Russell Brand - In Plain Sight

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

He doesn't attempt to impose views on anybody, even if the initial titles and thumbnails give that false impression.

God forbid he would claim anything he could be directly challenged on. Other than that everyone else is lying to us and only he is to be trusted. It's pretty well the definition of a cult.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

God forbid he would claim anything he could be directly challenged on. Other than that everyone else is lying to us and only he is to be trusted. It's pretty well the definition of a cult.

 

 

[StellarHibee]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

God forbid he would claim anything he could be directly challenged on. Other than that everyone else is lying to us and only he is to be trusted. It's pretty well the definition of a cult.

You're just pulling that claim out of nowhere. Cults impose their views onto people. Brand simply doesn't do this, which you would realize if you actually took any of the time to watch any of his content.

I would say it's far more reminiscent of a cult to instantly disregard everything a person says about anything, without ever actually listening to anything they say. Something perhaps a fair number of people on this thread could take some time to reflect upon. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, StellarHibee said:

Except he doesn't. If you actually look beyond the titles and the thumbnails and get into the content itself. Usually when Brand is having a discussion with somebody (regardless of that person's political position), Brand himself just listens to them and takes in their points. He doesn't necessarily agree or disagree with the points being made, he just takes them on board to gain as many available perspectives as possible and leaves it to the viewers to make up their own minds. He doesn't attempt to impose views on anybody, even if the initial titles and thumbnails give that false impression.

Politics is necessarily adversarial. Ben Shapiro, for example, is the enemy. Brand tweets in support of striking NHS workers yet fraternises with Shapiro, a representative of US business interests. Well its US health insurance companies that most threaten the NHS. 

(I should be clear that this is now a separate conversation on Brand to the thread topic. The nature of his political footprint isn't relevant when considering his sex abuses).

[StellarHibee]

7 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said:

Politics is necessarily adversarial. Ben Shapiro, for example, is the enemy. Brand tweets in support of striking NHS workers yet fraternises with Shapiro, a representative of US business interests. Well its US health insurance companies that most threaten the NHS. 

(I should be clear that this is now a separate conversation on Brand to the thread topic. The nature of his political footprint isn't relevant when considering his sex abuses).

"Fraternises" is your choice of phrasing. It wouldn't be my choice of phrasing for somebody who is simply prepared to sit down and listen to somebody that he know's he isn't going to agree with, but has the intellectual capacity to understand that you don't need to agree with a person to take the time to understand why they hold the views that you don't agree with.

I agree that his political footprint should have no baring on the on going situation regarding these allegations. But we know that it very much will anyway. Because that's the world we live in now.

[DA Baracus]

What 'truths' is Brand being censored for?

[StellarHibee]

Just now, DA Baracus said:

What 'truths' is Brand being censored for?

Nobody is claiming that this is the case. But you keep making up straw man arguments in your head if it helps you pass the time. Looking forward to more obsessive red dotting with zero intellectual input from yourself.

[ICTChris]

Russell Brand had not retired from the mainstream media. He appeared in several major studio films last year, including Death On The Nile and Minions: Rise of Gru. He was, until last week, represented by a premier talent agency, Tavistock Wood. His books were published by MacMillan Publishing, one of the top publishers in the UK. His legal representatives are Thomson Heath & Associates, specialist defamation lawyers whose website states that they work for “senior political figures, advising FTSE companies and their executives, royal families, governments and celebrities.” Fight the power! The costs of having these guys is massive btw, probably hundreds of thousands of pounds at a minimum.

Up until pretty recently these people were in his corner. One of the accusers, the woman who said he sexually assaulted her when she was 16, wrote to Tavistock Wood and received a letter back from Thomson Heath threatening her with legal consequences. That was in 2020. He also personally threatened one of his accusers with legal action, by her account.

Regarding him suddenly becoming a threat to the establishment or mainstream media, he wrote books about revolution, advocated not voting, went on anti-capitalist protests and gave evidence to Parliamentary committees about drug policy all well before he started posting videos about vaccines etc.

