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

a reply to: midicon

Nothing compels me to operate on the priciples of a criminal couirt since I am just a private citizen.

What I have read in his hand and others brings me to believe, on the balance of probabilities, I would never want that bloke withing a hundred miles of my daughter.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: midicon

Nothing compels me to operate on the pricipl,es of a criminal couirt since I am just a private citizen.

What I have read in his hand and others brings me to believe, on the balance of probabilities, I would never want that bloke withing a hundred miles of my daughter.

Can't disagree with that Sprocket. I just thought something more specific might have prompted your post.

a reply to: midicon

No nothing specific, just struck me that this was one of those times I could point to and know I had been conned by the bloke.

originally posted by: Daughter2
To all the posters who point to him acting sleazy and promiscuous as proof he is a rapist, you are very wrong...

When people are true predators, they tend to put on an upstanding citizen act - like Bill Cosby or Weinstein

It makes abuse easier, and the victims are less likely to be believed - it's also a psychological thrill for them.

What most don't do is act like a sleazy drug addict. There's that stupid youtube video saying Russell thought he could be caught - well if he did he certainly wouldn't write a book about his drug addiction and take on people in power. In would be a very well behaved mainstream type person.

the thing is this is also about c4s crafted lad culture that's encompassed many liberal/woke/labour figures.. what this is is damming of that lad culture, and using ia gov owned media outlet to attack brand. is intriguing in the same way the use of gov owned banks to debank the figures critical of the gov takes us down a path where many will see it as yet more evidence of a deeply corrupted gov rather than evidence of abuse..

kind of makes sense with the timing of Prince andrews fresh allegations in Ukraine
just over there noncing orphaned children no doubt

Prince Andrew Ukraine Allegations

sealed until 2065

by which time he will most likely be dead or very old
and people's memories will have wained

I mean odd how one person's allegations are sealed from the public due to his social/political status as a prince of the crown
yet everyone else is subject to public scrutiny and cancel culture etc before they even hit the court

a reply to: sapien82

to be fair if there was anything the americans would rush to release it as the fbi did Mountbatten..

originally posted by: nickyw
using ia gov owned media outlet to attack brand. is intriguing in the same way the use of gov owned banks to debank the figures critical of the gov takes us down a path where many will see it as yet more evidence of a deeply corrupted gov rather than evidence of abuse..

And all this coming within a couple of days of his very vocal televised attack re relationship between government, media, big pharma and other extranational megacorp.

Something unusual happened the day after the hit piece documentary - every single UK MSM news outlet ran with the story @ front page. Same again next day, albeit some as secondary item.

a reply to: nickyw

Unless some high profile elite American's were complicit in Andrew's affairs and wrong doing?

a reply to: teapot

we're very close to the tipping point with the antidemocrats in power, within days we have the censor bill just pass is no coincidence nor is it a coincidence the gov wants the ability for the public to encrypt information removed..

the last i looked near or just over 50% where politically homeless, i'm sure that number gets larger by the day as westminster fights over a minority of the population that still still tribal and believes in the uniparty..

this is all very 1923/24 where liberalism died of corruption..

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: nickyw

Unless some high profile elite American's were complicit in Andrew's affairs and wrong doing?

they do seem to find a way to massage it all as we see with epstein, the thing is none of this ever comes as a shock, the abuse in the asylums, the abuse in the care homes, celebrities like saville, the bbc, or more recent grooming gangs and c4s lad culture, none of it even randy andy is contestable..

my point was the americans especially this iteration of democrats deeply dislike england, especially as they blame the mess in libya/syria on britain, and clinton losing to Trump so would find a way to out randy andy if they could, as they did Mountbatten.

but shoe on other foot, William has been in new york for days the first few where in private meetings only now its making news because the itinerary has shifted to public..

there is lots of convergence though..

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: andy06shake

Indeed. But some folk on here also act as apologists for the likes of Lucy Letby?

Nobody here is an apologist for the likes of Lucy Letby, unless you call rooting out 'due process' and 'perversion of the law' apologetics. I call it calling out potential injustices and just bad police work and here's a new one for you, 'swaying the jury'.

a reply to: nickyw

The 'lad culture' C4 crafted at the time and wider comedy and music of the early 2000s had a lot of wrong uns and he's not the only one known to chase after schoolgirls with more figures set to be named in the series. BBC and C4/Endemol are rightlfully doing full internal investigations into the claims and use of BBC vehicles for grooming 'the kid'' out of school.

They're not Gov owned though, they're statutory corporations independent from direct gov involvement with OFCOM - we thankfully don't have state media in the UK and Dispatches/Times have done hudreds of stories into uk gov corruption.

The Gov also rightly refused to ask media companies to take any Brand content off 'watch again' and other services as that would set a disturbing precedent and move towards state media that is incompatiible with advanced democracy.

It's critical to keep that seperation and make sure the investigation and revelations isn't used to make UK libel/injunction laws any more of a one sided than they are as UK Media Law acts on 'guilty until proven innocent' at trial if media is sued for libel.

a reply to: AlienBorg

I was asked about my qualifications and wasn't the one who asked him what he has. I know he said he is a lawyer but he doesn't seem to be sticking to the ethical principles of innocent until proven guilty.

