Russell Brand

[The Cat]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d4d93e74-5478-11ee-bc18-cbdd58145dc6?shareToken=7a02d5b946c41ec24f82b614795c00a7

There's also a Dispatches programme on C4 tonight about him. 

Potentially more 90's/2000's comedians to be implicated too.

[cloggy saint]

Well there's a surprise, who'd have thought? He always struck me as a wrongun. 

[AlexLaw76]

Oh dear, I doubt this will end well for him...even if it stops at 'trial by social media'

[sadoldgit]

I can’t forget the “prank” phone calls he and Jonathan Ross made to Andre Sachs about his granddaughter. I don’t know whether he has mental health issues or is just a nasty piece of work, but I did find it odd that the BBC went with it as the main news story last night. He is hardly a major celebrity anymore but you would think it was Rishi Sunak the way they went at it. It was also strange to see so much of the prosecution evidence being given screen time before the trial has started. 
He is another who thinks that the sun shines out of his backside and probably believes that no woman/girl in their right mind would ever say no to him, but the BBC should have run the story further down the programme and just reported on the charges rather than play a succession of prosecution evidence. There will be plenty of time for that during the trial

Mrs SOGs best mate is a big Brand fan and they are coming round next Saturday night for a curry, so the conversation could be interesting!

[egg]

Like SoG, I'm surprised how much air time this has been given so quickly. However, Brand is a self confessed recovering sex addict and has admitted predatory behaviour, so revelations of him pursuing women for (consensual) sex aren't a surprise. The rape allegation though is horrible, and given the medical records and the messages in the aftermath, there seems to be a case to answer. 

Edited 17 September, 2023 by egg

[The Kraken]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

Like SoG, I'm surprised how much air time this has been given so quickly. However, Brand is a self confessed recovering sex addict and has admitted predatory behaviour, so revelations of him pursuing women for (consensual) sex aren't a surprise. The rape allegation though is horrible, and given the medical records and the messages in the aftermath, there seems to be a case to answer. 

From what I gather there’s been rumours around Brand for years, I can only imagine this is the tip of the iceberg and plenty more women will come out once this has aired, and the Beeb know this.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

From what I gather there’s been rumours around Brand for years, I can only imagine this is the tip of the iceberg and plenty more women will come out once this has aired, and the Beeb know this.

He's a self confessed sex addict/predator so rumours supporting that aren't a surprise in themselves. The area of concern is anything non consensual, or otherwise illegal. 

[Lighthouse]

Obviously we’ve no idea if any of these stories are true but he is a self confessed massive coke head, amongst other things. He is quite clearly prone to some very erratic and questionable behaviour.

[whelk]

53 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

it. It was also strange to see so much of the prosecution evidence being given screen time before the trial has started

I thought that but guess they can get away with it as there is no prosecution yet. Even though you would think someone’s testimony on news bulletin must be credible or BBC would be slaughtered giving airtime to such an allegation.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Radio 5 shows were interviewing one of the journalists involved, as the TV programme was going out, as their main story. With lots of details.

This morning, radio 4 and 5 were both interviewing at the same time, and both as the lead story.

Rumours widespread enough that the journalists picked up the story from the acts of other comedians. Activity through the times these companies were employing him.

It's not that cynical to know that the companies involved will be looking at themselves, even as they report it. From the journalists saying there's more to come to boost sales to the Beeb's over breathless reporting on itself to show news independence, while, elsewhere, their HR braces itself to deal with what's coming next. No doubt there will be others using it as a stick to further other causes. I've already heard BBC funding and disdain for online platforms being used as defences/ ways of sidestepping mainstream rights of reply.

None of which anywhere near as important as it actually being reported, and for people like this, if true, facing justice. Zero sympathy for Brand or any others who are also brought into this for similar behaviour, covering it up or dismissing the victims.

[Fan The Flames]

Why had he dissappeared off mainstream media and is he a conspiracy nutter?

