Russell Brand - In Plain Sight?

Usual suspects coming out in defence. GB News, Andrew Tate and other scumbags. "He's being silenced". Seems like a lot of people knew he was a wrong'un.


https://twitter.com/miffythegamer/status/1703146772162392358

 

Yes but without the rumours, allegations and extensive investigative journalism would Savile’s (no guilt proven there in a court either) actions have come to light? What about Barry Bennell?

 

His whole act back then was being a rapey womaniser. Most women lapped it up and inevitably be felt untouchable as so many women were throwing themselves at him, including supermodels and popstars.

No doubt his ego was so massive he couldn't comprehend rejection, and so when he was rejected he acted in this inappropriate manner.

Clearly he went too far with these accusing women, and no doubt many others.

GUILTY as charged for this sleuth.

But none of this is a surprise to anyone.

 

He should have been dumped after the Andrew Sachs daughter phone call. No one can say that wasn’t fair warning of an inappropriate attitude.

His whole act/persona is bizarre and his popularity has always baffled me.

 

It's hardly a shocker that a bloke who has always come across like an utter bell3nd turns out to be exactly that. I've no idea if he's crossed the line into criminality, that's for the authorities to figure out, but he's quite clearly a wrongun and it's amazing it's taken this long for it to catch up with him.

 

I'm not sure if Brand being a sexual predator would be the least surprising news ever, but if not it'd be damn close. He was skirting the line in plain sight for years, so it would hardly be a shocker to find out he crossed it.

 

I was more shocked to discover he’s a comedian

 

From Tory bashing, attempting to help Labour win a general election and calling Farage names on live TV to becoming a Trump loving, anti-vaxxer, Putin backing conspiracy theorist in less than a decade.

Life comes at you fast when you have skeletons rattling around in the closet.

 

Purely from a journalistic point of view, this has been the result of an investigation that has lasted years. Journalists from Dispatches and The Sunday Times have done their due diligence on very serious allegations. They will not have published lightly. Getting it wrong would be catastrophic.

The libel laws in this country mean that any outlet making a mistake would expose itself to huge financial penalties. So, just to get this into print and on the air means there will be a mountain of supporting evidence to back it up.

They must be absolutely certain their story would stand up to a legal challenge. Dates and circumstances will have been cross-referred and corroborated. To get this far and to print and broadcast something with direct testimony from victims in the face of an individual who is apparently litigious and have taken out super-injunctions takes a lot of very difficult, detailed work.

Our media is not perfect – far from it. Some of our newspapers and broadcasters have ripped up their own credibility with pages and pages of partisan, inaccurate horse****, a lot of our coverage of serious issues is knee-jerk, Tweet-deep nonsense, and some outlets peddle falsehoods very easily but when it comes to big stuff like this there are some excellent journalists who make sure what they are doing is right.

 

Just to expand on that, The Sunday Times / Dispatches reporters gave Brand and his team eight days to respond to the allegations. That is long enough to crank up the legal machinery and get publication / broadcast stopped pending the next move in the legal chess game. The fact that didn't happen suggests the evidence must be compelling.

 

The second predator will be outed soon. Can't f***ing wait for that one!

 

Are there rumours of some of Brand's associates being equally as unpleasant?

 

The BBC seems to be escaping much of the finger pointing, yet it appears they at the very least turned a blind eye to questionable behaviour if the allegations do turn out to be true.

Innocent until proven guilty don't forget.

 

Tip of the iceberg. There's a huge amount of unpleasantness in showbusiness.

 

I never liked him. I never understood why others did. I’m not surprised that this has gone on.
Unfortunate that so many young women were so keen to sleep with him feeding his belief that women are just disposable, there to be enjoyed and then dropped.
Terrible that every official agent or media outlet contacted claimed no record of any complaints and have world class processes on behaviour standards. None of it was their fault.

