Russell Brand

[Part Time James]

Are we taking bets?

Pepe Le Pew used to pretend to be a cat so he could shag them. No one is talking about that are they?

 

[Part Time James]

Searching about the internet a bit.

David Jason
Jonathan Ross
Andy Burnham

All mentioned.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

So effectively you're arguing that rapes that have taken place in the past should never be convicted..? Because what you describe is going to be the case for almost all of them.


I think when an accuser can produce 24 witnesses who support her story, that's incredibly convincing - one of the witnesses was a nurse the victim visited at the time in 2009 and specifically reported that she'd had unwanted, non-consensual anal sex with Russel Brand. She told her parents, friends, ex-boyfriend the same story.

What are we saying here? She lied to everyone around her, including faking a visit to a healthcare professional, to make a 17-year play at a payout from Russell Brand..? Is that a serious defence?

Or are all 24 of them, including the professional nurse, just making it up?

The idea that a jury can't, or shouldn't, be moved to convict by that type of evidence is absolute lunacy.


In terms of "what is to stop someone saying the same about me, you or anyone else"... well the lack of 24 supporting witnesses as evidence, obviously. The other rape allegations against Brand did not stick, so the idea that people can just flagrantly accuse anyone of rape and get them convicted doesn't stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny - the allegation didn't even stick against someone who was found guilty of sexual assaults and a rape, never mind an average person with no history of sexual abuse.

To be perfectly clear, I’m absolutely not saying or arguing that. Each case should be taken on its own individual merits - obviously.

You make a lot of other generalisations in your post above, ones that I can’t necessarily agree with but do understand some of the points you are raising.

You make specific reference to the anal rape allegation that has been widely reported during and since the trial. Whilst I don’t take issue with the points you make I am also taking into account several other aspects that came out in the evidence and cross examination that you have not mentioned.

The victim was in a relationship and had a boyfriend, she went to see Brand perform live and wanted to meet him after the show. Within 3 minutes of meeting him she was licking his ring-piece whilst another female gave him oral sex. A week later she arranged to go to his Hampstead house and was excited to have sex with him. They discussed having anal sex. The same female saw Brand again at the Edinburgh Festival a few moths later and exchanged text messages with him. In cross examination the defence challenged the medical and corroborating evidence, arguing that the records reflected a woman experiencing regret, health anxiety and embarrassment after a consensual encounter, rather than proof of non consensual rape. The defence also highlighted that clinic records and therapy notes were based entirely on what the complainant told clinicians at the time rather than independent forensic proof of a crime. It was suggested that her telling of friends of her account was deliberately expressed to a number of people in order to put that narrative across to her boyfriend rather than one where she willingly went along.

As I say, it’s all possible and anyone could make the same accusations against you or I. I could say person X deliberately grabbed my arse in Glaziers without my consent 17 years ago. No witnesses, no physical evidence, no CCTV but I could make that allegation and just because I’ve also told 23 other people that he or she did, doesn’t make it true, surely there should be some proof?

 

[Phil’s Barber]

putting accusations to me, I did not make. You say a poster is a police detective. And so you believe that ?

Forest…for absolute clarity (seeing as you have questioned it a few times now) YES I was, I retired recently after over 35 years of service entirely with the Met, the majority of that as an investigator and detective. All manner of investigations including murder, public order, assault, indecent assault and rape. There are a number of people on this forum who know me and are at liberty to say openly if I am making it up or exaggerating it in any way.

The funny thing is there’s a photo of me in uniform on this very forum when I first started at Croydon in 1989, standing next to an area car in South End. It was posted on the Croydon memorabilia thread some years ago and I contacted the poster about it at the time. Sadly I can’t remember who it was and the details were in my Private Messages on the old version of the forum which I can no longer access.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

To be perfectly clear, I’m absolutely not saying or arguing that. Each case should be taken on its own individual merits - obviously.

You make a lot of other generalisations in your post above, ones that I can’t necessarily agree with but do understand some of the points you are raising.

