Russell Brand

[DanH]

Wow.

What utter tripe, if you really think that then just stop posting at me Dan.

Rape apologist? I should block you.

Russell Brand has had years and years of allegations and victims. Brave few came out and testified and a jury found him guilty.

Find some decency and admit you’re wrong and show some contrition for his victims.

You got (and still have this) badly, badly wrong.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Russell Brand has had years and years of allegations and victims. Brave few came out and testified and a jury found him guilty.

Find some decency and admit you’re wrong and show some contrition for his victims.

You got (and still have this) badly, badly wrong.

This guy went through countless women back in less polarised times.....Now it's come back to bite him....a bad lifestyle but not a rapist in my opinion.

No one came forward before 2023 and that was after a documentary and the closest allegation is from 2009.....17 years ago.

If that's fine with you to convict something then that's for your conscience.

For me, I've given my opinion and it's my last post on the matter.

 

[DanH]

This guy went through countless women back in less polarised times.....Now it's come back to bite him....a bad lifestyle but not a rapist in my opinion.

No one came forward before 2023 and that was after a documentary and the closest allegation is from 2009.....17 years ago.

If that's fine with you to convict something then that's for your conscience.

For me, I've given my opinion and it's my last post on the matter.

Yep. And you’ve given enough evidence of your opinion.

 

[westerneagle]

My country is fecking insane and anyone defending a judgement on this based on hearsay and speculation deserves to find themselves jailed in the same hearsay circumstances.

You’re a boring twerp. Please stop the alt-right or whatever the f*** it is (free thinking genius) you know stuff we don’t tripe. Baiting all of us idiots who can’t possibly understand what you understand etc etc. It’s getting boring mate. f*** off

 

[DanH]

You’re a boring twerp. Please stop the alt-right or whatever the f*** it is (free thinking genius) you know stuff we don’t tripe. Baiting all of us idiots who can’t possibly understand what you understand etc etc. It’s getting boring mate. f*** off

He’s shown himself as what he is. Rapist defender.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

I think it's the divergence of opinions on HOL that makes discussion interesting. Rape cases in general have a low conviction rate (EDIT it's something like 63.4%). BUT most allegations/ cases don't make it to Court because they don't meet the threshold of evidence
Brand remembering he'd encountered these woman, gave some corroboration. With hindsight, maybe he should have denied ever meeting them or remembering them. The issue was over consent.
I can totally agree with stirling's view. 20 years seems too long to bring this to court. Maybe Celebrity status gives some kind of theoretical invincibility, but now two additional complainants have come forward with rape allegations against Brand. I feel uneasy about his conviction given the length of time and lack of physical evidence,...but the jury found him Guilty on the available evidence.
I hope Brand endures prolonged sexual advances and all the bum sex he could possibly want. I would think he'll end up paying protection money to some of his new room-mates.

So another celebrity is also being investigated. We all know it's David Walliams.
The police commented that celebrity status doesn't afford protection from these kind of offences.
I would suggest that Andrew, and others named in the Epstein files have been given absolute protection from some of the most vile stuff, which has led to at least one woman's suicide.

Personally, I hope Brand's good friend Wossy is also being investigated 😀

 

[Part Time James]

I think it's the divergence of opinions on HOL that makes discussion interesting. Rape cases in general have a low conviction rate (EDIT it's something like 63.4%). BUT most allegations/ cases don't make it to Court because they don't meet the threshold of evidence
Brand remembering he'd encountered these woman, gave some corroboration. With hindsight, maybe he should have denied ever meeting them or remembering them. The issue was over consent.
I can totally agree with stirling's view. 20 years seems too long to bring this to court. Maybe Celebrity status gives some kind of theoretical invincibility, but now two additional complainants have come forward with rape allegations against Brand. I feel uneasy about his conviction given the length of time and lack of physical evidence,...but the jury found him Guilty on the available evidence.
I hope Brand endures prolonged sexual advances and all the bum sex he could possibly want. I would think he'll end up paying protection money to some of his new room-mates.

So another celebrity is also being investigated. We all know it's David Walliams.
The police commented that celebrity status doesn't afford protection from these kind of offences.
I would suggest that Andrew, and others named in the Epstein files have been given absolute protection from some of the most vile stuff, which has led to at least one woman's suicide.

