Russell Brand allegations

Petepassion · September 2023

menamestom said:

Petepassion said:

menamestom said:

Petepassion said:

So the pricks in government think they can instruct social media platform 'Rumble' to demonetise his channel based on no evidence of crime and no arrest. Irrespective of whether he is guilty or not, this is the chance they've been waiting for to take him down.
If he is found guilty in a court of law for rape, then throw the book at him. But you can guarantee many of the current corporate pitchfork crew trying to take him down are just as vile. Let's shine the light on the lot of them.

Demonitised by youtube becuase of their aversion to controversy for their advertisers. But the videos are still there, becuase knobody cares about what he's actully saying in them. Not a very good cover up if the videos are still online is it? Youtube love the videos as they make them money, but of advertisers might get nervous then they pull that element. They are not duty bound to advertise on his channel. They are protecting their brand just like RB has been building his latest Brand. That's how capitalism works.

RB is very much part of the establishment, made masses of money out of MSM, very rich and powerful, now no TV channels really want him he makes loads of money of the western capatilist machine that is youtube. It's crazy how he has duped people into thinking he's really challenging the status quo.
Conspiracy stuff sells, it's becoming the new MSM.

I would say that 6.5 million subscribers, countless views and comments of support would prove you wrong there.

I mean anybody in power. Would be easy to remove his videos if somebody really wanted to.

I didn't say that there was no truth in his videos either, we are all aware of government corruption, contracts to mates, disenfranchised population etc.

Let's flip this round. Tell me one thing he's uncovered in his videos, one spoking gun, where he's lifted the lid on something that exposes the powers that be? I don't mean posting videos, just tell me specifically, what original exposé has he conducted?

I'm happy to be educated here, I've not watched his videos more than a cursory glance, but if he has conducted some vital journalism that compromises somebody in power, what is it?

It's a very instant and accessible channel to get a lot of information and links to many various people of interest. No, he's not Wikileaks, but he brings this stuff to the fore quickly and therefore it spreads wider and faster.

Gilly · September 2023

Petepassion said:

Gilly said:

Petepassion said:

menamestom said:

Petepassion said:

So the pricks in government think they can instruct social media platform 'Rumble' to demonetise his channel based on no evidence of crime and no arrest. Irrespective of whether he is guilty or not, this is the chance they've been waiting for to take him down.
If he is found guilty in a court of law for rape, then throw the book at him. But you can guarantee many of the current corporate pitchfork crew trying to take him down are just as vile. Let's shine the light on the lot of them.

Demonitised by youtube becuase of their aversion to controversy for their advertisers. But the videos are still there, becuase knobody cares about what he's actully saying in them. Not a very good cover up if the videos are still online is it? Youtube love the videos as they make them money, but of advertisers might get nervous then they pull that element. They are not duty bound to advertise on his channel. They are protecting their brand just like RB has been building his latest Brand. That's how capitalism works.

RB is very much part of the establishment, made masses of money out of MSM, very rich and powerful, now no TV channels really want him he makes loads of money of the western capatilist machine that is youtube. It's crazy how he has duped people into thinking he's really challenging the status quo.
Conspiracy stuff sells, it's becoming the new MSM.

I would say that 6.5 million subscribers, countless views and comments of support would prove you wrong there.

And yes, he's like many before him, the likes of John Lennon for example, preaching equality, peace, love and understanding whilst milking the machine for all it's worth. Of course it's Capitalism, we are governed by Crony Capitalism, but because someone speaks out against it in all their hypocrisy, it doesn't mean what they are saying is false...which in fact most of his content is on the money(ironically speaking).
Most of his content cannot be refuted, therefore the best challenge is to call him a hypocrite, character assassination.
I don't agree with everything he says, but there is little conspiracy in what he says, oh yeah, that's the other way to try and shut someone down, just call them a conspiracy nut.
Little conspiracy in saying government is mostly corrupt.
Little conspiracy in saying there is a revolving door between government and the corporate empire
Little conspiracy in saying we are pretty much disenfranchised now
In fact I would go as far as to say anyone who believes we are living in a democracy whereby government are acting in our best interests and in no way influenced by self interests and their corporate associates is an idiot.