You make specific reference to the anal rape allegation that has been widely reported during and since the trial. Whilst I don’t take issue with the points you make I am also taking into account several other aspects that came out in the evidence and cross examination that you have not mentioned.

The victim was in a relationship and had a boyfriend, she went to see Brand perform live and wanted to meet him after the show. Within 3 minutes of meeting him she was licking his ring-piece whilst another female gave him oral sex. A week later she arranged to go to his Hampstead house and was excited to have sex with him. They discussed having anal sex. The same female saw Brand again at the Edinburgh Festival a few moths later and exchanged text messages with him. In cross examination the defence challenged the medical and corroborating evidence, arguing that the records reflected a woman experiencing regret, health anxiety and embarrassment after a consensual encounter, rather than proof of non consensual rape. The defence also highlighted that clinic records and therapy notes were based entirely on what the complainant told clinicians at the time rather than independent forensic proof of a crime. It was suggested that her telling of friends of her account was deliberately expressed to a number of people in order to put that narrative across to her boyfriend rather than one where she willingly went along.

As I say, it’s all possible and anyone could make the same accusations against you or I. I could say person X deliberately grabbed my arse in Glaziers without my consent 17 years ago. No witnesses, no physical evidence, no CCTV but I could make that allegation and just because I’ve also told 23 other people that he or she did doesn’t make it true, surely there should be some proof?

But with your experience you must know that the vast majority of rape cases would fit the criteria you described, particularly if you’re going back a few years - so you’re setting an incredibly high bar for a crime which already convicts at a very low rate, to the point it would become near impossible.

Of course the defence will have thrown all sorts of round the houses theories around as to why she told her friends or sought out a health professional, but I don’t find those explanations particularly credible. Someone experiencing embarrassment and regret doesn’t volunteer to go and speak to a health professional about it.

Telling 23 people doesn’t automatically make it true, but it damn sure makes the story infinitely more credible, particularly when you also factor in one was acting in a professional capacity - the level of foresight it would take to falsely begin these allegations at scale, 17 years ago, is not really something I think we can reasonably accuse the victim of - it doesn’t stack up.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

‘They’ overlooked Brand’s crimes when he was left wing, because he was useful 😂😂😂

It’s like a 14-year old has discovered YouTube but lacks the critical thinking skills to navigate it.

Because nothing like that ever happens.

Do you still get a good Wi Fi signal in your bubble?

 

[silvertop]

Solicitors with their NDAs and SLAPPs.

Just add I don't think these are in the same league as secret injunctions issued by a Judge.

Spectacularly hard to obtain full ones.

Remember, Walliams got an interim injunction that only lasts a limited period. When he attempted to make the injunction longer term the judge told Walliams to feck off.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Walliams currently getting his name dragged through the mud on mainstream media sites.

Now I have no idea as to whether any claims against him amount to anything significant.....However, like Brand I'm not sure how this guy gets a fair trial with all this pre trial muck throwing.

I remember all the usual awfuls saying that Robinson being arrested outside a court house put a trial in danger (it didn't and journalists have been doing that for decades and decades).....all of them defended that....but apparently you can drag someone's repuation through the mud on mainstream social media....someone's who is obviously going to get charged for all the world to see.

Yet zero comment or anger about it.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Spectacularly hard to obtain full ones.

Remember, Walliams got an interim injunction that only lasts a limited period. When he attempted to make the injunction longer term the judge told Walliams to feck off.

There is also a difference between an injunction and a super injunction in that in the latter case it can't be mentioned that it's even in place.

 

[Mattconrov]

Lefty conspiracy theories are all over the left.....from the Trump ear shooting was staged to Kirk was murdered by the far right.....to the most amusing of all, that the BBC is right wing.

Seen the first two pushed by people on here who then talk about right wing conspiracy theories being nuts.

Yep, the left like a conspiracy when it suits them too.

As you mentioned them. The Trump shoot in the ear is extremely suspicious to me. His ear appeared to heal up pretty quickly. He got up straight away as a hero in a movie.

