Russell Brand: From Comic To Icke-Esque Conspiracist & Possible Abuser?

[Cochise]

Any other employee facing such serious allegations would be suspended pending an investigation, he works for himself so that means he won't get paid but that's his choice really

It's pretty standard practice throughout the world

TBF that's why I spent the last nearly 20 years basically self-employed - so I can say what the heck I want.

 

[Stormkhan]

Exactly - you have the choice.

Summat occurred to me thorugh my second pint down t'pub:
You have "If you live by the sword, you die by the sword", "If you play with fire, you get burnt" and "Trial by jury of your peers". Russel Brand who has willingly and been paid to live, work and earn money in the media can't exactly moan about "trial by media", can he?
He is of that group, willingly, and made bucket-loads of cash. That 'the media' has turned against him is of no surprise. Unless he truly thought he was smarter than anyone else, or anyone gone before.

 

[Cochise]

Exactly - you have the choice.

Summat occurred to me thorugh my second pint down t'pub:
You have "If you live by the sword, you die by the sword", "If you play with fire, you get burnt" and "Trial by jury of your peers". Russel Brand who has willingly and been paid to live, work and earn money in the media can't exactly moan about "trial by media", can he?
He is of that group, willingly, and made bucket-loads of cash. That 'the media' has turned against him is of no surprise. Unless he truly thought he was smarter than anyone else, or anyone gone before.

That's a fair point. But it does, at some point, depend on the truth in actual allegations as opposed to smut/innuendo/alleged 'humour'. Explicit allegations of serious wrongdoing either need to be tested in law, or at least in civil law / libel courts. I have no idea if RB is guilty as libelled ( a word that has a meaning both in common law and in specific legal proceedings) . But there does need, in such cases, to be a test before law. I think of a couple of footballers who have allegations widely publicised and been found not guilty/ not proven / no case to answer but nevertheless have had their careers blighted. The current very long delays between allegation and trial exacerbate the situation.

 

[Tunn11]

Noel Clarke and Craig Charles as well as Kevin Spacey have had allegations made that saw them out of work for long periods and they have all been found not guilty or charges were dropped, etc. In fact IIRC the last episode of some thriller with Noel Clarke wasn't shown on TV when the allegations surfaced but strangely was shown on the TV channel's internet site (of course perverts only watch TV they don't use the internet!)

I would think that if they are found innocent then there would be a case for loss of earnings against anyone cancelling a booking or show?

In the same way that there is in some areas "victim blaming" of those who bring cases, there is also degree of, "there must have been something in it" for those wrongly accused.

Add in that many cases are, often for good reason, about incidents that happened many years before cases must be a nightmare to resolve. I imagine that abusers are usually serial offenders so there is a greater possibility of amassing evidence if there are a number of accusations particularly if they are made before any major publicity? Although I can see that once an accusastion has been made it may encourage others to come forward.

In Brand's case by boasting about your sexual prowess and drug taking surely you are setting yourself up for accusations genuine or unfounded.

 

[Ghost In The Machine]

The problem is two-fold:
Firstly, our system is based on precedent - a law is only tested once. Trouble is, how different was the world or situation now from when it was first applied?
Secondly, if laws are generalised and open to interpretation, different defendants will be treated differently from each other even while committing the same crime. Sure, we know this bias already happens, but the bias is only introduced when there's wriggle-room. A rich man can afford an expensive lawyer, who in turn is rich because of their track record. It is possible to get a cheap but excellent lawyer ... but is it likely? And if a lawyer has an excellent track record then it's because of their skill and knowledge of law, the exeptions, the precedents etc. etc.
So ... laws are specifically worded, to reduce the ability for a defendant to interpret it to their own advantage. This, of course, makes actual explanations and definitions of laws complex.
Thirdly, while laws are constantly being examined as 'fit for purpose', amended or removed, the judicial system itself is incredibly hidebound and reluctant to change apart from superficially. There's the idea that "if a tradition doesn't affect the work you do, why change it?" There was a recent set-to where an organisation wanted to drop the prayer-blessing at the start of their annual dinner. Half were saying "Does it matter?" while the other half were saying "If it doesn't matter, why drop it?" You can imagine how thrilling that particular legal debate was!

