Russell Brand

gashonthenail said:
Yes, Brand has always had more than a touch of Dionysian sexual ambiguity - we all love a bit of that. David Bowie, Morrissey, the list is endless. Interesting too, of course, that in the Bacchic rites that celebrated the cult of Dionysus, the young god was eventually torn to shreds by mobs of his crazed followers. Is that the mythic cultural phenomenon that we are seeing being played out here? Pretty much the same myth was seen in the worship of Tezcatlipoca amongst the Aztecs, where a young man was treated like a king and worshipped like a god for a year, he was denied no pleasure and could sleep with whoever he wanted, and then at the end of the year he was ritually sacrificed. In many ways Ziggy Stardust is basically a 20th century take on that mythic archetype.

The teenagers
Who love you
They will wake up, yawn and kill you
Click to expand...
Wow, I had never thought of that!

Also, you left out nicky wire!!!!
 
Jonathan Cook makes some very good points about the hype in a short read on his blog
There are times when we would all be best advised to keep quiet and wait. But given that almost no one seems willing to hold their tongue on the latest claims being made about Russell Brand, I feel compelled – wisely or unwisely – to make a few tentative observations: not on the allegations, but on all the noise.

Let me preface these comments with an additional observation: It should be quite possible to hold more than one thought in one’s head at the same time. In fact, it is normally a pre-requisite for having anything interesting to say...
Click to expand...
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
 
Hes still sifting out the yt videos, I think hes very far inside 'conspiracy theory'. It does concern me, because alot of people watch these things. Free speech is obvs better than censorship. It seems his accusations have passed and gone, but his following and those who dislike him have become more polarised...
 
Me again said:
Another brick in the wall. And another line of attack for his poor deluded defenders crumbles into dust...

www.dailymail.co.uk

Russell Brand faces second investigation into 'sex predator' claims

After Scotland Yard launched a probe, Thames Valley Police confirmed it was investigating 'information in relation to the harassment and stalking allegations' made by a woman.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
He’s so rich and famous, he can get away with anything. These women who have come out against him are brave, but they’ll only face ridicule and scorn, and he will go on being adored as if he were a brave man who speaks the truth. In reality he is nothing but controlled opposition, at best, and at worst, well, I won’t say, because I’ve already said, and was met with absolutely nothing but scorn and ridicule.
 
Anonymous said:
Hes still sifting out the yt videos, I think hes very far inside 'conspiracy theory'. It does concern me, because alot of people watch these things. Free speech is obvs better than censorship. It seems his accusations have passed and gone, but his following and those who dislike him have become more polarised...
Click to expand...
What are the conspiracy theories he's passing around that concern you the most?
 
Me again said:
Another brick in the wall. And another line of attack for his poor deluded defenders crumbles into dust...

www.dailymail.co.uk

Russell Brand faces second investigation into 'sex predator' claims

After Scotland Yard launched a probe, Thames Valley Police confirmed it was investigating 'information in relation to the harassment and stalking allegations' made by a woman.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
When people ask 'why didn't she go to the police', they should read things like this. She DID go to the police and nothing was done. Now they are taking another look.

Women can't get justice in the legal system, telling their stories by any means possible is perfectly acceptable.

And yes, you are right, the delusional defenders now appear to have another victim to attempt to discredit.
 
Last edited:
Redacted said:
And yes, you are right, the delusional defenders now appear to have another victim to attempt to discredit.
Click to expand...
I actually meant they've lost another line of attack ie 'why is only one police force investigating then?'.

One by one their arguments will fall by the wayside until all they'll be left with will be 'the jury was misled by the media'. It doesn't really matter what happens to Brand, they will simply never believe he's a wrongun. Not because it's not true, but because they don't want to believe it. For what reason, I've no idea - and they keep refusing to tell us.
 
Me again said:
I actually meant they've lost another line of attack ie 'why is only one police force investigating then?'.