The ratings went up big time for him. If they can implode the world trade centre towers and rebrand the flu to look like the plague; then staging a shooting would be child's play.

I don't believe kirk was shoot dead by the young kid either. Possibly a james bond type explosion through his mic.

Obviously I don't have definitive proof. But I won't take the evidence of known murderers and conmen either.

Off topic, I couldn't resist

 

[Phil’s Barber]

But with your experience you must know that the vast majority of rape cases would fit the criteria you described, particularly if you’re going back a few years - so you’re setting an incredibly high bar for a crime which already convicts at a very low rate, to the point it would become near impossible.

Of course the defence will have thrown all sorts of round the houses theories around as to why she told her friends or sought out a health professional, but I don’t find those explanations particularly credible. Someone experiencing embarrassment and regret doesn’t volunteer to go and speak to a health professional about it.

Telling 23 people doesn’t automatically make it true, but it damn sure makes the story infinitely more credible, particularly when you also factor in one was acting in a professional capacity - the level of foresight it would take to falsely begin these allegations at scale, 17 years ago, is not really something I think we can reasonably accuse the victim of - it doesn’t stack up.

Your first paragraph sums up perfectly the very essence of the Brand trial. It was a historic rape case, yes there were also sexual assault charges but the main ones were allegations of rape. Succesful conviction rates of historical rape cases, where the suspect was known to the victim, are incredibly low, for any number of the reasons already discussed. It’s not me setting the bar incredibly high, it’s the UK legal system, that is why I am surprised at the outcome and guilty verdict.

I am not saying or arguing that Brand is innocent, I am not saying that he is guilty. All I have consistently said is that taking into account the facts of the case, I am surprised he was found guilty of any of the seven indictments against him.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

Spanish media are not in the vice of what the restrictions placed on the media, which they are, are restricted to, i know who they say it is, but PMs only for what the Spanish media are saying, right or wrong.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Spanish media are not in the vice of what the restrictions placed on the media, which they are, are restricted to, i know who they say it is, but PMs only for what the Spanish media are saying, right or wrong.

Who is it then? PM me.

 

[Part Time James]

Who is it then? PM me.

Noel Fielding's name is getting a lot of mentions all of a sudden. But innocent until found guilty on a football forum

 

[Mattconrov]

Yep, the left like a conspiracy when it suits them too.

As you mentioned them. The Trump shoot in the ear is extremely suspicious to me. His ear appeared to heal up pretty quickly. He got up straight away as a hero in a movie.

The ratings went up big time for him. If they can implode the world trade centre towers and rebrand the flu to look like the plague; then staging a shooting would be child's play.

I don't believe kirk was shoot dead by the young kid either. Possibly a james bond type explosion through his mic.

Obviously I don't have definitive proof. But I won't take the evidence of known murderers and conmen either.

Off topic, I couldn't resist

I've just noticed a recent post of yours that says Wisbech belived Trump assassination was staged. The only conspiracy theory he believes in, because it suits him. Absolutely hilarious

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Noel Fielding's name is getting a lot of mentions all of a sudden. But innocent until found guilty on a football forum

I won't comment.

 

[Part Time James]

I won't comment.

No, you have a right to remain silent. Anything you do say will be taken down and manipulated into something you didn't say and used against you in this thread.

 

[Mattconrov]

You’ve got it the wrong way round - he pivoted to the right when the net was tightening, because he saw an easy audience who swallow any old s*** they’re told to.

He did go to the maga crowd this is true. I'm pretty sure he went to trumps house too.

However the "easy audience" is people choosing their tribe. Left or right, just the same

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

No, you have a right to remain silent. Anything you do say will be taken down and manipulated into something you didn't say and used against you in this thread.

Haha.

I now know who the alleged person is, but it's not confirmed. Saying it would probably be libelous.

 

[Part Time James]

Haha.

I now know who the alleged person is, but it's not confirmed. Saying it would probably be libelous.

Yeah, I took a risk with my post implying the last one could have been David Walliams. Got lucky that it was him and he doesn't have strong views about Palace.