife?” question from the media, isn’t he? When he denies the allegations, the knitters will simply respond, “Well, that’s what he would say, isn’t it?

Let’s wait for the trial. If there is one.

maximus otter
Max, I appreciate that you have strong views about the law and trials and" innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" but blanket insults of women, female instinct* over the predators that you of all people should know truly exist and even of knitting (which is a noble pursuit followed by all the best people) should really be beneath you.

*Also the instinct of a fair proportion of male posters.
 
If Brand is guilty, and I think he is, it's not really a surprise. Hiding in plain sight like Savile and Marilyn Mansun, though not anywhere near as extreme or obvious as either. Whether he pre-emptively became part of the lunatic fringe to have a counter narrative for his own protection or whether he was always going to so is another matter.

90% of the swivel-eyed loons who follow him will have a cry that their messiah has been besmirched by some nebulous super cabal, it won't do too much to "cancel" him as his acolytes will continue to fellate him and he seems to have been largely ignored by more reputable outlets the nuttier he has become.

I see little to indicate that the "PTB" are behind this, idiots/manipulators of idiots like him are a Godsend to hem, getting credulous nutjobs all fired up with distractions. The "PTB" could also do a lot more than this and likely would if they wanted to silence him.
 
I see little to indicate that the "PTB" are behind this, idiots/manipulators of idiots like him are a Godsend to hem, getting credulous nutjobs all fired up with distractions. The "PTB" could also do a lot more than this and likely would if they wanted to silence him.
The PTB seemed to be happy enough to keep giving him promotions, exposure and ready access to young women for long enough. It wasn't until he insulted a man (Andrew Sachs) than he finally got dropped.
 
I remember the Andrew Sachs thing. Jonathan Ross was stupid to get involved in that at all. I've hated Brand ever since. The fact that he is getting into conspiracy theories makes him even worse.
Yes, that made me really dislike him too. It showed him in a very bad light.
 
If one victim went to a Rape Crisis Centre the same day and has texts, sounds like there's evidence enough for the lawyers to work with. Presumption of innocence til proven guilty is a given. At the same time, it doesn't look like it's baseless and that there is no hard evidence. In a legal sense it needs to be pursued, to clear his name if innocent and to get him banged to rights if he isn't. If the crimes occurred in more than one country, then they need to be pursued in both.

There's such a low rate of prosecution for this crime here in the UK and an even lower conviction rate - not sure about other jurisdictions where this may be brought? And that, that is something we need to do something about urgently.

General comment follows. Can't imagine how a victim of a famous person who is a sex offender/rapist copes with seeing their face on TV or the media and seeing them constantly lauded. Can't think of anything worse. As with Savile, you'd know that person had power and would be believed over you and you'd also know they could afford the best lawyers in the country to potentially get them off the hook. Anyone who has ever been a witness in a trial knows it's the most traumatic thing to go through let alone to put yourself through. So famous alleged perpetrators have all that on their side and more, if they're well known.
 
Last edited:
What strikes me is that no one is surprised about the allegations, so they're perfectly comfortable with judging for themselves.
You could say it's on the balance of likelihood.
Media 'revelations' about celebrities who 'always seemed great people', such as Cliff Richard and Jimmy Savile, creates the polarisation between those who believe and disbelieve the allegations. In the former, the allegations were found wanting; in the latter, they were dismissed until JS could no longer 'call in favours'. So, yeah - trial by media (for good or ill) has always been with us.
But certain celebrities own public persona creates expectations of behaviour. Al Murray or Warren Mitchell would be 'expected' to be right wing nutters ... but they made the line between character and person quite plain. Brand, on the other hand, has always walked the path of "What you see is what you get". And if few are surprised that he's a sexual creep, then it's based on his own presentation.
 
The Andrew Sachs incident just confirmed to me that Brand's sense of humour is not mine. He found it funny to do, but was in bad taste.
I'm afraid it didn't 'inform' me of his personality, just his lousy sense of humour.
His acting talent is absent. I've only seen two things he's been in - St.Trinians and Death on the Nile. I've seen excerpts of Arthur. In St.Trinians and Arthur, he wasn't acting - he was just reading the script and acting as himself. In Death ..., he was like a rebellious teen student pretending to be a 'grown-up' doctor.
So we are left with his current profession of being 'the voice of reason' against the world. And so much can be unpacked from that, little to his credit.
 
I remember the Andrew Sachs thing. Jonathan Ross was stupid to get involved in that at all. I've hated Brand ever since. The fact that he is getting into conspiracy theories makes him even worse.
Ross was deliberately pushing Brand to see what excesses he would come out with.
Gave me a flashback to Bill Grundy goading Johnny Rotten into dropping the F-bomb live on TV.
 
The Andrew Sachs incident just confirmed to me that Brand's sense of humour is not mine. He found it funny to do, but was in bad taste.
I'm afraid it didn't 'inform' me of his personality, just his lousy sense of humour.
His acting talent is absent. I've only seen two things he's been in - St.Trinians and Death on the Nile. I've seen excerpts of Arthur. In St.Trinians and Arthur, he wasn't acting - he was just reading the script and acting as himself. In Death ..., he was like a rebellious teen student pretending to be a 'grown-up' doctor.
So we are left with his current profession of being 'the voice of reason' against the world. And so much can be unpacked from that, little to his credit.
Some of the people standing up for him today are themselves under investigation for alleged sex crimes, so it's not looking good for him... He's positioned himself for martyrdom and "me against the world" victimhood, this past few years, which is interesting.
 