One by one their arguments will fall by the wayside until all they'll be left with will be 'the jury was misled by the media'. It doesn't really matter what happens to Brand, they will simply never believe he's a wrongun. Not because it's not true, but because they don't want to believe it. For what reason, I've no idea - and they keep refusing to tell us.
Click to expand...
The Thames Valley Police investigation sounds very dubious. Looks like the complainant made an allegation against Brand and he also made an allegation of harassment against her. Sounds odd to say the least. If that's your best hope of a conviction in 2023 or 2024, good luck with that.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russell Brand: Thames Valley Police investigates allegations

Thames Valley Police says it is looking into a woman's complaint of harassment and stalking.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
gashonthenail said:
The Thames Valley Police investigation sounds very dubious. Looks like the complainant made an allegation against Brand and he also made an allegation of harassment against her. Sounds odd to say the least. If that's your best hope of a conviction in 2023 or 2024, good luck with that.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russell Brand: Thames Valley Police investigates allegations

Thames Valley Police says it is looking into a woman's complaint of harassment and stalking.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound at all dubious. This accuser is the one he tried to silence with a court injunction. She finally has a chance to have her claims properly investigated without his money getting in the way.

I dont have hope for anything. Russell Brand has finally been outed and will slowly but surely face the consequences of his atrocious behaviour. We all know it, including you. I'm just enjoying watching you people having to flip flop all over the place every time the story develops.

And the Big Question still remains unanswered: Why are you defending him?
 
Redacted said:
When people ask 'why didn't she go to the police', they should read things like this. She DID go to the police and nothing was done. Now they are taking another look.

Women can't get justice in the legal system, telling their stories by any means possible is perfectly acceptable.

And yes, you are right, the delusional defenders now appear to have another victim to attempt to discredit.
Click to expand...
Actually they investigated and found no merit to her claim.
 
Me again said:
It doesn't sound at all dubious.
Click to expand...
What, Brand accusing her in 2017 of harassment? And then in 2018 her making a counter-allegation of harassment against him? Who you trying to convince that that sounds like a clear case of wrong-doing on Brand's part, me or yourself?
 
gashonthenail said:
What, Brand accusing her in 2017 of harassment? And then in 2018 her making a counter-allegation of harassment against him? Who you trying to convince that that sounds like a clear case of wrong-doing on Brand's part, me or yourself?
Click to expand...
Neither. It's the fact he used his wealth to silence her with an injunction that makes me suspicious. Still, that's immaterial now, as his years of using his power and money to dodge any kind of scrutiny are over.

You sound increasingly upset about all this. And you're still refusing to tell us why you're so determined to keep defending someone accused of this most appalling behaviour. You should try and answer that question soon or the rest of us will have only one conclusion to come to.
 
Me again said:
Neither. It's the fact he used his wealth to silence her with an injunction that makes me suspicious. Still, that's immaterial now, as his years of using his power and money to dodge any kind of scrutiny are over.

You sound increasingly upset about all this. And you're still refusing to tell us why you're so determined to keep defending someone accused of this most appalling behaviour. You should try and answer that question soon or the rest of us will have only one conclusion to come to.
Click to expand...
I get the sense that you just don't like people with money and power and believe that bad things should happen to them
 
Me again said:
Neither. It's the fact he used his wealth to silence her with an injunction that makes me suspicious. Still, that's immaterial now, as his years of using his power and money to dodge any kind of scrutiny are over.

You sound increasingly upset about all this. And you're still refusing to tell us why you're so determined to keep defending someone accused of this most appalling behaviour. You should try and answer that question soon or the rest of us will have only one conclusion to come to.
Click to expand...
The article doesn't mention an injunction - and she clearly wasn't 'silenced' in any way as it appears she made allegations to Thames Valley Police over several years following Brand's allegation that she had been harassing him - and the police, or the CPS, or both, decided to take no action. Doesn't sound like a strong case to me. None of the anonymous complainants in the documentary sounded like they have a particularly strong case - otherwise they would have gone to the police or spoken with a lawyer rather than speaking to journalists with a clear axe to grind, and (presumably) being paid for their stories, thereby potentially compromising any possible future prosecution, either civil or criminal.
Why am I 'defending' Brand? It's a little principle called innocent until proven guilty. And maybe a little bit of gut feeling too.
 
