Russell Brand

Growing up a lad who shagged about every night was a stud, a girl who did it was a slag, just asking for it. This lesson was pointed out to me when I was 15 by a girl of 18, really opened my eyes that there was no difference except how people see them because of the * they were. Think even now some men struggle with the choice a women has of saying no.

 

It's the MP who is the chair of the Culture, Media and Sports Committee. It's not just one random MP acting alone.

Letters from the House of Commons have been sent to Rumble, TikTok, Meta, and GB News. This is an attempted cancelation/public deletion before any charges have been brought forward.

Forget what you think about Russell Brand. This is bigger than the individual accused. It's unacceptable tyrannical behavior from the government.

The presumption of innocence and freedom of expression are fundamental aspects of any democracy. The legislative branch should not interfere with the functioning of the judiciary or the media. The government's role should be to uphold the rule of law and ensure due process, rather than influencing media content or pre-emptively judging guilt.

Media companies should be expected to operate independently from government influence, we have seen a major deterioration of this over the last few years.

This to me, is a massive overstep and should be rightfully condemned, regardless of what you think of Russell Brand and regardless if he is innocent or guilty. You may be happy with this now because you don't like him and think he's guilty. But what about in 10 years time, when this practice is standard, and we have a new government, with a new agenda not to your liking and they come after you?

 

Exaggeration is what some on here constantly and consistently do.
In fact exaggeration is the most polite word to use.

 

You could have predicted who would defend him/this last week, and the way they would do it, they are as transparent as *.

 

Always mate. Death and taxes.

 

I don’t like Brand and think he should be called out for his terrible behaviour towards women but, given everything that’s happening in the world, should this really be the main story on the BBC news at 10?

 

In sensitive cases such as this both perpetrator and victim should be afforded total annonimity until the judicial process is complete.

* sticks, either for the guilty party (if found innocent) or the victims (if found to be untruthful)

This name calling and trial by media used to result in mistrials because the evidence has been corrupted.

Not these days though.

No matter what happens now large swathes of the country have already made their minds up and no matter what happens it will follow them around the rest of their lives.

 

Yeah they usually lead with big bad SNP

 

I was really shocked when hearing about this situation with Russell Brand…………l hadn’t realised he was a comedian

 

That´s news to me as well. Who would´ve thought?

 

It is possible to defend the legal process and condemn dubious media and government practice without defending Russel Brand or any accused…. and that’s all it is at present.

Media coerced accusations obtained by one of the very companies who employed him at the time.

I’ve never liked him as an individual or comedian. Never on my radar… but the media witch-hunt is OTT and as mentioned above … should it really be headline news night after night as further revelations are released?

Defending legal process is the important thing here for me. Brand is just the context - it could be anyone and it would still feel ‘off’ to me. I’ve got no compassion for him directly … but there will be a wife and children caught up in this.

I find it quite hypocritical that people in government and the media want him ‘demonetized’ from his online channels.. will BBC and Channel 4 be making some sort of financial reparations based on the money they made by employing him in the first place and helping his career?

This should have been kept off the media until any court action went ahead and then kept tightly controlled.

If this does go to some sort of trial … it will be a nightmare finding a jury not influenced or prejudiced through the saturation exposure this media pre-trial has already brought.

It’s all a modern age 24 hour media mess.

Quite depressing indicator of our times.

 

So New York Times published a text from one of his accusers to Brand making it sound as if she said no to * but when full text is shown (not just the part published) it states she said no to him not wearing a condom but he had * without a condom and that’s why he said sorry.
So the actual * was consensual but she accused him of rape for not wearing a condom.

 

Still illegal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal

 

That’s still rape. It’s called stealthing.

 

As for Brand himself, he knows exactly what he’s done and exactly who he’s appealing to with the deep state nonsense, and there are people on this forum who will lap it up and jump to his defense, simply because he’s “one of them”.

 

don't understand why men think that's perfectly legal.

The government handed Brand the biggest lifeline he could want. Writing to a few companies to ask them to take his content down. Claiming he is being censored. The government haven't blocked anything though and YouTube demonetising his account was their idea.

There has now been accusations that he whipped his * out in the studio. Before anyone defends that, if I did that at work I would lose my job instantly and would never get another job in the same industry again and unlikely at the same pay with another organisation. Yet when it's a celebrity doing this it's "cancelling".

 

Russell released a YouTube video last night talking about deep state, media censorship and corruption.

Comments that didn't side with him were deleted.

 

Didn’t know that

 

Didn’t know that

 

I know it's illegal and wrong but that's a tricky one because you'd have to be there to see how it all folded out. If she consented then why didn't she just say no when she knew he wasn't rubbered up. She is half to blame if she continued with it without saying no. Is he supposed to read her mind although again, it's a tricky one and yad need to be there to know who's right and wrong.

Why wait all this time thou to come out with it. I can understand some women are afraid to come out about an actual rape but someone * without a rubber I wouldn't class as severe as that and I'd say many would share my thoughts and are now head scratching about the length of time of her coming out with it. Very suspect TBH.