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

a reply to: quintessentone

very much an issue but looking at it through female eyes even female mps are not safe from sex pests in westminaster..at one point it earned the nickname pestminster as new mps where given lists of sex pest mps to avoid at all costs.. a situation like that is going to taint the rest of the system..

we see this with the cases where you have the likes of peter wilby undermining or blocking journalists investigating cases of abuse as he himself had extreme child abuse material.

i tend to keep on eye on Mark Williams-Thomas, thats the journalist who broke the saville story who has been working on another high profile story since 2022, so there is far more to this than just brand or wilby and more is coming out as it did with saville when it snowballed into harris and clifford..

something is very rotten..

a reply to: Kurokage

If Brand is guilty it would have been recognised sooner if his accusers had logged it with the police.....if it was on record then no one would be arguing now.

Have any of the accusers from the program ever gone to the police?

a reply to: nickyw

Not only that the U.K. prosecutors are using those old tactics of victimizing the victim by inquiring as to past sexual behaviour. Hey who hasn't gone through the dating scene (which can be a weird, wild and sometimes horrific ride) only to end up wanting something meaningful or choosing celibacy after it is all said and done.

Focusing on the past was the past, not the present condition of how someone wishes to move forward with their life. Take Brand's California alleged rape victim, yes, she had one consensual encounter with him. Then he calls her up to come to his home...she goes and he greets her naked then allegedly rapes her against a wall. Where is the consent? Will the prosecutors say well she knew what she was getting into when she went to meet him..."no"...there was no consent to anything but her coming over to his place. That's how they do it with these types of cases. And even if she consented on the phone for a sexual encounter, then changed her mind...No is No? Obviously not in U.K. courtrooms.

originally posted by: quintessentone
Not only that the U.K. prosecutors are using those old tactics of victimizing the victim by inquiring as to past sexual behaviour.

Are they? In the case of rape, and probably for all criminal cases, the judge decides what's admissible, not the prosecutor. If the judge thinks "past sexual behaviour" is relevant, then it is. I suspect, mostly, it is not relevant.

Rape and sexual offence

a reply to: paraphi

That is quite correct. The bad old days are long gone, thankfully.

a reply to: teapot

'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."

Nothing unusual about that!

a reply to: nickyw

The solution should not be a trial by media for "selected" people. The solution should be to push for more resources.

The documentary should have been about ordinary cases with substantial evidence ignored by the police. Those are the cases which need publicity.

Pushing a case from 20 years ago against a person who is taking away advertising from the MSM, only hurts the credibility of victims.

a reply to: quintessentone

"No is No? Obviously not in U.K. courtrooms."

It very much is.

a reply to: Kurokage

"We still have a culture that wants to slut shame possible victims. This thread is a prime example of that."

All too evidently, sadly.

It's a good thing Brand has the maga crowd to protect and make excuses for him. If he had of been a lib...."string up the pedo" would have been the chant.

It's an established pattern.


ok, now start the "whataboutism"....also an established pattern.

a reply to: olaru12

What is a 'lib'?

a reply to: olaru12

Oddly, he was for quite some time very left wing until he started to pander to the MAGA crowd.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

With all due respect, historically there was hardly a culture of encouraging women to come forward when they had been subjected to any sort of sexual attack here in the UK.
Yes, it was a systemic failing and one which we have to improve upon.

I know a couple of women who have confided in me that they didn't report the sexual abuse they endured because of the perceived stigma surrounding such victims.
One of those women is a very good friend of mine; she confided in me quite some time after breaking up with her partner, who was the offender.
She said she couldn't bear the trauma of the cross-examination in court and the thought that everybody knowing what she had suffered and all the inevitable snide and malicious comments being made behind her back.
Justice was carried out eventually, maybe not as recognised by the judicial system but it seemed appropriate to me.

I can't even begin to understand what it must be like for a woman to be the victim of a sex crime, to be raped or to feel trapped in a sexually abusive relationship.
I can sympathise but i'll never be able to empathise.

People can try to take the moral high ground and defend Brand and whine about his alleged public trial by media.
But as I've said previously, he was the very epitome of a media whore - you reap what you sow.
And there can be no doubting he was incredibly misogynistic and emotionally abusive to many of his 'conquests'.

I strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty, but I'm struggling to have any sympathy whatsoever for Brand.
The legal procedure will take its due course and if deemed appropriate both his victims and he will have their day in court.
If a jury of his peers find him guilty I hope he gets lifed off - as I do with all perpetrators of sex crimes.
If he is innocent then he will walk free....but the world will always know that he is a morally repugnant human being.

a reply to: Freeborn

Yes.

He's made his career by courting publicity through his lewd and outrageous behaviour and very public persona.


Now folk whine about the Court of public opinion and all the current publicity.

Odd, that.

a reply to: Crumbles

Check out your PM's on here, please

I don't trust these news outlets.....Reason being, these news outlets you trust so much sit up there and report lies coming from the White House press secretary daily. They don't question the lies, they don't dispute anything and they turn around and report the same lies. Is that the news media I am to trust when it comes to something like this? I am not siding with Russel, but I can tell you I have good reason not to side with the known lying media.

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

I asked if he still have a license to practise. You're confusing matters by interfering in other members conversations. Your conversation and your story isn't relevant here.

But when you don't have the physical evidence it's almost imperceptible to prove rape and sexual assault even if it happened. It's for this reason mainly that most historical events are dismissed by the Police. The quick search didn't reveal much about the use of digital forensics in rape cases that may have happened 20 or 30 years ago.

Most of the documentary discusses consenting adults and the behaviour of Brand that it is regarded as being morally troubling on some instances. At the same time there are some serious allegations against him on some other instances such sexual assault and rape.

These allegations are the substance of the documentary and not whether Brand is a bad boy, a womaniser, or someone with no moral compass. Although the documentary is trying to present him as such but a few hours after here comes a woman on Piers Morgan who had a short relationship with him and saying everything happened between consenting adults and Brand was very lovely and caring. She goes to say how he was an activist at that time fighting for women's rights.

And a little after that other videos emerging with another woman who was approached by journalists the same way these women were approached but her account has not been included in the documentary... The reason being it wasn't what the producers wanted to hear.

His ex girlfriend also commented saying she doesn't know whether he committed these crimes but when they were together there wasn't any problems.

It's best if the right idea is given at least for what is discussed in the media and if it goes to the court then let the court decide. But the media trials are unacceptable and very damaging for the legal process.

a reply to: sean

The White House?

This is here in the UK?

Its so obvious what is happening here! These alleged victims will not see a court! Brand will not see a court! Its been over 20 years, so the police will say tbere is no evidence! The so called victims will walk away and get on with their lives with their identity still hidden, while brands reputation is in the mud!

Its brain conditioning. That is why the media put a photo of saville alongside brand, so when people think of Saville, they think of brand!

To me, this proves 100% that this was an orcastrated attack on russell brand to smear his name!

Piers morgon says that it ridiculous to think this is a coordinated attack, but here they are, putting a photo of Savile and brand together!

Also, the media are saying victims, not aledged victims, which means they are saying he is guilty! This is a trial by media, that has been carefully planned!

They are the real criminals, and they get away with it time and time sgain!