Russell Brand - In Plain Sight

[Thistle_do_nicely]

4 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Build it, and they will come..

It's kind of... I mean why are there people out there steaming in to defend him, when that article alleges he's sent a text as horrific as this to a woman that then went to a rape crisis centre after the incident?????

I know Galloway has previous with regards to his stance of "fifty no's and a yesh is still a yesh" on marital sex, but... honestly, I don't get it.

Edit: re-reading the text, I'd assume that they're confident it is indeed verified as being from Brand's phone (which tbh should be straightforward to prove) and it states in the article that the number was verified. In which case the most charitable scenario for Brand on that incident would be that the sex itself may have been consensual but he had refused to wear a condom. No lawyer, but on the face of it even that sounds like it'd count as some kind of sexual assault, if not outright rape, surely.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Thistle_do_nicely

[Michael W]

Another couple of blue ticks out defending Brand. The blue tick really is a ready-made identifier for outing creeps. 

 

 

[Jeff Venom]

Wtf does Piers Morgan know about exemplary journalism? 

[Dons_1988]

Noticeable in brands video defending himself that he ‘UTTERLY REFUTES’ all the allegations but makes no mention of taking legal action. 

Because if this was all false then he should absolutely take legal action. 

[Savage Henry]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

Noticeable in brands video defending himself that he ‘UTTERLY REFUTES’ all the allegations but makes no mention of taking legal action. 

Because if this was all false then he should absolutely take legal action. 

It was definitely a non-denial denial. 

[vikingTON]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Noticeable in brands video defending himself that he ‘UTTERLY REFUTES’ all the allegations but makes no mention of taking legal action. 

Because if this was all false then he should absolutely take legal action. 

On what grounds and against whom? 

[throbber]

39 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

The Brand/Ross, Sachs call was really typical of the sort of 00's cruel cultural wasteland and 'lads, lads, lads' attitudes of the time.

 

I remember Nick Hancock (who comes across as a decent enough chap) was talking about how they would abuse Luke Chadwick on They think it’s all over because of he had a face like a fire damaged apricot.

He basically admitted how unpleasant the abuse was but that he didn’t really feel like it was anything nasty or that anyone would be getting hurt out of it all but I can imagine it being a horrible experience for Chadwick who was a young man trying to do his job but having his facial features ridiculed for the whole world to see. Similar happened to Rebecca Addlington with Frankie Boyle (who didn’t want to ridicule her appearance and left the show because of it) but there was definitely an abusive toxic media culture back then that made certain people fair game for heinous personal abuse. 
 

I think looking at the way brand conducted himself in the 00’s with all the knowledge we have nowadays doesn’t tell the entire story.

[Dons_1988]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

On what grounds and against whom? 

I haven’t seen the documentary so I’m coming at this from no knowledge so hold my hands up that I could be wrong. 

But if he’s totally innocent and this is a hit job from the mainstream media to ruin his life because he ‘speaks the truth’ then it’s surely libel what’s being said? 

[Savage Henry]

4 minutes ago, throbber said:

I remember Nick Hancock (who comes across as a decent enough chap) was talking about how they would abuse Luke Chadwick on They think it’s all over because of he had a face like a fire damaged apricot.

He basically admitted how unpleasant the abuse was but that he didn’t really feel like it was anything nasty or that anyone would be getting hurt out of it all but I can imagine it being a horrible experience for Chadwick who was a young man trying to do his job but having his facial features ridiculed for the whole world to see. Similar happened to Rebecca Addlington with Frankie Boyle (who didn’t want to ridicule her appearance and left the show because of it) but there was definitely an abusive toxic media culture back then that made certain people fair game for heinous personal abuse. 
 

I think looking at the way brand conducted himself in the 00’s with all the knowledge we have nowadays doesn’t tell the entire story.

Skinner and Baddiel were absolutely brutal to Jason Lee back in the day.  It was quite uncomfortable to even a young viewer. Toxic is putting it mildly.  

[morrison]

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

I see Irvine Welsh is defending his pal Brand by using whataboutery based on easily disproven RT disinformation.  Some people really should just keep their mouths shut.  
 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said:

Is he not more pointing out how the line tends to stop when it comes to the Royals? Perhaps I'm being rather charitable. 

 

46 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

That’s a take I didn’t think of, and you could be right. I still think he’s rather steamed in there. 

Yeah, I read it the same way @Jeff Venom has.

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I haven’t seen the documentary so I’m coming at this from no knowledge so hold my hands up that I could be wrong. 

But if he’s totally innocent and this is a hit job from the mainstream media to ruin his life because he ‘speaks the truth’ then it’s surely libel what’s being said? 

It isn't libel, because the accusations of misconduct can be corroborated and is clearly an accurate story. Dispatches and the Sunday Times are crossing no line (being highly expert in investigation practice and libel laws) in reporting those accusations and presenting a sequence of claims about Brand's behaviour. Brand can deny culpability and argue that the accusations are not accurate, but there are no grounds to take legal action against the broadcast. 

Which leaves the only route for legal action to be trying to sue the complainants for harm to reputation, which would be a pretty disastrous route from a PR perspective and probably wouldn't succeed either. Not doing that doesn't imply guilt or responsibility though. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by vikingTON

[Lex]

20 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Noticeable in brands video defending himself that he ‘UTTERLY REFUTES’ all the allegations but makes no mention of taking legal action. 

