Russell Brand

Ah, a fool and their money are easily parted.
I read that since this news broke that he has attracted a couple of hundred thousand new followers… so he’ll get a fair chunk of money from these cretins I expect.
What this actually says about society, in general, is depressing though.

 

He will make millions I think. £48, and let's say 100k people give him the money (which isn't inconceivable) as they will think they are paying to fight the fight. Let's be honest the allegations could be one of the best things to happen to him

 

It will be interesting to see how many people pay up.

It was made out that it was because of the allegations that YouTube stopped his income. He started using Rumble in September 2022 after getting numerous warnings about his conduct on YouTube.

 

Its a 12 month subscription to view his content. not a donation. Many media companies provide content on subscription- Netflix and youtube do too. Are they grifters too?

 

It WAS because of the allegations that youtube stopped his income.

And if people do pay up and hence ruin your wish to destroy him not through the law but by cutting off his income, what will you do then, and more importantly how will it make you feel?

 

He had been given multiple warnings about the content of his YouTube videos. He carried on with breaching the same rule he had already been warned multiple times about.

My wish to destroy him? There you go again making the same unfounded accusations.

You're the person claiming to want a fair trial, but keep refering to false accusations, libel action, and jumping to his defence getting things wrong. If anyone has their mind made up in advance it sounds like yourself.

You still haven't come back with the answers from previous posts when you were trying to justify how you managed to view circumstances differently, and why all your posts are loaded with said efforts to bring doubt on the accusations?

I would specifically like to see the Leigh Grittiths quotes you have said a few times exist.

 

Some of yous * really want to get a rest from the keyboard and go outside into the real world for a walk or something.

Embarrassing that every time there's a thread of some "world relevance" or whatever that it's the same names popping up on BOTH sides commenting and making personal insults as soon as a post goes up.

No wonder folk are hardly on here these days.

 

Listen tae Mr 'look at me, my patter's outrageous!'

 

Immediately after the allegations, youtube literally wrote it was demonitizing Brand following serious allegations made against him and for his "off platform behaviour".

He may have been warned previously for whatever. He may have joined Rumble 2 years. So * what? None of that has * anything to do with youtube demonitiziing him immediately after these allegations. That's just YOU misdirecting to minimize youtube actions now that there is a pushback.

If these allegations are not substantiated, Brand has every right to institute civil proceedings against those that published the allegations and caused damage and loss to him. Geoffrey Rush did it. Paul McCartney did it. Johnny Depp did it. In Australia Bruce Lehrman is doing it. In no way does that prejudice a fair trial. Again that's more misdirection from YOU.

I do not care about Brand one iota. Him personally is incidental to the violation of basic principles of natural justice going back all the way to the Magna Carta tat is happening right now.

As for "bringing doubt to the accusations" that's * just how the criminal justice system works. *All* allegations, made by anyone are in doubt until they proven, in Court, under oath, under cross examination and in front of a Judge and jury. Even for those accused of crimes far more heinous than these.

My question to you is why do you want this case to be treated differently?

As for Griffiths DYOR. This is the internet age, use a search engine of your choice.

 

I have used the internet. As I said before what you said exists doesn't as far as I can see. You've made the claims against Griffiths. For someone that is concerned with libel, and false allegations, I thought you would be eager to back up accusing him of admitting he was a paedophile/nonce with the facts you say exist. You're making false accusations.

It's YouTube's platform you join by their rules. He wasn't banned as soon as the allegations were made. Brand put out video turning the allegations into a conspiracy before he was stopped from being able to make money. It's more that people think he was suspended wholely because of the accusations. He had various rule breaches and was already facing a ban. He is still free to speak and use the platform.

Where have I once suggested I want this case treated differently? Why do you keep telling me I have opinions I don't have? How many times do I need to ask you to stop this? You sound prejudiced.

You keep saying innocent until proven guilty, but you've admitted on other occasions you're happy to say someone is guilty when they haven't been tried. You keep contradicting yourself. I did challenge your contradictions earlier, but you avoided them.

