Russell Brand denies 'serious criminal allegations' he claims are being made against him

The Met police have just said they have received one report of an alleged sexual assault.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Daughter2

Maybe you missed the News of the World newspaper getting closed down and all the media phone hacking scandals and major law suits against said media?

This thread has nothing to do with MAGA or CNN.

a reply to: Daughter2

paid social media troll

Brand is just as much a social media troll as everyone else these days, MSM or not. They're out for clicks/likes just as much as the msm companies are trying to make you switch to there TV channel.
Because he has a Youtube channel spouting about conspircies does that mean he should be allowed to get away with rape? Because it sure looks like you're giving him a free pass because he claims the media are now after him.

a reply to: andy06shake

"Cockwomble"? You might say that, I, couldn't possibly comment!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

I don't know how many times I have to say that all opinions are just speculation at this stage, Asmo...I mean, Alienborg?

Yes, I m well familiar with the Cliff Richard case.

I don't know how many more times I have to tell you let's wait for some proper evidence, follow due process and let's see what happens.

Things are at an early stage, he hasn't even been interviewed by Police or charged.

I have condemned him of nothing more than being a knob head. I have lots of reasons for that opinion, not least what he did to Sachs, reading his book and watching his antics on TV and on social media.

Gary Glitter, etc, was also judged by the Court of public opinion. As have many other nonces that turned out to be guilty.

So let's just wait and see?

You ve got to say this to the people who have already found him guilty in the absence of any evidence and are speculating and speculating and speculating. I hold a much more rational position where you need a jury and jurors to decide (if there are any charges brought up against him)

The wait and see is what it should happen.

Have been watching the documentary and most of what is presented are personal accounts of women who have had sex with him but they were consenting adults. The first one said she was raped btw (that happened in the US). There is a lot of discussion about what a bad boy he was and a womaniser and a drug addict.

If they take him to court they will need much more than the above accounts.

a reply to: angelchemuel

Did they name the accused?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Daughter2

Nope, you are lying. He is wildly popular with the US and with swing voters. He is VERY important to the election!

So are you calling me a liar here on ATS?? Can you prove he's wildly popular and important to an American election?

Ironic you use the word proof...

Can you prove he is guilty of rape and sexual assaults? But you have been going on about it and have come to your conclusions already.

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: andy06shake


But in this instance, the Dispatches documentary that aired last night was years in the making, and the allegations date back to 2006.

So to think they just decided to chuck it together and fling it out there to distract us from god knows what is logically a tad wonky by my guesstimation.

Let's think about this for a second? Years in the making - so maybe that would put it around 20/21? So around the time Brand started to challenge the lock down and really turn against the MSM?

The allegations span around 2006 to 2012, right? Brand was much more popular during that time. So why now, a decade later? I heard nothing at the height of the metoo# movement.

Years in the making - if these allegations were already known maybe it would take months but years? Maybe because they had to hunt for them?

What's enough proof for you to bring charges against the media for election interference? What proof would you need for this crime?

Based ^

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

If the cap fits.

'cockwomble'? According to the Urban Dictionary, 'cockwomble' is derogatory British slang for a person, usually male, who is prone to making outrageously stupid statements and-or inappropriate behaviour while having a very high opinion of their own wisdom and importance.

If Brands not the fellow, i don't know who is bar Boris.

a reply to: AlienBorg

"If they take him to court they will need much more than the above accounts."

How many times do I have to say exactly that to you?!!!!!

Yes, we are all speculating at this stage, including your good self.

"Consenting adults"?!!!!

Quite the opposite according to what they are saying.

Which is kind of the whole point?

a reply to: andy06shake

Extracted from my post above

Have been watching the documentary and most of what is presented are personal accounts of women who have had sex with him but they were consenting adults. The first one said she was raped btw (that happened in the US). There is a lot of discussion about what a bad boy he was and a womaniser and a drug addict.

If they take him to court they will need much more than the above accounts.

They have tried to assassinate his character in the documentary. I don't think it worked. He has many fans around.

If there is evidence they need to present it in a court of law. It seems most are accounts of consenting adults who had sex with him.

I am of the view that only a court of law can decide and not the media and potentially misleading documentaries.