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

Why had he dissappeared off mainstream media and is he a conspiracy nutter?

Back in 2008 he and Jonathan Ross were on his Radio 2 programme and left a number of unsavoury messages on Andrew Sach’s answerphone whilst broadcasting. Brand had briefly dated Sach’s grand daughter and references were made by both of them about the sexual nature of the relationship. Ross was suspended without pay for 12 weeks and Brand resigned after the outrage. It became known as Sachsgate.

He vanished from the mainstream but has it seems still had a career, sadly. I don’t know if he is a conspiracy nutter. I have always found him deeply irritating and tend to switch off when he appears.

The BBC led with the story again on the early evening news. I get that they need to report on it given some of these alleged incidents happened when he was employed by them, but I would say that the situation in Libya is currently a bigger story.

If he is a sexual predator, maybe these news reports will encourage others to come forward. The downside is though that he will get the oxygen of publicity again, will be back all over mainstream media for a while and has already started to milk it.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Back in 2008 he and Jonathan Ross were on his Radio 2 programme and left a number of unsavoury messages on Andrew Sach’s answerphone whilst broadcasting. Brand had briefly dated Sach’s grand daughter and references were made by both of them about the sexual nature of the relationship. Ross was suspended without pay for 12 weeks and Brand resigned after the outrage. It became known as Sachsgate.

He vanished from the mainstream but has it seems still had a career, sadly. I don’t know if he is a conspiracy nutter. I have always found him deeply irritating and tend to switch off when he appears.

The BBC led with the story again on the early evening news. I get that they need to report on it given some of these alleged incidents happened when he was employed by them, but I would say that the situation in Libya is currently a bigger story.

If he is a sexual predator, maybe these news reports will encourage others to come forward. The downside is though that he will get the oxygen of publicity again, will be back all over mainstream media for a while and has already started to milk it.

What do you mean that he "has already started to milk" the publicity? He really hasn't. He's denied the allegations, and last night honoured a commitment. Getting on with things the best he can is not "milking" anything. 

[whelk]

38 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

He vanished from the mainstream but has it seems still had a career

Have you heard of Hollywood? Katy Perry?

Edited 17 September, 2023 by whelk

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, whelk said:

Have you heard of Hollywood? Katy Perry?

Don't tell me Paul Hollywood is involved as well!

[Turkish]

9 hours ago, The Kraken said:

From what I gather there’s been rumours around Brand for years, I can only imagine this is the tip of the iceberg and plenty more women will come out once this has aired, and the Beeb know this.

Some of the stuff he has allegedly done is horrific. 

[rooney]

An objectional character imho.

[skintsaint]

Was surprised he was actually listed as a comedian. 

[sadoldgit]

13 hours ago, egg said:

What do you mean that he "has already started to milk" the publicity? He really hasn't. He's denied the allegations, and last night honoured a commitment. Getting on with things the best he can is not "milking" anything. 

My point is that characters like him love publicity, good or bad. They thrive on it and he will love being back on a major stage again. Of course he has denied the allegations. What would you expect. Watch now as he tries to become the victim in this.

13 hours ago, whelk said:

Have you heard of Hollywood? Katy Perry?

Is being married to Katy Perry something that you put on your CV? How long ago was that?

Hollywood? When was the last time he made a movie? Perhaps recently but I can’t remember the last time he had a major film out.

He hasn’t been charged with any offence yet. It is time for the accusers to go to the police. I don’t understand why they have gone to the media first. 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t understand why they have gone to the media first. 

It's the modern soshul meeja way.

[sadoldgit]

31 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It's the modern soshul meeja way.

I guess so. It seems odd though because you would think that the defence would argue that it effects their client’s right to a “ fair trial”.

I see that the likes of Andrew Tait, Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox and Michael Barrymore have come out in support of Brand. That doesn’t bode well for him!

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

My point is that characters like him love publicity, good or bad. They thrive on it and he will love being back on a major stage again. Of course he has denied the allegations. What would you expect. Watch now as he tries to become the victim in this.