Brand has a history of suing people who have made false claims against him or insinuating he was involved in another * crime. It will be interesting to see if he does the same again this time.

Your efforts to bring doubt to the accusations is refering to completely irrelevant cases. That is not how the court works. They go with the evidence, not silly whataboutery that you think makes sense.

When you're speaking about other alleged crimes would you automatically start talking about people wrongly accused and be desperate to highlight false accusations and lawsuits? When it comes to men on woman sexual offences this happens very regularly, including this thread, but it doesn't happen with other crimes. Why do you think that is?

For someone that is open minded for a fair trial your posts are the exact opposite of that.

 

Not that the whataboutery examples matter,
but Johnny Depp has been used as an example of suing due to false allegations a few times in this thread.

I think you are missing that Johnny Depp lost his high profile case against The Sun after they accused him of being a wife beater. The judge ruled 12 of the 14 violent incidents occured.

 

Went to see Mark Normand the night, he basically said everybody knows he’s rapey how did we no


Thats a * from what? Illnois or something

 

You make it too easy. The first verdict was given by a Judge who is friends with The owners of The Sun and his son works for Talk Radio, which is also owned by owners of The Sun. That Judge should have excused himself on the basis of being conflicted. Neither Heard nor Depp gave evidence in that trial. Heard's evidence for her abuse turned out to be lies.

 

Aye its bad news on here mate when it comes to that. Been where you are with a few similar threads before. Folk just dont seem to get that until the man is convicted in a court of law then he cant and shouldnt be treated like a criminal. The David Goodwillie thread was another one where the same argument ensued. Its not just any allegation either. Its one that will stick and its very dangerous. Fair play if he does get convicted then people can rip him apart and call him what they want. But until then or if that happens....its not fair to 'brand' (pardon the pun) someone a * rapist.

A few year ago Ken off Coronation Street got suspended off the show as there was an on-going case where 2 people had came out with accusations of serious sexual mis-conduct years in the past. Well he got found innocent but people still get mixed up with that...you still hear folk say "is that Ken off Coronation Street no a beast?"
The allegation sticks even to the point where someone is found innocent yet people still think its true.

 

In this society people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It should be the status quo to presume that he is innocent until such times that he's proven guilty. Its not that people have already made their mind up that he's innocent. Its the way people have to be treated BY LAW until such times as they are convicted of said crime. Its not an opinion. Its law in a democratic country Im afraid

 

@Kiro Kompiro

You've messed up all the quotes.

You are getting increasing aggressive, argumentative and annoying. So desperate to win an argument you're backtracking and contradicting what you've posted in this thread.



You said we could call Grittiths a paedophile/nonce as he admitted he was. After numerous attempts to ask and you continuously arguing it was out there that is the best you can come up with?

He says he made a mistake and regrets what he done. At zero point has he come anywhere near close to admitting he was a paedophile or a nonce. Yet another example of your ability to make things up in your head.

Read back you own posts where you have been happy to say people were guilty without trial or conviction. You wrote it on this thread and are now contesting what you've said.

You got yourself tangled in your messed up opinions.

More paranoid conspiracy theories.


No offence, but I can't take you seriously. If you're just going to come away with the same nonsense I'm just going to ignore the posts.

I still expecting a large post of more tripe.

 

There is a massive difference between deemed innocent until proven guilty and instantly attacking and gaslighting the alleged victims which it the point I have made.

By your own post you must think Jimmy Saville was innocent?

 

* of the thread goes to you. YOU WIN.

 

Well thats a good point. No I dont think he's innocent. He wasnt however alive to stand trial. But I see what you are saying.

What Im saying is yes people can have an opinion on whether they think a person is innocent or guilty. But as long as it is realised and acknowledged that thats what it is....an opinion. Russell Brand is a creepy weirdo (thats my opinion), and I can understand why people would think that these allegations have plausible truth. What people cant do however is treat them as facts......unless they are proven to be facts.......until that point.....they are just that....allegations. Which anyone can make about anything or anybody.