 

Brand and Jonathan Ross resigned from the BBC in 2008 after the Andrew Sachs call. The allegations against Brand span 2006 to 2013. Lazy and easy to turn the scattergun onto the BBC in one sentence and then suggest 'innocent until proven guilty' in the next. Which is it? Were the BBC turning a blind eye, or is all this stuff concocted?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to legal proceedings, of course.

Aside from that it's a pretty meaningless cover-all phrase often used to obfuscate or excuse dreadful things.

Believe it or not, there'll already have been considerable contact between the C4 / Sunday Times journalists and Brand and his team. He will have been given a full opportunity for a right to reply. The Sunday Times says eight days' notice in which to respond. There is a process that applies to journalistic investigation and that appears to have been followed appropriately.

'Innocent until proven guilty' does not mean that journalism should be silenced. As I said earlier in this thread, a huge number of hurdles have had to be jumped to reach this point.

Edit: Meaning that if the evidence the newspaper and broadcaster had was weak, full of holes, easy to refute or didn't stand up, Brand would have had this shut down, and probably quite easily. So, a threshold has been met – the threshold to publish/broadcast. Brand can sue and if they are wrong, he will win huge damages.

 

Cold War Steve nails it…

https://x.com/coldwarsteve/status/1703695179201294846?s=61&t=n0dBF7HSu_RxVm41qwi4kQ

 

I long for the day of James Corden's downfall.

And Tim Lovejoy, obviously.

 

No place for Gregg Wallace on your list?

 

No, not as far as I know.

 

Innocent until proven guilty, I find this trial through media and social media totally abhorrent especially with such serious allegations involved.

 

The logical extension of that point of view is that the allegations against Jimmy Savile should have been silenced on the basis that he was not here to defend himself when they were made. The same goes for Harvey Weinstein, who tried to intimidate and silence his victims as well as those who sought to expose him.

Innocent until proven guilty applies – absolutely rightly – to court proceedings.

But there's a threshold to be met for the publication of serious allegations too – and that threshold will have been met. There's also a due process that will have been followed, and potential repercussions should the allegations be false. That's the cost/benefit of having a free press.

The alternative is that bad things go on across all society and stay under the cover of darkness indefinitely. It takes bravery and diligence to get allegations of this nature into the public domain. The investigation has been going on years and was started, in effect, by Katherine Ryan confronting Brand to his face in a TV studio.

 

Yes. One very specific in fact. Mentioned heavily already and was his best mate - definitely in the days around these allegations. It’ll take the cake, so to speak.

 

And only to court/legal proceedings. It’s regularly as a defence mechanism and some sort of escape hatch to anyone accused. We can all judge as quickly and as harshly as we choose and examine the evidence as we see fit. Otherwise any victim of a crime would have to consider the accused as ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Indeed, when you see a text message, confirmed as from Brand - apologising for the act that he’s accused of, I think it’s fair to say we can make a decision on what we believe.

 

I'm sure you're right regarding how thorough some journalists are with the way they research things like this as your posts always suggest you're pretty knowledgeable regarding media/press related stuff. My only gripe for want of a better term is that it appears to me they choose to go after the low hanging fruit and never the 'big dogs' who are seemingly 'protected'.

As people have mentioned in this thread, Brand has always been someone who appeared to be a creepy c**t and now it seems as if that's certainly the case. I just wish some of these journalists would apply the same kind of effort to find out who the people were on the Epstein/Maxwell list they were trafficking kids to. She's been in prison for 2 years and there's still been no arrests as far as I'm aware. I think that would be a far better use of a journalists time and far more important when looking at the bigger picture, rather than confirming what most reasonable minded people always believed to be true about a nobody like RB. I know it's not officially their job, but then neither was bringing down this oddball.

Without wanting to go down the conspiratorial path, the complete lack of progress on the Epstein list and seemingly zero desire to find out names by anyone capable of investigating it steers me in the direction of believing that were allowed to be fed the Brand's of this world, but only in exchange for the real shady ****ers being allowed to operate in the shadows with impunity. We only got Savile after his death, and then seemingly every man and his dog said 'oh we've known about him for years'. Was his association with government and the royals the factor that protected him until he was dead??