Russell Brand

[DanH]

They don't care....like the judge.

A fit up.....Jailing him for a sexual encounter 17 years ago, that went with no official complaint.

I suspect Brand has strong grounds for an appeal. The people who sent him down were fully immersed in the very kind of lifestyle that the left suddenly now pretend to look down on.

The right...well, the actual right....were always critics of it......As am I.

Where I perhaps differ is that I've always been a respecter of serious talent and having read Brand, I recognise that he has it in abundance. Much more than anyone operating today. When he's focused on comedy there are few brighter lights.

It's a shame that he also had flaws...everyone does but apart from sex addiction his was in p1ssing a lot of people off....sometimes geniunely and sometimes just angering very flawed people themselves, who looked at this big mouthed dandy and wanted to punch him.

I've never quite forgiven him for that situation with Andrew Sachs and his grand-daughter, however he paid for that at the time and also paid her rehab when she went onto drugs. Of course he's the easy person to blame for anything negative that happens in anyone's life....You are seening that now, all the fleas jumping on the band-wagon.

Again, Brand is just the pin-up boy for an industry that is fully degenerate and full of coke, casual sex and frankly horrible people who dispose of others like they were sh1t on their shoe...a lot of industries are like that but entertainment more so than most......All of those people think they are so much better people than they actually are.

I my view Brand was a sex addict who took advantage of his situation like all the rock and pop and some celebrities did before and after him. He was out front and centre, unlike the others who looked to hide....and still do.

A lot of excuses for rape and sexual assault in here.

 

[DanH]

Yes we do agree on a lot.

Brand must have shagged thousands of women, and no doubt he was a complete entitled arse.....the guy who did that prank call on Andrew Sachs...by all accounts a real nice guy....was an arsehole.

It's not about his politics for me.....I know someone like Brand is against people like me.

It's purely on the principle of locking someone up over recollection testimony about how someone and no doubt others feel about sexual encourters near twenty and sometimes more years ago.

It's not enough for me.....I don't regard him as an actual rapist. I regard him as someone the establishment have chosen to persecute because the cultural norms changed.

Brand must have had loads of women with regret sex, most of them throwing themselves at him.....loose sexual morals like him, it only takes a fraction of them to turn this into a court case......Do I think that worthy of locking a family man up for ten years....Nope.

No one has shown me anything that would convince me that lies aren't involved here.....It could have happened like that, and it maybe didn't.

A lot of excuses for rape and sexual assault in here.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

A lot of excuses for rape and sexual assault in here.

But he's a family man!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

But he's a family man!

So was Charles Manson.

 

[Part Time James]

So was Charles Manson.

You didn't go with Fritzl, you're slipping

 

[palace99]

I think we all probably think he is a sexual predator. What we don't like is the 'he said she said' hearsay from 20 years ago.

clearly claiming rape or any sexual assault after the event is always she said he said as there is never any physical evidence.

Are you trying to say every dated rape conviction is unsafe?

In Brand's case there were 6 different women over a number of years and all were completely independent and they didn't know each other.

It is called circumstantial evidence and has been used for years by courts and not just in sexual assault cases.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

around 7 years before parole. Probably about right. Now let's crack on with Andrew and the Epstein files....shall we ..?

 

[Stirlingsays]

clearly claiming rape or any sexual assault after the event is always she said he said as there is never any physical evidence.

Are you trying to say every dated rape conviction is unsafe?

In Brand's case there were 6 different women over a number of years and all were completely independent and they didn't know each other.

It is called circumstantial evidence and has been used for years by courts and not just in sexual assault cases.

None of them raised a complaint before 2023 when investigators deliberately went looking.

Masses of resources went into investigating Brand. Compare this to the grooming gangs....Indeed, compare the sentences of many of those (many are now out on the street) to what went into bringing this case.

As far as I'm aware Brand's cases are of women who went for consentual sex. Also as far as I'm aware he wasn't chasing or bullying them into the bedroom.

I don't think Brand has done anything significantly different to any famous rock or pop star since the 60s......But more degenerate than most who overfilled his boots.....Most of them have silence orders, does this make them all rapists?

Please tell me how we are assured against regret sex, lies or malicious claims by women who didn't like how Brand treated them many years ago.

 

[steeleye20]

Brand should have known better and stayed in the USA where he could have avoided all this, he never had a chance here.

UKs 'predictable vindictive establishment outcome'.

A lot of criticism from abroad, its a good job Brand wasn't waving a piece of cardboard he would have got 20 years!.