Personally, I hope Brand's good friend Wossy is also being investigated 😀

I was on a jury for a rape case earlier this year and it was quite eye opening regarding reasonable doubt. I definitely found a difference between what I thought reasonable doubt meant and what the law considers reasonable doubt. Essentially I was able to find a small doubt in everything the accuser described BUT that isn't what reasonable doubt is. Reasonable doubt was whether the combination of all the evidence combined made it unlikely to be false.

In the trial I sat on, there were several reminders about how the accused doesn't have to prove anything and doesn't have to take the stand. The defense barrister focused a lot on "isn't he a nice guy because he did take the stand" but ultimately he took the stand and delivered a story absolutely full of holes.

When considering "the likely behaviour of X person in Y situation" the accused's account (which he didn't have to give) was nonsensical.

He also didn't answer no-comment to every question in his police interview.

Ultimately the most damning evidence all came out of his own mouth.

It was primarily a he-said she-said case but with one witness significantly more credible. It wasn't lost on us that if there had been conclusive forensic evidence it probably wouldn't have come to court as he'd have pleaded guilty.

All in all, I felt uncomfortable having been on a jury where things weren't as clear cut as a TV courtroom drama. I craved something concrete to feel like I had chosen correctly. Rape cases often don't have that luxury.

In the context of Brand, I have no idea whether he was guilty or not. I respect the system and if he was to have a jury decision we have to accept the jury's decision. I don't know what evidence was presented (as vocalised by Cucking). I do feel very uncomfortable that the Jury is unlikely to have gone in without bias. Doesn't get us anywhere though.

 

[Badger11]

I'm glad I wasn't on that jury I would have hated having to decided especially as the evidence was largely he said she said. I never liked the guy, never thought he was funny so I doubt I would be unbiased.

Brand was definitely a sexual predator although that doesn't mean he was a criminal just a creep. It's astonishing how he openly flaunted his bad behaviour on both the BBC and C4 and they enabled him. Unlike Saville and many of the other BBC Pedo posse he never hid his inclinations and bragged about it in interviews and his booky wooky.

I saw this extract today
"BBC bosses will face questions after Brand previously boasted that his boss, Lesley Douglas, then the BBC's controller of Radio 2 and 6 Music, was 'incredibly tolerant' of his inappropriate sexual behaviour while he was a star presenter.

In his memoir, he claimed this included allowing him to use the BBC's disabled toilets for sex with 6 Music competition winners."

Seriously, what the hell were they thinking.

He treated women like a piece of meat and now it has come back to haunt him. Whether this amounts to rape I can't say but the jury has.

Guilty or not would anyone of us allowed him near our women?

The BBC, C4 and other media outlets should be ashamed of themselves, enabling a predator.

1 down two to go (court cases involving BBC employees)

 

[kevlee]

In this country you trust the jury - 12 citizens just like all you posters. A mixture of rational, irrational, intelligent, stupid, and of various political perspectives and of course both genders, which on here isn’t the case.
If this was a judge only case, he or she would have spent their entire career in a courtroom dealing with accused’s and accusers and will have considered the available evidence and the demeanour of the witnesses.
He was found guilty by the jury and it’s unlikely a judge only would have found different. Just like Lucy Letby.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

This guy went through countless women back in less polarised times.....Now it's come back to bite him....a bad lifestyle but not a rapist in my opinion.

No one came forward before 2023 and that was after a documentary and the closest allegation is from 2009.....17 years ago.

If that's fine with you to convict something then that's for your conscience.

For me, I've given my opinion and it's my last post on the matter.

How can anyone have an opinion either way, its impossible unless you were on the jury, listening to the statements and interviews, maybe its time for a polygraph test or an AI app instead.

 

[Badger11]

I was on a jury for a rape case earlier this year and it was quite eye opening regarding reasonable doubt. I definitely found a difference between what I thought reasonable doubt meant and what the law considers reasonable doubt. Essentially I was able to find a small doubt in everything the accuser described BUT that isn't what reasonable doubt is. Reasonable doubt was whether the combination of all the evidence combined made it unlikely to be false.

In the trial I sat on, there were several reminders about how the accused doesn't have to prove anything and doesn't have to take the stand. The defense barrister focused a lot on "isn't he a nice guy because he did take the stand" but ultimately he took the stand and delivered a story absolutely full of holes.

