Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russell Brand: rape and sexual abuse allegations, grifting and general dodginess - discussion

I have little notion what it's like to be raped. I do know how difficult it is for women to submit themselves to a second, legal, ordeal.

If pedantry means anything irl it's excessive attention to detail. For me, it's not excessive attention to detail to point out something that's utterly wrong, like the wrong origin of nonce. Here on the other hand pedantry is a useful catch-all 'I don't like you, you cunt', bearing little of it's everyday meaning. Yesterday's exchange should not have continued so long, perhaps, and for that I regret my part in it as maybe edcraw does his.

I don't think I'm particularly intelligent and I've never I think suggested I have elevated - a superior - intelligence. Your claim about my perceived intelligence for me founders on the rock that I've pointed this out a number of times before.

Yesterday's contretemps wasn't something like the causes of ww2, where opinion differs and facts can be interpreted in several ways. It wasn't a debate in which the more penetrative argument persuades. It was either this is right or that is, no middle ground. It's superior information that determines the outcome, not superior acumen.

Turning to your double negative, your not was in capitals emphasising for me you meant it. Maybe something to avoid in future, emphasising words you don't mean.
Again - I’m happy to be corrected but you weren’t doing that, you were being a knob.

Try again

Give it another go. Maybe you'll be right this time
 
It did seem to me like there was at least a brief period when Brand was talking sensibly about the war on drugs. I never got into his comedy, so I didn't know that it was anything more than the typical bawdiness one might expect of a comedian. I didn't pay him much attention after that.

Then Covid happened and it turned out that he's either gone off the deep end himself, or has turned to courting that crowd for money and influence. Even before these allegations came to light, that speaks very badly of his character. It's rather damning in my opinion that millionaire Brand is not suing the arse off Channel 4, but is instead wittering on about a conspiracy against him. That would be an awful response even if he was completely innocent.

I don't understand why sexual predators in the entertainment industry get so much protection. There must be dozens of aspiring comedians and other stars in waiting who can be brought in to replace them. It doesn't even make sense on a coldly calculating level either, since newer talent commands lower pay, and being a rapey dick is a perfectly acceptable reason to drop someone. If it's not a criminal conspiracy to cover this kind of stuff up as far as the law is concerned, then maybe it should be.
 
No, I am claiming that the notion that because someone doesn't sue in civil court doesn't automatically mean they have admitted it.

A fair point. Brand is notoriously litigious though, so why not now. His career died yesterday, so suing the Times et al would be a good payday. Of course, to get those damages, he would have to persuade a judge that all of the women were lying.
 
Last edited:
It did seem to me like there was at least a brief period when Brand was talking sensibly about the war on drugs. I never got into his comedy, so I didn't know that it was anything more than the typical bawdiness one might expect of a comedian. I didn't pay him much attention after that.

Then Covid happened and it turned out that he's either gone off the deep end himself, or has turned to courting that crowd for money and influence. Even before these allegations came to light, that speaks very badly of his character. It's rather damning in my opinion that millionaire Brand is not suing the arse off Channel 4, but is instead wittering on about a conspiracy against him. That would be an awful response even if he was completely innocent.

I don't understand why sexual predators in the entertainment industry get so much protection. There must be dozens of aspiring comedians and other stars in waiting who can be brought in to replace them. It doesn't even make sense on a coldly calculating level either, since newer talent commands lower pay, and being a rapey dick is a perfectly acceptable reason to drop someone. If it's not a criminal conspiracy to cover this kind of stuff up as far as the law is concerned, then maybe it should be.
Sexual predators across many industries get a lot of protection but entertainment (and football as an aside) are high profile, so it gets reported on publically.
 
It did seem to me like there was at least a brief period when Brand was talking sensibly about the war on drugs. I never got into his comedy, so I didn't know that it was anything more than the typical bawdiness one might expect of a comedian. I didn't pay him much attention after that.

Then Covid happened and it turned out that he's either gone off the deep end himself, or has turned to courting that crowd for money and influence. Even before these allegations came to light, that speaks very badly of his character. It's rather damning in my opinion that millionaire Brand is not suing the arse off Channel 4, but is instead wittering on about a conspiracy against him. That would be an awful response even if he was completely innocent.

I don't understand why sexual predators in the entertainment industry get so much protection. There must be dozens of aspiring comedians and other stars in waiting who can be brought in to replace them. It doesn't even make sense on a coldly calculating level either, since newer talent commands lower pay, and being a rapey dick is a perfectly acceptable reason to drop someone. If it's not a criminal conspiracy to cover this kind of stuff up as far as the law is concerned, then maybe it should be.
Am guessing that the power they wield (however fleeting) puts people off? Or the fear that nobody will believe you when you come forward? That you will lose your job/never work in the industry again etc...

Am still amazed that a sexual predator became the US president and will probably do so again.
 
