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

Yithian said:
Could we—collectively—please remain circumspect with regards to the Jimmy Saville comparisons.

The allegations that have emerged are very serious and there is a suggestion that there could (stress 'could') have been a similar modus operandi employed, but—very important caveat—there is no suggestion that I have seen that any alleged victim was a minor.

And yes, that is an important distinction legally, regardless of the morality of power-dynamics and distasteful age-gaps in such circumstances.
Click to expand...
Fair enough Yith.
The point that Ghost in the Machine and I were making though was about other activities, including "charity washing" undertaken by both Brand and Savile, rather than the age of their victims. In Savile's case, many of his victims were adults, including the woman groped in plain sight on Top of the Pops and, apparently, a hospitalised 75 year-old woman.
 
hunck said:
That part just sounded like smutty arf-arf banter between like minded people in a phone conversation. I don’t think there was any chance of it actually happening or that either of them believed it.
Click to expand...
Yes, it sounded like just banter. Of questionable taste.
 
Spookdaddy said:
Absolutely. No-one's saying that the investigatory and prosecution process is perfect - far from it.

But the alternative - that these things should be played out in the courts of tabloid and social media - should be a terrifying prospect for all. And, if that's not the alternative, then what is?

The only option is to be continuously striving to improve the legal processes involved in investigating such allegations, and the support structures in place for the alleged victims. I fear that will be a never-ending and Augean task, one doomed to be continually imperfect, but there is no alternative.
Click to expand...

I agree with you absolutely.

However, there's a big difference between 'trial by media' and discussing it on this board.

Unless you feel that any discussion will influence an investigation or court case, which means that even 'respectable' news outlets cannot report on any crime, no matter how responsible or how lacking it is in editorial opinion.

On your latter point, I'm not even sure the victims that aren't believed in court don't even get the resources open to those who are.
 
Earthly oddity said:
Yes, it sounded like just banter. Of questionable taste.
Click to expand...
Trouble is, so much can be actually done but, as soon as it's revealed, it becomes mere 'banter'.
This circles back to 'in plain sight'. In essence it's saying "Oh, I know I said those evil things, and some people might've acted on them ... but I didn't really mean it."
 
There were comments made by a female comedian where she didn't name the celebrity but the Brand revelations would suggest they may have been referring to him.

I think it is likely he has upset too many people and they don't want to work with him. Possibly they shielded him from allegations whilst he was working for/with them.

I hope the legal peeps are working hard for all involved.
 
escargot said:
I'm back to being bored of him again now. :yawn:

In fact I reached this stage early yesterday and could have sworn I'd posted as such later on but I didn't.
There's apathy for you. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I think many people find this is the case when there's a bombshell and a barrage of speculation which isn't going to be proven true or false any time soon.

But at the same time, many find the process of speculation very appealing: a mixture of parlour guessing game and detective work.

And so the thread rolls on.
 
On my part, it's neither. ;)

I tend to see the situation as a discussion starter. What is the impact of the media on our judicial system? How can a celeb - any celeb - either have their awful behaviour revealed or prosecuted? Does being a celebrity offer an automatic defence against accusations or does it leave them open as well?

Brand is a divisive character who appeals to those who think we are ruled by a secret cabal, using the mainstream media as it's 'attack dog'. Much of the discussion is using Brand as an example of social behaviour that has involved other famous people. Let's face it - the thread itself wasn't started to discuss trial by media, but about Brand himself. And since these revelations involve the bloke in question, it's only right they be discussed in relation to his personality and behaviour.

We're not putting him on trial, or investigating the claims - we're part of the 'Life and Times of Russell Brand'. :D

One thing I must say is that while one outlet did the interviews, looked into the allegations and broke the story - which isn't trial by media - the way other outlets present the ... ah ... news of the allegations is. As we all know, media manipulates. But the core story belongs to those who broke it. It's a matter of personal belief in the assertions, not the belief in the media's take on them.