Depending on whether the US and UK women decide to bring charges (and there, there's statutes of limitations I'd guess?) there could potentially be legal actions in two different countries, as well. Adding to the complexity.

 

[Ghost In The Machine]

Noel Clarke and Craig Charles as well as Kevin Spacey have had allegations made that saw them out of work for long periods and they have all been found not guilty or charges were dropped, etc. In fact IIRC the last episode of some thriller with Noel Clarke wasn't shown on TV when the allegations surfaced but strangely was shown on the TV channel's internet site (of course perverts only watch TV they don't use the internet!)

I would think that if they are found innocent then there would be a case for loss of earnings against anyone cancelling a booking or show?

In the same way that there is in some areas "victim blaming" of those who bring cases, there is also degree of, "there must have been something in it" for those wrongly accused.

Add in that many cases are, often for good reason, about incidents that happened many years before cases must be a nightmare to resolve. I imagine that abusers are usually serial offenders so there is a greater possibility of amassing evidence if there are a number of accusations particularly if they are made before any major publicity? Although I can see that once an accusastion has been made it may encourage others to come forward.

In Brand's case by boasting about your sexual prowess and drug taking surely you are setting yourself up for accusations genuine or unfounded.

Sex offenders are the biggest recidivists, statistically, I think? Which means, if there were incidents in 2003/4, there are likely to be incidents in 2013, 2023, etc. I guess such cases can often devolve down to he said/she saids as well - but that's no reason not to bring them, if there's enough there to meet the CPS's criteria. Here, in at least one case, there seems to be evidence on a phone as well as the medical record - which might make that case stronger. The potential dilemma of jury members thinking "No smoke without fire" is going to apply to any case ever brought, probably.

 

[hunck]

Brand's YouTube videos have now been demonetised.

So: On the basis of unsubstantiated, decade-old allegations from anonymous complainants, a man has now had his main source of income, worth an estimated £1M per annum, destroyed.

- And no one seems concerned about it.

maximus otter

As you’re often fond of posting: he has an estimated net worth of £20 million. I won’t be shedding a tear for him.

 

[Sabresonic]

Exactly - you have the choice.

Summat occurred to me thorugh my second pint down t'pub:
You have "If you live by the sword, you die by the sword", "If you play with fire, you get burnt" and "Trial by jury of your peers". Russel Brand who has willingly and been paid to live, work and earn money in the media can't exactly moan about "trial by media", can he?
He is of that group, willingly, and made bucket-loads of cash. That 'the media' has turned against him is of no surprise. Unless he truly thought he was smarter than anyone else, or anyone gone before.

What about Leon Brittan.

 

[Sabresonic]

Noel Clarke and Craig Charles as well as Kevin Spacey have had allegations made that saw them out of work for long periods and they have all been found not guilty or charges were dropped, etc. In fact IIRC the last episode of some thriller with Noel Clarke wasn't shown on TV when the allegations surfaced but strangely was shown on the TV channel's internet site (of course perverts only watch TV they don't use the internet!)

I would think that if they are found innocent then there would be a case for loss of earnings against anyone cancelling a booking or show?

In the same way that there is in some areas "victim blaming" of those who bring cases, there is also degree of, "there must have been something in it" for those wrongly accused.

Add in that many cases are, often for good reason, about incidents that happened many years before cases must be a nightmare to resolve. I imagine that abusers are usually serial offenders so there is a greater possibility of amassing evidence if there are a number of accusations particularly if they are made before any major publicity? Although I can see that once an accusastion has been made it may encourage others to come forward.

In Brand's case by boasting about your sexual prowess and drug taking surely you are setting yourself up for accusations genuine or unfounded.

Then The Macc Lads are fucked

 

[Yithian]

What about Leon Brittan.

Yes, what about him?

Again, it would be helpful if everybody could be specific about what they are comparing.

"It's a bit like Ghengis Khan."

(Specify: he liked furry helmets, too. Brand failed to conquer a third of Asia and never lived in a yurt.)

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Brand failed to conquer a third of Asia and never lived in a yurt.*

* except during his "Community Festival" (the yurt bit, not conquering Asia).

