topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 11 minutes ago, StellarHibee said: The man has followers in the millions. Your personal view of him being a conspiracist nutbag is irrelevant. As there have been millions of people online who have followed and rated his content over the years. He’s got 6 million subscribers on you tube for comparison Jim’ll Fix it got audiences of 19 million, Michael Jackson sold 400 million albums. Cristiano Ronaldo has 100 million twitter followers and 75 million people voted for trump 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarHibee Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 (edited) 9 minutes ago, velo army said: I prefer Chomsky's take on conspiracy theories in that they're in the interests of those in power as they tend to keep people distracted and busy looking in the wrong places. You linking his follower numbers (following on Instagram and youtube doesn't imply active engagement or even endorsement of beliefs either) to him being a threat to those in power is also a personal view by the way. Given that he hasn't organised any protests or done anything other than put out videos of him talking it wouldn't make him some kind of Fred Hampton figure that needs taking out. I disagree. Because it's the one's that arrange active protests that can be easily written off by those in power as being nothing more than nutbags. Where as Brand over the past several years has offered well spoken, engaging and thought provoking content, which is a whole lot harder to simply write off as somebody being insane. The man clearly has a high degree of intelligence (when away from the drugs and alcohol) which comes through very clearly in his content. I was actually quite surprised by his well spoken vocabulary when I came across one of his videos on youtube a couple of years back. You wouldn't have thought he was somebody who previously engaged in reckless behaviour and substance abuse if you hadn't known him up to that point. Edited September 23, 2023 by StellarHibee -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 7 minutes ago, sophia said: I thoroughly agree and if they think we're fooled by this, then I for one will make a stand. Just to get me straight, who are the high level conspirators. It doesn't have to be a high level conspiracy. He clearly ran out of road with the mainstream a few years back with his behaviour no longer being tolerated. This wouldn't be anywhere near the size of story if he'd 'retired' and disappeared rather than moving to 'alternative' broadcasting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrison Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 There's no chance this is a conspiracy because Brand's "on to something". Now that he's an outcast, it's simply that the mainstream don't care about protecting him any more. For clarity, he was cast out because there's at least some truth in the allegations. Hope that helps the couple of posters struggling with this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarHibee Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 3 minutes ago, morrison said: There's no chance this is a conspiracy because Brand's "on to something". Now that he's an outcast, it's simply that the mainstream don't care about protecting him any more. For clarity, he was cast out because there's at least some truth in the allegations. Hope that helps the couple of posters struggling with this. What does "some truth" actually mean? To me, it means ambiguity that can be spun either way. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMoore Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH75 Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 If the allegations are false then presumably Brand (with his extensive funds and therefore access to excellent legal counsel) will be taking legal action to clear his name? I mean I'm pretty sure that's what I would do if someone started to falsely accuse me of a string of sexual offences. Why wouldn't he? Unless of course, he is actually guilty and consequently doesn't want to go anywhere near a court of law with this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarHibee Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 25 minutes ago, EH75 said: If the allegations are false then presumably Brand (with his extensive funds and therefore access to excellent legal counsel) will be taking legal action to clear his name? I mean I'm pretty sure that's what I would do if someone started to falsely accuse me of a string of sexual offences. Why wouldn't he? Unless of course, he is actually guilty and consequently doesn't want to go anywhere near a court of law with this. I doubt he has the sort of extensive funds that he had access to back then tbh. I would also think that the burden of proof would be on the accusers of a crime that allegedly occurred decades ago. Perhaps the rape clinic will have kept forensic evidence that can provide a DNA match. And if not, why not? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 20 minutes ago, StellarHibee said: I doubt he has the sort of extensive funds that he had access to back then tbh. He was in a film that made just under a billion quid last year, I think he’s doing fine financially. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH75 Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 17 minutes ago, StellarHibee said: I doubt he has the sort of extensive funds that he had access to back then tbh. I would also think that the burden of proof would be on the accusers of a crime that allegedly occurred decades ago. Perhaps the rape clinic will have kept forensic evidence that can provide a DNA match. And if not, why not? I'd be surprised if couldn't afford a lawyer. Completely agree that it is up to the legal process to prove the claims of any accuser, you'd think that if there is any forensics then this would be relatively straightforward. That doesn't answer the question why he hasn't taken any legal action against Channel 4 or The Times yet though. Surely he wants to get them in court and clear his name? