Russell Brand - In Plain Sight

[sophia]

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

 

1 minute ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

It's also possible to think that based on the credible evidence and his own (oft admitted) patterns of behaviour, that he's probably guilty of some awful behaviour and to think that this is being revealed now because he's no longer useful and an opponent of the main stream media who encouraged and enabled his behaviour previously.

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.

[velo army]

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

I can understand this sort of thinking when it comes to, say, Assange. That was a proper truth teller and I do think he was properly stitched up.

However, Brand was a conspiracist nutbag by the end and was not at risk of blowing the whistle on anything. If the "powers that be" were interested in discrediting him the best thing to do would have been to leave him to his own devices.

[sophia]

1 minute 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.

Indeed

Oh my word 

[StellarHibee]

1 minute ago, velo army said:

I can understand this sort of thinking when it comes to, say, Assange. That was a proper truth teller and I do think he was properly stitched up.

However, Brand was a conspiracist nutbag by the end and was not at risk of blowing the whistle on anything. If the "powers that be" were interested in discrediting him the best thing to do would have been to leave him to his own devices.

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.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

 

50 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Who are you thinking of?

Second attempt.

[StellarHibee]

Just now, welshbairn said:

 

Second attempt.

I would have thought Assange, but he's already been mentioned.

[Zetterlund]

6 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

It's also possible to think that based on the credible evidence and his own (oft admitted) patterns of behaviour, that he's probably guilty of some awful behaviour and to think that this is being revealed now because he's no longer useful and an opponent of the main stream media who encouraged and enabled his behaviour previously.

Pretty much my thoughts on it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the accusations are true given Brand's past behaviour, but I also think nobody in the MSM or the 'establishment' cared about it until they wanted to shut him up. 

The powers that be don't give a f**k about sexual offences - if they did there are much bigger fish to fry than Russell Brand. Jeffrey Epstein's clients for one thing, but I suspect society would pretty much collapse if the whole truth about that ever became public knowledge.

[velo army]

Just now, 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.

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. 

 

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

I would have thought Assange, but he's already been mentioned.

Good shout with Assange, but he was actually revealing classified information, not some social influencer "just asking questions". Anyone else in the last 5 years or so?

Edited September 23, 2023 by welshbairn

[topcat(The most tip top)]

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

 

 

[StellarHibee]

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

[Cheese]

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.

[morrison]

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.

[StellarHibee]

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.

[RuMoore]

[EH75]

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.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

[StellarHibee]

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?

[oneteaminglasgow]

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. 

[EH75]

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?