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/n...rand-community-festival-2023-tickets-line-up/

 

[Zeke Newbold]

There's a bit of an `either/or` presumptrion in a lot of the posts here. Either Brand is being taken down by media bigshots because he is troublesome to them OR he is a bad apple who is facing long overdue pushback from years of bad behaviour.

It is possible for both takes to be simultaneously true - indeed I judge it to be not only possible, but likely that both are true.

I find it deeply fishy that three seperate`heritage` media giants should act in unison in this way and that they should send out reporters to go trawling through women who have been associated with Brand to find some dirt on him (I believe that that is how these allegations emerged). I also find it `creepy` (to use a word that many are using in a different context) that the British government are writing to Rumble to implore them not to let Brand use Rumble as his platform.

I defended Brand upstream, before all this kerkuffle, and don't take my words back. Brand asked questions about the official narrative on a whole load of issues - including some very dear to the British establishment's heart. You may not have agreed with his answers, but the fact that someone was asking the questions was, without doubt, a needed shot in the arm. Others did and do too, of course, but he had the traction to be listened to, Which is another thing: his viewership exceeded that of `mainstream` media to quite a big extent. They needed him out of the way. (Ofcourse, they were quite happy with him when he was with them and making money for them).

That said, I have never liked Brand's comedy and most likely would have no time for the guy socially. However, if I discarded all the artists, performers and commentators who were unsavoury characters from my consumption - I would have nothing left to read, listen to or watch!

We need to talk abour Russel Brand's relatonship to women. We don't have the word homme fatale in our language, but maybe we should have.

Leaving aside the rape and abuse allegations (which are just that: allegations) to one side for a moment, the fact remains that Brand had a great deal of consensual sex with women. According to his own reckoning he averaged 40 women a month. Now that maybe braggadacio - but even if we, say, halve that figure , it's still a lot of conquests.

Brand is a homme fatale and many women are drawn to the likes of him like the proverbial moth to the flame.

Those of you on hear who profess to always having found him `slimy` and so on, can pat yourself on the back for having a functioning `badguydar` - but there seems to be may women who don't.

Men like him are cocky, lippy, risk taking, boundatry-pushing, edgy sexy, alpha males. They are `mad, bad and dangerous to know`.

There are paralells with certain male politicians who are widely understood to be unscrupulous serial liars and yet who have fathered many children by different women, or certain one time rock stars who are in jail for crimes far worse than anything Brand is being accused of but who still manage to conjure up fermale accoplices for nefarious activities while in there.

Many men will have had the experience of finding a man they know to be a complete and utter *&#@:$! (insert your own favourite term of abuse) - only to find that young women coo and simper of the samer guy as if he were - yes!- God's gift to women. (It is an unacknowledged fact that the kind of men who are a danger to women in this way, are often disliked and suspected by other men. My guess is that Brand doesn't have all that many real male friends).

Men have been taken to task for not being able to curb some of their more backward innate biological drives - perhaps, in this area, some women should be too.

No, I am not `blaming the victims`, but I do feel that there is a certain naivete about a lot of women's approach to such men. it's like buying an untamed rottweiller and then being surprised when it takes a chunk out of your leg.

So Young Women - write this down in your copy books: That Bad Boy who you find so alluring is actually bad, - and one day you may fid yourself on the receipt of his badness. (If in doubt ask other men - especially the one's you find a little boring - they will give you the lowdown.)

 

[Delightful]

Never understood the allure of arseholes of any gender.

 

[Stormkhan]

Brands yurt was 'a yurt in name only'.

Seriously, I understand that people's careers can be irrevocably harmed by allegations, many of which are found in court false. Thing is, that means the evidence for that particular accusation was insufficient. There can be situations where people feel that they got away with it. Certainly, some victims of genuine abuse can appreciate this; as soon as the defendant is found 'not guilty', people feel the accuser was lying (not the case poor) and, therefore, all accusers do. A 'not guilty' verdict doesn't prove the accuser lied. It showed a lack of evidence.
I don't automatically believe his accusers - it's not my place. The place is for a jury in court. However, the accusers also struggle to get it to court.

