Russell Brand

[Stirlingsays]

Regarding timings, i always found it quite strange how Brand went straight into big Hollywood movies and then went to zero very quickly.
The move into podcasts and right wing conspiracies was IMHO merely to attract big audiences (and therefore money) as he was clearly quite left wing (i remember him taking Farage apart on Question Time in the early 2010s). Essentially he couldn't get any film or TV work so pivoted to another high paying platform.

Now it appears there were issues in Hollywood. I suspect Warner Brothers discreetly blacklisted him after the below.

I suspect the timings is more to do with no big corporations protecting him as they did with Harvey Weinstein etc. The fact that Brand couldn't get one person to give him a character witness speaks volumes IMHO.

Russell Brand accused of sexually assaulting extra on film set

Woman referred to as ‘Jane Doe’ says alleged incident took place on set of ‘Arthur’ in 2010

www.independent.co.uk

Russell Brand had three character witnesses, his wife and two former girlfriends.

While the point about his acting isn't important I feel required to provide some clarity on that.

There's no evidence of any blacklists. Brand seems to have stepped back from heading Hollywood roles rather than being blacklisted, as he continued in small roles up to a couple of years ago.

As evidence to this....way before any suggestion of a rape court case Brand is on record stating:

• 2012: Brand publicly said he wanted to take a break from acting because Hollywood films such as Arthur and Rock of Ages left him feeling unfulfilled. He said he wanted to concentrate on stand-up comedy. (The Standard)
  
  • 2016–2020: He continued to take acting roles, including Trolls, Army of One, Four Kids and It and HBO's Ballers.
  • 2022: He appeared in Death on the Nile, Minions: The Rise of Gru and Catherine Called Birdy.
  • 2023: He voiced a character in the animated film Under the Boardwalk.
    
    
    

 

[eaglesdare]

as usual Dan, you are putting your words into my keyboard. When or where did i ever say that ?

i am saying a) that consent is a vague and grey area....especially when two people are already 'at it' to a certain degree. You can be mid-coitus (with consent) and she can decide to change her mind and request that you stop, it does happen. A gentleman would stop, whereas maybe mr Brand wouldnt ?..... and b) that there are many far worse crimes and criminals out there. Dragging a stranger off the street, beating her, raping her a at knifepoint in a dark alleyway ....that deserves a very harsh punishment.

c) there are Jimmy Savile and Pakistani grooming gangs with a far far worse catalogue of crimes. The history of bringing them to justice has been shockingly toothless.

Your simplistic 'black and white' thinking often misses the subtleties of most arguments.

Him and his mate Saturn like to do that. Best off just muting them.

 

[eaglesdare]

In the end this case got more media attention than the thousands of girls raped by Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.

Why?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

In the end this case got more media attention than the thousands of girls raped by Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.

Why?

It must be because Brand talked about Covid on podcasts… they had to get him off the board.

 

[Badger11]

Russell Brand had three character witnesses, his wife and two former girlfriends.

While the point about his acting isn't important I feel required to provide some clarity on that.

There's no evidence of any blacklists. Brand seems to have stepped back from heading Hollywood roles rather than being blacklisted, as he continued in small roles up to a couple of years ago.

As evidence to this....way before any suggestion of a rape court case Brand is on record stating:

• 2012: Brand publicly said he wanted to take a break from acting because Hollywood films such as Arthur and Rock of Ages left him feeling unfulfilled. He said he wanted to concentrate on stand-up comedy. (The Standard)
  • 2016–2020: He continued to take acting roles, including Trolls, Army of One, Four Kids and It and HBO's Ballers.
  • 2022: He appeared in Death on the Nile, Minions: The Rise of Gru and Catherine Called Birdy.
  • 2023: He voiced a character in the animated film Under the Boardwalk.
    
    

Most of his movies flopped, he slipped down the pecking order and was a minor voice character in the minions franchise.

Like a lot of Brits he went to Hollywood thinking he would be a big star, it didn't work out for him and he chose not to remain and become a guest star actor on TV shows and movies, which he probably could have made a living at.

 

[georgenorman]

Some common sense from Andrew Lawrence:

 

[steeleye20]

'How to become a christian in 7 days' by Russell Brand.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/14-august/books-arts/book-reviews/book-review-how-to-become-a-christian-in-seven-days-by-russell-brand

'Unexpectedly moving'.

And by Tucker Carlson Books 😊

The audiobook only, is free on amazon.

😎

 

[palace99]

Russell Brand had three character witnesses, his wife and two former girlfriends.

While the point about his acting isn't important I feel required to provide some clarity on that.

There's no evidence of any blacklists. Brand seems to have stepped back from heading Hollywood roles rather than being blacklisted, as he continued in small roles up to a couple of years ago.

