A stressful time for Russell Brand

[pellinore]

The comedian and actor Russell Brand has been accused of rape, sexual assaults and emotional abuse during a seven-year period at the height of his fame.

Four women have alleged sexual assaults between 2006 and 2013, while he was a presenter for BBC Radio 2 and Channel 4 and then an actor in Hollywood films. Others have made a range of accusations about Brand’s controlling, abusive and predatory behaviour.

Brand denied the allegations and said his relationships have all been consensual.

The findings come from a joint investigation by The Sunday Times, The Times and Channel 4 Dispatches.

Russell Brand accused of rape, sexual assaults and abuse (archive.ph)

Edited September 17, 2023 by pellinore

[Alchopwn]

And the real reason is...

Russel brand's evolution from left wing comedian to alt right podcaster

Honestly I never liked the guy.  He was never funny enough and he always struck me as someone who was fake and superficial.  I don't discount his intelligence however, just what he uses it for.  Also his metamorphosis into an anti vaxxer won him my enmity.  That being said, I think his drift to the right of politics is most likely the real reason for these rape allegations.  The extreme left is often highly vindictive and will stoop to some very low acts to damage people they don't like.  Russel used to be their darling, but he isn't anymore and is now anti-woke apparently, like most comedians who realized that "woke" has no sense of humor and is trying to put them out of a job.

[pellinore]

15 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

And the real reason is...

Russel brand's evolution from left wing comedian to alt right podcaster

Honestly I never liked the guy.  He was never funny enough and he always struck me as someone who was fake and superficial.  I don't discount his intelligence however, just what he uses it for.  Also his metamorphosis into an anti vaxxer won him my enmity.  That being said, I think his drift to the right of politics is most likely the real reason for these rape allegations.  The extreme left is often highly vindictive and will stoop to some very low acts to damage people they don't like.  Russel used to be their darling, but he isn't anymore and is now anti-woke apparently, like most comedians who realized that "woke" has no sense of humor and is trying to put them out of a job.

I agree 100% until the sentence about politics. He doesn't sound very right wing here:https://x.com/Truthpole/status/1703220812030017866?s=20

I also don't think the Left are any more vindictive than the Right. They've certainly got less power to indulge any vindictiveness.

Edited September 17, 2023 by pellinore

[glorybebe]

I watched a few of his videos.  I remember telling my daughter he better be careful, he was going to touch a nerve. At this point I don't know what to believe.  

[itsnotoutthere]

4 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

And the real reason is...

Russel brand's evolution from left wing comedian to alt right podcaster

Honestly I never liked the guy.  He was never funny enough and he always struck me as someone who was fake and superficial.  I don't discount his intelligence however, just what he uses it for.  Also his metamorphosis into an anti vaxxer won him my enmity.  That being said, I think his drift to the right of politics is most likely the real reason for these rape allegations.  The extreme left is often highly vindictive and will stoop to some very low acts to damage people they don't like.  Russel used to be their darling, but he isn't anymore and is now anti-woke apparently, like most comedians who realized that "woke" has no sense of humor and is trying to put them out of a job.

I too agree 100%. I never found him very funny as a 'comedian' and never made a point of watching him when on t.v. I also have only ever watched a few minutes of one of his youtube clips. As you point out this tactic is a well used method of the woke left to attempt to silence any deviation from the official narrative, (trans, race, climate, covid etc) the campaign against Brett Kavanaugh being the prime example and to some extent Trump. What always makes me wonder is why does it take 20 years and an approach by several 'journalists' to convince the women involved that 'the time is right to speak out' ? Could there be some financial incentive I wonder?

Edited September 17, 2023 by itsnotoutthere

[SiliRat]

3 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

As you point out this tactic is a well used method of the woke left to attempt to silence any deviation from the official narrative, (trans, race, climate, covid etc) the campaign against Brett Kavanaugh being the prime example and to some extent Trump. What always makes me wonder is why does it take 20 years and an approach by several 'journalists' to convince the women involved that 'the time is right to speak out' ? Could there be some financial incentive I wonder?