Getting back to Brand, I fully agree that he's been tarnished by the accusations. Then again, he was 'tarnished' by the Sachs incident. He was tarnished by his messianic pronouncements on his own show.
Let's not forget the media firms that platformed/paid Brand are in business. Brand's public image can affect their own income. So of course they'll distance themselves while he remains toxic. His anti-media claims - while living in a media-hungry country and earning money from media - were popular but not toxic.
Where he claims that mainstream media are threatened by him, he's right but in a wrong way: They are not scared of him, they are not worried about his 'exposures' and rants. They are worried about the impact that he - not his listeners - affects their profits directly.

 

[Stormkhan]

We need to talk abour Russel Brand's relatonship to women. We don't have the word homme fatale in our language, but maybe we should have.

You're right on several things, especially this. There are old fashioned names like 'ladykiller' or 'lounge lizard' but they are old-fashioned (and so more light hearted) and more related to seduction - sexual conquest was implied, not explicit.
This, though, tells you most about our society and attitudes to women. 'Boys will be boys', 'sowing wild oats', 'he's a shagger' is used with a wink and almost envious approval. Think of the labels given to women that behave in the same way. Femme Fatale is used with the idea of a destructive relationship - "she uses them, destroys them, then discards them" sounds awful. Yet this behaviour can be applied to men too.

 

[Stormkhan]

Never understood the allure of arseholes of any gender.

I am the same, but I appreciate that while there are some who have some kind of magnetism in their personality, there are others who's personality needs that type of person.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Private Eye's take on the Zeitgeist:

 

[Stormkhan]

It's not as if anyone accused is going to say "Well, yes actually!"

 

[Mikefule]

It's not as if anyone accused is going to say "Well, yes actually!"

Although it is not unknown for a self-absorbed narcissistic celebrity or politician to make a carefully-scripted statement full of words like regret, misjudgement, and sentences beginning with "If I...", and then to claim they have sex addiction or vaguely-defined mental health issues and check into an expensive clinic in the hope that somehow that will make them the victim we all feel sorry for.

Of course, one reason that not everyone accused says "Well, yes, actually!" is because they actually didn't do what they are accused of. Regret the morning after is not the absence of consent at the time. And there are sadly some people (male or female) who set out to sting celebrities.

This is a general comment, not specific to the Brand case. I don't like Brand at all, but I have no opinion on his guilt or innocence until after the court case(s).

 

[Sabresonic]

Yes, what about him?

Again, it would be helpful if everybody could be specific about what they are comparing.

"It's a bit like Ghengis Khan."

(Specify: he liked furry helmets, too. Brand failed to conquer a third of Asia and never lived in a yurt.)

The Westminster peado ring what happened with that as I'm sure it was revived from the 1980s and then just vanished just like Leon.

 

[Yithian]

The Westminster peado ring what happened with that as I'm sure it was revived from the 1980s and then just vanished just like Leon.

Was this not debunked as the witterings of Carl Beech, a mendacious fantasist?

 

[Stormkhan]

Debunked by "The Powers That Be" I'm sure will be put forward.

This is the problem with deep distrust of anyone these days.
If you don't investigate then you're covering up.
If you do investigate and find no basis of fact then you're covering up.
If you do investigate, find basis of fact, and prosecute then you're 'throwing them under the bus', 'sacrificing them to save face' etc. etc.

It's no use finding or not finding evidence when some people have already decided that the body investigating is automatically lying. And if those people are in the minority, then it's 'mob rule', 'sheeple' and so on.
This is why I find it futile to discuss theories with conspiracists. They've already taken a position and do not wish it to be changed. The more you question, the more entrenched they are.
And - to get back on-thread - this is what's happening to the Brand situation.
"I wait until it goes to court".
It goes to court.
Half, then, believe the verdict and half don't.

 

[Cochise]

Debunked by "The Powers That Be" I'm sure will be put forward.

This is the problem with deep distrust of anyone these days.
If you don't investigate then you're covering up.
If you do investigate and find no basis of fact then you're covering up.
If you do investigate, find basis of fact, and prosecute then you're 'throwing them under the bus', 'sacrificing them to save face' etc. etc.

