Russell Brand

Iron Bru Forums Non Football Russell Brand

  • Author
    Posts
  • #272475
    fans6464
    Moderator
    Offline
    Registered On: February 14, 2015
    Topics: 428

    “We should kick you off your ladder,” was one of the comments made in their direction”
    Abuse aimed at press outside a Russell Brand concert last night

    #272482
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    This week has seen many people damn investigative journalism as ‘gutter journalism’ just because it reveals uncomfortable truths or allegations against people they like. These people say they’re interested in ‘the truth’, but that’s not what I think they really want; they just want their preconceptions confirmed. If they do that, it’s good; if not, it’s bad.

    What’s more likely? Several women, who don’t know each other have been conspiring together, now with aid from The Times, Dispatches and Channel 4, or Brand might be a bit pervy? People have been saying innocent until proven guilty, but no-one has said he should be imprisoned based off yesterday’s Dispatches or Times article. What the investigative journalists did uncover were text messages, visits to rape centres and medical records, but on the other side we just have wild conspiracies from Brand.

    It’s interesting how the ‘rational’ critics who have jumped to defend Brand (the usual suspects) were the first to demand severe retribution against figures and organisations they dislike with the Phil Schofield and Huw Edwards affairs. Now they’re crying about ‘cancel culture’ because someone they like has seemingly behaved appallingly, and worse than the other two at that.

    I mean, look at this:

    Then they wonder why victims are reluctant to come forward with allegations, as they create a climate of hostility which puts them off.

    #272495
    Deereyme66Deereyme66
    Moderator
    Offline
    Registered On: May 8, 2017
    Topics: 97

    I suspect those who have said he’s been building up his anti ‘MSM’ tirades for years in preparation for this are right. At least he has JBP, Fox and Musk defending him.

    #272550
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    I hope it’s not about the politics. I hope it’s about the truth. I trust that the principle of innocence until proved guilty will prevail and all will be tested where it should be ..in a court of law. I would apply that for any allegation of criminal behaviour whether towards ‘establishment figures’ like Huw Edward or Philip Schofield …or anti-establishment figures like Brand. If Brand is not treated in the time honoured fashion, if the blindfold is taken off Lady Justice, then none of us are safe.

    #272569
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    Jimmy Saville was never found guilty in court, so must be not guilty? While, as I said, he shouldn’t be sent to jail off this documentary, it’s important to remember that our own opinions on his character and allegations are allowed. The question about people going overboard is an interesting one, though there is enough from his own mouth in this journalistic investigation for there to be a bad opinion of him. One difference between this and Huw or Phil is that the latter two didn’t do anything criminal. Yet that got judgement from the same people who say don’t judge about more serious allegations.

    I would say that politics is playing a part from both sides. One side will be swayed to believe it because of his politics, the other to downplay it. Many of them supporting him now (Julia Hartley-Brewer, for instance) would have been baying for blood 10 years ago because he was then left coded.

    #272576
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    Mmmmm. Not altogether thrilled with the Saville reference. He obviously died before it could go to court. He can’t be tried and found guilty. You won’t find many declaring in his case that lack of a guilty verdict is therefore the presumption of innocence.
    The Brand case is a ‘live’ issue with real time, real world implications for those involved. I’m just keen to see the tried and tested judicial process …. clearly not perfect but, for its flaws, the best bet both historically and currently … applied without any political bias. Russell Brand has made a rod for his own back by his self confessed crazed and very public promiscuity in the past. But promiscuity ain’t illegal. If he crossed lines .. or ripped them apart … then let it be proved and the crimes punished. It would be naive … or disingenuous … at this stage to dismiss out of hand the possibility that amongst the maybe hundreds of women he was involved with there could not be a small number who have an ideological, political or financial motivation … or just a good old fashioned resentment and regret… for pursuing him. I’m sure that such a statement will push some buttons and outrage at the suggestion that we should have reservations about the notion that ‘victims have to be believed’ but I think the case I’ve made for due process has to be the best bet for all of us.

    #272578
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    The Saville point is to say that judicial process isn’t the barometer of public opinion, and in a world of free speech it won’t be. Also, if we are holding the court as the ultimate test for what we can think, then we cannot think people like Saville, Slobodan Milosevic, Fred West (he did confess, so to a lesser extent) and others should be treated as guilty.