Anybody notice that with Labour in power it's getting markedly worse.

😎

 

[eaglesdare]

clearly claiming rape or any sexual assault after the event is always she said he said as there is never any physical evidence.

Are you trying to say every dated rape conviction is unsafe?

In Brand's case there were 6 different women over a number of years and all were completely independent and they didn't know each other.

It is called circumstantial evidence and has been used for years by courts and not just in sexual assault cases.

I'm not a fan of hearsay she said this he said that convictions. Who is to say one or the other is not lying? 🤷🏻‍♂️ A report should be made directly to the police, not 20 years later when a nosey reporter comes knocking for a story.

As I previously said I would like a statute of limitations on criminal convictions for cases like this and for it to be tried in a civil court.

Just my opinion anyway. And as I said previously I've no doubt that he was a bit of a sexual predator.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

You didn't go with Fritzl, you're slipping

I'm a bit off Austrians at the moment.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

If this was simply a case of women making allegations and the authorities blindly accepting them, why did the jury acquit him of three of the seven charges..? Was the stich-up just to get him on some of the charges?

It should be obvious, but there's a fundamental distinction between an allegation and a conviction. Nobody is suggesting that women should be believed automatically, or that men should be convicted on the basis of an accusation. The prosecution had to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt, and a jury unanimously found that it had done so on four counts, and not on three.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I'm not a fan of hearsay she said this he said that convictions. Who is to say one or the other is not lying? 🤷🏻‍♂️ A report should be made directly to the police, not 20 years later when a nosey reporter comes knocking for a story.

As I previously said I would like a statute of limitations on criminal convictions for cases like this and for it to be tried in a civil court.

Just my opinion anyway. And as I said previously I've no doubt that he was a bit of a sexual predator.

The jury - that's literally what they are there for FFS.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I'm not a fan of hearsay she said this he said that convictions. Who is to say one or the other is not lying? 🤷🏻‍♂️ A report should be made directly to the police, not 20 years later when a nosey reporter comes knocking for a story.

As I previously said I would like a statute of limitations on criminal convictions for cases like this and for it to be tried in a civil court.

Just my opinion anyway. And as I said previously I've no doubt that he was a bit of a sexual predator.

Yeah, I'm getting bored with it....Maybe a couple more posts before I check out of it.

Some sensible opinions by people I respect on here agreeing with the verdict but I can't be bothered with the braying mob just celebrating his downfall because they don't like him.

Yeah, we all know why Brand was unlikeable to many but it shouldn't impact on what we think to the conviction.

 

[Stirlingsays]

If this was simply a case of women making allegations and the authorities blindly accepting them, why did the jury acquit him of three of the seven charges..? Was the stich-up just to get him on some of the charges?

So the Police aren't the authorities? The prosecution service aren't the authorities?

Police chief comes out after the conviction talking in such a manner as to imply that allegations should be believed.....something I found seriously off.

It should be obvious, but there's a fundamental distinction between an allegation and a conviction. Nobody is suggesting that women should be believed automatically, or that men should be convicted on the basis of an accusation. The prosecution had to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt, and a jury unanimously found that it had done so on four counts, and not on three.

Again, if there is just testimonal evidence to rely upon for a historical sexual event how are we protected from lies or regret sex over time?

 

[kevlee]

Damming comments from the judge, who also has access to any material that didn't go to the jury, and who will have observed him and all the witnesses closely during the trial. Brand and celebrities / rich people like him think they can get away with anything. They can't as Epstein, Weinstein, etc have all found out, as will Tim Westwood I expect.
I cant see the inmates of Wandsworth taking kindly to him.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Damming comments from the judge, who also has access to any material that didn't go to the jury, and who will have observed him and all the witnesses closely during the trial. Brand and celebrities / rich people like him think they can get away with anything. They can't as Epstein, Weinstein, etc have all found out, as will Tim Westwood I expect.
I cant see the inmates of Wandsworth taking kindly to him.

Westwood is now facing a total of 17 charges involving nine women so if he goes down it'll be for a long time.
Brand's safety is definitely at risk - unless he's permanently segregated someone will do him just for the craic.

 

[Jordan555x]

None of them raised a complaint before 2023 when investigators deliberately went looking.

Masses of resources went into investigating Brand. Compare this to the grooming gangs....Indeed, compare the sentences of many of those (many are now out on the street) to what went into bringing this case.

As far as I'm aware Brand's cases are of women who went for consentual sex. Also as far as I'm aware he wasn't chasing or bullying them into the bedroom.

