[News] The Historical Sex Allegations Thread

[Uh_huh_him]

well exactly. if it was a plot, there must be more convenient and more certain ways of bringing down brand. also, why bother with specifically him? it all seems quite improbable to me

Just playing devil's advocate....
The fact that it seems improbable makes it a much better route surely?

Taking a step back, If at any point in time over the past 10 years, someone were to tell you that Russel Brand was a narcissistic, controlling, sex pest, who had had many disturbing events in his past, would you have been surprised?
This is hardly the biggest expose of all time. But it has become this country's biggest news item.
Just like Huw Edwards story did when Bojo wouldn't handover his phone.

Any google searches for Russel brand won't be throwing up links to any of his conspiracy theory online content, for the foreseeable future.
A bit like when Bojo was interviewed about his favourite pastime of making model buses - which effectively moved his NHS Brexit pledge off the first page for google searches of "Boris + Bus"

No idea whether there is any conspiracy out there, but either way, it will have nullified his attempts to continue his crusade for now.

The bloke is undoubtedly a twunt and a misogynist... but he isn't alone in that.

 

[Bakero]

Negronis are up there in the cocktail stakes. And tofu is a weekly occurrence round these parts. But do they have to be imbibed together? The very thought of it upsets me so much that I'm turning into a snowflake.

I'm also a big fan of negronis and tofu but not have not had them together. Possible pairings are now on my mind. I don't tend to have a negroni witha meal so I'm thinking snacks. Marinated-tofu wrapped in bacon? I think that could be a winning combo, especially if cooked on the BBQ.

 

[rogersix]

Just playing devil's advocate....
The fact that it seems improbable makes it a much better route surely?

Taking a step back, If at any point in time over the past 10 years, someone were to tell you that Russel Brand was a narcissistic, controlling, sex pest, who had had many disturbing events in his past, would you have been surprised?
This is hardly the biggest expose of all time. But it has become this country's biggest news item.
Just like Huw Edwards story did when Bojo wouldn't handover his phone.

Any google searches for Russel brand won't be throwing up links to any of his conspiracy theory online content, for the foreseeable future.
A bit like when Bojo was interviewed about his favourite pastime of making model buses - which effectively moved his NHS Brexit pledge off the first page for google searches of "Boris + Bus"

No idea whether there is any conspiracy out there, but either way, it will have nullified his attempts to continue his crusade for now.

The bloke is undoubtedly a twunt and a misogynist... but he isn't alone in that.

who could be bothered? brand is just another nutter on the internet, what story is being suppressed, truss rewriting history?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

who could be bothered? brand is just another nutter on the internet, what story is being suppressed, truss rewriting history?

Sure that's sensible, but equally, who really cares about whether a nutter on the internet, has behaved horrendously in consensual relationships?
It's unpleasant, but so far it's not exactly Bill Cosby, is it?

 

[clapham_gull]

Sure that's sensible, but equally, who really cares about whether a nutter on the internet, has behaved horrendously in consensual relationships?
It's unpleasant, but so far it's not exactly Bill Cosby, is it?

Met police just announced they have received a separate complaint.

 

[pb21]

One word against another cuts both ways and, even though it may be hard to prove the charges, the newspapers don't need to do so since it would not be they that are prosecuting. If Brand takes the newspapers to court then I am not sure whether the laws require that the newspapers prove their allegations or instead require Brand to show they are false. Perhaps a legal person on here can advise? And note that the case is more likely to be prosecuted in America rather than here.

I'm not a legal person, but at the moment Brand is legally innocent and on that basis he should be to bring charges against the media who published the claims that he is a rapist, substantially defaming him. Surley the proof would then be on the media to show those claims are true, or at the very least not malicious, and even then they would likely be subject to massive fines.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think the problem is that people do form opinions before the full facts are known, just look at the posts on here that have him guilty as charged based on his persona, stage show and other various rumours.

As you say the legal system is highly flawed and I fully agree with your hope this case shines a light on its failings.

If anybody on this thread has him guilty as charged then I have missed it. I said he is a sleazy sex pest and that was enough to make my skin crawl every time I saw him on tv. Have you seen the documentary and in particular its allegations of co-ercive control ? Also the aggressive responses from his lawyers when these women made complaints ? Worth a piece of investigative journalism to give these women the confidence that they will be listened to I would have thought.

The #metoo movement has hyper-sped society to an environment where men have to be so extremely cautious when it comes to sexual encounters with women. There's little doubt it is for the best in regards to protecting women - but at the same time it has created a complicated legal problem where it's one persons word against another, most of the time.

It wouldn't take a lot for a woman to say after the event "actually, the sex we had wasn't consensual for these reasons" and for a man to end up in serious trouble.

Not saying Russell Brand is in any way innocent, if the allegations are true and not exaggerated then he certainly isn't - but since the 2000s, or even 2010s, there are undoubtedly there are new boundaries defining what is considered consensual sex.

It's so complicated, and I have no idea what the solution is. If I were in my early 20s again and looking to shag lots of women, I'd think it would be sensible to have them record a voice message confirming they are happy to proceed, just in case one decided to claim that they weren't after the event.