    I think the assumption that women who do come forward must be ideologically motivated is precisely why many women don’t come forward. Never mind that these women have shown documents from the time, including showing their visits to rape centres after the event a decade ago. My, that would be a long con for some ideological put down alone. The charge of political motivation against these women, without due reason (when we have more evidence and questions against Brand) is quite abhorrent, I have to say. You say Brand was promiscuous, but another question is that out of so many women, is it unlikely that some weren’t manipulated like those alleged? Given Brand’s nature, I don’t think that’s absurd.

    Time after time, we hear how we must bear in mind that the perpetrator might not be guilty with these accusations, but we rarely hear such call for calm against the women. No, they get slammed as ideologically driven or trying to put a good man down every time, with no evidence. 99% of rape claims don’t lead to a guilty verdict (most dropping before court). Does this mean 99% of charges are false? That would be silly, but this is where this argument leads to. Many victims are manipulated, go back on statements and the standard in court is (rightfully) high, so it may be hard to prove on a legal basis. This doesn’t mean innocence; not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent, it means that there isn’t enough evidence to prove guilt without doubt. As such, I don’t think we should be slaves to that when considering the judgement of someone.

    The Times and Dispatches did a rounded investigative piece, with accusations going back years. The political element is linked to why Channel 4 came out now, not the accusations from women. Still, political decisions do not discount the piece. The accusations are grim, his own admissions are grim; I am more bothered about the welfare of likely victims now having to face judgement over Brand. I would say that accusations should go to the police, but there’s been many words said by victims as to why this is hard for many, including the disbelief from others and others taking a dim view of them. Unfortunately, with sexual crimes, society seems to find it easier to judge victims as liars over the accused being a deviant.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #272579
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    Sidey ..I made no assumptions about anyone and no ‘charge of political motivation.’ So how could it be ‘abhorrent.’
    I think we are on different sides of a deeply perplexing problem in society. This is obviously the tension between justice for and protection of victims of abuse and the same justice for and protection of those accused. Its an enigma that isn’t going away.
    My conviction is that ‘due process’ is one of the institutional rocks that holds our society free and stable. Imperfect as it is ..and heart-rending as it might be to think of many victims not seeing justice … the alternative is unthinkable to me. We have seen repeatedly in pathological societies where accusations alone have resulted in millions of ‘prosecutions’ and devastated lives. I think your statement that ‘you are more bothered about the welfare of likely victims facing judgment’ is totally understandable ..but doesn’t take us anywhere in principle. Surely any serious allegation or accusation ..especially one that can lead to prison ..has to be ‘judged.’ If we allow emotions to make us ‘more concerned’ then we enter the realm of subjectivity and shifting sands. I prefer solid ground.

    #272580
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    I am not taking the principle of legal processes lightly. I have said that he should not face jail based on this. I do think that we are allowed to form our own opinions, despite it not going to court. This was why I mentioned Saville and co. Not to say Brand is guilty because they were, but that the idea that we should only form an opinion based on court results to be flawed.

    It’s all a matter of belief, and it’s perfectly fine to form an opinion based on that belief. The accusations are believable and detailed, with corroborative evidence. Of course I am open to the possibility of an explanation from Brand which signals innocence. However, it doesn’t look good to me, including stuff which came from the horse’s mouth. I found your statement about considering the possibility that the victims may have political motivation to be leading. If they did, why are they putting themselves through public judgement, which often weighs heavily against victims from many? It’s actually why rape is under-reported. It’s more common for victims to not accuse to avoid such stress.

    Others may say I am motivated by my dislike of Brand’s politics, which actually goes back years to when he was playing the left wing kook. However, my favourite journalist was found to be a sexual harasser not so long ago, and I accepted that and lost faith in that man. I conversed with one of those he bothered too, and she was believable and convinced me. He has never been found guilty, but it stretched credulity for him not to be a wrong ‘un. It would have been unfair on those he harassed and groped to have been able to keep his job (he lost it), even if it hasn’t gone to court.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #272581
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    ps I just read Sam Leith on this in ‘The Spectator.’ I think you would appreciate it. Me probably a bit less so. I think he raises some great points …but all in one direction.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #272582
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    Thanks for bringing that to attention. It was a good read and I do agree with most of it.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #272587
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    As I said ..I think he made some good points and I genuinely wanted to have my thinking challenged. For me …and going beyond the ‘Brand issue’ ..he touched on the increasingly polarised societal issue whereby for one side its all about ‘deep state’, ‘fake news’ and globalist agendas and on the other people conned into a post truth mindset who display ‘naive cynicism’ and look for information outside the mainstream. He makes clear where he stands, as is his right, bur I can’t help thinking that his own phraseology and assumptions are pretty much as ‘naive’ as those he caricatures on t’other side. I AM definitely disillusioned by much of the approach of what I call ‘the legacy media’ and concerned about the erosion of long held assumptions encapsulated in, for example, our evolved institutions. I definitely am concerned about some of the pathologies of the so called and increasing ‘progressive agenda.’ ..but I resent being called ‘naive’,’cynical’ or some kind of ‘conspiracy theorist’ for differing from his perspective. I guess that on the forum folks like yourself have at times been genuinely puzzled and maybe provoked by my wacky perspectives.But if ‘naive’ means unthinking, simplistic and lacking in analytical thought ..then is that a label you would think it fair to stick on me no matter how mistaken you might think me to be? If ‘cynical’ means negative and lacking vision and hope then I would be truly sad if that’s the impression given by any of my contributions. And if being ‘post truth’ means being unconcerned with Truth itself and objective reality ..then, no matter how much I might differ from Sam Leith, I know where love of Truth stands on my hierarchy of values.