Is being married to Katy Perry something that you put on your CV? How long ago was that?

Hollywood? When was the last time he made a movie? Perhaps recently but I can’t remember the last time he had a major film out.

He hasn’t been charged with any offence yet. It is time for the accusers to go to the police. I don’t understand why they have gone to the media first. 

You were talking as if he had vanished since doing the Ross prank. His films came after that.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Of course he has denied the allegations. What would you expect. Watch now as he tries to become the victim in this.

 

Of course 😂
 

If he’s innocent, then he is indeed a victim. Just like Ched Evans & Kevin Spacey were. A jury will decide and he’s quite entitled to protest his innocence.
 

As for your claims that you’ve not hear a peep from him since him & Ross’ shenanigans, I’m surprised an avid Guardista has forgotten this little gem. 
 

 

[The Kraken]

The geezer has hardly been hiding under a bush. As stated in the Despatches programme he’s got something like 27 million followers worldwide, including 11m on his Twitter and 6m subscribers to his YouTube channel. Quite frankly I don’t think he’s going to be “loving the publicity, good or bad” just because it “puts him back on a major stage again”, he’s already (somehow) got a huge audience of smitten kittens with the likes of weird Elon going in to bat for him.

 

Edited 18 September, 2023 by The Kraken

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I guess so. It seems odd though because you would think that the defence would argue that it effects their client’s right to a “ fair trial”.

I see that the likes of Andrew Tait, Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox and Michael Barrymore have come out in support of Brand. That doesn’t bode well for him!

The 2 x allegations in this jurisdiction are with women (albeit 1 only 16 years old - morally wrong, but not unlawful) who both seemingly had consensual relationships with him. Whether Brand's behaviour falls into the new control and coercive behaviour categories I don't know, but I'm not sure what else he could potentially be tried for over here. It seems that the alleged rape and sexual assaults were in the states. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

The geezer has hardly been hiding under a bush. As stated in the Despatches programme he’s got something like 27 million followers worldwide, including 11m on his Twitter and 6m subscribers to his YouTube channel. Quite frankly I don’t think he’s going to be “loving the publicity, good or bad” just because it “puts him back on a major stage again”, he’s already (somehow) got a huge audience of smitten kittens with the likes of weird Elon going in to bat for him.

 

Yep. And he's also never hidden what he is. In the launch material for his Recovery book he said "I am an addict, addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex, money, love and fame". He's also described himself as a predator. The rape allegation though is particularly nasty, and it's hard to see how people loyal to him can look past that. 

[The Kraken]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. And he's also never hidden what he is. In the launch material for his Recovery book he said "I am an addict, addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex, money, love and fame". He's also described himself as a predator. The rape allegation though is particularly nasty, and it's hard to see how people loyal to him can look past that. 

I know he’s been open but I think he’s previously tried to portray himself as just a bit of a lad and a top shagger who can pick and choose women at will. I only caught the last of half of the programme last night, but I started with the girl’s story that she was 16 and in school and he’d send round a car to pick her up and bring her to his flat. He was 30 at the time.  Then it covered a sexual assault which sounded utterly grim and, according to the victim, there were people outside who heard her screaming and didn’t come in to stop it (one apologised to her years after for it).

I said earlier I think this is merely the tip of the iceberg and there will be many more horrendous stories coming out of the woodwork. Good job for him he makes his money from YouTube and such like because I think it’s going to be a terrible look for him once it all starts unravelling.

[sadoldgit]

6 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Of course 😂
 

If he’s innocent, then he is indeed a victim. Just like Ched Evans & Kevin Spacey were. A jury will decide and he’s quite entitled to protest his innocence.
 

As for your claims that you’ve not hear a peep from him since him & Ross’ shenanigans, I’m surprised an avid Guardista has forgotten this little gem. 
 