Me again said:
I actually meant they've lost another line of attack ie 'why is only one police force investigating then?'.

One by one their arguments will fall by the wayside until all they'll be left with will be 'the jury was misled by the media'. It doesn't really matter what happens to Brand, they will simply never believe he's a wrongun. Not because it's not true, but because they don't want to believe it. For what reason, I've no idea - and they keep refusing to tell us.
Click to expand...
This different victim means a different police force, doesn't it?
I think their arguments are already dead, whether he is convicted or not, these women did report and they did complain and nothing was done.
 
gashonthenail said:
The article doesn't mention an injunction...
Click to expand...

gashonthenail said:
Why am I 'defending' Brand? It's a little principle called innocent until proven guilty. And maybe a little bit of gut feeling too.
Click to expand...
The injunction has been mentioned in plenty of articles over the last two weeks and indeed was even reported on at the time, a good few years ago now, by Private Eye. They couldn't name Brand at the time (because of the nature of the injunction) but as I said it's immaterial now events have overtaken it. But it was first reported at least four years ago. Because, despite what Brand is trying to convince people, this is not some sudden witchhunt because of his 'beliefs'; the media has been trying to expose him for quite a few years now and he's been dodging them with legal threats and court action.

The principle of innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean you need to defend him, accuse the media of a deliberate stitch-up, accuse his accusers of being liars, and treat people telling you true facts about the case as being the enemy. That's not 'innocent until proven guilty'. That's someone who is convinced he can't be/mustn't be guilty and is determined to argue that position even if he is eventually found guilty in a court of law.

The second part of your answer is closer to the truth, and explains your behaviour as detailed above: You've already decided he is innocent and you're hiding (not very well) behind the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

So come on then - why do you have a gut feeling that he didn't do it? What exactly leads you to think that a man who has openly groped and molested women on live television is completely harmless and would never do anything sexually to a woman behind closed doors that she might be uncomfortable with/terrified by? To me it seems highly likely he's done some of these things. Not because of something spurious like "a gut feeling" but because of the things I've seen him do to women on camera with my own eyes.

And by the way, Jimmy Savile was never proved guilty. By your bovine logic, he's innocent.
 
Me again said:
The injunction has been mentioned in plenty of articles over the last two weeks and indeed was even reported on at the time, a good few years ago now, by Private Eye. They couldn't name Brand at the time (because of the nature of the injunction) but as I said it's immaterial now events have overtaken it. But it was first reported at least four years ago. Because, despite what Brand is trying to convince people, this is not some sudden witchhunt because of his 'beliefs'; the media has been trying to expose him for quite a few years now and he's been dodging them with legal threats and court action.

The principle of innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean you need to defend him, accuse the media of a deliberate stitch-up, accuse his accusers of being liars, and treat people telling you true facts about the case as being the enemy. That's not 'innocent until proven guilty'. That's someone who is convinced he can't be/mustn't be guilty and is determined to argue that position even if he is eventually found guilty in a court of law.

The second part of your answer is closer to the truth, and explains your behaviour as detailed above: You've already decided he is innocent and you're hiding (not very well) behind the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

So come on then - why do you have a gut feeling that he didn't do it? What exactly leads you to think that a man who has openly groped and molested women on live television is completely harmless and would never do anything sexually to a woman behind closed doors that she might be uncomfortable with/terrified by? To me it seems highly likely he's done some of these things. Not because of something spurious like "a gut feeling" but because of the things I've seen him do to women on camera with my own eyes.

And by the way, Jimmy Savile was never proved guilty. By your bovine logic, he's innocent.
Click to expand...

Fantastic.
 
Back
Top Bottom