Either way, whether Brand is guilty or not - or whether his actions are deemed unacceptable now, but were tolerated at the time - or even if the allegations are untrue - suffice to say, his career and reputation are completely ruined and he will not come back from this.

sorry, but that’s utter rubbish in any era. If you can’t work out what consensual sex looks like then you lack the required social skills.

 

[Jim in the West]

I'm not a legal person, but at the moment Brand is legally innocent and on that basis he should be to bring charges against the media who published the claims that he is a rapist, substantially defaming him. Surley the proof would then be on the media to show those claims are true, or at the very least not malicious, and even then they would likely be subject to massive fines.

The Times and Sunday Times' legal people will have spent A LONG time on this. I think the fact that they've published means they have huge amounts of evidence.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I am not saying Brand is innocent just that......... 99.999% of us will have never done anything like he is accused of but 100% can be accused of this by anyone whether true or not .

Your stats are way out. I know of a talk given on rape to school staff where at the end the majority of women were in tears and there were consequent repercussions. Men trot out the line about how rare rape is but it is completely untrue.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Just playing devil's advocate....
The fact that it seems improbable makes it a much better route surely?

Taking a step back, If at any point in time over the past 10 years, someone were to tell you that Russel Brand was a narcissistic, controlling, sex pest, who had had many disturbing events in his past, would you have been surprised?
This is hardly the biggest expose of all time. But it has become this country's biggest news item.
Just like Huw Edwards story did when Bojo wouldn't handover his phone.

Any google searches for Russel brand won't be throwing up links to any of his conspiracy theory online content, for the foreseeable future.
A bit like when Bojo was interviewed about his favourite pastime of making model buses - which effectively moved his NHS Brexit pledge off the first page for google searches of "Boris + Bus"

No idea whether there is any conspiracy out there, but either way, it will have nullified his attempts to continue his crusade for now.

The bloke is undoubtedly a twunt and a misogynist... but he isn't alone in that.

Er, I've just googled him and, under the brief 'top stories' tab, the first four links are his official website, his Wikipedia, his IMDb and his YouTube channel. Extend it (or narrow it down, whichever way you look at it) by adding 'YouTube' to the search and it's ALL his own work at the top of the page...

As I understand it, he has enough of a following to prevent his 'crusade' being nullified. Personally I can't really understand the hoards of people who are so quick to defend him in all forms of media. It's amazing what gets people frothing at the gash these days!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The Times and Sunday Times' legal people will have spent A LONG time on this. I think the fact that they've published means they have huge amounts of evidence.

Shame they've given the sleazeball a semi-legitimate excuse to say he's under 'a coordinated attack'. Clearly The Times / Sunday Times have been in cahoots with C4 Despatches on this one.

Oh well... anyway

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Met police just announced they have received a separate complaint.

I don't doubt that there will be a great many more complaints.
I'm not stating that he is innocent.

The point I was making is that it isn't as if anyone was in any doubt about this man's character.
As a piece of investigative journalism, it's hardly opening our eyes to a previously unknown aspect of his life.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I'm not a legal person, but at the moment Brand is legally innocent and on that basis he should be to bring charges against the media who published the claims that he is a rapist, substantially defaming him. Surley the proof would then be on the media to show those claims are true, or at the very least not malicious, and even then they would likely be subject to massive fines.

If the cops are involved it would be a criminal investigation - if Brand was to sue the media it would be a civil case. The burden of proof is different in both settings. Brand will not sue the newspapers or Channel 4 because it would be difficult to prove he was defamed. Even if he was found not guilty in a criminal case - he could still lose a civil case on defamation.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Seeing the death of Barry Bennell on another thread, it was a good example of a tv programme putting the spotlight on sexual abuse of young boys, and threats to keep them quiet.
it resulted in a court case, a guilty verdict and prison.

 

[pb21]

If the cops are involved it would be a criminal investigation - if Brand was to sue the media it would be a civil case. The burden of proof is different in both settings. Brand will not sue the newspapers or Channel 4 because it would be difficult to prove he was defamed. Even if he was found not guilty in a criminal case - he could still lose a civil case on defamation.

Good point, criminal is beyond reasonable doubt, civil balance of probability, or something like that, isn't it?

So the Times et al would have to prove/demonstrate that it's more likely that he's a rapist than isn't? If they can't Brand wins?

It's still the case though that the media would have to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that it's more likely true than not though?

 

[Weststander]

GBeebies imploding

I’d forgotten about Turner. Last time was when she was wheeled out as a Scamdemic gobshite on progs such as C5’s Jeremy Vine.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

So the Times et al would have to prove/demonstrate that it's more likely that he's a rapist than isn't? If they can't Brand wins?

No - in the civil case Brand would have to prove that the media outlets defamed him - that would be a significant problem for him, not least because of his previous utterances about his treatment of women. Now it would be easier for Brand to do this in the UK rather than in the USA - but taking a civil case against the media opens up the likelihood that many more of his victims come forward. It is something that can be expected to happen - but not something that he would want to happen - which is why he won't bring a civil case.