    ps if you wonder where all that came from..I was going out to do some work but the heavens opened and I had an unexpected hour.

    #272590
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    The ‘legacy media’ hasn’t always covered itself in glory, but the so called ‘alternative media’ is far worse and tends to skew heavily towards confirmation bias for whatever side it represents. It doesn’t matter if it’s right leaning stuff like Guido or Fox News or left wing stuff like Another Angry Voice or Novara Media.

    It’s a common misconception that conspiracy theories and tendency to such stuff is a domain for the stupid. Many people go into them through inquisitive mindsets, and finding the reporting appealing. This might be because of the nature of the stories confirming the bias of the reader or because they often sound very well researched, but there are often flaws. No outlet is without bias, including ‘legacy media’, but there are far more stringent checks with more established sources, but I am aware times they have failed increase cynicism, scepticism, whatever you want to call it. However, that doesn’t mean the alternative is better, and most of the stuff I see from these alternative outlets is garbage which only appeals to those who think that way.

    I try to reserve my ire at the public figures who put their heads above the parapet with what I dislike. I do find their motives cynical and agenda driven, when they talk about MSM agendas and what not. While they peddle stuff which is far less evidence driven. I do worry about the polarisation and ‘radicalisation’ of society, where people seemingly get maniacal about their side’s concerns with no thoughts for others, and it affects everyone. MAGA, Brexiters, FBPE remainers, Corbynites, Scottish nats etc can all come across this way. Everyone against them is an out of touch metropolitan elitist, any argument against their view is disingenuous. Whatever. Do I think every person who supports ideas common to these groups are like this? No, but it reflects a large proportion.

    The most important thing for me is that worries over this may lead to me putting myself on a pedestal above others, where I am immune to such thinking. I try to remind myself that I am not and can be prone to such, so try not to judge myself as being more rational and enlightened than others, yourself included.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #272600
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    Yep. That cautionary last para is pretty healthy ..though you might just be the one who is totally correct!! (Although it may possibly be me).

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #272603
    Iron-aweIron-awe
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: June 21, 2017
    Topics: 11

    The only thing that may link a possible likeness to Brand and Saville is the possible knowledge and therefore deception that may have resulted for the people Brand was working for at the time, whether that is the BBC or companies in the USA. Saville never went to court but since his death the knowledge of cover-ups from people he was associated with, including senior police figures in West Yorkshire police force, Leeds Infirmary and the BBC who ” turned a blind eye ” to Savilles activities have come to light. None of those mentioned I believe have been prosecuted but the old adage of “well that’s how it was then ” has always really annoyed me. Innocent until proven guilty absolutely correct but if it comes to light that the reason this hasn’t been brought to public attention before is due to certain people knowing and ” turning a blind eye ” then that is just as serious as the allegations and wants addressing with the same severity. If it turns out and I stress ” if ” that Brand has remained anonymous about this so far because of his large money making potential as an artist at the time, then that is truly abhorrent.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #272605
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    I was only using Saville to say that I don’t think public opinion before court decision is necessarily wrong. Yeah, there may well be a culture of silence from the ‘establishment’ at his former employers. Danni Minogue was accusing him 17 years ago.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #272635
    Deereyme66Deereyme66
    Moderator
    Offline
    Registered On: May 8, 2017
    Topics: 97

    Here they come, walking down the street…

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #272637
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    The much missed Sean Lock had a good point on Brand years ago:

    #272640
    Deereyme66Deereyme66
    Moderator
    Offline
    Registered On: May 8, 2017
    Topics: 97

    Yes, do miss Sean Lock. A sad loss.