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 What sort of big 'truths' is Brand apparently revealing? He's a fucking second rate grifter scumbag peddling the most cliche and unimaginative type of pish, although that's enough for the sickeningly thick p***ks who follow him. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 1 hour ago, StellarHibee said: Then why was nothing made of it at the time? Why is it that in these kinds of situations, a multitude of women just so happen to simultaneously come forward at precisely the same time decades later? I'm not saying Brand was a good person in the past. The guy had a multitude of problems, particularly with drug and alcohol use. So I can certainly believe that he was involved in risky behaviour scenarios. But that doesn't automatically equate to rape. The man had celebrity status and a whole lot of money behind him. Hardly a stretch that women would get involved with him sexually due to the money and status, then perhaps have regrets about it later. Which again, doesn't automatically equate to rape or sexual assault. Why was nothing made of it at the time?! The fucking irony that someone like you asks that. I bet you don't get it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 17 minutes ago, EH75 said: I'd be surprised if couldn't afford a lawyer. Completely agree that it is up to the legal process to prove the claims of any accuser, you'd think that if there is any forensics then this would be relatively straightforward. That doesn't answer the question why he hasn't taken any legal action against Channel 4 or The Times yet though. Surely he wants to get them in court and clear his name? Not forgetting that Brand has an advantage in any such legal action as the burden would be on The Times and C4 to prove that the allegations are true. Given that their publication has resulted in a couple of his revenue streams being cut off, he'd certainly be in line for a big pay out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 23 minutes ago, EH75 said: I'd be surprised if couldn't afford a lawyer. Completely agree that it is up to the legal process to prove the claims of any accuser, you'd think that if there is any forensics then this would be relatively straightforward. That doesn't answer the question why he hasn't taken any legal action against Channel 4 or The Times yet though. Surely he wants to get them in court and clear his name? He could always shake down @StellarHibee and people like him for donations towards a legal defence fund if he can’t afford a lawyer. Or even if he can afford it but would rather someone else pays for it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH75 Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 7 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: He could always shake down @StellarHibee and people like him for donations towards a legal defence fund if he can’t afford a lawyer. Or even if he can afford it but would rather someone else pays for it Crowd funding is the next stage of the right wing grifter player book tbf. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 He had a super injunction out for years, as did Schofield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarHibee Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 44 minutes ago, EH75 said: Crowd funding is the next stage of the right wing grifter player book tbf. The fact that you think Russell Brand is "right wing" is proof that you've never really watched any of his content. Same as any of the other posters on here who are quick to rubbish content that they've never actually watched before. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 47 minutes ago, Michael W said: Not forgetting that Brand has an advantage in any such legal action as the burden would be on The Times and C4 to prove that the allegations are true. Given that their publication has resulted in a couple of his revenue streams being cut off, he'd certainly be in line for a big pay out. In a criminal case he’d have presumption of innocence but a civil case would be on the balance of probabilities His lawyers would have to convince a court that Russell Brand being a sexual predator was somehow less credible than him not being a sexual predator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarHibee Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, EH75 said: I'd be surprised if couldn't afford a lawyer. Completely agree that it is up to the legal process to prove the claims of any accuser, you'd think that if there is any forensics then this would be relatively straightforward. That doesn't answer the question why he hasn't taken any legal action against Channel 4 or The Times yet though. Surely he wants to get them in court and clear his name? I'm sure he can afford a lawyer no problem. But suing the press isn't as straight forward a process as many seem to assume. Even people who win cases against the press, can ultimately still come out of it worse. It's the press and they shape people's perception of you. If it was so easy, politicians would be suing the press left, right and centre on a regular basis. But they don't. Because it's the press. They're too big to be taken to task when they lie or slander people these days, that's why nothing is done about it the vast majority of the time. Even when they're forced to release pathetic apology or "correction" articles that they know very few people will see, relative to those who were exposed to the lie itself. Edited September 23, 2023 by StellarHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.