 

It appears that we have a new law to sit alongside Godwin’s Law. It is called Duckhunter’s Law and it states that any thread that contains a theme of rape or sexual assault must contain a reference to Ched Evans.

As you have brought him up, yet again, Ched Evans wasn’t the one who woke up alone and confused in a hotel room with no idea how he got there or what happened to him after being sexually molested by two complete strangers whilst their buddies film them through the hotel room window.

Kevin Spacey is clearly a sexual predator and the last thing anyone who listened to the evidence against him would describe him as a “victim”. Tell that to the men he has hit on with unsolicited advances.

You don’t seem to have a problem with sexual predators but given that you rate women by the number of pints you would need to drink before you decided to have sex with them, perhaps that shouldn’t come as a surprise. 

I am no fan of either Owen Jones or Russell Brand so the chances of me having read that article are zero.

Back to Brand. I watched the Dispatches programme this afternoon.  Not a great watch. The bloke is clearly a sexual predator and uses multiple women for his own gratification (no Duckie, that doesn’t make him a victim). The clips from his stand up routine show how he used his grooming technique and his spit fetish for laughs. Classy. His sucking up to Jimmy Savile was also unpleasant. Clearly both cut from the same cloth.

Still, all is well because everything was “consensual” and anyway, he is a sex addict so that makes it okay because he can’t help himself.

Whether he is guilty of sexual offences or not, he comes across as a very unpleasant human being who has turned his worse personality traits into a career.

[egg]

34 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It appears that we have a new law to sit alongside Godwin’s Law. It is called Duckhunter’s Law and it states that any thread that contains a theme of rape or sexual assault must contain a reference to Ched Evans.

As you have brought him up, yet again, Ched Evans wasn’t the one who woke up alone and confused in a hotel room with no idea how he got there or what happened to him after being sexually molested by two complete strangers whilst their buddies film them through the hotel room window.

Kevin Spacey is clearly a sexual predator and the last thing anyone who listened to the evidence against him would describe him as a “victim”. Tell that to the men he has hit on with unsolicited advances.

You don’t seem to have a problem with sexual predators but given that you rate women by the number of pints you would need to drink before you decided to have sex with them, perhaps that shouldn’t come as a surprise. 

I am no fan of either Owen Jones or Russell Brand so the chances of me having read that article are zero.

Back to Brand. I watched the Dispatches programme this afternoon.  Not a great watch. The bloke is clearly a sexual predator and uses multiple women for his own gratification (no Duckie, that doesn’t make him a victim). The clips from his stand up routine show how he used his grooming technique and his spit fetish for laughs. Classy. His sucking up to Jimmy Savile was also unpleasant. Clearly both cut from the same cloth.

Still, all is well because everything was “consensual” and anyway, he is a sex addict so that makes it okay because he can’t help himself.

Whether he is guilty of sexual offences or not, he comes across as a very unpleasant human being who has turned his worse personality traits into a career.

I get that SoG, but Brand will not be tried in any court in any country for legal but immoral behaviour, legal but unpleasant behaviour, pursuing woman and then having consensual sexual relations, being an addict, being a shit comedian, or for being the general toerag that he seems to be. Let's see what happens in terms of any alleged criminal act - ultimately that's where all this seems to be leading. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Clearly both cut from the same cloth.

 

 

Id be careful about throwing accusations like that around if I were you. 
 

As egg has said, a jury of his peers will determine whether he’s broken the law. He is innocent until proven guilty and it’s a bit worrying that an ex CPS employee doesn’t seem to respect this fundamental part of our legal system.

[rallyboy]

While we must await the proper due process of multiple investigations it's still fair to point out that when the valley is full of smoke, you can be pretty sure that there's a fire out there somewhere.

You can barely see Brand for smoke at the moment so if anyone wants to offer him their full support, you have to admire their brave and courageous loyalty to the man, and then wait to see where this stance eventually leaves them.

Standing up against alleged rape victims could be considered an odd hill to die on.