Why would a Channel 4 Dispatches team from a left-leaning TV channel have any interest in helping the Tory government? If you think this is some kind of stitch up because the government feel threatened by him and they’ve influenced journalists to do it that is a conspiracy theory
and a very weak one at that.

I said no such thing

Fair enough. I’m not sure what relevance all your comments about the government have then?

Petepassion · September 2023

DrCornelius said:

Reminds me of the famous George Carlin piece -

https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/george-carlin-on-conspiracies/

Love George Carlin

Petepassion · September 2023

Gilly said:

Petepassion said:

Gilly said:

Petepassion said:

menamestom said:

Petepassion said:

So the pricks in government think they can instruct social media platform 'Rumble' to demonetise his channel based on no evidence of crime and no arrest. Irrespective of whether he is guilty or not, this is the chance they've been waiting for to take him down.
If he is found guilty in a court of law for rape, then throw the book at him. But you can guarantee many of the current corporate pitchfork crew trying to take him down are just as vile. Let's shine the light on the lot of them.

Demonitised by youtube becuase of their aversion to controversy for their advertisers. But the videos are still there, becuase knobody cares about what he's actully saying in them. Not a very good cover up if the videos are still online is it? Youtube love the videos as they make them money, but of advertisers might get nervous then they pull that element. They are not duty bound to advertise on his channel. They are protecting their brand just like RB has been building his latest Brand. That's how capitalism works.

RB is very much part of the establishment, made masses of money out of MSM, very rich and powerful, now no TV channels really want him he makes loads of money of the western capatilist machine that is youtube. It's crazy how he has duped people into thinking he's really challenging the status quo.
Conspiracy stuff sells, it's becoming the new MSM.

I would say that 6.5 million subscribers, countless views and comments of support would prove you wrong there.

And yes, he's like many before him, the likes of John Lennon for example, preaching equality, peace, love and understanding whilst milking the machine for all it's worth. Of course it's Capitalism, we are governed by Crony Capitalism, but because someone speaks out against it in all their hypocrisy, it doesn't mean what they are saying is false...which in fact most of his content is on the money(ironically speaking).
Most of his content cannot be refuted, therefore the best challenge is to call him a hypocrite, character assassination.
I don't agree with everything he says, but there is little conspiracy in what he says, oh yeah, that's the other way to try and shut someone down, just call them a conspiracy nut.
Little conspiracy in saying government is mostly corrupt.
Little conspiracy in saying there is a revolving door between government and the corporate empire
Little conspiracy in saying we are pretty much disenfranchised now
In fact I would go as far as to say anyone who believes we are living in a democracy whereby government are acting in our best interests and in no way influenced by self interests and their corporate associates is an idiot.

Why would a Channel 4 Dispatches team from a left-leaning TV channel have any interest in helping the Tory government? If you think this is some kind of stitch up because the government feel threatened by him and they’ve influenced journalists to do it that is a conspiracy theory
and a very weak one at that.

I said no such thing

Fair enough. I’m not sure what relevance all your comments about the government have then?

My comment was about government trying to force Rumble to demonetise Brands channel with no proof, arrest or court case. I didn't mention Channel 4.
But bear in mind the BBC's Panorama episode on Corbyn regarding 'The Labour files'. Obviously BBC media and political persons were colluding with an end game here. Most of this crowd have no allegiance anyway, it's just business.

Gilly · September 2023

Petepassion said:

I said no such thing

Fair enough. I’m not sure what relevance all your comments about the government have then?

My comment was about government trying to force Rumble to demonetise Brands channel with no proof, arrest or court case. I didn't mention Channel 4

That was your initial comment. You then went on to say “Most of his content cannot be refuted, therefore the best challenge is to call him a hypocrite, character assassination”, as well as “this is the chance they've been waiting for to take him down.” That to me at least sounds like you’re implying there’s some sort of conspiracy.

Petepassion · September 2023

Gilly said:

Petepassion said:

I said no such thing

Fair enough. I’m not sure what relevance all your comments about the government have then?

