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.
I hope he thinks it is just as funny if his own mascara does a bit of running in jail.
YouTube suspends Russell Brand from making money on his channel which has 6m subscribers and nets him up to £1million a year - for 'violating responsibility policy'
The 48-year-old produces around five videos a week for his 6million subscribers, earning him an estimated £1million a year. The clips regularly touch on conspiracy theories, including the idea that the pandemic, the Ukraine war and climate change distract from the activities of the global elite. Brand has been accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013, when he was at the height of his fame working for the BBC , Channel 4 and starring in Hollywood films. He has strongly denied the allegations, which also include claims of controlling, abusive and predatory behaviour. The Met Police said in a statement on Monday they had received an allegation of sexual assault in 2003.
Inside Russell Brand's rocky relationship with wife's family: How golf legend father-in-law Bernard Gallacher 'begged' daughter Laura to split with the star - as comic's sister-in-law Kirsty deletes Instagram post supporting him in wake of sex scandal
Inside Russell Brand's rocky relationship with wife's family: How golf legend Golf legend Bernard Gallacher, 87, 'begged' his daughter Laura to leave him when they first started dating - when she was a teenager and 13 years his junior. And while her older sister Kirsty, 47, very publicly backed her brother-in-law when she re-posted the video along with a giant red love heart emoji - she removed it shortly after the full extent of the allegations were revealed. The maverick actor and stand-up comic was accused this weekend of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse from four women between 2006 to 2013 at the height of his fame.
We can all have different opinions about the way Brand was between 2006-13. What is clear is that, regardless of whether he did or did not break any laws, he was a despicable human being.
Since 2013, while we can all have differing opinions about his worth as a human being, he is clearly a better human being than he was. He no longer treats women in the way he did
There could be all sorts of reasons for that. To mention just a few-the world has changed for the better (we no longer award him the title of "Shagger of the Year"); he is a middle-aged man, rather than a young one; he has sought professional help for his addictions; and he has met a Woman who makes him a better human being-she is currently pregnant with their 3rd child.
The "solution"? Rake up his past in very public view. To what end?
The likeliest outcome is the end of his relationship and him returning to his destructive ways. And-whether legally or not-inflicting further misery on himself and others
Imagine he was a former alcoholic instead. And the Press were intent on forcing him to start drinking again.
Most journalism is **** but occasionally they pull out some nuggets.
It's a shame for his wife and family but if he did these things he's to blame not the papers.
There are a lot of questions to be answered.
Why did most of the women who say they were assaulted not report him ?.
Why did these other comedians who are sayin they knew he was a preditor not report him ?.
Is he still sniffin around women and it's not been reported ?.
If he raped somebody he deserves punishment whether it was 1 year ago or 20 years ago.
If he sexually touched somebody without their consent he deserves punishment.
Is he a better human being than he was ?.
They are good questions. And, having roughly 35 years experience of this sort of thing, I can at least provide possible answers to some of them.
"Occasionally they (the Press) pull out some nuggets". They have had these "nuggets" for at least 3 years. Various of them were given to them. I suspect by Californian Lawyers. I will explain why below.
"If he did these things he's to blame not the papers". Some yes, some no. The bits that are Criminal conduct are the yes bit.
"Why did these other comedians who say they knew he was a predator not report him?" Reason is simple. Being a predator is not illegal. Just often morally reprehensible. In practice, it means you have nothing to do with them, and ensure your family does so, too.
"Is he still sniffing around women?" According to all reports, no. So far, and everyone always piles in in this sort of thing, it all predates 2013.
The "deserves punishment" bit. This is where it gets interesting. There are legal time limits for bringing various Criminal and Civil actions. And, until this year, except in rare circumstances which are not relevant here) those time limits had expired.
However, the Law has changed in California this year. As of Jan 2023, there is a new 3 year window for bringing Civil claims against the perpetrators. And a new 1 year window for bringing Civil claims against "entities" that are found to have either enabled the sexual assaults or taken steps to cover them up.
The size of potential Californian actions is extremely high. Because punitive damages change the game. And the potential damages are far higher than any money Brand has.
The info has been released to try and show culpability on a rich institution. Like the State-owned BBC/Channel 4. Or a US Film studio.