[The Kraken]

19 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Good job for him he makes his money from YouTube and such like because I think it’s going to be a terrible look for him once it all starts unravelling.

Oops. Dropped from YouTube’s ad payouts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66851698

 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

While we must await the proper due process of multiple investigations it's still fair to point out that when the valley is full of smoke, you can be pretty sure that there's a fire out there somewhere.

You can barely see Brand for smoke at the moment so if anyone wants to offer him their full support, you have to admire their brave and courageous loyalty to the man, and then wait to see where this stance eventually leaves them.

Standing up against alleged rape victims could be considered an odd hill to die on.

The text exchange with girl who went to rape crisis centre the next day is pretty damning. Notice some hack from GB News taking side of Brand. Fuck the evidence eh

[whelk]

Actually she calls Brand a hero. Fair play to Andrew Pierce who isn’t someone I generally like

 

 

Edited 19 September, 2023 by whelk

[sadoldgit]

16 hours ago, egg said:

I get that SoG, but Brand will not be tried in any court in any country for legal but immoral behaviour, legal but unpleasant behaviour, pursuing woman and then having consensual sexual relations, being an addict, being a shit comedian, or for being the general toerag that he seems to be. Let's see what happens in terms of any alleged criminal act - ultimately that's where all this seems to be leading. 

I agree that, legally, as it stands at the moment, he has not been found guilty of rape or sexual assault in a court of law. That doesn’t minimise the experiences of the woman who have given testimony so far and the new ones who have come forward. It could well be that none of these accusations go to court but that doesn’t mean that he actually has not raped or sexually assaulted anyone. Given the low rates of rape and sexual assault cases that either make it to court in the first place or end up with a successful prosecution, there are many rapists and sexual assault perpetrators walking the streets today that have managed to avoid justice.

I need to back track on my original posts. When the story first broke as the main news event on the BBC the other night I was of the opinion that Brand was no longer a major player and the story should have been further down the news order. What I didn’t realise was that he is still around and has 6.6m followers on YouTube. I didn’t realise that he has now shifted to the right and is peddling the anti Pharma conspiracy theories to his fan base and has the likes of Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate and now Katie Hopkins coming out in support (MLT soon no doubt). Their narrative is that the establishment want him silenced because of his views. Forget about these alleged victims of sexual assault, he and they would have us believe it is part of the big conspiracy.

Hogwash. This about his alleged conduct with these women,possible criminal behaviour and the BBC were right to make a big deal about it as it falls right into the same area in the way that Savile was left to also operate “in plain sight” because he was famous and a big media personality. No one is untouchable no matter how big their egos.

Even if it goes to court and he is found not guilty on all counts, there is another issue here of abuse of power and influence. We have seen it with Weinstein, to a lesser extent with Schofield, with Spacey and now Brand. People with massive egos who use their position to hit on people for sex or groom starstruck individuals for their own needs. No, it isn’t illegal if they have consent, but even when they don’t they have the money and lawyer power to shut people down with gagging orders of threats of legal action. As has been mentioned, the “talent” (that is the golden geese) need to be pandered to and no one else matters.

He is already playing the victim and has passed off his behaviour as “addictions”. It doesn’t mean it is okay mate. You are a grown man and you have choices. Before you excuse him again Duckie, perhaps listen to the testimony of 16 year old school girl who he orally raped. There is a victim of his behaviour right there.

And while I am on my soap box, your constant referral to Ched Evans shows up your mind set. As the current law of the land stands, if you are incapacitated through drink or drugs you are not capable to consent to sex. Just as you cannot consent to sex if you are under the age of 16. Anyone having sex with someone who falls within these categories is committing rape. In the Evans case with his mate, the victim was proven to be incapacitated through drink/drugs and therefore not in a legally defined state to consent to sexual activity. Perhaps fair game in your mind, but not according to the law.

I will leave you with this final thought (a point I have made before).

