It seems every single time a name is lambasted in the media most people jump on the train of hating them accepting they are guilty and writing them of as scum of scum.
If anyone is critical or sceptical of this in any way they are said to fully support the individuals alleged wrong doings and be corrupt themselves. Often I have had a name thrown at me that I have never heard of and am expected to hate them or be associated with their alleged evil when in actuality I know next to nothing or even nothing about the individual but if I don't accept the media headline accusations as absolute irrefutable truth and gospel I am condemned in the strongest possible way.
I am not going to say that Russel Brand did or did not do what he is accused of, there are reasons on both sides based on the limited amount I know about the guy to believe guilty or innocent.
The fact is the guy was not/is not just a conspiracy theorist who comes up with **** he often fully supports his positions and points out facts. It is very often the case that as soon as someone breaks down corruption at top and fully points it out with decent reason logic and evidence they are suddenly characterised as a Nazi or a rapist. If I ever achieved a platform of significance I would never dare speak out unless I had an extra terrestrial power backing me with full intent to back me fully military. basically otherwise my live is over.
That been said the guy has always been weird and a little bit cringe which makes you wonder. But then I am weird and I have never committed any of these crimes.
Maybe he did do it, and I wont put my head out to defend him but I will remain sceptical, until compelling evidence is put forward.
Probably best if you watch the programme & then judge whether the various contributors put forward "compelling evidence". By his own admission, he has twice been in rehab for sexual addiction. Which proves nothing but has to be taken into account.
There are a number of comments that have been made in some of the recent posts, that could only have been made by people that hadnt watched the documentary.
Don't like Brand, never have. It's nothing personal I just think he's an idiot.
The programme does give credibility to certain accusations and paints a very serious picture for Brand.
However, I am always concerned when the media start an hysterical diatribe against a person before definite evidence has been provided and charges laid. Also whilst I am all for the Police encouraging victims to come forward and be heard in cases like this, I have to wonder how many people Brand has either humped and dumped or knocked back during his "Laddish" lifestyle see this as a chance to perhaps elaborate on the truth and get some revenge.
Also much seems to be made of him grooming a 16 year old. last time I checked it was not illegal to have sex with a 16 year old in England. Is it morally reprehensible ? Of course but we have to be aware that immoral does not equate to illegal.
Also the media frenzy does, in my opinion mean that, should any criminal proceedings follow, Brands chances of a fair and unbiased trial are zero. A judge can instruct a jury to ignore anything they may have seen, heard or read but in truth we all know that, that's impossible.
This is not a defence of Brand, who comes across as an uncouth, hedonistic, misogynist. It's merely a warning that sometimes trial by media gets it wrong, remember Chad Evans?
Russell Brand: Key developments after rape and sexual assault allegations The comedian has been accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse against four women over a seven-year period
Here is a "key development" in relation to the rape allegation.
We do not know when it allegedly happened. Other than it was some time between 2006 and 2013. We do know that the woman took immediate steps to attempt to get evidence in relation to this and reported it to the police. Where it happened-in the USA.
And-we also know that the American State Police (for whatever reason) took absolutely no steps to bring any criminal proceedings whatsoever. Instead, we have trial by media. More than 10 years after the event.
He sounds like he is (or, more accurately, prior to 2013, was) a thoroughly nasty human being. And now, 10+ years later, we have a character assassination.
.."If criminal charges had been filed by one or more of the alleged victims, things might look differently for Russell Brand. But the way things stand with a corporate media narrative spun specifically to take Russell Brand down, I can’t help but to question all of it. Serial sexual abusers don’t stop, but this in-depth media investigation couldn’t find anything newer than a decade old.
This is about sending a message. They don’t like “insiders” who switch sides. They especially do not like anyone who acquires enough influence to start waking “normies” out of their globalist slumber.
