Russell Brand

Fantastic.

 

Cut the bullshit.

The only one gaslighting here is coming form you mate.

 

As for the Spectator article, the writer is- again- advocating trial by media. The only forum that the allegations should by tested in is the Court of Law, not the Court of Public opinion.

 

If he raped and abused these women he should be tried and convicted.

But with the alleged victims telling their stories through actors via the media before going to the authorities you can understand why everyone is not on board straight away in the trial of public opinion.

This man spent a lot of time addicted to drink, drugs, and * in show business in the naughties. He probably slept with thousands of women, so if he was committing sexual crimes during this period it should be fairly easy to create a proper legal case against him. So if the allegations are true, it should be fairly easy to convict him.

But the other side of the argument is when the investigation is led by the media who are contacting any woman they can who has slept with him to build their own case against him for years, it does raise the possibility that it could be an agenda-driven smear campaign against him. This wouldn't be the first time this has been done by the MSM, Brad Pitt for example. Especially considering the position Brand has taken against Big Pharma, who invest a huge into MSM via advertising. You only need to accuse someone of rape for that to stick to them which enables people to discredit all of his political or personal beliefs, especially the ones about recent events. If that is the intention, a criminal trial does not really matter, the damage is already done.

I do hope he gets a fair trial and can clear his name as much as he can or is convicted of his crimes if guilty.

 

I don't think he is saying that nor is the article. I think it's pointing out that the defence of "the MSM is trying to take me down because I'm telling the truth" has become very common and overused. It seems to be the go to defence right now. It works and is used by people who wouldn't support the main steam media anyway because as he points out these people watch his videos, an algorithm sends those people to similar videos and the spiral continues. What exactly is their reason to "take him down"? His supporters will support him no matter what.

I don't think it says we should do a trial by media, it doesn't even say he's guilty of anything criminal. He says with rape and sexual assault the innocent until proven guilty saying is flawed because of the difficulty of sending someone down. We can look into something and make a judgement.

I understand the idea of innocent until proven guilty but onefootwonder makes some valid points, people on here called Griffiths a nonce when he asked a 16 year old for pics and it essentially saw him leave the club. What he did wasn't illegal, creepy as * though, because something is not illegal does that mean we can't judge? He also makes the point of Mason Greenwood who didn't even get taken to court, basically chased out of the country and football fans backing he should go. Jimmy Saville and Michael Jackson both died, and have been tried by the media, the former I'm certain did it and I think did. Neither can defend themselves yet as a society we have essentially judged them. He's saying why does society pick and choose who is the victim of that?

If you watch the documentary you hear about production companies making it so no female staff member was left alone with him rather than not hiring him, support groups of female comedians warned other female comedians to stay away from him. He may not have done anything illegal, but I'm certain he's a creepy *. I think the documentary heavily shows what a state the television industry was like, probably still like it to an extent, and it let people get away with it.

 

You get called out for clear gaslighting and your reaction is to say I'm the one doing the gaslighting.

Where is my gaslighting?

I've to cut the bullshit?

 

@Westlondonscot . The allegations are-and still remain- a media event. The MSM is using its power to manipulate the case. In return Brand has used his power in the online media to counter at. Both are unacceptable for different reasons. There may well be a criminal case against Brand. OTOH the timing of it all and the allegations playing out in the media first before the police might suggest that this is being to done to "get him". Of the two, the bigger issue is that criminal allegations are being made in the media *before* they are being made to the police. The Spectator article completely ignores that.

With respect to the lower conviction rates of rape, rape is a crime, and like all crimes, a high bar is needed to prove guilt. Our imperfect system of law affords the benefit of the doubt to the accused, because we've decided that convicting an innocent is worse than failing to convict the guilty. This even applies to the most heinous of all crimes, murder.

What is chilling is this case is following the same trial by media script as what we've seen in Australia recently - to the detail where politicians and public servants are making public statements that imply guilt before a police complaint has even been made!

Griffiths admitted it. In the case of Saville there was a massive police investigation. Brand has denied it, and there is not even a statement to police by his accusers. The three are not equivalent.

 

Ok no worries.,

Answer 2 simple questions:

1. What do you want to happen to Brand and

2. Why do you want that?

 

I would like the allegations made to be taken seriously. A proper investigation has to take place by his former employers and the police.

Why would you not want accusations of serious sexual assault and rape taken seriously?

 

Great, we're in agreement on all counts.

