• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

Sexual assault is a paranormal claim?

That's not on me though is it? I'm not one of the many herein who seem to be claiming some level of prescience based on their revulsion of the accused.

That's stooping so low you've got your foot in your mouth.

Again, I'm not the one claiming prescience based on ones opinion of the accused. Why are you not taking this up with those?
 
actually i feel that fading celebrity gets accused of sex crime and then acts really guilty making it seem like he did it and then you find out he did it but it was actually much worse than you initially thought is a pretty common occurence
 
actually i feel that fading celebrity gets accused of sex crime and then acts really guilty making it seem like he did it and then you find out he did it but it was actually much worse than you initially thought is a pretty common occurence

Yeah, and everything seems to move much more quickly than it used to. It used to be years and years between the first public hints that "something isn't quite right about Celebrated Actor" and "at least three of his victims were still alive when he buried them" but now it seems to happen in a couple of weeks. Maybe that's why people are hesitant to accept these sort of revelations -- they still expect them to take longer to come to light and the speed seems suspicious.
 
I think people are forgetting how plaintiff-friendly British libel law is - and indeed, how these accusations are serious enough that US libel law can also be wielded to stop victims from going public.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture...d-why-the-allegations-took-so-long-to-surface

"People often think that we have a law that protects free speech here. We don’t. We have a law that protects reputation,” says Caroline Kean, a partner at Wiggin who represented the journalist Catherine Belton when she was sued by multiple Russian billionaires. “Getting stories out like this may sound easy to people who watch a lot of crime dramas, but it’s actually incredibly difficult.”

In England and Wales, the subjects of unwanted stories can sue for libel if they believe their reputation has been damaged. The responsibility is on the party taken to court, not the subject of the allegations, to prove the story is “substantially true” on the balance of probabilities, while other defences include that the story was in the public interest, or an honestly held opinion backed up by facts. Developments in privacy laws in the last 25 years have made it more difficult to publish, according to experts.

Which is probably why, as Louisa Compton, the head of news at Channel 4, explained on the BBC Radio 4’s Media Show this week, the teams had “really spelled out how we managed to verify what we have”. Journalists had reportedly interviewed hundreds of sources and seen private emails, texts, medical and therapists’ notes as well as submitting freedom of information requests, scrutinising Brand’s books, interviews and broadcasts to corroborate allegations.

Good article, thanks. "Free Speech" like it exists in the USA doesn't exist in the UK.
 
That's not on me though is it? I'm not one of the many herein who seem to be claiming some level of prescience based on their revulsion of the accused.



Again, I'm not the one claiming prescience based on ones opinion of the accused. Why are you not taking this up with those?

There is a vast gulf between judging a person's likely character based on the things they observably do and say and the a paranormal level of prescience you accuse others of using.

'Hey, this guy actually did the things he pretended to joke about doing!'

'Oh yeah? What are you? Psychic?'

Did you listen to the 'grab them by the pussy' tirade and decide that informs your judgement of the accusations against him in a 'psychic' way as well? Just because he says so doesn't matter?

Come off it. That's not proper skepticism.
 
Here, let me help you with that.

question mark
/ˈkwɛstʃ(ə)nˌmɑːk/
noun
noun: question mark; plural noun: question marks; noun: questionmark; plural noun: questionmarks
a punctuation mark (?) indicating a question.
used to express doubt or uncertainty about something.
"there's a question mark over his future"

You're still throwing unevidenced assertions arround as if they were truthful statements. It seems you are incapable of discerning the difference.

Edit: So I'm just going to let you go on with your rape apologetics and give it the notice it deserves: none.
 
Last edited:
Good article, thanks. "Free Speech" like it exists in the USA doesn't exist in the UK.

Personally I think this is a good thing. If a publication is going to run articles making accusations then they should be made to prove their claims.
 
One thing that is off about the Russell Brand business is that so much of it revolves around the opinions of the dads and the grandads. For example, Bob Geldoff called him a **** because of Brand's shenanigans with his late-daughter, Peaches. Rod Stewart hates him for similar reasons. The entire Andrew Sachs thing revolved around, how dare you lay my granddaughter and leave filthy messages on my ansaphone. Sachs didn't speak to his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie for eight years as a result. But why not?