Some may say the timing is off because they could have used these accusations against him before he became so popular. That’s not how they work. This isn’t just about stopping someone who’s countering their narrative. It’s about sending a message to others who may try to do the same thing. By trying to destroy him at his prime level of influence, they do great damage to the movement as a whole."...
I feel the same way. Can't take to Russell Brand. Don't find him funny. Has an ego the size of a small planet.
But. There is something wrong in a World where someone is able to make very specific, and very serious, allegations about someone while themselves being anonymous. And that TV programmes and newspapers can make money by creating this sort of one-sided account.
I'm not going to watch the programme.
PS. I don't believe in foisting my moral code on other people. Some of the things he is accused of seem distinctly dodgy. But many of them are perfectly legal.
I'm sure you are well aware of the difference between being anonymous and having your identity withheld from the public, as is the case here, and the purpose of providing such protection. Rather a lot of evidence and corroboration has been provided supporting their claims, some of which takes the form of communications from Brand himself, so calling it one-sided isn't especially accurate either. Brand is more than welcome to provide his version of events and was given ample opportunity, more than a week, to do so.
It's the media's duty to investigate and report on stories of public interest which are brought to them, and so they have. You may call into question the competency of their reporting, but you can't credibly do that without availaing yourself of it first.
Your comment regarding making money out of this seems rather off base, too, given the legal action they are certain to face from Brand's team trying to bury the story. The suggestion that Channel 4 stands to gain anything from reporting on crimes that took place while he was presenting on their TV channel seems outright ludicrous.
So I don't really know why you've made this post, other than to declare your intention of remaining willfully ignorant about the whole thing.
It seems every single time a name is lambasted in the media most people jump on the train of hating them accepting they are guilty and writing them of as scum of scum.
If anyone is critical or sceptical of this in any way they are said to fully support the individuals alleged wrong doings and be corrupt themselves. Often I have had a name thrown at me that I have never heard of and am expected to hate them or be associated with their alleged evil when in actuality I know next to nothing or even nothing about the individual but if I don't accept the media headline accusations as absolute irrefutable truth and gospel I am condemned in the strongest possible way.
I am not going to say that Russel Brand did or did not do what he is accused of, there are reasons on both sides based on the limited amount I know about the guy to believe guilty or innocent.
The fact is the guy was not/is not just a conspiracy theorist who comes up with **** he often fully supports his positions and points out facts. It is very often the case that as soon as someone breaks down corruption at top and fully points it out with decent reason logic and evidence they are suddenly characterised as a Nazi or a rapist. If I ever achieved a platform of significance I would never dare speak out unless I had an extra terrestrial power backing me with full intent to back me fully military. basically otherwise my live is over.
That been said the guy has always been weird and a little bit cringe which makes you wonder. But then I am weird and I have never committed any of these crimes.
Maybe he did do it, and I wont put my head out to defend him but I will remain sceptical, until compelling evidence is put forward.
Probably best if you watch the programme & then judge whether the various contributors put forward "compelling evidence". By his own admission, he has twice been in rehab for sexual addiction. Which proves nothing but has to be taken into account.
There are a number of comments that have been made in some of the recent posts, that could only have been made by people that hadnt watched the documentary.
yep fully admit I have not watched the documentary, I will try to watch it when i get the chance but working tomorrow. and have been working all day today. only got back home about 40 mins ago.
its pretty simple if the guy is guilty of rape and or taking advantage of 16 year olds at a point in his life where he was over the age of mid 20s then he is scum.
I dont think that would detract from some of his well made points on his youtube channel, just because a guy is an awful person does not mean that their arguments are not good arguments politically or philosophically. I mean Hitler had a very negative view about modern Art and he was right on that even though he was the worst human being in history he was right about modern art been bad and not real art.
I will aim to try and look into this more when I get a moment. but for now its just time for doublemes takeout reviews then bed.