 

What did Grittiths admit? He didn't commit a crime to admit to. This thread is telling us that although Brand has done things that might be morally wrong to some, they aren't illegal. Yet we call Grittiths a paedophile and a nonce when he hasn't committed the crime.

A big police investigation is not the same as innocent until proven guilty. It was also the main steam media that reported on Jimmy Saville's behaviour before the police investigation.

There is nothing unusual about the media reporting allegations of crimes.

 

Griffiths admitted what he did. What he did is not a crime. You can judge him on that once you know he did it.You don't know Brand did anything yet.

If there is a police investigation and Brand charged and is found not guilty, on what evidence are you judging him?

Or are you satisfied that "the process is the punishment" regardless of outcome?

The media is free to report what it wants, but it risks a defamation claim. That's not unusual either in my part of the world.

 

Investigative journalism is a thing and it has helped unearth serious predators.

That is not me saying Brand is bang to rights and is absolutely nailed on convicted rapist... however, whether people like it or not, Investigative journalism has a place in weeding these creeps out.

 

Yes it is a media event, with celebrity anything like this will be, especially after the Me Too movement. I understand the problems this can provide, and some may abuse their power to embellish things for clicks.

I haven't seen much in terms of politicians commenting on this unless asked, they haven't hunted him but we would moan if they didn't answer. I think MPs are right to question the entertainment industry as a whole though, which I think they generally do, especially when these accusations seem so common from an industry that has pretty much given free reign to pervs. This is where I think is the main problem, producers, directors and people of power in channels simply didn't give a *. I think this documentary was quite scaving of the industry that allowed these things to happen just as much as an "attack" on him.

They aren't the exact same situations but I think you can draw similarities. Saville was judged prior to the police investigation by the media, so I think you can take similarities. The Police investigation did eventually come but it was years after things emerged. Griffiths didn't really admit to doing anything wrong, he said he was ignorant to her age. The comparison with him I think is fair because people instantly jumped on him before he said anything too.

 

I'm specifically asking what Grittiths admitted he done. Can you show me the quote what he admitted he done. I can't find what you're suggesting he admitted to.

Your second question makes no sense. I'll wait and see what happens and can only offer my opinion afterwards.

Why are yourself and so many other people on this thread desperate to repeat suggestions of defamation and keep quoting extreme cases of false rape accusations and convictions? It's not normal. We discuss other crimes and nobody comes out with examples of people wrongly convicted for those crimes and suggestions of defamation.

Why does accusation of sexual offences always end up with people trying to instantly discredit the victims and allegations?

This thread has people demanding innocent until proven guilty. Yet like yourself your opinion changes with different people. Some people on this thread that are demanding innocent until guilty have Schofield, Edwards and Cheryl Cole guilty for accusations or suggestions made.

 

The met police have received a report of a sexual assault from a different woman.

 

This is almost certainly true …. there will be Savile-Brand types at the bbc and Chanel 4 right now or certainly more recently than Brands alleged ‘activities’..

… but that’s why there’s such a deep hypocrisy in it for me - never mind these broadcasters leading the investigations - you were his fkknn employer ffs - … these institutions are well aware of the potential for this type of predatory behaviour on their watch (and payroll)… but it seems all is ok while the offenders are at those companies and making money for them.

It’s far too much of a ‘horse already bolted’ situation.

Russel Brand was working at both channel 4 and the BBC AFTER the truth about Savile came out… the alarm was raised… the nation was outraged..

…these companies promised to be vigilant and stringent on employee conduct and safeguarding going forwards ….

….empty promises and radio silence until it suits.

 

Loved hearing on the radio Banijay group who were Endemol are launching an immediate investigation.

Endemol, the bastion of morality that transmitted scenes of a drunk unhinged young girl infamously entertaining herself with a wine bottle all in the name of light entertainment.

 

Threads like these always weed out the weird *.

Brands complete change in persona over the last few years makes complete sense now.

The * has been prepping for this moment. If you don’t think that, you’re a * idiot tbh.

Channel 4 can go * themselves too. They have to hold themselves accountable, the BBC too. Basically anywhere he worked where this went on.

 

World is *. Arguing on here about this and that. Lines being blurred and trial by media becoming accepted. There's no left and right anymore. Just haves and have nots.

If he's * guilty then I hope he rots. I'll wait until a jury of his peers convicts him though.

Not sure I like living in this world anymore.