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

It's pretty shocking to hear that Russell Brand was taken to a brothel by his father.....where he lost his virginity to a prostitute.

The doc was all fur coat and no knickers. Lots of moody, serious music, silhouettes and dower voice over from a suitably young female narrator. Underneath the aesthetics it was tabloid mud slinging, all anecdote and no evidence. The only shred of evidence was the rape examination report from the first woman; but notice there was nothing to say she was raped mentioned from the report - no signs of force, bruising. If that had been found then this doc would’ve made a big thing of it.

Everything else concerning rape was heresay. Lost count of how many times text on screen said ‘journalists spoke to a few people who confirmed she was seeing Brand’. If these were credible sources then they’d have been given the silhouette/actor treatment to get these corroborating statements on screen

The Big Brother show BS about staff being pimps to give audience members his phone number so they could call him after the show was hilariously over done. Who frakking cares - girls threw themselves at him and he had sex with them. Having issues with that is pure envy. If the staff feel bad about doing that it’s on them for not telling the company they didn’t want to; if they did it’s on the company for not telling brand to not do it.

The doc also hilariously overplayed the glazed eyes/his eyes turned black… thought the finale was gonna be a priest explaining demon possession to us.

Personally I always thought he was a narcissistic bell end. I’m not surprised he was shagging everything, including 16 year olds (let’s not get into rock bands on tour in the 70s - if you like any 70s rock band there’s a chance they probably acted this way). But does that make him a (or them) criminal? Nope! And if we’re deciding that immoral stuff that wasn’t criminal should be made so and prosecuted in hindsight then most bankers, politicians and corporate big boys, like Bezos will be getting locked up too for serious tax evasion.

As much as I used to dislike Brand he’s impressed with his podcast reinvention. Sure it’s all still self promotion to a certain extent, but that’s show biz and politics - they all do that. Imo this reeks of tptb doing a job on Brand to eliminate a pest. What a coincidence that just when the US and U.K. are about to start a new vaccine rollout perhaps the west’s most influential voice against it has been attacked by a Murdoch newspaper and a tv channel run by someone who used to work for Murdoch. And surely there’s no doubt that Murdoch is up to his neck in the massive profiteering racket that is tax money laundered into private hands via endless vaccines

However, because Brand doesn’t rely on mainstream corporations to make his vids, then this won’t stop him. In fact his audience will in the main believe it’s a set up - if they weren’t open to the notion of conspiracies then they wouldn’t be watching his vids. So to stop him it’s either criminal investigation and a guilty verdict (which going by the flimsy presentation in the doc won’t happen), or it’s YT succumbing to mob pressure to take down his channel. But there’s other portals and he’s so popular that YT could end up regretting that move

With so many dodgy basteds and overdue stories out there in politics and commerce, not least of which is Epstein’s client list of regular island visitors its astounding that anyone could watch that trash last night and not think ‘why not them?’ ‘Why brand and why now?’

Police have appealed for more victims to come forward in their investigation after the strength of evidence in the four year Times/Dispatches investigation of over 100 people who knew about his paedo/rapey ways.

It was an open secret in comedy/showbiz he's a rapist since the mid 2000s but this is moving very fast and telling that his lawyers refused to answer questions of press and dispatches prior to airing.

If it wasn't all confirmed with cast iron evidece they could have slapped an injunction on Times/Dispatches and would be persuing libel/slander action.

Journalism law is very restrictive in the UK ad privacy laws are very tight - plus as said previously Times Insight Team and Dispatches are the best in their respective business and haven't made any errors in their long history.

There's meant to be numerous reports of him making 14 and 15 year old girls falsely sign waivers falsely claiming they were 16 or older before being allowed in his hotel room for 'afterparties' - appears both Manchester and London police are involved in looking into those claims.

a reply to: bastion

Trial by media.

Why do the police have to watch it on the tv?

If it's all confirmed with cast iron evidence ......

Why hasn't he been arrested before it was publicly announced on a tv programme?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Why hasn't he been arrested before it was publicly announced on a tv programme?

It's called investigative journalism. It's how many of these scandals are exposed. The publicity makes sure it is in the public domain, so makes it less likely that the rich person/celebrity will successfully apply for gagging orders and other legal protections to prevent reporting and investigation.

Celebrities rape and abuse women. That is a fact. Even celebrities that are beloved by their supporters.

That said, Brand is innocent until proven guilty. But there has been a lot of material put into the public domain that will require due legal process to understand and uncover the truth.

a reply to: paraphi

Why have the police not arrested him if it is confirmed with cast iron evidence?

a reply to: paraphi

Aye Dispatches isn't wet behind the ears journalism it's very hard hitting stuff that has often revealed global crimes such as Andy Gilligan's reveal on the illegal international 'extraordinary rendition' policy the US used to kidnap suspects and have them tortured in black sites.

UK Police have a very poor track record of investigating child grooming, rape and sexual abuse cases properly.

If it was all a made up MSM conspiracy then why didn't they file a super injunction and why were all the claims from when he was working for BBC and Channel 4 it was broadcast on who covered up his actions as there's good chance OFCOM looking into closing both down or at least removing their allocation of TV liscence funds for their complicity in the behaviour.

They've not arrested him as they're gathering more evidence and only have a small time window from arrest to pressing charges.

a reply to: bastion


Why have the police not arrested him if it is confirmed with cast iron evidence?

a reply to: McGinty
Well said and thank you for your description of the documentary as I didn't watch it.
If he's guilty, then bring those charges to a court of law, if not.... Brand will sue the pants off them for slander abd defamation of character. Chanel4 is already in debt.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Why has he not said he will be suing for defamation?

Police investigation will take time.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

If someone commits a crime against you and it is confirmed with cast iron evidence
.... do you report it to the police or to a journalist?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It's called investigative journalism.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

This "he raped me" routine is getting pretty old. Soros
has no imagination. I know people like Brand don't get in
trouble for lying. They get in trouble for telling the truth.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Why have the police not arrested him if it is confirmed with cast iron evidence?

Give it time. It's Sunday and the police are probably out arresting an old woman for mis-gendering someone.

It will take time for the journalists files to be processed and for a formal accusation to be made.

You seem very keen for Brand to be arrested.

originally posted by: Saloon
This "he raped me" routine is getting pretty old.

Yes. Those pesky women always making it up, especially when the right type of celebrity is in the frame, eh?

a reply to: Saloon

They also get in trouble for raping people.

He has almost no reach. When the average person thinks about him they think of Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Either that or the fact that he was Mr. Katy Perry for a while.

Speaking of, here's what Katy had to say at the time of their divorce:

I felt a lot of responsibility for it ending, but then I found out the real truth, which I can’t necessarily disclose because I keep it locked in my safe for a rainy day.

a reply to: paraphi

Yes. Those pesky women always making it up, especially when the right type of celebrity is in the frame, eh?

Always something that happened years ago.
Can't help but notice a pattern getting repeated.
I'm not a liberal.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
By the sounds of things, now the paper has published and the programme has aired just 12 hours ago, and if he can prove his innocence or the women are lying..... then he will I would have thought.
Due process and all that..... he already has a letter and email from the respective paper and Channel4, at that point it was not public..... but it is now.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Threadbare

He never did seem to rattled about breaking up with Perry.

But I don't know squat about living in that world either. So...

a reply to: Threadbare
Well, if she has any incriminating evidence (I wonder what that would be that requires locking in a safe?) then I also wonder, if she feels so agrieved whether she will unlock said safe.
Rainbows
Jane