More women accuse Russell Brand after sex allegations: New claims against the star are being probed - as BBC launches 'urgent' investigation and Channel 4 pulls shows featuring the comedian from their archives
'Several women' have come forward to The Times with undisclosed allegations about Russell Brand's behaviour during the early 2000s in wake of their joint investigation with Channel 4 which was published on Saturday, it has emerged. The latest allegations - which the newspaper says have not been investigated, but will now be 'rigorously checked' - follow accusations from four women, including one who claims she was sexually assaulted by Brand during a three-month relationship with him when she was 16 and still at school. The BBC is now also facing 'urgent questions' after it was claimed that Brand, 48, used his company-provided car service to pick the girl up from school. It comes as both BBC and Channel 4 have launched internal investigations into separate accusations of predatory behaviour by Brand towards staff and audience members during the time of his employment. Channel 4 has since removed all programmes linked to Brand from its website. Netflix has since been urged to follow suit. The maverick actor and stand-up comic has strenuously denied any wrongdoing and blamed the 'mainstream media' for the 'litany of astonishing rather baroque attacks'.
It seems every single time a name is lambasted in the media most people jump on the train of hating them accepting they are guilty and writing them of as scum of scum.
If anyone is critical or sceptical of this in any way they are said to fully support the individuals alleged wrong doings and be corrupt themselves. Often I have had a name thrown at me that I have never heard of and am expected to hate them or be associated with their alleged evil when in actuality I know next to nothing or even nothing about the individual but if I don't accept the media headline accusations as absolute irrefutable truth and gospel I am condemned in the strongest possible way.
I am not going to say that Russel Brand did or did not do what he is accused of, there are reasons on both sides based on the limited amount I know about the guy to believe guilty or innocent.
The fact is the guy was not/is not just a conspiracy theorist who comes up with **** he often fully supports his positions and points out facts. It is very often the case that as soon as someone breaks down corruption at top and fully points it out with decent reason logic and evidence they are suddenly characterised as a Nazi or a rapist. If I ever achieved a platform of significance I would never dare speak out unless I had an extra terrestrial power backing me with full intent to back me fully military. basically otherwise my live is over.
That been said the guy has always been weird and a little bit cringe which makes you wonder. But then I am weird and I have never committed any of these crimes.
Maybe he did do it, and I wont put my head out to defend him but I will remain sceptical, until compelling evidence is put forward.
Probably best if you watch the programme & then judge whether the various contributors put forward "compelling evidence". By his own admission, he has twice been in rehab for sexual addiction. Which proves nothing but has to be taken into account.
There are a number of comments that have been made in some of the recent posts, that could only have been made by people that hadnt watched the documentary.
yep fully admit I have not watched the documentary, I will try to watch it when i get the chance but working tomorrow. and have been working all day today. only got back home about 40 mins ago.
its pretty simple if the guy is guilty of rape and or taking advantage of 16 year olds at a point in his life where he was over the age of mid 20s then he is scum.
I dont think that would detract from some of his well made points on his youtube channel, just because a guy is an awful person does not mean that their arguments are not good arguments politically or philosophically. I mean Hitler had a very negative view about modern Art and he was right on that even though he was the worst human being in history he was right about modern art been bad and not real art.
I will aim to try and look into this more when I get a moment. but for now its just time for doublemes takeout reviews then bed.
It seems every single time a name is lambasted in the media most people jump on the train of hating them accepting they are guilty and writing them of as scum of scum.
If anyone is critical or sceptical of this in any way they are said to fully support the individuals alleged wrong doings and be corrupt themselves. Often I have had a name thrown at me that I have never heard of and am expected to hate them or be associated with their alleged evil when in actuality I know next to nothing or even nothing about the individual but if I don't accept the media headline accusations as absolute irrefutable truth and gospel I am condemned in the strongest possible way.
I am not going to say that Russel Brand did or did not do what he is accused of, there are reasons on both sides based on the limited amount I know about the guy to believe guilty or innocent.