The left couldn't use it as a tactic if the right would stop idolizing self-consumed people with abusive personalities.

[itsnotoutthere]

5 minutes ago, SiliRat said:

The left couldn't use it as a tactic if the right would stop idolizing self-consumed people with abusive personalities.

What like the Bidens & Clintons?

Edited September 17, 2023 by itsnotoutthere

[bmk1245]

Just now, itsnotoutthere said:

What like the Bidens & Clintons?

Good point!

[Alchopwn]

Just now, SiliRat said:

The left couldn't use it as a tactic if the right would stop idolizing self-consumed people with abusive personalities.

Now that is something of a dramatic overstatement.  Both Left and Right have some truly ugly souls onboard atm.  Politics wouldn't be so toxic atm otherwise.

[pellinore]

I'm genuinely confused about Right and Left attitudes to Covid vaccines. Big pharma makes lots of money- Right-wingers think making money for private companies is good,don't they? So they should be pro-vaxx. But right-wingers also love CTs- so they hate pharma making money. What's the extreme Left view of vaxx? They hate big companies making money, so they are also anti-vaxx?

[itsnotoutthere]

18 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I'm genuinely confused about Right and Left attitudes to Covid vaccines. Big pharma makes lots of money- Right-wingers think making money for private companies is good,don't they? So they should be pro-vaxx. But right-wingers also love CTs- so they hate pharma making money. What's the extreme Left view of vaxx? They hate big companies making money, so they are also anti-vaxx?

It's not necessarily about big pharma making money (although that is a big incentive to ignore the side effects) it's more about bodily autonomy & the state chipping away at civil liberties & using and changing laws & using it against people as we saw in Canada. Leftists generally are all for big state intervention while conservatives generally are for less state intervention.

Edited September 17, 2023 by itsnotoutthere

[+joc]

58 minutes ago, glorybebe said:

I watched a few of his videos.  I remember telling my daughter he better be careful, he was going to touch a nerve. At this point I don't know what to believe.  

Yeah...same here.  The thing is though...if someone accuses Someone of something...meh, it could be just because they are mad at Someone about something else...but if there is a history of accusations about the same thing from people who have nothing in common with each other except Someone...well...that seems to be a bit more ligit because there is a pattern emerging.

I think Someone...i.e. Russel Brand...has that pattern emerging.  He doesn't have the weight to squash it the way Clinton did, so, in the end he'll probably be Harvey Wiensteened.  Generally speaking, I think the truth usually comes out eventually.

[bmk1245]

38 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I'm genuinely confused about Right and Left attitudes to Covid vaccines. Big pharma makes lots of money- Right-wingers think making money for private companies is good,don't they? So they should be pro-vaxx. But right-wingers also love CTs- so they hate pharma making money. What's the extreme Left view of vaxx? They hate big companies making money, so they are also anti-vaxx?

Depends on political situation. If Trump would have won 2020 (he did, bite me), and vaccine mandates would had been implemented, I can assure you, left would go with all sorts of nonsense just to not get vaccinated.

[itsnotoutthere]

15 minutes ago, joc said:

Yeah...same here.  The thing is though...if someone accuses Someone of something...meh, it could be just because they are mad at Someone about something else...but if there is a history of accusations about the same thing from people who have nothing in common with each other except Someone...well...that seems to be a bit more ligit because there is a pattern emerging.

I think Someone...i.e. Russel Brand...has that pattern emerging.  He doesn't have the weight to squash it the way Clinton did, so, in the end he'll probably be Harvey Wiensteened.  Generally speaking, I think the truth usually comes out eventually.

There is another aspect to this. When I was younger it was common for pop & rock musicians to have young girls hanging around dressing rooms in the hope of 'being picked' they were called 'groupies'....they knew why they were there. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't a similar sort of following for people like Brand. However if those are the types of women that are coming forward 20 years later, you have to wonder what the real motivation is, rape victims don't usually wait 20 years to report a rape & they usually contact the police first.