He has bve

a reply to: AlienBorg

You ve got to say this to the people who have already found him guilty in the absence of any evidence and are speculating and speculating and speculating. I hold a much more rational position where you need a jury and jurors to decide (if there are any charges brought up against him)

Asmod... Alienborg, this is a website purely for people to post their opinions about subjects, thats what we're all doing on here. Nobody is asking for Brands head or claiming he's definitely guilty of the crimes he's been accused of from what I've seen on here so far.

The wait and see is what it should happen.

If it was just wait and see then ATS would close down pretty quickly as would twitter and the like as nobody would be allowed to post an opinion.

a reply to: andy06shake

Steady, careful now. That definition might have wider applications on here........

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

"If they take him to court they will need much more than the above accounts."

How many times do I have to say exactly that to you?!!!!!

Yes, we are all speculating at this stage, including your good self.

"Consenting adults"?!!!!

Quite the opposite according to what they are saying.

Which is kind of the whole point?

They did sound in most cases consenting adults. Retrospectively one thinks they were used or they were groomed. But that's after many many years. Some may believe they were used for example.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

You ve got to say this to the people who have already found him guilty in the absence of any evidence and are speculating and speculating and speculating. I hold a much more rational position where you need a jury and jurors to decide (if there are any charges brought up against him)

Asmod... Alienborg, this is a website purely for people to post their opinions about subjects, thats what we're all doing on here. Nobody is asking for Brands head or claiming he's definitely guilty of the crimes he's been accused of from what I've seen on here so far.

The wait and see is what it should happen.

If it was just wait and see then ATS would close down pretty quickly as would twitter and the like as nobody would be allowed to post an opinion.

He has been found guilty on social media and I am sure you too consider him to be guilty as charged.

I take a much more conservative and rational view.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Daughter2

Maybe you missed the News of the World newspaper getting closed down and all the media phone hacking scandals and major law suits against said media?

This thread has nothing to do with MAGA or CNN.

Ok - a few people were convicted of robbery in my neighbor - I should NEVER expect another robbery!

You comment was a perfect example of a dirty trick by the media - my CNN example was another. Based on history, yes, the media can and does lie.

a reply to: AlienBorg

"I am of the view that only a court of law can decide and not the media and potentially misleading documentaries."

In case you hadn't noticed, so am I as are most others on here.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Extracted from my post above

Whats that now?

Have been watching the documentary and most of what is presented are personal accounts of women who have had sex with him but they were consenting adults. The first one said she was raped btw (that happened in the US). There is a lot of discussion about what a bad boy he was and a womaniser and a drug addict.

That was quick its 1 hour 45 mins long.

Is the little girl "The Child" according to Brand, not just 16 when he allegedly forced his tallywacker in her face, where she proceeded to have to punch him off her?

Coz that's rape right there in any sane man's mind, or at the very least sexual assault.

And the fact is it doesn't even matter as to what age the poor girl happens to be.

If they take him to court they will need much more than the above accounts.

He's not even been charged yet, You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.

And again i don't think you are qualified to make that assessment given your apparent very limited understanding of our legal system with reference to the fact that you can't seem to comprehend we do not have a statute of limitations for a start or what may constitute actual evidence.

They have tried to assassinate his character in the documentary. I don't think it worked. He has many fans around.

Like yourself for instance?

If there is evidence they need to present it in a court of law. It seems most are accounts of consenting adults who had sex with him.

Not what the people in the documentary said or who made the allegations.

I am of the view that only a court of law can decide and not the media and potentially misleading documentaries.

Ultimately i think we agree there again its a court of law he has to worry about, and a court of law where if charged his innocence or guilt will be determined.

He has bve

"bve"

Does he aye?

Probably get cream from the GP for that.

What's "bve" when it's at home?

a reply to: AlienBorg

He has been found guilty on social media and I am sure you too consider him to be guilty as charged.

Can you please post my comment where I've stated that he's guilty or are trying to put words in my mouth? You'll find I've made no such comment and expect you to retract that.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
Yes, they have said Russell Brand. It's just breaking, I'll look for a link and edit.
Rainbows
Jane

PS.
Correction, they did not name Brand.

The Metropolitan Police has received a report of an alleged sexual assault in 2003 in connection with The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches' allegations about Russell Brand.

Officers did not name Brand, but said they were in contact with the woman and were "providing her with support".

BBC link