I don't think Brand has done anything significantly different to any famous rock or pop star since the 60s......But more degenerate than most who overfilled his boots.....Most of them have silence orders, does this make them all rapists?

Please tell me how we are assured against regret sex, lies or malicious claims by women who didn't like how Brand treated them many years ago.

Not true.

Pre–2023 allegations
In a 2006 interview, Dannii Minogue said Brand had sexually harassed her after she appeared on his TV show. She described him as "a bit of a vile predator", adding: "I certainly don't think he has cured his sex addiction." She said that Brand "wouldn't take no for an answer" and "throughout the whole interview he kept making shocking remarks that I can't even repeat".[13][181]

In 2007, on Brand's BBC Radio 2 comedy show, he called former Jim'll Fix It host Jimmy Savile and asked to meet him. Savile answered that that would only happen if Brand brought along his sister if he had one. In response, Brand joked: "I've got a personal assistant ... and part of her job description is that anyone I demand she greet, meet, massages, she has to do it. She's very attractive, Jimmy".[182] When he asked Savile what she should wear, Savile replied he would "prefer her to wear nothing".[182][183] The exchange between Brand and Savile was featured in the 2023 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary Russell Brand: In Plain Sight.[184]

From 2006 to 2008, Brand received two complaints while he was a BBC radio host and presenter of both sexual misconduct and unprofessional workplace behaviour, with a further six complaints received afterwards.[185] In 2014, former girlfriend Jordan Martin said Brand had committed sexual assault and physical and emotional abuse during their six-month relationship in 2007.[186] She accused Brand of assaulting her at the Lowry Hotel in Salford when he became angry after discovering she had spoken to an ex-boyfriend.[186]

In June 2014, a masseuse accused Brand of assault at his home, and treating her "like a prostitute". Thames Valley Police closed the investigation without charges. Brand and Jemima Goldsmith won a High Court injunction for harassment.[187][188] After Brand's 2026 conviction, the think tank Tax Policy Associates published the injunction, revealing that it prohibits the accuser from discussing the alleged assault with anyone except her legal advisers or doctors.[189]

While filming a programme with Brand in 2018, Katherine Ryan reportedly made remarks to Brand indicating he was a "sexual predator" that were not broadcast.[190] She discussed these comments on Louis Theroux Interviews (Series 1, Episode 5), broadcast in November 2022,[191] stating: "...I informed him to his face, that he was a predator", and: "...this person I believe very strongly, so do a lot of people believe very strongly, it is an open secret, is a perpetrator of sexual assault"; however, still without naming him, she remarked: "It is a litigious minefield".
Sunday Times/Channel 4 investigation (2023)


It's basically the Jimmy Savile case all over again, there was plenty on him before it all went to court. Complaints were made ages ago just not pursued for similar reasons as Savile complaints were not pursued. An open secret. I am going to tell you something that will hold you in good stead when it comes to cases like this "there is never smoke without fire".

 

[kevlee]

Yeah, I'm getting bored with it....Maybe a couple more posts before I check out of it.

Some sensible opinions by people I respect on here agreeing with the verdict but I can't be bothered with the braying mob just celebrating his downfall because they don't like him.

Yeah, we all know why Brand was unlikeable to many but it shouldn't impact on what we think to the conviction.

You have to either trust the jury system, or abolish it. The conviction rate for rape is notoriously low. I'm in favour of judge only trials in some serious cases, because judges are more objective than some juries, but it seems the public don't like that idea.
I respect the jury's finding. On the not guilties, I would suggest it is more a case of not proved beyond reasonable doubt, rather than don't believe it happened.
Personally, I had thought he was a bit of a knob for the way he generally acted acted, not because or real dislike, like Prince Andrew.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You have to either trust the jury system, or abolish it. The conviction rate for rape is notoriously low. I'm in favour of judge only trials in some serious cases, because judges are more objective than some juries, but it seems the public don't like that idea.
I respect the jury's finding. On the not guilties, I would suggest it is more a case of not proved beyond reasonable doubt, rather than don't believe it happened.
Personally, I had thought he was a bit of a knob for the way he generally acted acted, not because or real dislike, like Prince Andrew.

If trusting juries is good enough for you then fair enough.

I looked at the meat and potatoes of what was presented as evidence.....which can be researched but has also kindly been provided on here and for me....he said/she said is not enough.

As I say, I want to know what protections are there from lies, half truths and regret sex.....To me this comes across as putting someone in jail on essentially 'trust me bro'.