As evidence to this....way before any suggestion of a rape court case Brand is on record stating:

• 2012: Brand publicly said he wanted to take a break from acting because Hollywood films such as Arthur and Rock of Ages left him feeling unfulfilled. He said he wanted to concentrate on stand-up comedy. (The Standard)
  • 2016–2020: He continued to take acting roles, including Trolls, Army of One, Four Kids and It and HBO's Ballers.
  • 2022: He appeared in Death on the Nile, Minions: The Rise of Gru and Catherine Called Birdy.
  • 2023: He voiced a character in the animated film Under the Boardwalk.
    
    

you seem overly keen to defend him.

So in 20 years of working in the entertainment industry by his own admission he could not get one character witness - i don't think his wife really counts! As i said earlier, i think that speaks volumes.

Regarding the possible blacklisting - clearly there is no evidence, that's the way it works.
See how Harvey Weinstein blocked certain females who stood up against him - look at Rosanna Arquette's career. Massive in mid to late 80s. Carried on working for the next 2 decades but on much smaller productions as the big players wouldn't touch her. Seems similar to Brand, regardless of what he might have said.

 

[DanH]

as usual Dan, you are putting your words into my keyboard. When or where did i ever say that ?

i am saying a) that consent is a vague and grey area....especially when two people are already 'at it' to a certain degree. You can be mid-coitus (with consent) and she can decide to change her mind and request that you stop, it does happen. A gentleman would stop, whereas maybe mr Brand wouldnt ?..... and b) that there are many far worse crimes and criminals out there. Dragging a stranger off the street, beating her, raping her a at knifepoint in a dark alleyway ....that deserves a very harsh punishment.

c) there are Jimmy Savile and Pakistani grooming gangs with a far far worse catalogue of crimes. The history of bringing them to justice has been shockingly toothless.

Your simplistic 'black and white' thinking often misses the subtleties of most arguments.

You realise a) is literally black and white rape, don’t you?

If you were ‘mid coitus (with consent)’ and she put on a strap on and entered you up the Jacksie (without consent) what would you say it was, eagle?

 

[palace99]

Most of his movies flopped, he slipped down the pecking order and was a minor voice character in the minions franchise.

Like a lot of Brits he went to Hollywood thinking he would be a big star, it didn't work out for him and he chose not to remain and become a guest star actor on TV shows and movies, which he probably could have made a living at.

sorry isn't that exactly what he did do - he took smaller film roles and appeared as a guest star on the TV show Ballers, for two seasons!

If he walked away i would have understood it, but he didn't. He just couldn't get any decent roles - possibly due to his limited acting ability or possibly due to a rape allegation whilst on set.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

This sounds right when you compare Brand to his presenting or stand up.....when he's focused on comedy. The childish enthusiasm and energy was a particular notable.

However, while I wouldn't call myself a fan, I am an appreciater of serious talent in whatever field and I always try to give that person their due. So because Brand is somewhat of an outlier and eccentric I've followed him somewhat over the years even though he isn't similar to me politically and even against my ideas. The kind of tolerance the 'progressive' left talk about but mostly don't have.

The Brand you refer to here isn't the Brand you'd see since he went onto social media. The Brand that 'Brand' presents today doesn't have that same energy but still is daydreamy (though with a sharp mind) but far less confident and arrogant.....Some say that's a deliberate show but maybe it isn't.....Who's to say....cynics are two a penny and are often just as wrong as they are right.




I think Brand definitely had sex addiction and combined with being an arsehole with access to thousands of women throwing themselves at him the result was for all to see until he jacked it in and settled down.

We can compare the access Brand had to rock and pop stars and famous celebrities. Stars banging groupies and hanger-ons has always happened and the trail of unhappy female wreckage and regret sex must be legion. It's only today that a price is being exacted.....for those that the establishment decides to focus on.



I wonder how people will react when the next person up for this new puritan sexual hindsight is someone they actually like......Will that happen? Probably not, because as you imply there's a big reason that this is Brand getting ten years and not Mick Jagger or Ringo Starr or any of the countless others who no doubt have silence orders in operation.

It's very unlikely to be someone popular with the establishment, just critics of the establishment or throw aways.

There are a lot of other negative consequences that will be exacerbated from this, not that the 'decline and western death cult' that is the progressive left will give a damn about that.

I might be wrong, but I feel like Brand's public 'crucifixion' and the pending media trial of Walliams seems related to their relationship with left wing politicians. Brand seemed to get away with his behaviour before he appeared to be saying the wrong things, and Walliams had a strong attachment to Labour.

I'm not convinced by the rape allegations against Brand and I see that Walliams is already being vilified on moral grounds before a shred of evidence has been presented regarding any illegality.

The law is not there to judge people's promiscuity and when all these cases hinge on media investigations and one word against another, I'm concerned that you could probably find practically anyone guilty of something in their past.

It's all too convenient.

Meanwhile, dozens of organised immigrant rapists are walking free or receiving short sentences and Labour doesn't want you to see the figures.

