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

We are promised
a special investigation on Saturday night that has the potential to be 'hugely damaging' for an A-list household name.
Click to expand...
It's a long time since Brand has topped the ratings. Rumour has it this is him, though, especially with his denial.

There also this bit which looks more promising -

The contents of the Dispatches, which will discuss a number of celebrities in the industry, is said to be potentially hugely damaging for those involved.
Click to expand...

How intriguing. Set to record.
 
Let's face it - it's straight out of the Cult Leader Handbook:

If you suspect there might be a personally damaging investigation or revelation, be pre-emptive with a 'shock' announcement of you being the victim of a smear campaign. Thus your worshippers will refuse to believe any proven allegations because you warned them first!
 
I'm going to use the word 'hearsay' a lot in case we are barking up a very mistaken tree, Yew or otherwise.
escargot said:
It's a long time since Brand has topped the ratings. Rumour has it this is him, though, especially with his denial.
Click to expand...
According to what I have heard separately, the documentary and Sunday Times piece will "fucking destroy him". Hearsay, of course.

It is understood - though for legal purposes this is hearsay - that he has had multiple injunctions taken out for some time. It also explains - again this is hearsay - his repositioning of himself as an anti-MSM crusader in preparation for the day he knew would come.

All hearsay. I would suggest, until the doc has aired, that we refrain from much more speculation than that, and once aired we stick closely to what they say.
 
Interesting that Brand fell right into the self-constructed trap.
Media makes big announcement of 'revelations' concerning an 'unnamed famous personality'. Bait for views, of course.
Brand suddenly recalls contact from media wanting to 'discuss' some personal history.
Brand realises - probably quite rightly - that he's the unnamed celeb, and goes for the pre-emptive denial, immediately identifying himself as the 'unnamed personality', giving more publicity to the upcoming 'expose'.
Brand ultimately falls into his own trap - if he's so confident of his innocent past, which he is now loudly and vehemently declaring, why not wait to see what the revelations are, itemise anything deniable, and then engage Messrs Suit, Grabbit & Runne?
No matter the truth of the allegations, he's trying to discredit the show before it's been shown.
"I'm innocent! Whatever they say I did, I didn't do it! They can't prove I did it, and even if they have proof, it's all lies!"
 
stu neville said:
All hearsay. I would suggest, until the doc has aired, that we refrain from much more speculation than that, and once aired we stick closely to what they say.
Click to expand...
The documentary itself may also be a bunch of hearsay too.
We should perhaps take it all with a pinch of salt until something more concrete turns up.
 
Mythopoeika said:
The documentary itself may also be a bunch of hearsay too.
We should perhaps take it all with a pinch of salt until something more concrete turns up.
Click to expand...
Channel 4's legals will have been all over it, ditto the Sunday Times. Allegedly Vice had a documentary all ready to go a couple of years ago but Brand got a superinjunction.
 
stu neville said:
I'm going to use the word 'hearsay' a lot in case we are barking up a very mistaken tree, Yew or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I know you're playing it safe, but I think unless you have personal contact, or have documents pertaining to the person and/or case discussed, 'hearsay', like 'alleged', is redundant - you don't 'protect' yourself the more you say it. :D
It's like me declaring that King Charles eats live otters for every breakfast. Since there's no way I could know this assertion as a fact, then it is in the 'rumour' category and, as such, is hard to prosecute. I might believe it as true, but I can't prove it.*
Were I a member of the royal kitchen or serving staff, my assertion (correct or not) can give others the impression that I speak with some authority. It is this that makes it actionable.
If you say something that is a rumour, that you cannot give a direct source - as opposed to 'I read it in such-and-such magazine' - then it's incredibly hard to be sued. You may be repeating a rumour, but this isn't actually illegal. Creating that rumour might be. And speculating the substance of a tale isn't actionable either, unless you categorically state it as fact with your own 'inside knowledge'.
If I were a close friend of Brand, I'd not comment at all, either in denial or confirmation.

* This is why if someone is being sued for slander or defamation, the truth of the claim is no defence. The case is being brought not to prove the claim, but to prove the intent of those who made it.
 
I wonder what the legal situation is regarding the show. Has Brand or any other celebrity mentioned in it seen the show pre-airing on TV? Would their legal advisors gain access to it before it airs?

I thought it was clever of Brand (in recent years) to move into his social media presence etc and away from regular TV/radio etc, since his career has been less prominent for whatever reasons.
 
Stormkhan said:
I know you're playing it safe, but I think unless you have personal contact, or have documents pertaining to the person and/or case discussed, 'hearsay', like 'alleged', is redundant - you don't 'protect' yourself the more you say it. :D
Click to expand...
:) I have it on good authority (from a solicitor) that it can't hurt. We have to be very careful.
 
Superinjunctions are interesting in that they block specific people or organisations from mentioning it, for a set period. This is usually the time it takes in order to take the story to court. In effect, they block the story from public release until it's decided one way or another that the story's creator is right to publish.
Injunctions just say that the story - no matter if it's in public awareness - cannot be published until etc. etc.

In effect, injunctions block the publication of a story, superinjunctions block even the mention of the story. Temporarily.
 