And should any one of us be called to jury on this case, we - like most others - will have a personal opinion, but to honestly and rightfully serve on a jury, we must leave those personal opinions outside. You judge a case on the evidence - ALL the evidence presented in trial. And much of this will be unreported in any media outlet.
 
He career was on the wain anyway, it's pretty much over now, regardless of the allegations he was not to my taste

I hope the allegations are taken to the police and he goes through the justice system to be proved innocent or guilty but lets face the court of public opinion on the whole will have found him guilty whatever happens, I predict he will remain a marginal figure shouting from the sidelines of life
 
Or, the story is all just a ruse to distract from the move to 20mph speed limits in parts of Wales - that's one hell of a dead cat strategy!

(I believe this poster was serious rather than a joker, but it's hard to check as the account no longer exists.)

Screenshot 2023-09-18 at 10.43.05.png
 
RE: 'Why didn't the victims come forward years ago?'

About a decade ago a massage artist accused Brand of some kind of sexual misconduct (not super clear in the article what happened) and was ordered by the court to 'stop harrassing him'.

A high court judge has ordered a Hungarian-born masseuse not to harass comedian Russell Brand and his partner Jemima Khan.

Szilvia Berki, 31, had claimed that she was treated "like a prostitute" after Khan arranged for her to give Brand a massage as a birthday present in June.
Click to expand...


https://www.theguardian.com/culture...nd-jemima-khan-masseuse-court-order-harassing
 
James_H said:
About a decade ago a massage artist accused Brand of some kind of sexual misconduct (not super clear in the article what happened) and was ordered by the court to 'stop harrassing him'.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture...nd-jemima-khan-masseuse-court-order-harassing
Click to expand...

“It is believed the Hungarian made her claims because she was angered that her massage was unwanted.

Thames Valley Police decided not to proceed with an investigation.

They found no evidence to support her claims that Russell pushed her during an altercation at Kiddington Hall.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/russell-brand-jemima-khan-snubbed-3959577

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
cycleboy2 said:
Or, the story is all just a ruse to distract from the move to 20mph speed limits in parts of Wales - that's one hell of a dead cat strategy!

(I believe this poster was serious rather than a joker, but it's hard to check as the account no longer exists.)

View attachment 69736
Click to expand...
It's usual suspects who are spouting this nonsense
 
FunkyTT said:
Yeah, he used to brag about having high ranking policemen come round to his Roundhay, Leeds flat "every thurs lunch" for whiskey and cigars...

. He always used to brag about having many police friends in high places , and that it was "useful" to him. I'm sure he also alluded to having "dirt" on a few of them too.


As for Brand , I'm will reserve judgement until it's been to court. Agree with the those who said that police reports should of been made and not "trial by media". . . . He is/was a sex/drug fiend no doubt about it. . . I just don't know what to think.

It could absolutely be a smear campaign by those in high places he has stood against on his conspiracy vids.

Or it could be true, coked up men can be very sexually aggressive when horny.

Be interesting to see what happens when he gets up in court...

I hope those women are not lying..... Hate that sort of thing.... Muddys the waters for real victims..... But these women could be "real vctims"..

I just don't know , I usually get a "gut feeling " on these matters but im 50/50.

I noticed the comment one made about "smeared mascara " , cut to RB making a joke about "those type of BJs " years ago...... Smear campaign ?

As I said, we will see what happens in court...
.surely police reports will.be filed after this TV reveal?
Click to expand...
I'm also 50/50 on this.

What most don't realise is the MSM is there to shape and mould public opinion. The days of just reporting the news as it is are long long gone.
 
kesavaross said:
I'm also 50/50 on this.

What most don't realise is the MSM is there to shape and mould public opinion. The days of just reporting the news as it is are long long gone.
Click to expand...
One could accept that premise is Brand was a superstar, but the reality is he is a B list celebrity whose star was falling fast, in fact I would wager that if this had not happened (the allegations that is) he would have faded into obscurity in a year or two

I have noticed with these minor celebrities' that as their stardom starts to fade, the more controversial they become, quite a number of B & C listers got on the Vaccine conspiracy bandwagon, seeing it as a way to raise their profiles, it's all part of the celebrity grift, there is money to be made in being outrageous and obnoxious as Katie Hopkins and a few others have proved (in fact they wrote the rule book)
 
maximus otter said:
“It is believed the Hungarian made her claims because she was angered that her massage was unwanted.