The fact is the guy was not/is not just a conspiracy theorist who comes up with **** he often fully supports his positions and points out facts. It is very often the case that as soon as someone breaks down corruption at top and fully points it out with decent reason logic and evidence they are suddenly characterised as a Nazi or a rapist. If I ever achieved a platform of significance I would never dare speak out unless I had an extra terrestrial power backing me with full intent to back me fully military. basically otherwise my live is over.
That been said the guy has always been weird and a little bit cringe which makes you wonder. But then I am weird and I have never committed any of these crimes.
Maybe he did do it, and I wont put my head out to defend him but I will remain sceptical, until compelling evidence is put forward.
Probably best if you watch the programme & then judge whether the various contributors put forward "compelling evidence". By his own admission, he has twice been in rehab for sexual addiction. Which proves nothing but has to be taken into account.
There are a number of comments that have been made in some of the recent posts, that could only have been made by people that hadnt watched the documentary.
yep fully admit I have not watched the documentary, I will try to watch it when i get the chance but working tomorrow. and have been working all day today. only got back home about 40 mins ago.
its pretty simple if the guy is guilty of rape and or taking advantage of 16 year olds at a point in his life where he was over the age of mid 20s then he is scum.
I dont think that would detract from some of his well made points on his youtube channel, just because a guy is an awful person does not mean that their arguments are not good arguments politically or philosophically. I mean Hitler had a very negative view about modern Art and he was right on that even though he was the worst human being in history he was right about modern art been bad and not real art.
I will aim to try and look into this more when I get a moment. but for now its just time for doublemes takeout reviews then bed.
Thread is roughly two days old & bang on cue, in comes Godwin's Law (NAP).
kind of a bit much to call it now godwins law is usually mentioned when someone compares someone to Hitler I have not compared anyone in the forum to Hitler and have not even compared the subject of the forum Russel Brand to Hitler.
My generic point was that just because someone may be deemed to be a bad person it does not mean all their arguments are no longer sound or valid.
I would expand on that but probably best not as I am in a foul mood because apparently £22 is an extremely high value item and needs DNA samples passport 8 generations of family history documents and several utility bills for. I mentioned this in my rant thread I would exaggerate and say 6am but you know what 6am would have given me the chance to go back to sleep its like literally the worst possible time they could have chosen to.
Feck me. My surname is Godwin. Always liked the fact that it was referred to when talking about K2 (Mount Austen - Godwin). Not sure I like it being used in conjunction with that Fascist scum.
Ah watched some of that documentary , I've never watched a programme with him in it so ah didn't know if he was funny or not, but after watchin him talk about stickin his **** down womens throats and watchin they're mascara run,, he's as funny as constipation. And what about people in the audience including women findin that funny.
Comments
The programme does give credibility to certain accusations and paints a very serious picture for Brand.
However, I am always concerned when the media start an hysterical diatribe against a person before definite evidence has been provided and charges laid. Also whilst I am all for the Police encouraging victims to come forward and be heard in cases like this, I have to wonder how many people Brand has either humped and dumped or knocked back during his "Laddish" lifestyle see this as a chance to perhaps elaborate on the truth and get some revenge.
Also much seems to be made of him grooming a 16 year old. last time I checked it was not illegal to have sex with a 16 year old in England. Is it morally reprehensible ? Of course but we have to be aware that immoral does not equate to illegal.
Also the media frenzy does, in my opinion mean that, should any criminal proceedings follow, Brands chances of a fair and unbiased trial are zero. A judge can instruct a jury to ignore anything they may have seen, heard or read but in truth we all know that, that's impossible.
This is not a defence of Brand, who comes across as an uncouth, hedonistic, misogynist. It's merely a warning that sometimes trial by media gets it wrong, remember Chad Evans?
The comedian has been accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse against four women over a seven-year period
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/russell-brand-key-responses-to-rape-and-sexual-assault-allegations-110612892.html
We do not know when it allegedly happened. Other than it was some time between 2006 and 2013. We do know that the woman took immediate steps to attempt to get evidence in relation to this and reported it to the police. Where it happened-in the USA.
