russell brand : Most liked Posts

Dame Christine Bleakley said:

The main word there is HAD.

He WAS very much part of the establishment.

Not that I'm defending the indefensible, but he has been out of the mainstream for a good while.

Click to expand...

Only because people started refusing to work with him though. I don't believe for 1 minute that it was his choice to stop doing TV work.

1 A victim can previously have consented.
2 Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
3 The type of sex they had with him previously isn’t really relevant…BDSM, rough, kinky whatever- as long as both agreed to it and did not feel coerced or forced.
4 Americans refer to pants as trousers- not knickers
5 The vast majority of the world had no idea nor inclination to care about his ‘outing’ of prominent media it was hardly scandal of the year.
6 Ah yes the scorned woman trope- of course! Russell Brand is just so god damn irresistible abs charming, they all wanted serious relationships from him and when he said he wasn’t interested, they all made up sexual assault stories. Rational.
7 I’m sure he did have many ‘pleasant short flings’ it doesn’t mean the unpleasant ones didn’t happen.
8 The doc had a focus and I’m sure hours of footage was excluded/ that’s how tv programmes are made. Otherwise it could have been 4 hours long.
9 Channel 4 decided to take him down because of multiple claims of sexual assault. No other reason. My granny hates channel 4…wait..are they coming for her next?!
10 Please share who the comedian is and your source.

Edited to add my toddler spends 90% of their time running around the house in a nappy-yet in all the pictures I have of her she is fully clothed. So am I lying too?

Sideboard Bob said:

The Times article had solid proof for each woman’s story, they wouldn’t have been able to print it otherwise, his lawyers even saw it beforehand, and there was obviously nothing they could dispute. They would have got the article stopped if they found one single inaccuracy.

Click to expand...

The Times learnt well from their previous attempts to nail the bastard which he got his lawyers to shut down, but more on the basis of having supporting texts/messages between Russell and his victims this time round - in other words, undeniable supporting evidence.

My understanding was that they spoke to about 20 women in their original story many years ago - that's 20 that were prepared to speak, there were more that didn't want to or go on the record even anonymously.

Like I said previously, there are a hell of a lot of women he sexually assaulted over the years.

And another thing - I don't know where these absolute twats supporting Brand are getting their info that the women who spoke up recently were paid - total bollocks. I've seen some claiming that it's the women trying to get a bit of fame - how exactly they're doing that when they're not giving their real names is beyond me.

lookatmekimmy said:

I’m saying it would benefit women to try and see what men have to deal with (constantly being held in contempt or suspicion because they’re male) and then perhaps men would be more likely to try and see women’s struggles as well. Weird how that’s so controversial.

Click to expand...

why would women have to do all the groundwork here though?! why would women have to adapt how we feel about men and how they are dangerous to us so that men can actually be prepared to show us some empathy?!

do you really not see how that’s a controversial viewpoint?

Interesting quote from Dannii Minogue from her 2006 encounter with him: (from Wikipedia I’m afraid)

“In a 2006 tabloid interview, Dannii Minogue accused him of sexual harassment after she appeared on his TV show. She described him as "a bit of a vile predator" adding "I certainly don’t think he has cured his sex addiction". She explained that Brand "wouldn’t take no for an answer" and "throughout the whole interview he kept making shocking remarks that I can't even repeat."

Yoyolady said:

Anyone who frequented Camden, Soho or was part of the comedy scene can 100 percent back that Brand is guilty. Are they all part of a sinister ‘establishment’ ploy? The amount of shit I heard about Brand through friends and someone who worked with him is insane.

Click to expand...

I'm one of the many who can add my first-hand experience with RB to this. Not as bad as the testimonies given to the Sunday Times and Dispatches, but enough to know they are telling the truth.

And tbh, even if I didn't have that first-hand experience, I would believe them.
Many,many women, across multiple countries and many years, giving evidence of their experiences, all of which are consistent with each other, and with things he's said in public.

And yet so many people are still determined to believe him and to discredit his victims.

I think the same can be said for the Times investigation, there will ALOT we can't hear too.

HelenDamnation said:

I have no time for him, in either his attention seeking shagger persona or his current wannabe iconoclastic guru incarnation.
Nonetheless, he is entitled to due process and not trial by media.
Now that the women have involved the press, rather than the police, he is unlikely to get a fair trial should the rape and assault matters go to court.
I don't think we should even know about it until or unless it goes to court. It goes against natural justice.

As a completely separate issue, the other sleaze accusations we already know about, even he admits he behaved like a horror and we saw enough of it on TV, when we didn't have cancel culture.
I'm not sure it is a good thing to dig up every transgression by a public figure (that isn’t criminal) after long periods of time. It ends up feeling very witch hunt-ish.

Click to expand...

The justice system catastrophically fails victims of rape and sexual abuse. These four women probably don’t want their lives ripped apart any more than they already have for him to just be found not guilty anyway. If women feel the only way they can get any kind of ‘justice’ is by going to the media then we need to ask ourselves why. Not criticise them and then be concerned with ‘fair trial’ for the perpetrator. It’s the women who were never going to get a fair trial, with or without the media.

Tofino said:

I don’t know how anyone can read this and think it’s anything but the truth. Her testimony alone is strong but the timeline of text messages, medical records etc just removes any doubt if someone wants to even pretend it’s a ‘he said/she said’ situation.

And the journalists really have covered their backs with every piece of evidence, even stating that the electronic document which contains the letter she sent to RB has not been modified since 2012.