My comment was about government trying to force Rumble to demonetise Brands channel with no proof, arrest or court case. I didn't mention Channel 4

That was your initial comment. You then went on to say “Most of his content cannot be refuted, therefore the best challenge is to call him a hypocrite, character assassination”, as well as “this is the chance they've been waiting for to take him down.” That to me at least sounds like you’re implying there’s some sort of conspiracy.

I edited my previous quote. BBC panorama, The Labour files...these things happen, it's just business, little allegiance to anyone, if some big boys can have Brand shut down to make life easier then they will.
But this doesn't necessarily mean Channel 4 have colluded with government, government could just be using the whole shitstorm as a lever. But like I said, with no arrest, no court case and no official proof, their actions sound completely over the top

euan · September 2023

What is official proof?

euan · September 2023

digitalscream said:

He really, really isn't. His influence has dwindled over the years, to the point where he's reduced to ranting on YouTube. Yes, he has 6.5m followers, and yes he different segment of the public.

A man of such influence that he won Labour the election in 2015

guitartango · September 2023

Nice to see my post closed down but this one opened up for insults etc.

Frankly Mr Brand - Off Topic Discussions on theFretBoard

sinbaadi · September 2023

It's funny how invested people can be in someone they do not know personally.

The people that are saying that they "stand by" him, obviously fans, are clearly nailing their colours to the mast, and will apparently side with him. That will either be denying the allegations, however well proven, or just not listening to any of it at all.

Similar thing happened with Depp.

I find it absolutely deplorable. People are innocent until proven guilty, but unless you have a genuine reason to disbelieve these claims you are in no position to vouch for the accused either. It's cult-like follower behaviour and a sad representation of celebrity culture.

I have no doubt that some foolish people will have been waving "we believe in you" banners at Mr Savile.

Just. Stop. You don't know the person, you're a fan - either trying to get a moment of approval from your idol and your fellow followers, or so invested in someone that you can't take the idea that this person might be a scumbag.

Sassafras · September 2023

If Jimmy Savile was still alive amid the hundreds of unsubstantiated claims of sex crimes, do you think he would still be on TV and youtube, if he had a channel?
And he was a pillar of the establishment.
People just don't want to be exposed to unsavouriness whether it's proved or not.

CavemanGrogg · September 2023

euan said:

digitalscream said:

He really, really isn't. His influence has dwindled over the years, to the point where he's reduced to ranting on YouTube. Yes, he has 6.5m followers, and yes he different segment of the public.

A man of such influence that he won Labour the election in 2015

Actually back then Brand was trying to convince people to not bother voting, which is why Miliband did the interview with the him, to counter Brand's ''don't bother voting'' campaign.

Timcito · September 2023

sinbaadi said:

It's funny how invested people can be in someone they do not know personally.

The people that are saying that they "stand by" him, obviously fans, are clearly nailing their colours to the mast, and will apparently side with him. That will either be denying the allegations, however well proven, or just not listening to any of it at all.

Similar thing happened with Depp.

I find it absolutely deplorable. People are innocent until proven guilty, but unless you have a genuine reason to disbelieve these claims you are in no position to vouch for the accused either. It's cult-like follower behaviour and a sad representation of celebrity culture.

I have no doubt that some foolish people will have been waving "we believe in you" banners at Mr Savile.

Just. Stop. You don't know the person, you're a fan - either trying to get a moment of approval from your idol and your fellow followers, or so invested in someone that you can't take the idea that this person might be a scumbag.

I agree, and I often wonder at adults who call themselves 'fans' of some celebrity or other. For me, I may like the work of an artist, but I have little interest in who they are, what they have for breakfast, or whether they support some cause or other. It seems infantile to me to still be fawning over an artist or performer to the point where the paraphernalia of their lives matters. This kind of childish herp-worship must account in large part for the indiscriminate approval some enjoy in cases like this one. 'Following' people on social media networks, of course, stokes this vicarious investment in the fortunes and movements of successful people.