If you walked into a kebab shop and found a single woman there clearly the worse for drink/drugs, would you -

a) call a taxi and make sure that she gets home safely or

b) call a taxi, take her to a pre booked hotel room, have sex with her, call a mate round who also has sex with her whilst being filmed by other mates at the window, disappear down the fire escape leaving her to her own devices having had your fun and not said a word to her through the whole process?

Russell Brand has exactly the same disregard for women as Evans and his mate and it is very depressing to see so many other men (and some women) making excuses for this behaviour. But in Duckie’s view he is somehow a “victim”.

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I agree that, legally, as it stands at the moment, he has not been found guilty of rape or sexual assault in a court of law. That doesn’t minimise the experiences of the woman who have given testimony so far and the new ones who have come forward. It could well be that none of these accusations go to court but that doesn’t mean that he actually has not raped or sexually assaulted anyone. Given the low rates of rape and sexual assault cases that either make it to court in the first place or end up with a successful prosecution, there are many rapists and sexual assault perpetrators walking the streets today that have managed to avoid justice.

It's odd that someone who has been on the receiving end of this kind of experience would have this opinion.

[Weston Super Saint]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

 

He is already playing the victim and has passed off his behaviour as “addictions”. It doesn’t mean it is okay mate. You are a grown man and you have choices. 

 

For someone who has spent time in The Priory, this is also an odd opinion to hold when it comes to addictions.

[egg]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

The text exchange with girl who went to rape crisis centre the next day is pretty damning. Notice some hack from GB News taking side of Brand. Fuck the evidence eh

Yep. It doesn't look good at all. There seems to be a case to answer there. 

[Hatch]

met him once about 20 years ago and disliked him immensely within about 30 seconds of meeting him. He was an arrogant odious twat and I've never understood how women are impressed by that.  

[egg]

53 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I agree that, legally, as it stands at the moment, he has not been found guilty of rape or sexual assault in a court of law. That doesn’t minimise the experiences of the woman who have given testimony so far and the new ones who have come forward. It could well be that none of these accusations go to court but that doesn’t mean that he actually has not raped or sexually assaulted anyone. Given the low rates of rape and sexual assault cases that either make it to court in the first place or end up with a successful prosecution, there are many rapists and sexual assault perpetrators walking the streets today that have managed to avoid justice.

I need to back track on my original posts. When the story first broke as the main news event on the BBC the other night I was of the opinion that Brand was no longer a major player and the story should have been further down the news order. What I didn’t realise was that he is still around and has 6.6m followers on YouTube. I didn’t realise that he has now shifted to the right and is peddling the anti Pharma conspiracy theories to his fan base and has the likes of Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate and now Katie Hopkins coming out in support (MLT soon no doubt). Their narrative is that the establishment want him silenced because of his views. Forget about these alleged victims of sexual assault, he and they would have us believe it is part of the big conspiracy.

Hogwash. This about his alleged conduct with these women,possible criminal behaviour and the BBC were right to make a big deal about it as it falls right into the same area in the way that Savile was left to also operate “in plain sight” because he was famous and a big media personality. No one is untouchable no matter how big their egos.

Even if it goes to court and he is found not guilty on all counts, there is another issue here of abuse of power and influence. We have seen it with Weinstein, to a lesser extent with Schofield, with Spacey and now Brand. People with massive egos who use their position to hit on people for sex or groom starstruck individuals for their own needs. No, it isn’t illegal if they have consent, but even when they don’t they have the money and lawyer power to shut people down with gagging orders of threats of legal action. As has been mentioned, the “talent” (that is the golden geese) need to be pandered to and no one else matters.

He is already playing the victim and has passed off his behaviour as “addictions”. It doesn’t mean it is okay mate. You are a grown man and you have choices. Before you excuse him again Duckie, perhaps listen to the testimony of 16 year old school girl who he orally raped. There is a victim of his behaviour right there.