Not entirely true. You asked if Oldcarpy had a licence, trying to infer something perhaps? I remember a banned rambling, lunatic poster using the same tactic??
A quick internet search will show you that people have been found guilty of crimes based on digital forensic evidence and nothing more.

For historical matters the Police usually dismiss them. Even a security guard knows this.

Say to that Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville accusers??

On topic and to add to the thread.

I see a few poster saying they were consenting adults with asmodborg being one of them.
When does consent turn into not consenting?
All of us can easily say when someone forces themselves onto a stranger, that's rape and none consensual sex.
So if during sex a male decides he's putting 'it' somewhere else and the female doesn't agree and says stop then it becomes none consensual, if he forces her to then carry on, that becomes very difficult to prove, with police and defence asking things like "how many sexual partners have you had?" or "look at how you were dressed?", there's also intimate examinations.

When I was in my early 20's during the early 90s, I had a lovely female friend who loved to dance and have fun. I used to go to raves and would often invite her. She never went.
After knowing her for a few years, she told what had happened a few years before I met her.

She used to go with friends to a local city which had a night club and big Uni'. She did'nt take drugs or drink much, just enjoyed dancing with her friends.
One night a guy started talking to her and her friends, dancing with them and such, at the end of the night he asked my friend if she wanted to get food and share a taxi.
He'd been a gentleman all night and they both seemed interested in each other so she agreed. Whilst they were eating he asked her to if she wanted to come back to his. I know this girl didn't do one night stands or was 'casual'.
She told me that if she wouldn't have slept with him but if they enjoyed the night out and went out again she might of if it looked more serious.
They arrived at his, he put some music on and asked her if she wanted a drink, She said ok, after a few sips that was the last thing she remembered till the next morning.
She knew she had been raped, she was sore and felt dirty. She got up went home and showered and felt full of shame.
She never reported it, never went to the police because she was frightened of what would happen and didn't want to face all that.
I will never forget that conversation for the rest of my life.
Now some of you will say, she shouldn't have gone to his flat or she knew what he wanted, even worse some of you say she's a slag and just covering herself. She had no choice in how the night played out.
She was a lovely woman and lovely friend. I know that night scared her.
Thats how some of these predators get away with the way they treat people.

a reply to: quintessentone

the thing with tribalism is it prevents many seeing common sense or joining the dots.. as a csa survivor i follow a fair few survivors who have incredibly strong views on these topics just as i do, on this they are deeply sceptical of the way this has been presented.

for uk women getting a trial/conviction even when reporting rapes/assaults straight to the police with dna evidence is incredibly hard as less than 1% of rapes achieve a conviction.. historic issues are even harder to convict on.. hence the extreme skepticism i'm seeing followed by the need to see what he's said thats worth all this effort when a conviction is near impossible.

a reply to: Kurokage

She knew she had been raped, she was sore and felt dirty. She got up went home and showered and felt full of shame.
She never reported it, never went to the police because she was frightened of what would happen and didn't want to face all that.
I will never forget that conversation for the rest of my life.
Now some of you will say, she shouldn't have gone to his flat or she knew what he wanted, even worse some of you say she's a slag and just covering herself.

She should have reported it to the police.......
How many others did he go on to do the same to?

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: quintessentone

the thing with tribalism is it prevents many seeing common sense or joining the dots.. as a csa survivor i follow a fair few survivors who have incredibly strong views on these topics just as i do, on this they are deeply sceptical of the way this has been presented.

for uk women getting a trial/conviction even when reporting rapes/assaults straight to the police with dna evidence is incredibly hard as less than 1% of rapes achieve a conviction.. historic issues are even harder to convict on.. hence the extreme skepticism i'm seeing followed by the need to see what he's said thats worth all this effort when a conviction is near impossible.

There is something rotten in Britain for sure.

“The whole process has been more traumatic than the actual rape. I have zero belief in the justice legal system.”

victimscommissioner.org.uk...

He allegedly raped one woman in California so is the American justice system any better in these cases? We shall see.

a reply to: bastion

the thing is even now its near impossible to convict on current rapes/abuse let alone historic claims where evidence is even harder to come by.. and normally it only comes out when the person has died and becomes a historic iassue for gov/police media to wring their hands over..

i'm not buying the state is not involved it's the ultimate owner of these channels and the liability stops with them., as it does police, health, asylums, care homes, the buck stops at westminster.

westminster has enough sexual issues of its own as do the respective political parties, the lad culture is part of the wider malaise we see running through our society..

when i was supporting other survivors in the 90s i was told there were only half a dozen mps and police chiefs that could be trusted to deal with these kinds of issues.. we hear this with female mps needing body gaurds or avoiding certain mps.

we have a sickness and its a top down one.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

She should have reported it to the police.......
How many others did he go on to do the same to?

I said that at the time. She said she was 18 and knew no better and being even a few years older she would've gone, this was back in 90's.
It wouldn't have been a pleasant experience for a young woman going to the old bill back then.

a reply to: Kurokage

It's never going to be pleasant......

a reply to: Itisnowagain

But if Brand is guilty, that's partly how he's got away with his crimes. He befriended some of his alleged victims and made them feel safe.
We still have a culture that wants to slut shame possible victims. This thread is a prime example of that.