Thames Valley Police decided not to proceed with an investigation.

They found no evidence to support her claims that Russell pushed her during an altercation at Kiddington Hall.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/russell-brand-jemima-khan-snubbed-3959577

maximus otter
Click to expand...
500 quid for a massage? And they paid her, too.
Most people would be happy to get paid and then F off.
 
Bearing in mind the caveat to be mindful as to what's said here. I've just watched my recording of Despatches.

Stray thoughts and observations:

i) during his refutation of the offences alleged against him, RB's face is mainly a sort of manic wide-eyed-ness. Where he does feel the need to blink, I'm pretty sure he's doing the "fast double-blink" thing which, in terms of body-language, has been demonstrated to be a marker that the person is at the least being evasive and at worst telling what they know is an outright lie. (the logic is this is down to cognitive dissonance - the mind and the body are out of step with each other and under stress, the double-blink is a "tell").

ii) On my set-top-box recording, the continuity announcer ends the show with an apology for "this has ended slightly sooner than expected", which suggests some material was removed, possibly on legal advice. Freeview allocates a set time-block for recordings, as I understand the tech: the recording then goes straight into an ad break (not unusual) and then into the first couple of minutes of the following movie. This implies up to three minutes worth of content was removed at the last minute. In fact, every commercial break is truncated, with a lot less ads than you'd expect for peak-time Saturday viewing - almost as if a lot of advertisers were wary of being associated with this programme and pulled their content.

iii) It reminded me of a lot of stuff, and added some new context, about the Sachsgate business on Radio 2. At the time I, like a lot of others were listening to Brand/Morgan and Brand/Ross in a sort of appalled fascination as to how bad it could possibly get. (we were all hacked off the excellent Paul Gambaccini and Bob Harris had been the casualties, ejected or moved to make way for the golden boy. Gambaccini's show on the American music charts had gone, and Brand was frankly no replacement). It was car-crash radio, like a more malevolent version of Sarah Kennedy's shambolic morning show. Except Sarah was just a cheerful bumbler with no malice in her. You didn't get that vibe from Russell Brand.

My motivation in listening to Russell Brand was to be as open-minded as I could and to check him out, hopefully without prejudice or preconception. He was being hyped up as the greatest new comic talent; I wanted to see if there was any substance to the claims. (spoiler: there wasn't). My reaction was partly bemusedment - this bloke is said to be good? - and distaste verging on frank disgust. I'm broadminded. If it's an intelligent comment, I can go with a bit of earthy crudity. But this was crudity for the sake of it, like an eleven year old boy pushing the limits to see what he can get away with. Just not clever or edifying. I also got the "playground bully" vibe, that they'd set people up as interviewees and then get sneery and set them up for a barrage of snide humiliation - often with people who had no idea this was going to happen and who weren't geared up to defend themselves. Which is bullying. Brand sounded as if he'd had lots of practice at this. His sexual abuse at the newscaster was pretty contemptible, too.
On what were then the BBC's messageboards, there was a lot of valid criticism of Brand - a lot got taken down by moderators even when it was reasonable and justifiable. (Some of it, though, you'd concede the mods were in the right - but when well-thought out critique also goes, you did wonder what the moderators had been told to do by The Management). We also kept track of listener complaints, including one of mine. This is interesting too: EVERY Russell Brand show generated complaints to the BBC. Not just the Sachsgate one. The BBC could keep between three and ten complaints a week under wraps and argue this is just a disaffected minority of listeners. But when they seriously pushed it and got ten thousand.... that turned out to be a bit harder to ignore. And any radio show that consistently generated even a few listener complaints every week - you think the BBC might have recognised a bit of a trend emerging, but no. (And, ironically, I'd given up listening to Brand on a Saturday evening on the night Sachsgate happened. There were just better things to do at that time; if I was down in the workroom on a Saturday, I'd put a CD on for preference).
 
