Russell Brand

[Pidge]

18 hours ago, Arniepie said:

the bbc and ch4 are rightly carrying the can but, unless im missiing something,this was happening in plain sight,and no one was flagging it up,the printed media certainly werent.

His schtick being that he's a womaniser and sex addict was pretty clear, the extent to which he would manipulate people for sex and even feel emboldened to allegedly assault these women to get what he felt he needed wasn't though, no.

 

Looks like plenty knew what he was like, but it was hardly public knowledge (even if there were plenty of warning signs and if you think it through of course addicts will seek a reliable supply at the cost of others' wellbeing).

[Ezekiel 25:17]

On 19/11/2006 at 19:50, The-Sir said:

I voted for "Surreal genius on speed" then I googled his name and realised I was thinking of Vernon Kay. Russell Brand is a wanker.

 

 

Bump to remind us all The Sir thought Vernon Kay was a genius.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

On 05/09/2013 at 19:55, Champ said:

He's definitely one of the good guys. We need more like him

 

 

WELL.

[VladimirIlyich]

1 minute ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

 

 

WELL.

This shows how good his manipulative skills are.

[Champ]

18 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

 

 

WELL.

In my work colleague’s oft repeated phrase, ‘slowly the thing reveals itself’

I was wrong

 

That was 10 years ago. I choose to think we’re all a good bit older and wiser now

[Paul]

18 hours ago, Arniepie said:

the bbc and ch4 are rightly carrying the can but, unless im missiing something,this was happening in plain sight,and no one was flagging it up,the printed media certainly werent.

I don’t understand this argument. It’s incredibly difficult for journalists to reach a point where they think they can print a story with sufficient evidence to avoid litigation. Don’t forget, Elton John - ELTON JOHN!!! - successfully sued The Sun for writing that he was gay!

 

The teams working on this story took well over a year to reach the point where they felt they could publish and the journalists involved have said they’re aware of several other investigative teams having unsuccessfully tried to expose him over the last few years. 
 

In short, it’s incredibly difficult to reach a threshold of evidence where it’s considered defendable in court, should the subject sue. And that’s without the fact that there’s a huge additional issue in cases of sexual assault against women where they do not want to come forward. 
 

And as for other people not flagging it up, I doubt any of them saw anything they considered criminal. They were just aware he was dodgy but in very clever and manipulative ways that made it hard to point to specifics. Hence the rumours, but no reports. This stuff is really complex and not as simple as, “He’s a wrong ‘un. Lock him up”. 

[Arniepie]

12 minutes ago, Paul said:

I don’t understand this argument. It’s incredibly difficult for journalists to reach a point where they think they can print a story with sufficient evidence to avoid litigation. Don’t forget, Elton John - ELTON JOHN!!! - successfully sued The Sun for writing that he was gay!

 

The teams working on this story took well over a year to reach the point where they felt they could publish and the journalists involved have said they’re aware of several other investigative teams having unsuccessfully tried to expose him over the last few years. 
 

In short, it’s incredibly difficult to reach a threshold of evidence where it’s considered defendable in court, should the subject sue. And that’s without the fact that there’s a huge additional issue in cases of sexual assault against women where they do not want to come forward. 
 

And as for other people not flagging it up, I doubt any of them saw anything they considered criminal. They were just aware he was dodgy but in very clever and manipulative ways that made it hard to point to specifics. Hence the rumours, but no reports. This stuff is really complex and not as simple as, “He’s a wrong ‘un. Lock him up”. 

it’s not so much him being exposed, its more the fact that his behaviour was celebrated,the shagger of the year stuff, the column in the guardian etc, all this was happening whilst he was basically pimping out his researcher to the worst nonce the country has ever seen.

In the documentary it was alleged channel 4 basically wouldn’t let female researchers work with him alone. Surely this stuff must get out?

Like you say it is a complex issue, I just think there was collective responsibility that this, Apparently went on for so long.

 

[Mudface]

1 hour ago, Champ said:

In my work colleague’s oft repeated phrase, ‘slowly the thing reveals itself’

I was wrong

 

That was 10 years ago. I choose to think we’re all a good bit older and wiser now

 

Just older in my case. My wisdomness has declined if anything.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

1 hour ago, Champ said:

In my work colleague’s oft repeated phrase, ‘slowly the thing reveals itself’

I was wrong

 

That was 10 years ago. I choose to think we’re all a good bit older and wiser now

 

I've got to say, I don't think there has been many people labelling him as one of the good guys, by any definition, ever.

[redheart]

2 hours ago, Paul said:

I don’t understand this argument. It’s incredibly difficult for journalists to reach a point where they think they can print a story with sufficient evidence to avoid litigation. Don’t forget, Elton John - ELTON JOHN!!! - successfully sued The Sun for writing that he was gay!

 

The teams working on this story took well over a year to reach the point where they felt they could publish and the journalists involved have said they’re aware of several other investigative teams having unsuccessfully tried to expose him over the last few years. 
 