The thing is, the whole of our current system, from mendacious advertising to politicians' perpetual spin and illogic, breeds distrust from the first time you discover what you are being told is not what is happening.

For me this is a process probably started by a History teacher of mine who demonstrated to me the contradictions between both scholarly analyses and multiple source documents allegedly describing the same events. A career in statistics and data management / analysis opens your eyes to the way the same data can be analysed to give totally opposing results. My late wife's career was in the same general area, and I must admit she was even less trusting of official processes and pronouncements than me, not least triggered by the cover-up over the suicide of her previous partner shortly after we got together.

Political events , especially from the Iraq war on, have gradually increased my scepticism to the point where I really don't trust on first take anything I read or hear. That doesn't mean I believe every or even most conspiracy theories, but I do believe in some, and surely it is obvious that many official policies have underlying motives other than that sold to the public. Either that or our PTB's are utterly oblivious to the long term consequences of their actions, and while it my be comforting to believe that's because either they are all a bunch of morons or only interested in their short term power trip I find that impossible to believe.

 

[Delightful]

At this point in history, it seems you cannot win.
We are drenched in rational skepticism and cast adrift in a sea of facts and information all of which can be doubted.

It's very hard to maintain just the right approach and a critical yet open mind.

 

[Stormkhan]

There's nowt wrong with questioning statements. It's the assumption that 'they all' lie, all the time.
Someone on the board (I recall not who) said "When the media agree, I don't believe them" which is opposite to my personal view. If you consider each outlet has it's own backers, owners, motives, slant etc. then we can expect a difference in reporting. When they come to a consensus on a particular point then I'm more likely to think it's a viably true one. Thus, by comparing reportage from different sources to see what they agree on, I can get at least a sketch of reality, if not detail.

 

[Stormkhan]

At this point in history, it seems you cannot win.
We are drenched in rational skepticism and cast adrift in a sea of facts and information all of which can be doubted.

It's very hard to maintain just the right approach and a critical yet open mind.

It's the same balance point when first digital photography entered public use then photo editing software. Now A.I. has entered society, EVERYTHING can be doubted, which I think is both tragic and non-constructive.
If we doubt all information coming from any source, then we're entering a fugue state where we only believe ourselves. If we only believe ourselves then we have to question our own views. If we question our own views then - to me - we leave ourselves wide open to manipulation. After all, we cannot doubt our memory now - it's *gasp* the Mandela Effect! Someone or something else must be resonsible for our own thoughts! And This Bloke Here tells us who/what that is in a way I understand. I believe in HIM!

 

[Cochise]

There's nowt wrong with questioning statements. It's the assumption that 'they all' lie, all the time.
Someone on the board (I recall not who) said "When the media agree, I don't believe them" which is opposite to my personal view. If you consider each outlet has it's own backers, owners, motives, slant etc. then we can expect a difference in reporting. When they come to a consensus on a particular point then I'm more likely to think it's a viably true one. Thus, by comparing reportage from different sources to see what they agree on, I can get at least a sketch of reality, if not detail.

That would be a reasonable point if we didn't have the recent example of MSM being paid to align behind the governments stance and effectively discredit all other points of view. Similar happens in war, just one of the unacceptable consequences of conflict.

TBF, going back to historical studies, you do weight opinion according to what sources agree, especially when you can get sources from multiple sides of the issue.

Anyway, I guess we ought to get back to that fella, whasisface, Bond/Bland/Brand? Enjoying the discussion though, might be a better thread for it elsewhere.

 

[Delightful]

There seems reasons to doubt agreement and disagreement when many outlets have similar ownerships and outlooks.

Perhaps the best way to use agreement is if we compare radically different sources and see what they agree upon.

 

[Stormkhan]

It is connected somewhat:

What makes Brand so believable to some people? Is he reinforcing their personal views or creating them? Just opposing the mainstream doesn't give extra credence.

 

[Yithian]

I also find it `creepy` (to use a word that many are using in a different context) that the British government are writing to Rumble to implore them not to let Brand use Rumble as his platform.

Theatre.

The odds are very much in favour of Russell Brand being guilty of at least some of the illegal acts that have been reported.

All the same, I genuinely look forward to the British Government being told to piss off by Rumble.