This is primarily a cash-grabbing exercise. US Lawyers. After your money. And every other taxpayer. And that is why the info is all 10+ years old, and been in the hands of journalists for 3+ years. Simply because it is only now that Lawyers can make money out of it.
Most journalism is **** but occasionally they pull out some nuggets.
It's a shame for his wife and family but if he did these things he's to blame not the papers.
There are a lot of questions to be answered.
Why did most of the women who say they were assaulted not report him ?.
Why did these other comedians who are sayin they knew he was a preditor not report him ?.
Is he still sniffin around women and it's not been reported ?.
If he raped somebody he deserves punishment whether it was 1 year ago or 20 years ago.
If he sexually touched somebody without their consent he deserves punishment.
Is he a better human being than he was ?.
They are good questions. And, having roughly 35 years experience of this sort of thing, I can at least provide possible answers to some of them.
"Occasionally they (the Press) pull out some nuggets". They have had these "nuggets" for at least 3 years. Various of them were given to them. I suspect by Californian Lawyers. I will explain why below.
"If he did these things he's to blame not the papers". Some yes, some no. The bits that are Criminal conduct are the yes bit.
"Why did these other comedians who say they knew he was a predator not report him?" Reason is simple. Being a predator is not illegal. Just often morally reprehensible. In practice, it means you have nothing to do with them, and ensure your family does so, too.
"Is he still sniffing around women?" According to all reports, no. So far, and everyone always piles in in this sort of thing, it all predates 2013.
The "deserves punishment" bit. This is where it gets interesting. There are legal time limits for bringing various Criminal and Civil actions. And, until this year, except in rare circumstances which are not relevant here) those time limits had expired.
However, the Law has changed in California this year. As of Jan 2023, there is a new 3 year window for bringing Civil claims against the perpetrators. And a new 1 year window for bringing Civil claims against "entities" that are found to have either enabled the sexual assaults or taken steps to cover them up.
The size of potential Californian actions is extremely high. Because punitive damages change the game. And the potential damages are far higher than any money Brand has.
The info has been released to try and show culpability on a rich institution. Like the State-owned BBC/Channel 4. Or a US Film studio.
This is primarily a cash-grabbing exercise. US Lawyers. After your money. And every other taxpayer. And that is why the info is all 10+ years old, and been in the hands of journalists for 3+ years. Simply because it is only now that Lawyers can make money out of it.
Global web icon lawtonslaw.co.uk https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/statute-limitations-sexual-assault What is the statute of limitations on sexual assault in the UK? WebThere is no statute of limitations on sexual assault. There is only one limitation within the field of sexual crimes – for ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ offences that took place between 1956 and 2004. This refers to cases of supposedly consensual sex with teenagers aged …
Global web icon stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/statute-of-limitations-for... UK's Statute of Limitations for Rape | Your Ally for Legal Defense WebUnder the current law in England and Wales, there is no statute of limitations for rape and other serious sexual offences, meaning that charges can be brought at any time, …
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Russell Brand news LIVE: BBC drops comic from iPlayer and YouTube suspends star from making money as up to nine woman come forward with sex abuse allegations against him
MAILONLINE LIVEBLOG: YouTube has stopped Russell Brand from being able to earn any money through his channel for 'violating our Creator Responsibility policy'.
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sean-lock-said-hates-russell-150618083.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/russell-brand-three-stand-shows-190500717.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/forgotten-tv-show-warned-us-183754478.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/gb-news-anchors-furious-feud-145738150.html
Sean Lock was the best.