Latest development
BREAKING
Met Police confirms report of alleged sexual assault from 2003
We've just received an update from London's Metropolitan Police.

A spokesperson for the Met said: “We are aware of reporting by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches about allegations of sexual offences.

“On Sunday, 17 September, the Met received a report of a sexual assault which was alleged to have taken place in Soho in central London in 2003. Officers are in contact with the woman and will be providing her with support.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66835997
 
Robbrent said:
One could accept that premise is Brand was a superstar, but the reality is he is a B list celebrity whose star was falling fast, in fact I would wager that if this had not happened (the allegations that is) he would have faded into obscurity in a year or two

I have noticed with these minor celebrities' that as their stardom starts to fade, the more controversial they become, quite a number of B & C listers got on the Vaccine conspiracy bandwagon, seeing it as a way to raise their profiles, it's all part of the celebrity grift, there is money to be made in being outrageous and obnoxious as Katie Hopkins and a few others have proved (in fact they wrote the rule book)
Click to expand...
Back to a comparison to David Icke. As I have said before RB needs attention any way he can get it.

Years ago when he appeared on the (celebrity) scene, people were interested in his views simply because he said outlandish (not necessarily untruthful) things about the state of society. Things that most people would prefer to ignore to keep their little view of the world intact.

People who actually had experience in dealing with these social ills daily eg. poverty, inequality etc. were not ones who anyone in power would listen too, nor respond to. RB did bring it into the open and was fairly informative and able to express these issues to "regular" people. He kind of posed as the "little guy's" voice and was more left leaning in his expressed views.

When this didn't get him the attention as it did at the beginning, because everyone knew "oh that's just RB, we've heard it all before." Imo, he got bored.

He then switched to the conspiracy theories and again made outlandish statements that got the attention of people again. This time his expressed views became right leaning.

I do think he is an intelligent person, in that he can express information that is easily understood by all, and that he does understand society. Perhaps too well.

But he is only interested in what can get him the attention from others. And uses his knowledge of how society works for the promotion of him.

I don't believe that Brand has any beliefs that he would defend. He likes the chaos.

In this, going back to David Icke, I think he is nothing like Icke. Icke believes what he is saying and, to my knowledge, has not changed his views to gain attention beyond the conspiracy crowd.
 
Last edited:
On the David Icke Social forum (of which I'm not a member I hasten to add) there is a thread "Looks like they're on to Russell Brand now" (Google it if you're interested).
There are several comments along the lines of The Powers That Be are shutting him up because he tells uncomfortable truths.
So, whilst Brand and Icke have very different personas and I've never heard anyone claim Icke is a coercive sexual predator, there is clearly something of an overlap between their more credulous fanbase.
 
I'm somewhat amused by Twitters ... er ... X's ... Musk's stance.
Elon comes out with support for RB, commenting that the mainstream media didn't like the competition or felt like Brand was a threat to mainstream media. Which, in my view, is exaggerating his reach and influence.
[incorrectly based sentence removed]
Brand was a great 'pull' for platforms - he brought his followers with him, and the firm could look 'edgy' or 'alternative'. This latest situation, though, has left them in a problem. Stick with trouble or distance while you can?

Edit: Did some checking up. Musk is in support, while it's You Tube that has de-monetised his channel.
 
Last edited:
blessmycottonsocks said:
On the David Icke Social forum (of which I'm not a member I hasten to add) there is a thread "Looks like they're on to Russell Brand now" (Google it if you're interested).
There are several comments along the lines of The Powers That Be are shutting him up because he tells uncomfortable truths.
So, whilst Brand and Icke have very different personas and I've never heard anyone claim Icke is a coercive sexual predator, there is clearly something of an overlap between their more credulous fanbase.
Click to expand...
That's quite interesting and revealing about Icke's followers too.
While RB has a far bigger impact in the public consciousness, Dave is quite an after-thought. "Oh, isn't he that nutty bloke in the track suit?"
While both espouse contentious - and some outlandish - views, is Icke telling them he is under mainstream pressure? That he's making uncomfortable waves like Brand? Where did Icke's followers get the impression that their leader will face the same amount of publicity ... er ... attention as Brand?
Or are they actually envious of the attention?
 