Apparently he performed his scheduled show and received a standing ovation yesterday—which I'm not sure whether or not to be surprised about.

I'm not sure whether it's mainly an indication of how loyal his fans are or also how much the public loathes and mistrusts the mainstream press. Or how closely the views of his fans mirror those of the general public.
 
Apparently he performed his scheduled show and got a standing ovation yesterday—which I'm not sure whether to be surprised about.

Not sure whether it's mainly an indication of how loyal his fans are or how much the public loathes and mistrusts the mainstream press.

But how representative is Brand's fanbase (young women captivated by his perceived glamour and laddish blokes who think blow-job jokes are the ultimate in wit) of the public? Not very I would suggest.
 
Apparently he performed his scheduled show and received a standing ovation yesterday—which I'm not sure whether or not to be surprised about.

I'm not sure whether it's mainly an indication of how loyal his fans are or also how much the public loathes and mistrusts the mainstream press. Or how closely the views of his fans mirror those of the general public.
My prediction is he'll make more money now - his career can never be "over" as he has his own channel and a studio in his garden - way better than having to report to work, and as someone said upthread, from merch etc he's earning a shit tonne. He'll follow the usual shill route and be selling T shirts with his mug shot on, next... The alternate universe such people have built in the past few years - fuelled, historically, by lockdowns and the growth of conspiracy theories and 4Chan nonsense - means he's made for life, if he plays it as martyr.
 
But how representative is Brand's fanbase (young women captivated by his perceived glamour and laddish blokes who think blow-job jokes are the ultimate in wit) of the public? Not very I would suggest.
He's not so much a comedian doing a set anymore, though - he's morphed into an Andrew Tate style guru to the vulnerable... His audience was a few Fri night Big Brother drunkenly watching Big Brother's spin off show when he started (I loved him in those days, as one of them). Now his audience is an international cadre of headtheballs - and they love feeling that their "stars" are being victimised...
 
Have any of Brands accusers gone to the police and made statements?
Good point.
If they haven't all done that, this is pretty much the media spending a long time on building up a case against him. Some of which may be hot air. He has to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a proper court of law.

I don't like him at all, but the media have got to stop leading witch-hunts. Leave that job to the judicial system.
 
Good point.
If they haven't all done that, this is pretty much the media spending a long time on building up a case against him. Some of which may be hot air. He has to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a proper court of law.

I don't like him at all, but the media have got to stop leading witch-hunts. Leave that job to the judicial system.
At the movement it's trial by media and dare I say it that all it is at the moment is a conspiracy theory and a media feeding frenzy.

Of course, in the future that may change.
 
Apparently he performed his scheduled show and received a standing ovation yesterday—which I'm not sure whether or not to be surprised about.

I'm not sure whether it's mainly an indication of how loyal his fans are or also how much the public loathes and mistrusts the mainstream press. Or how closely the views of his fans mirror those of the general public.

He exists in his own demesne, his acolytes are an echo-chamber of true believers. To be honest this is true of many people/groups within our increasingly fragmented culture but the conspiracy types are maybe, inevitably, more extreme iterations.

I don't know how much contempt the public has for the mainstream press, a good deal, I dare say but I don't think his audience is representative of the general public.

If it is, we are beyond fucked.
 
Good point.
If they haven't all done that, this is pretty much the media spending a long time on building up a case against him. Some of which may be hot air. He has to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a proper court of law.

I don't like him at all, but the media have got to stop leading witch-hunts. Leave that job to the judicial system.

Various women went to the police about Savile and look how that turned out. As has been said, convictions for rape are appallingly low. Apparently one woman went to a rape crisis centre the same day, there may well be DNA evidence. We shall see.

I'm not saying that he should be subject to trial by media but the media have a right to report on news, it sounds like there's a reasonable body of evidence, I don't know what the answer is. I expect more people will come forward, what sort of numbers, I don't know, single digits most likely. It might get to court and there's a long shot that he might be convicted of at least one charge.
 
"I always thought he was a creep!"
That would be me. As I've said; the programme, which I haven't yet seen and might not bother to, seems to back up what I've always thought of him.

First I heard of Brand was his 9/11 terrorist stunt. Saw interviews with him about it and noticed his fake-naive responses. I couldn't understand how everybody else didn't immediately see through him.
And me. I always found him to be creepy - just creepy, not someone accused of sexual assault, just creepy - and unfunny.
 
And me. I always found him to be creepy - just creepy, not someone accused of sexual assault, just creepy - and unfunny.
Frankly I find all modern comedians unfunny. Maybe its a generational thing but the nature of the British sense of humour seems to have changed.

I must admit I'm being inconsistent, being one who is convinced Savile is guilty as libelled. But look at the innuendo against Cliff Richard, who as far as anyone knows is not guilty of anything, he just annoys people by apparently being too good to be true. It really is no way to go about things.
 
Back
Top