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

a reply to: angelchemuel

....and if he can prove his innocence or the women are lying....

Its not for him to prove his innocence, its for others to prove his guilt.
That is one of the most basic, underpinning principles of our judicial system.

I don't like the man - nothing to do with his politics, I just think he is an absolute tosser - and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he is guilty of these accusations but the law has to follow due course and procedure.

a reply to: Freeborn

Yes, I know. But when it becomes 'trial by media' then it seems to turn the other way somehow.
Never particularly liked the guy myself.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Freeborn

I don't like the man - nothing to do with his politics, I just think he is an absolute tosser - and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he is guilty of these accusations but the law has to follow due course and procedure.

All for that certainly.
I just have a hard time with people that choose not
to bring the guy any harm back at the time Sh1t happened. Just to wait
twenty years and then cry rape. Seems to indicate coercion from who
can say where. He should be looking for who's been looking into his
background.That might be fun if he's innocent. But somebody found
out something obviously happened. Whatta GD mess.

I can't see the cops leaving this alone after the program aired.

They have to get involved really-there is the feeling that our cops are pretty useless in many rape allegation cases,so when someone as famous as Brand gets accused they make a huge deal about it if ony to show the public "LOOK we are doing our job aren't we great!"

Like others have said here,I would need to see him convicted in court to fully believe his guilt.
TV shows are highly skilled at manipulating the viewer,and can be biased or untrue,and people are innocent until proven otherwse.

Even so not looking great for Russel,and I bet he will be dumped from most internet platforms regardless of if the cops get involved.so those wanting his ideas erased are likley happy.

I don't know what I think about this one, as his personality was always very forward, and he was a heavy drug user for a long time. He also spits a lot of truth and would easily be a target for monied interests. The great news though, is that I don't have to have an opinion about it, because we have a justice system.

Let them try to press charges. If nothing is proven in a court of law, then I don't give a #.
To me it's actually sad how much we gossip about things like this and speculate.
After the Depp Heard trial, I set a firm standard for myself.
Then everyone was talking about Lizzo supposedly having done something, and getting mad at me for saying I didn't know if she did wrong. LOL. It's good to rely on the facts.

EDIT: For personal reasons, I DO NOT want to know if Lizzo was found guilty of whatever or not, because I am not a Lizzo fan, and I don't care about her as a person. It might sound like silly pettiness, but it's a hill I'm willing to die on. So please don't tell me.

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Even so not looking great for Russel,and I bet he will be dumped from most internet platforms regardless of if the cops get involved.so those wanting his ideas erased are likley happy.

See how that works? I mean for those who can see?

If he is guilty - note the use of the word IF and it's going to be interesting to see just what the authorities do and if any formal charges are placed - then this is very likely going to be Jimmy Saville 2. And I noted, with some disgust, that Saville, a revolting rapist, is mentioned in the story, which is not a good sign for Brand.
Sadly, there is a culture of abuse amongst the rich and supposedly famous, who use their fame to force their victims to be silent and not tell anyone of what happened.
Let's see what happens. I'll shed no tears over Brand, whatever happens, I've never thought that he was funny or indeed relevant. And I was wondering why he pivoted away from films. Hmmm.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And I noted, with some disgust, that Saville, a revolting rapist, is mentioned in the story, which is not a good sign for Brand.

Not a good sign for this whole slew of allegations as such, either. I like my allegations more objective than this, but it's where we're at. As a culture.

And that's that.

a reply to: Smokeygurl

You can be married at 16 in my own nation.

31-year-old men chasing after 16-year-old girls and having sex with them still makes you a beastie bastard in any sane person's book.

As to reading Lolita at 12, that's nice, did a beast encourage you to do so for what appears to be some kind of sick gratification?

If not then probably not the same thing.

And the fact is Brand allegedly did these things here in the UK and not in Maryland USA which means if held to account, or if they decide to prosecute at some later date, it will be under our laws.

a reply to: Saloon

Justice doesn't have the same sort of time limitation here in the UK.

Under the current law there is no statute of limitations for rape and other serious sexual offenses.

Meaning if you are a beast here in the UK they can charge you at any time in life for the offences they choose to commit, even if that is previously years in the past.

Just because something happened years ago does not diminish the sad acts of depravity, if anything it only makes one wonder what they have got away with up until the point that they are held to account.

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

No, not always. But where people in power - celebrities, teachers, doctors and politicians, for example, commit sexual assaults and rape, it takes time for people to come forward, find the courage and voice. That's the nature of these types of crimes.

It's good to be cynical and cautious around accusations like this, but if this was some politician, you may well be calling for his head on a plate.

a reply to: [post=27139572]andy06shake[/post

Just because something happened years ago does not diminish the sad acts of depravity, if anything it only makes one wonder what they have got away with up until the point that they are held to account.

I figured that but it doesn't change what I was saying.

a reply to: paraphi

It's good to be cynical and cautious around accusations like this, but if this was some politician, you may well be calling for his head on a plate.

What if you're the politician, and he's just a fool on the radio? Right now we might as well call for some heads on spikes for bringing up Savile.

the true story is his victims, and how the BBC, Department of Health, Conservative party, Catholic church, police forces, local councils and libel law let them down. ... a monster for whom the British establishment – political, royal, broadcasting, ecclesiastical, medical, charitable – provided a dazzling shield.

Jimmy Savile Wiki

God save the Dazzling Shield! Thanks for "saving" us from the "monsters"!

a reply to: paraphi

It's good to be cynical and cautious around accusations like this, but if this was some politician, you may well be calling for his head on a plate.

No that wasn't true with Biden and it wasn't true with Trump or even Bill Cosby
or Kavanaugh. For instance I think the same way about Biden being accused of
of rape by whom ever she was out of the way past. I mean if somones raped
they're obligated to bring that person to justice. At least in my mind so it saves
someone else from being raped. So that's my view for now.

a reply to: Saloon

Just because something happened years ago doesn't mean you cannot be held to account Saloon.

Surely you are not suggesting that if Brand is found to be guilty of what he's being accused of it should be ignored because it happened a couple of decades in the past?

Dont matter if the fellow is saying things you wish to hear or agree with, or if you even share the same political ideologies, if he's a wrong'yin he should be tarred and feathered just like any other wrong'yin, famous or otherwise.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Vladimir, the man is an absolute tosser.
But I agree with some of the things he's said over the years....and disagree with a damn sight more.

He's full of himself and a pretentious twat.

Has he done these things he's accused of?
Who knows?
Let's not allow our personal like/dislike of him determine our take on these accusations,

"Vladimir"?!

Brand was a heroin/drug and sex addict, plus an alcoholic, so the alegations being true wouldn't suprise me. Brand used his fame to feed his habits.
It's funny seeing people claiming his inoccent and that they're out to get him because Brand spouts a few conspiracies on a Youtube channel?
Did they also claim the same for Epstein, Weistein and Andrew when the first claims about them were made??

a reply to: Insurrectile

Right now we might as well call for some heads on spikes for bringing up Savile.

Its funny you bring up Saville.
The Documentary played a piece of Brand talking to Saville and offering to send over his P.A. naked for Saville.

a reply to: Kurokage

I've not seen it yet but, blimey!

originally posted by: Insurrectile
What if you're the politician, and he's just a fool on the radio? Right now we might as well call for some heads on spikes for bringing up Savile.

Savile's a good example of a celebrity who was protected by people who disbelieved the victims. It's why these accusations must be taken seriously. But dragging up "heads on spikes" for the cover-up and inaction over Savile, is not this discussion.