Because if this was all false then he should absolutely take legal action. 

Oh he’s certainly a rapist, and his lawyer written statement almost tacitly acknowledges that fact. 
He doesn’t think he’ll be charged though, much less see the inside of a criminal courtroom, and then be found guilty. Sadly, he’s probably right. 

Plenty of civil action incoming though. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Lex

[YassinMoutaouakil]

21 minutes ago, throbber said:

Similar happened to Rebecca Addlington with Frankie Boyle (who didn’t want to ridicule her appearance and left the show because of it) 

I find it really hard to believe this is what happened? Who was making him joke about her appearance then?

[BFTD]

8 minutes ago, Lex said:

Oh he’s certainly a rapist, and his lawyer written statement almost tacitly acknowledges that fact. 
He doesn’t think he’ll be charged though, much less see the inside of a criminal courtroom, and then be found guilty. Sadly, he’s probably right. 

Plenty of civil action incoming though. 

Is it too early to claim he's suffered enough and demand people leave him alone to provide for his family?

Edit:

Just now, YassinMoutaouakil said:

I find it really hard to believe this is what happened? Who was making him joke about her appearance then?

Pretty sure Frankie left MTW because the Beeb kept cutting out his even-more outrageous adlibs and he wasn't happy about his best material hitting the cutting room floor. Considering they aired the stuff about Adlington and Kerry Katona, and the infamous joke about Auld Lizzie's clacker, Christ only knows what was too harsh.

(I'm missing the stuff about Katie Price, as she's been using her son to fund her bankruptcies for a couple of decades now, which is even more disgusting than any jokes he made)

Edited September 17, 2023 by BTFD

[Dons_1988]

9 minutes ago, virginton said:

It isn't libel, because the accusations of misconduct can be corroborated and is clearly an accurate story. Dispatches and the Sunday Times are crossing no line (being highly expert in investigation practice and libel laws) in reporting those accusations and presenting a sequence of claims about Brand's behaviour. Brand can deny culpability and argue that the accusations are not accurate, but there are no grounds to take legal action against the broadcast. 

Which leaves the only route for legal action to be trying to sue the complainants for harm to reputation, which would be a pretty disastrous route from a PR perspective and probably wouldn't succeed either. Not doing that doesn't imply guilt or responsibility though. 

You may have misinterpreted what was originally a flippant comment about brands half arsed denial. 

I totally agree with the legal situation he finds himself in that you describe. But I was pointing out that if what he says is true then the complainants are lying and are complicit in a conspiracy to sabotage his life. I would think he’d want to action that and not avoid it due to it being bad PR. 

[vikingTON]

4 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

You may have misinterpreted what was originally a flippant comment about brands half arsed denial. 

I totally agree with the legal situation he finds himself in that you describe. But I was pointing out that if what he says is true then the complainants are lying and are complicit in a conspiracy to sabotage his life. I would think he’d want to action that and not avoid it due to it being bad PR. 

I'm not misinterpreting it but rather highlighting the enormous cognitive dissonance at work here.

On the one hand we have people wringing their hands about the huge obstacles and stigma that sexual assault complainants already face to achieve justice. On the other, we have people now arguing that a rich and powerful man must either pursue sexual assault claimants through all legal processes available, or they are tacitly admitting responsibility.

That's the sort of hot take, black or white nonsense that only makes the debate about sexual misconduct more toxic. 

[oneteaminglasgow]

9 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

I find it really hard to believe this is what happened? Who was making him joke about her appearance then?

From what I recall, I think it was more along the lines that he wasn’t wanting them to even be covering stuff like Rebecca Adlington instead of what he considered more ‘newsworthy’ things, rather than anything else.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

I'm not misinterpreting it but rather highlighting the enormous cognitive dissonance at work here.

On the one hand we have people wringing their hands about the huge obstacles and stigma that sexual assault complainants already face to achieve justice. On the other, we have people now arguing that a rich and powerful man must either pursue sexual assault claimants through all legal processes available, or they are tacitly admitting responsibility.

That's the sort of hot take, black or white nonsense that only makes the debate about sexual misconduct more toxic. 

You are misinterpreting me here. The guy is heavily suggesting that he’s being targeted for a conspiracy. If his statement had just denied the allegations and I’d posted that then what you’ve said would be true. 

But if he’s going to stick his neck out and assume that his videos on social media have prompted a multi-million £ conspiracy to silence him with outright lies from a national media company then I’m much more comfortable being glib about it. 

[Thane of Cawdor]

43 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Noticeable in brands video defending himself that he ‘UTTERLY REFUTES’ all the allegations but makes no mention of taking legal action. 

Because if this was all false then he should absolutely take legal action. 

He doesn't mean "refute" which would mean he was able to conclusively demonstrate that the claims are false. He (presumably) means "rebut" which simply means he disputes the claims.

I would also point out to several posters who have referenced Jimmy Savile that my spelling of his surname is correct. If you need a simple mnemonic just remember that the correct spelling incorporates the word "vile". 

[RandomGuy.]

16 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

From what I recall, I think it was more along the lines that he wasn’t wanting them to even be covering stuff like Rebecca Adlington instead of what he considered more ‘newsworthy’ things, rather than anything else.

Relatively certain he thought he'd just been on the show too long and thought TV shows like it were becoming too "boring" as the world evolved and more people complained about more things.