TeleMaster · September 2023

CavemanGrogg said:

euan said:

digitalscream said:

He really, really isn't. His influence has dwindled over the years, to the point where he's reduced to ranting on YouTube. Yes, he has 6.5m followers, and yes he different segment of the public.

A man of such influence that he won Labour the election in 2015

Actually back then Brand was trying to convince people to not bother voting, which is why Miliband did the interview with the him, to counter Brand's ''don't bother voting'' campaign.

That's not fully accurate. He was saying don't vote for the sake of it, he was saying vote if you feel someone is worth voting for. Ironically he ended up saying vote for this guy (Milliband) during a time when Tories were a bit like New Labour and Labour were still hanging onto the dying shell of New Labour, so not really a great choice between them for people to get excited about.

There is an argument to be made that lesser evilism, as in, just voting for the sake of it for someone you dislike to keep someone else you dislike more out makes a mockery of your vote, of democracy, and by doing so when candidates are very similar or indifferent you condone shitty candidates and politics because they only have to be slightly different from their opponent and never have to actually work for your vote, and this results in stunted progress in politics.

The argument goes on to say that low voter turnout based not on apathy, but as a result of civil disobedience should spur alternative parties into action to try and shore up those voters and provide policies that appeal to the public, and in turn this should shock the bigger parties into pulling their finger out.

There are of course many reasons to vote. I'm not saying don't, I'm just explaining this position and why electioneering can be detrimental to progress, and why people can feel like their vote doesn't mean a lot when the Overton window is so narrow and candidates reflect this in their policies.and efforts.

Shrews · September 2023

roberty said:

In a way you're correct @Shrews in that there were people at Endemol/BBC/Channel 4 who turned a blind eye. But it is highly offensive to blame women for this in any way, shape or form. You would do better to listen to them than to cast judgement

You mean the woman from the clip who said she had a mortgage to pay and that's why she never came forward?

menamestom · September 2023

Petepassion said:

menamestom said:

I mean anybody in power. Would be easy to remove his videos if somebody really wanted to.

I didn't say that there was no truth in his videos either, we are all aware of government corruption, contracts to mates, disenfranchised population etc.

Let's flip this round. Tell me one thing he's uncovered in his videos, one spoking gun, where he's lifted the lid on something that exposes the powers that be? I don't mean posting videos, just tell me specifically, what original exposé has he conducted?

I'm happy to be educated here, I've not watched his videos more than a cursory glance, but if he has conducted some vital journalism that compromises somebody in power, what is it?

It's a very instant and accessible channel to get a lot of information and links to many various people of interest. No, he's not Wikileaks, but he brings this stuff to the fore quickly and therefore it spreads wider and faster.

I see, so it's his high profile and general anti-establishment stance which has caught the attention of the government, rather than anything very specific.

Tom Walker / Jonathan Pie is much closer to the bone with regards to his government critisism, you have to wonder why he's allowed to get away with it if people like Brand aren't.

Shrews · September 2023

So, a few years ago I joined a walking group that was full of fabulous people. The group leader was a cranky, balding chap but likeable and a good, well organised leader.

Shock.

About two years later it was discovered this man had once been a cub scout leader and the sick, manipulative cunt had raped a number of those little boys. The bravery of those children in coming forward got this sick bastard convicted.

And in Brand's case we have a woman (NOTE: not the alleged victims but the woman from the video) not coming forward because she was worried about her mortgage. Strewth.

I urge every one of you to be more like those kids and not like her.

As I said earlier the blame is not with the victims. They will all have their reasons why they don't come forward. But people who 'know something' and choose not to say anything I have absolutely no time for whatsoever. I just disagree with their stance completely.

grungebob · September 2023

I don’t like the trial by media aspect of all of this.

By not using real names ( I get the reasons why) it makes it hard to dispute or verify allegations.

The culture secretary asking Rumble and TikTok to demonitise his content are an over step.sure do it once proven guilty but at this moment in time it’s only allegations.

He may well be guilty but we don’t know yet

SpoonMan · September 2023

What I don't understand is why so many people find him attractive.

LionAquaLooper · September 2023

SpoonMan said:

What I don't understand is why so many people find him attractive.