And-we also know that the American State Police (for whatever reason) took absolutely no steps to bring any criminal proceedings whatsoever. Instead, we have trial by media. More than 10 years after the event.
He sounds like he is (or, more accurately, prior to 2013, was) a thoroughly nasty human being. And now, 10+ years later, we have a character assassination.
I wonder if she was referring to R.B.
This is about sending a message. They don’t like “insiders” who switch sides. They especially do not like anyone who acquires enough influence to start waking “normies” out of their globalist slumber.
Some may say the timing is off because they could have used these accusations against him before he became so popular. That’s not how they work. This isn’t just about stopping someone who’s countering their narrative. It’s about sending a message to others who may try to do the same thing. By trying to destroy him at his prime level of influence, they do great damage to the movement as a whole."...
It's the media's duty to investigate and report on stories of public interest which are brought to them, and so they have. You may call into question the competency of their reporting, but you can't credibly do that without availaing yourself of it first.
Your comment regarding making money out of this seems rather off base, too, given the legal action they are certain to face from Brand's team trying to bury the story. The suggestion that Channel 4 stands to gain anything from reporting on crimes that took place while he was presenting on their TV channel seems outright ludicrous.
So I don't really know why you've made this post, other than to declare your intention of remaining willfully ignorant about the whole thing.
its pretty simple if the guy is guilty of rape and or taking advantage of 16 year olds at a point in his life where he was over the age of mid 20s then he is scum.
I dont think that would detract from some of his well made points on his youtube channel, just because a guy is an awful person does not mean that their arguments are not good arguments politically or philosophically. I mean Hitler had a very negative view about modern Art and he was right on that even though he was the worst human being in history he was right about modern art been bad and not real art.
I will aim to try and look into this more when I get a moment. but for now its just time for doublemes takeout reviews then bed.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/woman-claims-she-sexually-assaulted-205523471.html
https://video.dailymail.co.uk/preview/mol/2023/09/18/1317994875014693989/964x580_MP4_1317994875014693989.mp4
'Several women' have come forward to The Times with undisclosed allegations about Russell Brand's behaviour during the early 2000s in wake of their joint investigation with Channel 4 which was published on Saturday, it has emerged. The latest allegations - which the newspaper says have not been investigated, but will now be 'rigorously checked' - follow accusations from four women, including one who claims she was sexually assaulted by Brand during a three-month relationship with him when she was 16 and still at school. The BBC is now also facing 'urgent questions' after it was claimed that Brand, 48, used his company-provided car service to pick the girl up from school. It comes as both BBC and Channel 4 have launched internal investigations into separate accusations of predatory behaviour by Brand towards staff and audience members during the time of his employment. Channel 4 has since removed all programmes linked to Brand from its website. Netflix has since been urged to follow suit. The maverick actor and stand-up comic has strenuously denied any wrongdoing and blamed the 'mainstream media' for the 'litany of astonishing rather baroque attacks'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12529661/More-women-allegations-Russell-Brand-BBC-Channel4-Netflix.html
@Doubleme
Thread is roughly two days old & bang on cue, in comes Godwin's Law (NAP).
My generic point was that just because someone may be deemed to be a bad person it does not mean all their arguments are no longer sound or valid.
I would expand on that but probably best not as I am in a foul mood because apparently £22 is an extremely high value item and needs DNA samples passport 8 generations of family history documents and several utility bills for. I mentioned this in my rant thread I would exaggerate and say 6am but you know what 6am would have given me the chance to go back to sleep its like literally the worst possible time they could have chosen to.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/russell-brands-oxfordshire-pub-closed-amid-rape-and-sexual-assault-claims-095241034.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/dannii-minogue-labelled-russell-brand-082646618.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/russell-brand-protected-high-court-105338698.html
And what about people in the audience including women findin that funny.