I’m presuming even if she wanted to, the met can’t do anything about this as it happened in the US?

Click to expand...

All the clear evidence is over 10 years old, how can anyone defend him by saying this is all a way to shut him down due to him being a threat to mainstream media? Are people that thick/brainwashed that they think these women preempted Brands ‘spiritual awakening’ and fight against the mainstream media and carefully curated false evidence over 10 years before it would be needed. People are fucking terrifying.

Greatbutton said:

Do you have to have gone to the police to have been assaulted? Is that a requirement?

What good does that do apart from drag you through a very traumatic process where you are highly unlikely to get justice?

Click to expand...

Exactly, has anyone seen the rape convictions statistics recently? And those are the ones that make it to court.

"Have you gone to the police though?" Is such a thicko response.

MissHavisham said:

Just watched a GB News clip on Twitter of Andrew Pierce being the voice of reason against Beverley Turner and her fervent defence of Brand.

The stupid cow hasn’t even watched the Dispatches doc. Just banging on about how he’s a hero for his Covid stance. She’s a good example of the kind of fan who’s so delighted that Brand has the same stance as her on her pet obsession (Covid) that she really doesn’t give af whether he’s a rapist or not.

Click to expand...

Savile donated £40m to charity, didn't make him less evil did it?

I think it's great how much society has moved on. He used to brag about shagging and general mistreatment of women. He dumped Katy Perry over text and the Sachgate incident.

People have realised in 2023 it was not acceptable behaviour for ANYONE including celebrities. He 1000 percent definitely did those things , just people are talking about it more and when a man has abused them they speak up.

The drunk women/sober men thing is not so different from the age thing.

We all know a 16-year-old girl with an 18-year-old man who is also at school and lives with parents isn’t the same as a 16-year-old girl with a 31-year-old man who has a job and has his own place.

I think it’s kind of similar, looking at two very drunk people hooking up, that’s gonna be problematic around consent but you can understand how it happens. But a sober person and a paralytically drunk person. What is the attraction if it’s not predatory? Can you imagine any situation where a group of sober women would be trying to sleep with paralytically drunk men?

Beverley Turner is an absolute fucking moron. Just like all these other Covid denying, anti vax simpletons. Thick as shit and dead behind the eyes, like a malfunctioning robot. Everything comes back to Covid. ‘Yeah but Covid, yeah but face masks, yeah but lockdown, yeah but vaccines’. They‘re incapable of rational thought or reason on anything.

Anotherct said:

Why haven’t any of these been to the police, and only decided to speak when the C4 offered them money

Click to expand...

I haven't been to the police after a SA / partial rape in March 2009. I thought who would believe me against him? Truth is I didn't want to believe it happened I didn't believe myself. I tried for years to believe it never happened. If channel 4 offered me I would speak because fuck him and I'm sure the rape crisis center could use the funds. He fought me and then when I gave up fighting he became impotent and he stole one of my cheap earring. He's a successful fucking play write now. I've no doubt I wasn't his only victim. There is no evidence bruises healed in a few weeks and my clothes where binned and I scrubbed myself raw as soon as I got home. Why waste police time?!

L3moning said:

I'm 50/50 on it, really. Watkins didn't exactly hide his predilections, so it's plausible she knew. She was also pretty young looking at the time, and my memory of it is that she played that up a bit, which is a but icky when you think about it with hindsight. But they also weren't together all that long, so it's possible she never knew.

Click to expand...

there’s a more detailed post above which explains that his behaviour really started becoming disgusting and dangerous in 2007; they dated briefly in 2005 so i think it’s equally plausible that she genuinely didn’t.

again, though this is a thread about a man and the various terrible acts he has committed so i think it’s time to park the “did fearne know” conversation. it isn’t relevant here. even though it does prove some pretty depressing points about society’s general views of women.

Instead of asking why the media is exposing this information maybe ask why the media is seen as more trustworthy/effective than the police and courts?

If anyone or thing is deserving of criticism, it's the police and judicial system for not making sexual assault victims feel like they can go to them.

Bastille said:

So in the US and the UK. Oh dear, he's got nowhere to hide after this. That video he released yesterday was a massive mistake even bigger than most of us knew it was yesterday. It would be funny if it weren't so horrible, he is truly fucked even though he's been telling us the whole damn time and people were laughing at it.
---
I just ,do not have words for this shit
"On their first date, she claims Brand asked her as soon as they met to confirm she was definitely 16, saying: “I don’t give a f*** if you’re 12 . . . I need to know where I stand legally.”

Click to expand...

This is interesting because the first thing he asked me was my age too. I told him 18 (I was actually younger) but these stories all sound very believable to me.

I’m angry with the broadcasters too. By broadcasting those things they promoted this sort of lad culture as an acceptable way to behave. I was a teenager when Russell was never off channel 4 and I think that culture enabled many traumatic sexual experiences for many girls in my cohort.

CatLady654 said:

If you spend time with someone and become intimate you start to notice things. Drunken drugged up nights out, things get said. Sorry my comment upset you so much you sure must love Miss Cotton

Click to expand...

If people were obviously evil, nobody would go near them and they’d likely not be able to assault anyone or do anything cos everyone would avoid them like the plague. Predators get away with it cos they’re charming/normal/fly under the radar and deceive everyone around them.

On a less sinister (but also morally wrong note) , the best way to illustrate this is how do people get away with having affairs for years and years? According to you there’s no way a partner couldn’t know.

Ridiculous. Hold these men to account rather than blaming the women who are briefly associated with them, or anyone else in their lives, for that matter!