When considering "the likely behaviour of X person in Y situation" the accused's account (which he didn't have to give) was nonsensical.

He also didn't answer no-comment to every question in his police interview.

Ultimately the most damning evidence all came out of his own mouth.

It was primarily a he-said she-said case but with one witness significantly more credible. It wasn't lost on us that if there had been conclusive forensic evidence it probably wouldn't have come to court as he'd have pleaded guilty.

All in all, I felt uncomfortable having been on a jury where things weren't as clear cut as a TV courtroom drama. I craved something concrete to feel like I had chosen correctly. Rape cases often don't have that luxury.

In the context of Brand, I have no idea whether he was guilty or not. I respect the system and if he was to have a jury decision we have to accept the jury's decision. I don't know what evidence was presented (as vocalised by Cucking). I do feel very uncomfortable that the Jury is unlikely to have gone in without bias. Doesn't get us anywhere though.

A good post it sums up my feelings on the sexual assault case I sat on. There was no evidence in favour of the victim and plenty of circumstantial evidence indicating she was a liar, evidence from her own friends (prosecution witnesses) which directly contradicted her own statements. I didn't think the accused was credible either and I completely ignored the character references as irrelevant. He might ne a nice guy with out a criminal record but under certain circumstances we are all capable of committing a crime.

One jury member summed it up. The problem is they are all lying, she meant accused, defendants and other witnesses and she was right. Our decision was swift, not guilty mainly because the prosecution failed to prove their case.

I have decided I will never sit on another jury like that even if it means I get in trouble with the judge. Just because the victim had a passing acquaintance with the truth doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted.

These cases are pass the parcel, the police to the CPS to the courts and then 12 members of the public have to sort out the mess.

 

[Part Time James]

A good post it sums up my feelings on the sexual assault case I sat on. There was no evidence in favour of the victim and plenty of circumstantial evidence indicating she was a liar, evidence from her own friends (prosecution witnesses) which directly contradicted her own statements. I didn't think the accused was credible either and I completely ignored the character references as irrelevant. He might ne a nice guy with out a criminal record but under certain circumstances we are all capable of committing a crime.

One jury member summed it up. The problem is they are all lying, she meant accused, defendants and other witnesses and she was right. Our decision was swift, not guilty mainly because the prosecution failed to prove their case.

I have decided I will never sit on another jury like that even if it means I get in trouble with the judge. Just because the victim had a passing acquaintance with the truth doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted.

These cases are pass the parcel, the police to the CPS to the courts and then 12 members of the public have to sort out the mess.

The judge told us that 80% of people that sit on a jury say they would happily do it again.

I was not part of that 80%

I hate a lack of certainty. I felt like I needed a summing up like "you found the accuser X, we can now reveal the correct answer..."

A lot of cases are like that, but ordinarily rape cases only have two witnesses. The accuser and the accused.

We had to work with reasonable doubt and our collective opinion on how we think a person would behave in a situation. Far from concrete and I imagine every juror walked away like I did, feeling convinced beyond the legal definition of reasonable doubt, but concerned we could have been wrong.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

I'm glad I wasn't on that jury I would have hated having to decided especially as the evidence was largely he said she said. I never liked the guy, never thought he was funny so I doubt I would be unbiased.

Brand was definitely a sexual predator although that doesn't mean he was a criminal just a creep. It's astonishing how he openly flaunted his bad behaviour on both the BBC and C4 and they enabled him. Unlike Saville and many of the other BBC Pedo posse he never hid his inclinations and bragged about it in interviews and his booky wooky.

I saw this extract today
"BBC bosses will face questions after Brand previously boasted that his boss, Lesley Douglas, then the BBC's controller of Radio 2 and 6 Music, was 'incredibly tolerant' of his inappropriate sexual behaviour while he was a star presenter.

In his memoir, he claimed this included allowing him to use the BBC's disabled toilets for sex with 6 Music competition winners."

Seriously, what the hell were they thinking.

He treated women like a piece of meat and now it has come back to haunt him. Whether this amounts to rape I can't say but the jury has.

Guilty or not would anyone of us allowed him near our women?

The BBC, C4 and other media outlets should be ashamed of themselves, enabling a predator.