Are women still perceived to be the property of their father or other male figure?
 
One thing that is off about the Russell Brand business is that so much of it revolves around the opinions of the dads and the grandads. For example, Bob Geldoff called him a **** because of Brand's shenanigans with his late-daughter, Peaches. Rod Stewart hates him for similar reasons. The entire Andrew Sachs thing revolved around, how dare you lay my granddaughter and leave filthy messages on my ansaphone. Sachs didn't speak to his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie for eight years as a result. But why not?

Are women still perceived to be the property of their father or other male figure?
Wait.. what..? Wow ..
 
Brand now officially under police investigation in London after "number of allegations of sexual offences in London" were received. Allegations pertaining to other areas have been passed on to the appropriate forces.
 
Well, now that the government is starting legislation against SLAPP suits...

It's a two edged sword. What's more problematic, publications making accusations with no evidence or individuals bringing frivolous lawsuits designed to intimidate? I don't have an answer for that. The best defence here is legislation against both.
 
Sexual assault is a paranormal claim?

That's stooping so low you've got your foot in your mouth.

They didn't say that or anything like that, you're making up and reacting to stuff in your own head.
The presumption of guilt before an actual court case does smack to me a little bit like foretelling the future though, weird.

Good article, thanks. "Free Speech" like it exists in the USA doesn't exist in the UK.

Thank **** for that.
 
Apparently the Met Police have received more complaints of sexual offences by Brand:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66918331

Curious, it doesn't specifically say the old offenses were "against Brand".



They didn't say that or anything like that, you're making up and reacting to stuff in your own head.
The presumption of guilt before an actual court case does smack to me a little bit like foretelling the future though, weird.

Who's "presuming guilt"? There are at least 4 cases under investigation. Each will be decided on their own merits.

I've said there's a lot of smoke and people being burned, but these will be decided in court, if they go to court.


Thank **** for that.

I don't know whether the US or UK system is better than the other. It's a complicated issue.
 
That's not on me though is it? I'm not one of the many herein who seem to be claiming some level of prescience based on their revulsion of the accused.


Again, I'm not the one claiming prescience based on ones opinion of the accused. Why are you not taking this up with those?

They didn't say that or anything like that, you're making up and reacting to stuff in your own head.
The presumption of guilt before an actual court case does smack to me a little bit like foretelling the future though, weird.

This is silly.

Some people in this thread have expressed a lack of surprise about the allegations.

So what?
 
That's the general tone of this thread for sure. Many, many people wanting to be in with the, "I knew it".

I have to laugh because they'd tear apart anybody who supported claims of such foretelling in any other medium.
Such foretelling? This particular allegation can't be waved off so easily:

One woman alleges that Brand raped her without a condom against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She says Brand tried to stop her leaving until she told him she was going to the bathroom. She was reportedly treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times says it has confirmed via medical records.
 
Last edited:
One thing that is off about the Russell Brand business is that so much of it revolves around the opinions of the dads and the grandads. For example, Bob Geldoff called him a **** because of Brand's shenanigans with his late-daughter, Peaches. Rod Stewart hates him for similar reasons. The entire Andrew Sachs thing revolved around, how dare you lay my granddaughter and leave filthy messages on my ansaphone. Sachs didn't speak to his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie for eight years as a result. But why not?

Are women still perceived to be the property of their father or other male figure?

Property? No.

But a parent or grandparent cares about their child and doesn't want them to be the victim of a lothario. They especially don't care to be publicly humiliated by said lothario. This is treating her not as an equal partner, but merely as an implement with which to assert his dominance over another male. Once she had served that role, I'm sure he moved on the next woman.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/georgina-baillie-made-peace-with-granddad-over-sachsgate-133550776.html

There's a reason why normal men (non-lotharios) will ask a woman's father for permission to wed his daughter. And it's not because she is his property. Rather, it is a token of respect and a hope to be on good terms with your future father-in-law. We know that women are not property to be bought and sold, but it's also important for in-laws to get along with each other if you want to have a happy marriage and family life.
 

Back
Top Bottom