Earthly oddity said:
I wonder what the legal situation is regarding the show. Has Brand or any other celebrity mentioned in it seen the show pre-airing on TV? Would their legal advisors gain access to it before it airs?
Click to expand...
Well, the producers definitely would run it by the legal team. There's no compulsion for it to be examined by the subject.
Brand has already stated that he was approached for comment, which he refused to give. This is far different from seeking permission to broadcast.
I'd guess that his legal team are waiting to see what is to be refuted or actionable. They'd first - under client confidentiality - ask him how much is the truth, what evidence might be called, are there any skeletons waiting? They need to know what they have to work with in order to plan a counter-attack.
 
Stormkhan said:
Well, the producers definitely would run it by the legal team. There's no compulsion for it to be examined by the subject.
Brand has already stated that he was approached for comment, which he refused to give. This is far different from seeking permission to broadcast.
I'd guess that his legal team are waiting to see what is to be refuted or actionable. They'd first - under client confidentiality - ask him how much is the truth, what evidence might be called, are there any skeletons waiting? They need to know what they have to work with in order to plan a counter-attack.
Click to expand...
I presume the legal team might ask for things to be removed from the documentary pre-broadcast though?

Anyway - I wonder if anything we don't know already will be revealed. I may watch it to see for myself.
 
Reading back on this thread, interesting to spot The Guardian turned on him recently. I'd forgotten that. They must have got wind of the story. As various folk do when research is going on behind the scenes.

Interesting how this expose will "end his career" (and a couple of other celebs have been mentioned in passing - one of whom I'd heard The Rumours about years ago and never seen a story break). Yet Bylines has done an in depth expose that took years of hard research to do, on Dan Wootton and there's been no arrest or police interview (yet) and hardly a peep in the mainstream media and he's showing no signs of having a career that's ended.

Recent dipping into Brand's channel left me feeling mainly sad for someone that I felt had just gone off the deep end. Does make me wonder whether all the stuff he'd espoused in recent years wasn't because he thought this might be on the horizon? Then, it can be spun as "They came for me next" kind of thing?
 
Earthly oddity said:
I presume the legal team might ask for things to be removed from the documentary pre-broadcast though?

Anyway - I wonder if anything we don't know already will be revealed. I may watch it to see for myself.
Click to expand...
Yes, no doubt. in house lawyers will have been reviewing it and advising for some time as this kind of story could be a legal minefield.
 
Russell Brand's trace on my personal radar has always identified him as bright but easily mislead, wrong (in the way of the stopped clock), but not ultimately bad.

It'll be interesting to see whether I have to revise that view in the coming days.

Edit: a quick sampling of social media reveals that these forthcoming allegations are going to need to be strongly substantiated to sway his fanbase. A lot of them claim to have been expecting precisely this. Whether that's because they've been effectively conditioned or because 'this looks just like what they tried on Assange' is largely a matter of perspective.
 
Last edited:
Always openly ex man slut and drug addict Brand who's never hidden that fact has set himself up as a target. Any person accusing him will be protected. His name's now instead out there and 's**t sticks'. If he's guilty, he deserves punishment. It's all about consent to be decent. It could also be about 'He's got lots of money, I f***ked him in the past?.. KERCHING!.'
 
Swifty said:
Always openly ex man slut and drug addict Brand who's never hidden that fact has set himself up as a target. Any person accusing him will be protected. His name's now instead out there and 's**t sticks'. If he's guilty, he deserves punishment. It's all about consent to be decent. It could also be about 'He's got lots of money, I f***ked him in the past?.. KERCHING!.'
Click to expand...
It could also be about shutting him up, because he said something close to the truth/became a thorn in the side of someone powerful.
We'll see.
 
IMO Russell Brand does seem to have gone the 'full conspiracy Monty' - along with one of my past faves, Neil Oliver (archaeologist & presenter). Is it an 'age thing'? Is it that the money is in monetised videos, or being employed as renta-talking-head on suspect TV channels? Is it being sucked into an echo chamber of people sharing the same purported beliefs? Could it be that growing a beard and sporting a cravat/neckscarf does something to the bits of the brain that engage critical thinking, even?

It's interesting to note that the 'need to believe' seems to be the strong driver when conspiratorial beliefs is concerned; the conspiratorial mind-set already exists. If a person already has a strong belief in a faith or spiritual practice then it seems less likely that they get drawn that particular rabbit-hole - I am thinking of people such as our own Revd. Lionel Fanthorpe here (rather than Q-Anon evangelical types). One can be 'interested' in all manner of Forteana (including conspiracies) but not get 'converted'.
 
stu neville said:
Channel 4's legals will have been all over it, ditto the Sunday Times. Allegedly Vice had a documentary all ready to go a couple of years ago but Brand got a superinjunction.
Click to expand...
Vice? As in the police, the Vice Squad type of set-up? No superinjunction in the world could stop them investigating and arresting a suspect.
 
Well, here are the allegations (original Times story paywalled):

The claims against Russell Brand​

  • Woman 1: Claims Brand raped her in his Los Angeles Home
  • Woman 2: Claims Brand forced her to perform oral sex when she was just 16.
  • Woman 3: Claims Brand sexually assault her in LA and threatened legal action if she spoke out.
  • Woman 4: Claims Brand sexually assaulted her and was physically and emotionally abusive
Source:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/23983574/russell-brand-accused-rape-sexual-assaults-abuse/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top