 

[eaglesdare]

I might be wrong, but I feel like Brand's public 'crucifixion' and the pending media trial of Walliams seems related to their relationship with left wing politicians. Brand seemed to get away with his behaviour before he appeared to be saying the wrong things, and Walliams had a strong attachment to Labour.

I'm not convinced by the rape allegations against Brand and I see that Walliams is already being vilified on moral grounds before a shred of evidence has been presented regarding any illegality.

The law is not there to judge people's promiscuity and when all these cases hinge on media investigations and one word against another, I'm concerned that you could probably find practically anyone guilty of something in their past.

It's all too convenient.

Meanwhile, dozens of organised immigrant rapists are walking free or receiving short sentences and Labour doesn't want you to see the figures.

With the media frenzy and documentaries due to air tonight for Williams. How does he get a fair trial?

 

[Badger11]

sorry isn't that exactly what he did do - he took smaller film roles and appeared as a guest star on the TV show Ballers, for two seasons!

If he walked away i would have understood it, but he didn't. He just couldn't get any decent roles - possibly due to his limited acting ability or possibly due to a rape allegation whilst on set.

He was an unfunny comedian. Hollywood chews people up and spits them out quickly, the biggest crime in tinsel town is not to be a success.

 

[Part Time James]

With the media frenzy and documentaries due to air tonight for Williams. How does he get a fair trial?

This was my concern with Brand as well. I know some people are adamant the verdict was right and others are adamant it was wrong, I haven't an opinion either way. But I have concerns about whether there is any possibility, even remote, that the jury could have been biased and whether a jury trial was appropriate.

 

[DanH]

It really is the posters you’d expect to defend absolute wrong’uns defending the absolute wrong’uns, isn’t it?

 

[steeleye20]

The judge did not need to announce in advance a long custodial sentence.

He did not take the time to consider the sentencing imo, it did look
pre-determined and a rush.

You must be guilty or why are you here, it looked stacked against the defence.

😎

 

[Badger11]

Is it any wonder that showbiz generates creeps like Brand and Walliams and the even worst Glitter and Saville.

People often complain about the how women were portrayed in the Seventies, Benny Hill, Carry Ons, every Play for the Day seems to include nudity etc.

Nothing much has changed, Love Island, Married At First Sight, and countless reality TV shows that celebrate sex. I guess the only difference is that back then the excuse was it was essential to the script.

I'm not complaining about sex on TV but it's hardly surprising that these TV companies have turned a blind eye to bad behaviour, when they celebrate it on the small screen with their trashy shows.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

I might be wrong, but I feel like Brand's public 'crucifixion' and the pending media trial of Walliams seems related to their relationship with left wing politicians. Brand seemed to get away with his behaviour before he appeared to be saying the wrong things, and Walliams had a strong attachment to Labour.

I'm not convinced by the rape allegations against Brand and I see that Walliams is already being vilified on moral grounds before a shred of evidence has been presented regarding any illegality.

The law is not there to judge people's promiscuity and when all these cases hinge on media investigations and one word against another, I'm concerned that you could probably find practically anyone guilty of something in their past.

It's all too convenient.

Meanwhile, dozens of organised immigrant rapists are walking free or receiving short sentences and Labour doesn't want you to see the figures.

You are wrong, its a concerted effort by the Judiciary, Police, Politicians, Royal family, BBC and some of the media that have blocked stories of Saville, Epstein, Brand etc, and tried to suppress them, until the weight of complaints against these these "Celebrity's" are so vile and vast that containment is impossible, despite the wishes of the privileged class

 

[ASCPFC]

The judge did not need to announce in advance a long custodial sentence.

He did not take the time to consider the sentencing imo, it did look
pre-determined and a rush.

You must be guilty or why are you here, it looked stacked against the defence.

😎

I agree about the sentencing. If it were rape, it couldn't be considered the high end of rape. It seemed like wonen went for consensual sex initially but it went too far. There didn't seem to be weapons or beating or threats to life involved. Nor were any underage. Which would be the high end of rape in anyone's unbiased opinion. And there's the rub: so much bias here. Jury, judge, public, media, documentary - case has to be considered bias - whether he is guilty or not.
I don't particularly care that he's sent down but this seems to be against all precedence. Sub judice for a start and having to dismiss half the jury should say something.
I also thought his defense case was terrible. In fact, so bad I would have considered the judge mentioning it.

Yet, I still think he is likely to be guilty of something. Maybe I'm just biased too.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

And if Brand's dad keeps gobbing off, he might find himself in trouble for Contempt of Court

Makes you wonder about parental influence 🙂

Or , perhaps his dad is one of the people he's squirreled money away to, to avoid compensation claims against Russell's estate.
Russell Brand better leave a fair bit of money aside for protection behind bars. 🙂 I'm, thinking £1-2K per week