You mean in the physical sense?
Google Pete Davidson and the list of women he's dated and slept with. If you think looks are everything that women look for, you've been misinformed

Shrews · September 2023

SpoonMan said:

What I don't understand is why so many people find him attractive.

He'd appeal to the people who love the Captain Jack look I guess. Plus he's got a few million in the bank.

Philly_Q · September 2023

LionAquaLooper said:

SpoonMan said:

What I don't understand is why so many people find him attractive.

You mean in the physical sense?
Google Pete Davidson and the list of women he's dated and slept with. If you think looks are everything that women look for, you've been misinformed

Or look at Boris Johnson's track record....

euan · September 2023

Shrews said:

And in Brand's case we have a woman (NOTE: not the alleged victims but the woman from the video) not coming forward because she was worried about her mortgage. Strewth.

Alright Russell, seems a bit weird that you’re still going on about Katherine Ryan and her mortgage as if she is the villain here opposed to say, producers at Endemol. Who at the time when incidents were happening were informed, and chose to do nothing about them.

I don’t know if you’re purposely not listening to Ryan’s comments or just fixated on financial dealings. She publicly called out Brand, repeatedly. This was never broadcast. She uses the words litigious and alleged around an implied threat to cleverly indicate that she received a legal threat about things she has said. There was testimony in the documentary as to this is how Brand operates.

She refers to credible sources and her belief that they are true. You cannot go to the police with hearsay. Clearly the victims who have spoken to her don’t want to go to the police for their own reasons, what do you expect her to say in the interview room?

”Do you have any proof of these accusations?”

“Yes but I can’t tell you. But he definitely did things”

”Thank you and good evening Ms Ryan”

Philly_Q · September 2023

Shrews said:

And in Brand's case we have a woman (NOTE: not the alleged victims but the woman from the video) not coming forward because she was worried about her mortgage. Strewth.

I urge every one of you to be more like those kids and not like her.

You keep going on about it, but I think you are rather over-stressing what she said about her mortgage. It was a passing comment - I'd say almost a joke, were it not such a serious topic - in a much longer discussion.

And it's been reported that she called him out - assuming the unnamed person is indeed Brand - several times, on camera, during the filming of a TV programme. The TV producers chose not to air it. Save some of your ire for them.

(Edit: @euan has made the same point, rather better than I have.)

Shrews · September 2023

euan said:

Shrews said:

And in Brand's case we have a woman (NOTE: not the alleged victims but the woman from the video) not coming forward because she was worried about her mortgage. Strewth.

Alright Russell, seems a bit weird that you’re still going on about Katherine Ryan and her mortgage as if she is the villain here opposed to say, producers at Endemol. Who at the time when incidents were happening were informed, and chose to do nothing about them.

I don’t know if you’re purposely not listening to Ryan’s comments or just fixated on financial dealings. She publicly called out Brand, repeatedly. This was never broadcast. She uses the words litigious and alleged around an implied threat to cleverly indicate that she received a legal threat about things she has said. There was testimony in the documentary as to this is how Brand operates.

She refers to credible sources and her belief that they are true. You cannot go to the police with hearsay. Clearly the victims who have spoken to her don’t want to go to the police for their own reasons, what do you expect her to say in the interview room?

”Do you have any proof of these accusations?”

“Yes but I can’t tell you. But he definitely did things”

”Thank you and good evening Ms Ryan”

Nope, that's not how it works, especially post-Savile, when many people came forward and the police acted upon them with regards to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. It's up to the court to 'prove' not up to someone who just want to alert the police to something. For all that person knows, 100 others might have done the same, now that is building a case.

In the pedo case above I will tell you how they got this monster. Someone from the police listened to the kids. No proof of course. But they listened. Other brave boys came forward. Then they started to monitor his activities. They set up a mock accident outside his home and knocked on his door to ask if they could use his computer. Then they found all the images needed to convict him and add more credence to the reports from the boys. In effect they found enough 'proof'.