A fair point. Brand is notoriously litigious though, so why not now. His career died yesterday,

I'm not sure it did, judging by the number of comments by his followers underneath any social media post. Providing he stays out of jail, are things that much worse for him now?
 
A fair point. Brand is notoriously litigious though, so why not now. His career died yesterday, so suing the Times et al would be a good payday. Of course, to get those damages, he would have to persuade a judge that all of the women were lying.

I saw yesterday a quote from something he said, along the lines of

His career's far from over. He hasn't appeared on mainstream media for a very long time, doesn't need them, and has built up a massive fanbase through his social media channels and podcasts which will probably only grow as a result of this.

And I can't see him being convicted of anything really. As many commentators have been saying this morning, by broadcasting that doco it's pretty much made it impossible for him to get an impartial jury.
 
I've not seen the broadcast, I could be in an impartial jury to try the nonce.

Well thats exactly what I mean. You've not even seen it have and have convicted him already based on the media coverage around it. I assume that's the line his lawyers will take anyway.
 
Also i've not watched it but i understand at least one case happened in Los Angeles so would I assume be a matter for police and courts over there? Is this news in the US? I don't know how well known he is over there?
 
Sexual predators across many industries get a lot of protection but entertainment (and football as an aside) are high profile, so it gets reported on publically.

No it's more than that. It's a culture within industries that constantly rely on 'yes men' - people with wealth and influence always being told they're right. Always being said yes to. And always involving men.

That builds egos and intolerance of criticism. The football industry (some of us remember when it was a sport) has added machismo and a culture of men being men, or even boys being men. The entertainment industry, all of it, through TV, film and music, practically has this 'yes' culture built into its structures. This builds (and attracts) narcissistic characters like Brand. The higher the profile, the more protection they seemingly get.

It's not a coincidence that Brand is now being pursued after he left MSM. There are many more Brands within, and under the protection of, MSM.

Everyone you see on TV is a cunt.
 
I do find it acceptable yes because as a society we've made the decision to put the line at 16.
I don't really want to get into this discussion, I think it's grim how you just go "ah 16, it's legal, so that's fine then" but I do want to point at that we have actually not made the decision to put the line at 16.
In most cases, 16 is the age of consent but...

If the older person is in a position of authority or responsibility it is 18. This is mainly aimed at positions like school teachers because we don't feel happy about them fucking 6th formers, or at scout leaders, or counsellors or whatever. In law it would be extremely difficult to define a celebrity but I'm pretty sure most of us would agree that celebrities exist in a position of power, authority and privilege over teenagers which would put them in the same moral area as teachers, social workers etc when it comes to relationships with 16-18 year olds, unless that celeb is themselves a teenager... which brand most definitely was not.

There is also the "quirk" of the UK legal system that whilst you can consent to sex at 16, you cannot consent to being filmed/photographed, that age is also set to 18, anyone under 18 being filmed/photographed is child abuse in the eyes of the law... because a 16 year old is still a child.

So "the line" is in fact somewhat blurred, and as I said at the start, it's grim that you want to make it some kind of hard divide between ok and not ok, and can't seemingly see why everyone else thinks it's fucking dodgy for a 30 year old to be dating a 16 year old.
 
Also i've not watched it but i understand at least one case happened in Los Angeles so would I assume be a matter for police and courts over there? Is this news in the US? I don't know how well known he is over there?
it was on the NY Times app frontpage but about half way down. I think the story makes it interesting enough rather than him being particularly well known.
 
I don't really want to get into this discussion, I think it's grim how you just go "ah 16, it's legal, so that's fine then" but I do want to point at that we have actually not made the decision to put the line at 16.
In most cases, 16 is the age of consent but...

If the older person is in a position of authority or responsibility it is 18. This is mainly aimed at positions like school teachers because we don't feel happy about them fucking 6th formers, or at scout leaders, or counsellors or whatever. In law it would be extremely difficult to define a celebrity but I'm pretty sure most of us would agree that celebrities exist in a position of power, authority and privilege over teenagers which would put them in the same moral area as teachers, social workers etc when it comes to relationships with 16-18 year olds, unless that celeb is themselves a teenager... which brand most definitely was not.

There is also the "quirk" of the UK legal system that whilst you can consent to sex at 16, you cannot consent to being filmed/photographed, that age is also set to 18, anyone under 18 being filmed/photographed is child abuse in the eyes of the law... because a 16 year old is still a child.

So "the line" is in fact somewhat blurred, and as I said at the start, it's grim that you want to make it some kind of hard divide between ok and not ok, and can't seemingly see why everyone else thinks it's fucking dodgy for a 30 year old to be dating a 16 year old.
What a logic mess you've gotten into there.

The age of consent is 16
 
What a logic mess you've gotten into there.

The age of consent is 16
She was still a child, as defined by the law:

In England a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:
  • living independently
  • in further education
  • a member of the armed forces
  • in hospital; or
  • in custody in the secure estate
they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child
 
Back
Top Bottom