1 down two to go (court cases involving BBC employees)

Thank you for posting that, a very informative piece, that as you say, the average person in the street has a completely wrong perception of what "Reasonable doubt" is, it must have been a harrowing experience for you

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I'm glad I wasn't on that jury I would have hated having to decided especially as the evidence was largely he said she said. I never liked the guy, never thought he was funny so I doubt I would be unbiased.

Brand was definitely a sexual predator although that doesn't mean he was a criminal just a creep. It's astonishing how he openly flaunted his bad behaviour on both the BBC and C4 and they enabled him. Unlike Saville and many of the other BBC Pedo posse he never hid his inclinations and bragged about it in interviews and his booky wooky.

I saw this extract today
"BBC bosses will face questions after Brand previously boasted that his boss, Lesley Douglas, then the BBC's controller of Radio 2 and 6 Music, was 'incredibly tolerant' of his inappropriate sexual behaviour while he was a star presenter.

In his memoir, he claimed this included allowing him to use the BBC's disabled toilets for sex with 6 Music competition winners."

Seriously, what the hell were they thinking.

He treated women like a piece of meat and now it has come back to haunt him. Whether this amounts to rape I can't say but the jury has.

Guilty or not would anyone of us allowed him near our women?

The BBC, C4 and other media outlets should be ashamed of themselves, enabling a predator.

1 down two to go (court cases involving BBC employees)

Agree with you Badger. He represents a perfect storm of fame, a predatory nature, opportunity, enablement and hubris. Some people get into a mind set that lets them justify their actions to themselves however reprehensible they are or become.
Those around him who knew what he was up to should hang their heads; those who employed and enabled him even more so.
The question now is how many more of these predators will come to light?

 

[eaglesdare]

Agree with you Badger. He represents a perfect storm of fame, a predatory nature, opportunity, enablement and hubris. Some people get into a mind set that lets them justify their actions to themselves however reprehensible they are or become.
Those around him who knew what he was up to should hang their heads; those who employed and enabled him even more so.
The question now is how many more of these predators will come to light?

They certainly won't be stepping out of line the way Brand did a few years ago and try to throw the establishment that made them millions under the bus.

 

[steeleye20]

The Brand case is joining my 'Letby' list.

He is surely outraged at his defence team.

He pleaded not guilty to all counts, that he didn't do them.

The defence barrister told the jury that the acts were immoral, but not illegal.

That is an admittance of his clients guilt, he did commit those acts, they occurred.

He also described them as disgusting lurid etc. thereby making his clients position even worse.

Donut time....

😎

 

[kevlee]

Well next up is well known dickhead Tim Westwood who is accused of 17 sexual assaults, including rape, against 9 young women allegedly committed many years ago. The stories are the same - he said he could help their careers as rappers etc. They were all girls under 20 I believe, some as young as 16, and when he got them alone he allegedly raped them or made them perform sexual acts on him.
I doubt there were any witnesses, just like Brand.

 

[cyprussteve]

Guy should have jbeen ailed with that other wa..ker Jonathan Ross for the stunt he pulled with that disgusting nessage left on Andrew Sach phone about his grand daughter. Both hideous arrogant pigs

 

[mark_cpal785]

This guy went through countless women back in less polarised times.....Now it's come back to bite him....a bad lifestyle but not a rapist in my opinion.

No one came forward before 2023 and that was after a documentary and the closest allegation is from 2009.....17 years ago.

If that's fine with you to convict something then that's for your conscience.

For me, I've given my opinion and it's my last post on the matter.

How long ago someone committed a crime is irrelevant - everyone deserves a chance of justice once they feel strong enough to fight for it. Some of the young victims of historic sexual abuse from football coaches in the 70s-90s had to wait 20-40 years. This guy got married in 2010 so probably stopped his predatory behaviour but doesn’t mean he can abscond from what he did before just because he is a different person now.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

How long ago someone committed a crime is irrelevant - everyone deserves a chance of justice once they feel strong enough to fight for it. Some of the young victims of historic sexual abuse from football coaches in the 70s-90s had to wait 20-40 years. This guy got married in 2010 so probably stopped his predatory behaviour but doesn’t mean he can abscond from what he did before just because he is a different person now.

Does the fact Peter Sutcliffe hasn't murdered any prostitutes for 40 years mean he is reformed, and a different person ?
or since Andrew was outed as a scumbag predatory paedo, has his reluctance to commit further crimes mean he is reformed ?

I think reduced opportunities have played a part 🙂