Oh lord spare me from the conspiracy nuts

If he was upsetting too many people in high places he would have had a car crash or had an accident that could have been suicide, he is a b lister with a fast falling star

If the allegations are proven he won't be the first man to abuse his status in this way, it's been going on for years

I have read that it was open secret within the entertainment industry, a bit like Jimmy Saville, however it very hard to act on rumors' and gossip
 
While it's often commented on that mainstream media left Russell Brand behind a while ago, I'm not sure the facts bear that out entirely.

This might be true of British TV, where he was a far too familiar face in the noughties (my opinion at the time), but the IMDb shows a fair number of mainstream film appearances and he also appeared in 14 episodes of the HBO show Ballers in 2018-2019.

His 2022 credits include Death on the Nile, the newest Minions movie and a small role in the Amazon Prime film Catherine Called Birdy with the great and the good of British film and TV.

So not quite a total outcast from mainstream media, then.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1258970/

(Thanks for moving this post - I lost track of the thread I was reading.)
 
Last edited:
FunkyTT said:
Yeah, he used to brag about having high ranking policemen come round to his Roundhay, Leeds flat "every thurs lunch" for whiskey and cigars...

. He always used to brag about having many police friends in high places , and that it was "useful" to him. I'm sure he also alluded to having "dirt" on a few of them too.


As for Brand , I'm will reserve judgement until it's been to court. Agree with the those who said that police reports should of been made and not "trial by media". . . . He is/was a sex/drug fiend no doubt about it. . . I just don't know what to think.

It could absolutely be a smear campaign by those in high places he has stood against on his conspiracy vids.

Or it could be true, coked up men can be very sexually aggressive when horny.

Be interesting to see what happens when he gets up in court...

I hope those women are not lying..... Hate that sort of thing.... Muddys the waters for real victims..... But these women could be "real vctims"..

I just don't know , I usually get a "gut feeling " on these matters but im 50/50.

I noticed the comment one made about "smeared mascara " , cut to RB making a joke about "those type of BJs " years ago...... Smear campaign ?

As I said, we will see what happens in court...
.surely police reports will.be filed after this TV reveal?
Click to expand...
I understand the woman who was 16 at the time, just thought it was something adults did and only as she got older, realised she'd been groomed. Then she did indeed try to alert someone to it, only to be hit with a very scary legal cease and desist type letter that terrified her. Which meant she then didn't go to the police...

In the Savile doc, the biographer said the policemen in his little breakfast club were "starstruck" by him. She seemed to be, as well, tbh.
 
Last edited:
Stormkhan said:
I'm somewhat amused by Twitters ... er ... X's ... Musk's stance.
Elon comes out with support for RB, commenting that the mainstream media didn't like the competition or felt like Brand was a threat to mainstream media. Which, in my view, is exaggerating his reach and influence.
[incorrectly based sentence removed]
Brand was a great 'pull' for platforms - he brought his followers with him, and the firm could look 'edgy' or 'alternative'. This latest situation, though, has left them in a problem. Stick with trouble or distance while you can?

Edit: Did some checking up. Musk is in support, while it's You Tube that has de-monetised his channel.
Click to expand...
Interesting thing is, many of the people who are now defending him, are the very people who will have loathed him and been horrified by his schtick, for years. Think the dynamic is, they can finally feel someone "cool" and "edgy" is one of them. There's some interesting research going on around the whole world Brand has espoused in recent years and how it attracts people with narcissistic personality disorder - not just the gurus/social media stars themselves but their followers. That "us against the world" and "we're cleverer than everyone else as we can see through the mainstream media lies/spot the lizard people" etc - does have strong appeal to people who are narcissists. Which rang a bell when Brand's former PA said how egotistical he was, and the only way she could get his attention was to show him a photo of... himself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top