In short, it’s incredibly difficult to reach a threshold of evidence where it’s considered defendable in court, should the subject sue. And that’s without the fact that there’s a huge additional issue in cases of sexual assault against women where they do not want to come forward. 
 

And as for other people not flagging it up, I doubt any of them saw anything they considered criminal. They were just aware he was dodgy but in very clever and manipulative ways that made it hard to point to specifics. Hence the rumours, but no reports. This stuff is really complex and not as simple as, “He’s a wrong ‘un. Lock him up”. 

 

 

No he did not. He sued them for accusations that he used drugs and rent boys. If they had checked these stories they would have realised he was on a flight over the Atlantic when the Sun claimed he was having a drug fuelled event with a rentboy

[Champ]

36 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

 

I've got to say, I don't think there has been many people labelling him as one of the good guys, by any definition, ever.

My faded memory was that he came across as empathic towards marginalised people. I can’t even remember where I saw him, maybe reading his columns in the Guardian, because I never watched him on Johnathan Ross or R2 and those clips they showed on Saturday night were excruciating and I ended up turning it off.

 

I don’t know what else you want me to say 

[Anubis]

He was pretty prominent in supporting a few causes at the time, this in particular.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/live/2014/dec/01/new-era-estate-russell-brand-protest-against-eviction-live

[Megadrive Man]

1 minute ago, Champ said:

My faded memory was that he came across as empathic towards marginalised people. I can’t even remember where I saw him, maybe reading his columns in the Guardian, because I never watched him on Johnathan Ross or R2 and those clips they showed on Saturday night were excruciating and I ended up turning it off.

 

I don’t know what else you want me to say 

 

It was probably around the time that he was helping people not get evicted or face huge rent increases.

 

I felt exactly the same as you at that time.

[Pidge]

Yeah, after getting into a few films he was less obnoxious presenter and was just generally turning up on the odd thing and appeared an affable, fairly articulate person looking to use their platform to talk about social issues. He'd fundraise (good) and started building a presence as an online commentator (which was a bit like listening to a student reading private eye out loud). 

 

Since then the second part has taken over and gone a bit "free speech activist" over the years, as a narcissist he's played to the gallery and turned away from the people who would reject or question his points, the people he sees as seeking to control him. He's drifted from socialist to libertarian and I think it's partly down to him thinking of himself as an agent provocateur. 

 

But that's beside the point, he's still essentially the same guy, but he's had quite a journey from the coked up wanker who thought he was some kind of genius mix of Chris Morris and Keith Richards (the early 00s MTV phase) to now. It just seems he's been particularly manipulative to others as well, not just his own image.

 

Edit: by the essentially the same guy I mean the narcissistic element, which applies to a lot of people seeking fame. The view of that person is what needs to be reconsidered now, while I'd never thought of him as harmless, I also didn't think he was an active threat to women.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

12 minutes ago, Champ said:

My faded memory was that he came across as empathic towards marginalised people. I can’t even remember where I saw him, maybe reading his columns in the Guardian, because I never watched him on Johnathan Ross or R2 and those clips they showed on Saturday night were excruciating and I ended up turning it off.

 

I don’t know what else you want me to say 

 

 

I don't want you to say anything, relax.

[ZonkoVille77]

This isn't good and fair play to Rumble. Regardless of whether you think Brand to be guilty he hasn't been convicted by law as of yet. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/21/video-platform-rumble-rejects-mps-call-to-demonetise-russell-brand

[Ezekiel 25:17]

55 minutes ago, Megadrive Man said:

 

It was probably around the time that he was helping people not get evicted or face huge rent increases.

 

I felt exactly the same as you at that time.

 

Hitler was a good artist.

[Pidge]

15 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

This isn't good and fair play to Rumble. Regardless of whether you think Brand to be guilty he hasn't been convicted by law as of yet. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/21/video-platform-rumble-rejects-mps-call-to-demonetise-russell-brand

 

Yeah, there an argument that they should not monetise content relating to the allegations, and there's an argument that YouTube were free to take the action they have, but regardless, the government seeking to essentially sanction an individual without evidence or conviction is way out of line.

 

Did they write to man utd about greenwood?

[Champ]

10 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

 

Hitler was a good artist.

And Wagner wrote some good tunes

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

11 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

 

Hitler was a good artist.

Underrated, no wonder he got upset.

[Bjornebye]

19 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

 

Hitler was a good artist.

 

Jimmy Saville raised millions for charity 

[Section_31]

Hitler painting.

 

 

 

Bob Ross painting.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

4 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Hitler painting.

 

 

 

Bob Ross painting.

Bob only took an hour, how long did Adolf take?

[Section_31]

Just now, VERBAL DIARRHEA said:

Bob only took an hour, how long did Adolf take?

 

This is the kind of attitude that got the wee man all fucked up in the first place.

[Pidge]