The 48-year-old produces around five videos a week for his 6million subscribers, earning him an estimated £1million a year. The clips regularly touch on conspiracy theories, including the idea that the pandemic, the Ukraine war and climate change distract from the activities of the global elite. Brand has been accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013, when he was at the height of his fame working for the BBC , Channel 4 and starring in Hollywood films. He has strongly denied the allegations, which also include claims of controlling, abusive and predatory behaviour. The Met Police said in a statement on Monday they had received an allegation of sexual assault in 2003.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12534431/YouTube-stops-Russell-Brand-making-money-channel-rape-allegations.html
Inside Russell Brand's rocky relationship with wife's family: How golf legend
Golf legend Bernard Gallacher, 87, 'begged' his daughter Laura to leave him when they first started dating - when she was a teenager and 13 years his junior. And while her older sister Kirsty, 47, very publicly backed her brother-in-law when she re-posted the video along with a giant red love heart emoji - she removed it shortly after the full extent of the allegations were revealed. The maverick actor and stand-up comic was accused this weekend of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse from four women between 2006 to 2013 at the height of his fame.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12532803/russell-brand-wife-family-relationship-bernard-gallacher-daughter-split.html
We can all have different opinions about the way Brand was between 2006-13. What is clear is that, regardless of whether he did or did not break any laws, he was a despicable human being.
Since 2013, while we can all have differing opinions about his worth as a human being, he is clearly a better human being than he was. He no longer treats women in the way he did
There could be all sorts of reasons for that. To mention just a few-the world has changed for the better (we no longer award him the title of "Shagger of the Year"); he is a middle-aged man, rather than a young one; he has sought professional help for his addictions; and he has met a Woman who makes him a better human being-she is currently pregnant with their 3rd child.
The "solution"? Rake up his past in very public view. To what end?
The likeliest outcome is the end of his relationship and him returning to his destructive ways. And-whether legally or not-inflicting further misery on himself and others
Imagine he was a former alcoholic instead. And the Press were intent on forcing him to start drinking again.
It's a shame for his wife and family but if he did these things he's to blame not the papers.
There are a lot of questions to be answered.
Why did most of the women who say they were assaulted not report him ?.
Why did these other comedians who are sayin they knew he was a preditor not report him ?.
Is he still sniffin around women and it's not been reported ?.
If he raped somebody he deserves punishment whether it was 1 year ago or 20 years ago.
If he sexually touched somebody without their consent he deserves punishment.
Is he a better human being than he was ?.
"Occasionally they (the Press) pull out some nuggets". They have had these "nuggets" for at least 3 years. Various of them were given to them. I suspect by Californian Lawyers. I will explain why below.
"If he did these things he's to blame not the papers". Some yes, some no. The bits that are Criminal conduct are the yes bit.
"Why did these other comedians who say they knew he was a predator not report him?" Reason is simple. Being a predator is not illegal. Just often morally reprehensible. In practice, it means you have nothing to do with them, and ensure your family does so, too.
"Is he still sniffing around women?" According to all reports, no. So far, and everyone always piles in in this sort of thing, it all predates 2013.
The "deserves punishment" bit. This is where it gets interesting. There are legal time limits for bringing various Criminal and Civil actions. And, until this year, except in rare circumstances which are not relevant here) those time limits had expired.
However, the Law has changed in California this year. As of Jan 2023, there is a new 3 year window for bringing Civil claims against the perpetrators. And a new 1 year window for bringing Civil claims against "entities" that are found to have either enabled the sexual assaults or taken steps to cover them up.
The size of potential Californian actions is extremely high. Because punitive damages change the game. And the potential damages are far higher than any money Brand has.
The info has been released to try and show culpability on a rich institution. Like the State-owned BBC/Channel 4. Or a US Film studio.
This is primarily a cash-grabbing exercise. US Lawyers. After your money. And every other taxpayer. And that is why the info is all 10+ years old, and been in the hands of journalists for 3+ years. Simply because it is only now that Lawyers can make money out of it.
Global web icon
lawtonslaw.co.uk
https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/statute-limitations-sexual-assault
What is the statute of limitations on sexual assault in the UK?
WebThere is no statute of limitations on sexual assault. There is only one limitation within the field of sexual crimes – for ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ offences that took place between 1956 and 2004. This refers to cases of supposedly consensual sex with teenagers aged …
Global web icon
stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/statute-of-limitations-for...
UK's Statute of Limitations for Rape | Your Ally for Legal Defense
WebUnder the current law in England and Wales, there is no statute of limitations for rape and other serious sexual offences, meaning that charges can be brought at any time, …
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case.
And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
MAILONLINE LIVEBLOG: YouTube has stopped Russell Brand from being able to earn any money through his channel for 'violating our Creator Responsibility policy'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/live/article-12534793/russell-brand-allegations-live-latest-news-updates.html