[+joc]

1 minute ago, itsnotoutthere said:

There is another aspect to this. When I was younger it was common for pop & rock musicians to have young girls hanging around dressing rooms in the hope of 'being picked' they were called 'groupies'....they knew why they were there. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't a similar sort of following for people like Brand. However if those are the types of women that are coming forward 20 years later, you have to wonder what the real motivation is, rape victims don't usually wait 20 years to report a rape & they usually contact the police first.

That's a lot of 'ifing' going on there.  

[Buzz_Light_Year]

Seems this may have something to do with it.

California’s Expanded Statute of Limitations for Civil Claims for Sexual Assault
 

Quote

 

If you have experienced sexual assault in California, you might still be able to take legal action – even if the assault occurred years ago – thanks to the passage of a new law. On January 1, 2023, California expanded its statute of limitations for sexual assault claims, which permits survivors to file legal claims for a sexual assault that happened years ago.

In the past decade, in large part thanks to the impact of the #MeToo movement, sexual assault survivors have come forward in increasing numbers. Undoubtedly in response to this movement, California has repeatedly redefined its statute of limitation for sexual assault cases to give survivors more opportunities to take legal action. Some of California’s changes permanently increase the period of time a survivor can bring a civil claim for sexual assault. Other changes temporarily open a “lookback” window during which a survivor can bring a civil claim for sexual assault that had otherwise expired.

 

Quote

In California, regardless of whether the survivor has reported the sexual assault to the police, the survivor can pursue a civil claim for sexual assault. A civil claim for sexual assault is a claim for damages caused by the sexual assault, which may include medical costs, pain and suffering, lost income, and other losses

In Civil cases it takes less proof for a conviction than it does in a criminal case.

I don't know but it seems that a law designed to be retroactive would on its face be Unconstitutional.

[bmk1245]

34 minutes ago, joc said:

That's a lot of 'ifing' going on there.  

Latest being Rammstein's Till Lindemann.

Well, me could be alleged for s misconduct, by participating in "natural vs silicon" in drunken fiesta... Heh, good time were back then...

[bmk1245]

2 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

[...]

I don't know but it seems that a law designed to be retroactive would on its face be Unconstitutional.

Its for justice (proper) to decide, I guess.

PS Isn't precedence against constitution?

[Duke Wellington]

6 hours ago, pellinore said:

I agree 100% until the sentence about politics. He doesn't sound very right wing here:https://x.com/Truthpole/status/1703220812030017866?s=20

I also don't think the Left are any more vindictive than the Right. They've certainly got less power to indulge any vindictiveness.

He is left wing, but on his videos is entirely impartial on politics.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

26 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

PS Isn't precedence against constitution?

Most SCOTUS decisions are determined by precedence and case law.

Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited for penal cases but not civil.

California just increased the statue of limitations on civil cases. I still don't agree with it as the civil offense should be heard as to the date and time of the offense and the statue of limitations at the time the offense was committed.

 

[bmk1245]

2 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Most SCOTUS decisions are determined by precedence and case law.

Ex Post Facto laws are prohibited for penal cases but not civil.

California just increased the statue of limitations on civil cases. I still don't agree with it as the civil offense should be heard as to the date and time of the offense and the statue of limitations at the time the offense was committed.

 

"Precedence" means justice is not blind, or am I wrong?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

13 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

"Precedence" means justice is not blind, or am I wrong?

My bad I was thinking of Precedent, as in the law.

Difference in the words and usage:

https://writingexplained.org/precedence-vs-precedent-difference

[bmk1245]

4 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

My bad I was thinking of Precedent, as in the law.

Difference in the words and usage:

https://writingexplained.org/precedence-vs-precedent-difference

Ok, "precedent", "precedence", whatever "-nce", "-ent" - does it mean justice is not blind, or am I wrong?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

21 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Ok, "precedent", "precedence", whatever "-nce", "-ent" - does it mean justice is not blind, or am I wrong?

 the order of importance given to people in particular societies, groups, or organizations

I suppose if you want to.

[bmk1245]

3 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

 the order of importance given to people in particular societies, groups, or organizations

I suppose if you want to.

Law is the law, should be applied to all, who cares about JohnFok vs Fokjohn case that judge/jurors "solved"?