And while I am on my soap box, your constant referral to Ched Evans shows up your mind set. As the current law of the land stands, if you are incapacitated through drink or drugs you are not capable to consent to sex. Just as you cannot consent to sex if you are under the age of 16. Anyone having sex with someone who falls within these categories is committing rape. In the Evans case with his mate, the victim was proven to be incapacitated through drink/drugs and therefore not in a legally defined state to consent to sexual activity. Perhaps fair game in your mind, but not according to the law.

I will leave you with this final thought (a point I have made before).

If you walked into a kebab shop and found a single woman there clearly the worse for drink/drugs, would you -

a) call a taxi and make sure that she gets home safely or

b) call a taxi, take her to a pre booked hotel room, have sex with her, call a mate round who also has sex with her whilst being filmed by other mates at the window, disappear down the fire escape leaving her to her own devices having had your fun and not said a word to her through the whole process?

Russell Brand has exactly the same disregard for women as Evans and his mate and it is very depressing to see so many other men (and some women) making excuses for this behaviour. But in Duckie’s view he is somehow a “victim”.

I CBA to get into this with you SoG. I haven't mentioned Evans and have no interest in other cases. If you want a tussle with Duckie about what he's said, have it with him. 

I will say this though. You plainly have no understanding of addiction and how it manifests itself. An addict, by definition of the illness, has lost the power of choice. That said, if Brand has crossed the line and done anything non consensual or otherwise illegal then he must face the music. However, being a sex addict (consensually) isn't a matter that he should be judged on. 

[CB Fry]

There are plenty of things I could do at work and be sacked for, that aren't in any way illegal.

People rabbiting on about "tried by a jury of his peers" and all that shite, like that's the only moral guidance there is in this country. If you're not convicted by a court you're "innocent" and can do whatever the fuck you like to whoever you like whenever you like.

Sorry lads, not so.

If people really want to talk about the sanctity of the justice system, then on the other side of it is the libel courts. It's all made up by evil journalists and these girls are all liars. Fine, Russell Brand can have his moment in court and win a libel action. Being that he's, like, the hero of the story and the real victim here, he'll win no problemo.

 

[whelk]

Do sex addicts go to mixed therapy classes?

[egg]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Do sex addicts go to mixed therapy classes?

Dunno...I think there's a dedicated 12 step programme...kind of like AA but for sex addicts.

[egg]

19 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

Id be careful about throwing accusations like that around if I were you. 
 

As egg has said, a jury of his peers will determine whether he’s broken the law. He is innocent until proven guilty and it’s a bit worrying that an ex CPS employee doesn’t seem to respect this fundamental part of our legal system.

The point I made in response to SoG was that the stuff he's done and said which marks him out as a toe rag, isn't stuff that will be determined in court. It doesn't stop us forming a view about the bloke though. The stuff with the 16 year old, even if only partly true, ain't illegal but it crosses the line for most people you'd imagine.

On the rape and criminal stuff, I've seen enough criminal cases in real life to be able to say that when the case looks overwhelming, that things are often very different when the evidence is tested. Whilst it looks bad for Brand on the face of it, that stuff needs to play out. 

[cloggy saint]

2 hours ago, Hatch said:

met him once about 20 years ago and disliked him immensely within about 30 seconds of meeting him. He was an arrogant odious twat and I've never understood how women are impressed by that.  

I've never met him (thankfully) and also think he's an arrogant odious twat.

[sadoldgit]

21 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

Id be careful about throwing accusations like that around if I were you. 
 

As egg has said, a jury of his peers will determine whether he’s broken the law. He is innocent until proven guilty and it’s a bit worrying that an ex CPS employee doesn’t seem to respect this fundamental part of our legal system.

I have only just seen this so although I have probably covered it in another post it is probably worth making my point yet again.

I am sure that you understand that juries are human and prone to error. I have previously mentioned one of the biggest of all, OJ Simpson’s squirrel of double murder.