Now with regards to Katherine Ryan, as an adult, an adult who was so convinced that Brand was a sex pest, she should've gone and banged on their door, shouted, screamed, but she didn't. Yes, even if it did affect her career. Yes, even if she thought there was no hope. She wasn't a child like those boys, she was an adult. I bet you the parents of the boys didn't settle for just walking away.

As an adult who 'knows something' we really should do more. Report it to the police and shout and scream if you're as certain as Katherine Ryan says she was. That would truly be helping the victim.

DrCornelius · September 2023

I applaud the kids for coming forward but their parents livelihoods and their ability to look after their families were not compromised by them coming forward and reporting to the Police. I think Katherine Ryan did what she could within the boundaries of what she thought was possible. -as she said, she wasn't a victim, it wasn't her story to report as she had no proof.

I think you are being hard on her tbh

imalrightjack · September 2023

Gilly said:

PLOP said:

I’ve always liked Russell Brand. I listened to his podcasts for years, watched him on Re:Brand, seen his stand up live… Not really keen on the weird conspiracy stuff of the last ~5 years but he’s still a smart, intelligent, funny and seemingly very caring person.
while lots of people accept whatever bad thing about him as true because of his persona, I’m not sure if I believe it. In the probably hundreds of hours I’ve listened to him talking, I find him to be very honest about his past. He’s always been very open about what he did during his crazy years and his autobiography goes into more depth too.
Obviously this kind of thing isn’t the same as various heroin anecdotes that can be laughed about, but I would err on the side of “untrue”. I haven’t read the allegations, but I’d be surprised if it was based on anything more than being forward and persistent and nothing physical. Not that being pushy is ok, but it’s certainly not the worst thing he could have done.

On top of this, it’s well documented how despised he is by most of the UK news media, and the media also have a habit of making storms in a teacup and destroying people’s lives when they get a chance.

You’re entitled to your opinion of course but your argument appears to be “I like Russell Brand therefore I don’t believe it”. So it’s not really worthy of any consideration.

Most of the counter-arguments are that he's a twat, so…

TeleMaster · September 2023

Shrews, you seem more annoyed with this Katherine Ryan, than Brand. You know it was Russell Brand who has been alleged to have done this stuff, not her, right? And did she even have any proof to do anything substantial? And if you remember in the report multiple co workers did report him and nothing happened.

The Scout thing is not the same. The scouts aren't going to deploy thousands of followers to destroy your life. Brand is much more famous and powerful than Katherine Ryan or any of the others involved here.

Shrews · September 2023

Philly_Q said:

Shrews said:

And in Brand's case we have a woman (NOTE: not the alleged victims but the woman from the video) not coming forward because she was worried about her mortgage. Strewth.

I urge every one of you to be more like those kids and not like her.

You keep going on about it, but I think you are rather over-stressing what she said about her mortgage. It was a passing comment - I'd say almost a joke, were it not such a serious topic - in a much longer discussion.

And it's been reported that she called him out - assuming the unnamed person is indeed Brand - several times, on camera, during the filming of a TV programme. The TV producers chose not to air it. Save some of your ire for them.

(Edit: @euan has made the same point, rather better than I have.)

There is ire for them. There is ire from me towards anyone who is convinced but then doesn't shout and scream about something so serious. Help the victims, don't sit back.

But I was asked to watch the video, that it was some sort of reason as to why people don't report stuff (which from a victims standpoint I already understood and agreed to anyway). But I watched it as asked and found a woman who had reported but didn't follow it up, even though she says she KNEW it was happening. I found that staggering.

And nope I do not agree it was a passing comment that was almost a joke. She didn't continue her complaint because of the possible financial effects, as would many others, she's just an example (because I was specifically asked to look at that one).

As said, I have no time for anyone who behaves that way. Don't sit back, don't think about your career, do the right bloody thing.

Adey · September 2023

Philly_Q said:

LionAquaLooper said:

SpoonMan said:

What I don't understand is why so many people find him attractive.

You mean in the physical sense?
Google Pete Davidson and the list of women he's dated and slept with. If you think looks are everything that women look for, you've been misinformed

Or look at Boris Johnson's track record....

Or Lemmy.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Russell Brand allegations

Comments