    #272651
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    Are you sure that’s a real photo Deerey? Looks a bit suspect to me… but then I’m becoming more sceptical with every passing week.

    #272658
    Iron-aweIron-awe
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: June 21, 2017
    Topics: 11

    I see You Tube have now pulled the plug on Brands revenue streams from his channel, things will need addressing sooner than later I feel before he gets completely shutdown. It’s wrong when it’s all accusations and nothing proven but this is a pattern that has developed with several people accused over the years, shows get cancelled, sponsors pull out of deals, brands ( pardon the pun ) distance themselves from such individuals in this type of case, it’s very unfortunate for all concerned, the accused and alleged victims. The modern world in which we live.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #272659
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    I agree that demonetising him over this is bad. Like I said, we’re allowed our opinions, but we must be open to the case it’s explainable. This doesn’t fit that in my opinion.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #272708
    Deereyme66Deereyme66
    Moderator
    Offline
    Registered On: May 8, 2017
    Topics: 97

    Look at the types of people supposedly closest to Hilton and look at those defending Brand most vociferously, claiming he’s the victim.

    #272741
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    Which ones ‘defending’ Brand? Any names?

    #272755
    Deereyme66Deereyme66
    Moderator
    Offline
    Registered On: May 8, 2017
    Topics: 97

    I named 3 above JI. Add Hartley Brewer, Galloway, Tate and more to the list.

    #272797
    dandaherron@yahoo.co.ukJust Iron
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 1, 2014
    Topics: 9

    The ‘types’ of people? You mean people who don’t share the same political perspective as yourself? That’s not a’type’ … unless folks who don’t accept a particular worldview can be characterised as somehow flawed in character, morally deficient or inherently evil. It’s the same shallow ..dare I say lazy .. low resolution thinking that categorises any Republican supporter as dimwitted, any Tory or Tory voter as uncaring and self centred or, for further example, any Christian as uneducated and naive. I found the exchange above to be pretty ‘in depth’ and reasonable even though there was much disagreement. I hope that people raising perfectly valid concerns about the timing, the fact that it came through the Press rather than Police, the fact that Brand was feted until relatively recently when his affiliations moved away from a more leftish, progressive agenda and the concerns about the presumption of innocence and the necessity for due process won’t mean that they are the wrong ‘type.’

    #272801
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    I don’t think such people are trustworthy, and are rather clownish, but not as a reaction to them being right wing. There are plenty of clowns among the left and even the centre (I suspect Galloway would resent being called a right winger still). They are united by being full of ‘rational judgement’ when it comes to allegations against who they see as their own, but will gladly call for damning of those against them.

    Also, just as much some might have a ‘progressive agenda’ I think many of these people have their own agendas, which are as bad or worse than agendas like those claiming Stonehenge was built by black people. Many of them seem to have lost all sense of reason, rationality or evidence for their claims (e.g. Neil Oliver). Others may be less extreme, and many will sometimes be right, but they’re seemingly blind to the worst elements of their own. Brand has always been an idiot (in my opinion) and was worthy of critique when he was left coded. The allegations against him are causing issues for me, and several others, not because of political beliefs. I would say the same, and have, for those of any political stripe.

    #272804
    SideriteSiderite
    Participant
    Online
    Registered On: December 12, 2014
    Topics: 76

    Also, with regards to timing, well there has been much written as to why victims take time and don’t go to the police, through lack of trust over being believed and added stress. Not everything is a conspiracy just because Russell is not exactly mainstream.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #272817
    Deereyme66Deereyme66
    Moderator
    Offline
    Registered On: May 8, 2017
    Topics: 97

    Really can’t be bothered to go in to great detail to justify why I class them as’types’ JI. Suffice to say they all share similar conspiracy theorist supporting, pseudo free speech warrior, narcissistic, right wing traits in what the say and write. I’m done with this subject btw. Hope the victims go to the police and he gets what he deserves and they get some justice

    #272824
    HeathHeath
    Participant
    Offline
    Registered On: August 5, 2017
    Topics: 17

    Lots of lengthy debate on this topic about political “worldviews”, perspectives that I am sure the majority of women are not having.

    Brand’s behaviour and attitude towards women was bad. He knew and revelled in this. Part of the act.

    Brand’s behaviour and attitude towards women was unacceptable. Most women would agree with this. Brand knew this, part of the act.

    The question surely is was Brand a rapist? Did he break the law? Looks like he probably was and did. Only bit I agree with JI, if there is evidence it should be tested in court.

    Sorry if my opinion is not deep enough.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.