You may have a strong case but if the prosecutor doesn’t make it well and the defence barrister manages to muddy the water enough to cast doubt in the juries minds you can easily not get the verdict. This has nothing to do with proper justice, it is part of the vagaries of what can never be a perfect system.

You can protest someone’s innocence all you like because they got a favourable verdict in court but it doesn’t mean to say that they didn’t actually do what they were charged with. Defence lawyers might actually believe their client could be guilty but they have a job to defend them and to get them off.

it is particularly difficult to get a verdict in a sexual assault case. Once upon a time the defendant just used to claim it wasn’t them. DNA and improved forensics have put paid to that. Now it is all about consent. The defence will go out of their way to destroy the reputation of the victim. She was willing. She has a history of this sort of thing. You get the picture. This was what happened in the second Evans trial when the “new evidence” provided had nothing to do with the case and argued, unsuccessfully by the CPS barrister, that it should not have been allowed. The CPS believed that both Evans and his chum were guilty of rape according to the law as it stands. The verdict of the second jury does not change anything other than the prosecutors were not able to effectively combat the “new evidence” effectively enough. I’ll remind you again that this evidence came about because Evans’s soon to be father in law put up a large sum of money for people to come forward with information that might help their case. The CPS believed that the two new witnesses were primed by the Evans’s and that the evidence was tainted. Not getting the verdict doesn’t mean that the prosecutors were wrong. A jury’s verdict is no more definitive than VAR and is liable to the same human error. If the system was a fail safe as you would like to believe there would never be any miscarriages of justice. If a jury told you that Nathan Jones was our best ever manager, according to you we would all have to agree.

It is entirely possible to respect the system without agreeing with the final outcome.

Of course Brand is innocent until found guilty if any of these cases go to court. It doesn’t mean that he hasn’t actually raped or sexually assaulted anyone though. The women who have come forward so far certainly believe that is what has happened to them.

[Lord Duckhunter]

[buctootim]

I know the basics but havent really followed it closely. Is he not still living in the US and are the victims not US based? 

[sadoldgit]

16 hours ago, egg said:

I CBA to get into this with you SoG. I haven't mentioned Evans and have no interest in other cases. If you want a tussle with Duckie about what he's said, have it with him. 

I will say this though. You plainly have no understanding of addiction and how it manifests itself. An addict, by definition of the illness, has lost the power of choice. That said, if Brand has crossed the line and done anything non consensual or otherwise illegal then he must face the music. However, being a sex addict (consensually) isn't a matter that he should be judged on. 

This is the thing though egg, I get addiction although I don’t have an addictive personality myself thankfully. I know people addicted to smoking, drinking and gambling. What I don’t get is Brand’s particular brand of sex addiction which only seems to extend to exceptionally attractive women and excludes normal looking women or what Duckie would class as 9 pinters. Surely if you were addicted to sex you would take it where you would get it? His sex addiction seems to be more about feeding his own ego rather than just getting off, which he can do with porn or anybody but only seems to target a certain type of look to scratch his itch.

Two are based in the US. One has just come forward from the UK and the girl who was 16 at the time is from the UK and was forced to have oral sex against her will which would count as sexual assault if they decide to prosecute.

Edited 20 September, 2023 by sadoldgit
Add text

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

This is the thing though egg, I get addiction although I don’t have an addictive personality myself thankfully. I know people addicted to smoking, drinking and gambling. What I don’t get is Brand’s particular brand of sex addiction which only seems to extend to exceptionally attractive women and excludes normal looking women or what Duckie would class as 9 pinters. Surely if you were addicted to sex you would take it where you would get it? His sex addiction seems to be more about feeding his own ego rather than just getting off, which he can do with porn or anybody but only seems to target a certain type of look to scratch his itch.

How on earth do you know this?

I believe the women involved with the accusations haven't been named or had their pictures splashed all over the papers yet.  They might be absolute munters for all you know.

Sadly, you've delved into the realms of making shit up again to suit your agenda.