Also, some people might have forgotten, but the Sachsgate story was absolutely massive - main story for weeks, BBC executives resigned, highest paid presenters resigned, questions in Parliament and condemnation from the Prime Minister. Large swathes of the British press (Daily Mail etc) were out for his blood then. If these allegations were so easy to conjure up, why didn’t they come out then?

The investigation by the Despatches team and the Sunday Times began in 2019, before Brand really leaned into his YouTube channel for content. There are also stories and rumours that these things were investigated previously and were shut down legally (The comments of his former management agency are interesting in this regard). These stories didn’t suddenly appear at the same time, it takes years to investigate, to fact check, to corroborate and to get the claims legally checked. If anyone has any evidence that the media conspired to do this now to hobble Brands YouTube channel or that the accusers are lying they are keeping it to themselves. 

[RuMoore]

 

 

[BFTD]

Knew I should've got some popcorn in last night  

[Silvio Tattiescone]

He's an attention whore. He'd shave his arse, paint himself pink and change his name to Fred the Flamingo if it got him another hundred followers. 

 

He'll be loving all this - getting more views than he's had for years and everyone's talking about his favourite subject - him. 

[Wee-Bey]

Brand is on the left.

Not that it has anything to do with the allegations or guilt.

[Miguel Sanchez]

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Russell Brand had not retired from the mainstream media. He appeared in several major studio films last year, including Death On The Nile and Minions: Rise of Gru. He was, until last week, represented by a premier talent agency, Tavistock Wood. His books were published by MacMillan Publishing, one of the top publishers in the UK. His legal representatives are Thomson Heath & Associates, specialist defamation lawyers whose website states that they work for “senior political figures, advising FTSE companies and their executives, royal families, governments and celebrities.” Fight the power! The costs of having these guys is massive btw, probably hundreds of thousands of pounds at a minimum.

Up until pretty recently these people were in his corner. One of the accusers, the woman who said he sexually assaulted her when she was 16, wrote to Tavistock Wood and received a letter back from Thomson Heath threatening her with legal consequences. That was in 2020. He also personally threatened one of his accusers with legal action, by her account.

Regarding him suddenly becoming a threat to the establishment or mainstream media, he wrote books about revolution, advocated not voting, went on anti-capitalist protests and gave evidence to Parliamentary committees about drug policy all well before he started posting videos about vaccines etc.

Also, some people might have forgotten, but the Sachsgate story was absolutely massive - main story for weeks, BBC executives resigned, highest paid presenters resigned, questions in Parliament and condemnation from the Prime Minister. Large swathes of the British press (Daily Mail etc) were out for his blood then. If these allegations were so easy to conjure up, why didn’t they come out then?

The investigation by the Despatches team and the Sunday Times began in 2019, before Brand really leaned into his YouTube channel for content. There are also stories and rumours that these things were investigated previously and were shut down legally (The comments of his former management agency are interesting in this regard). These stories didn’t suddenly appear at the same time, it takes years to investigate, to fact check, to corroborate and to get the claims legally checked. If anyone has any evidence that the media conspired to do this now to hobble Brands YouTube channel or that the accusers are lying they are keeping it to themselves. 

hAVe You EVEn wATChed the viDEoS

[Darren]

11 hours ago, StellarHibee said:

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. 

What politicians do you think would have a case against the press, on the basis of lies and slander, over the last few years? You must have lots of examples.

[welshbairn]

12 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

Brand is on the left.

Not that it has anything to do with the allegations or guilt.

The American Right's pet commie.

[coprolite]

I often wondered what sort of moron would be fooled by eloquence and vocabulary into thinking that someone was intelligent or truthful.

[BFTD]

17 minutes ago, Darren said:

What politicians do you think would have a case against the press, on the basis of lies and slander, over the last few years? You must have lots of examples.

You'll struggle to get an answer here. We're still waiting for more than Assange on the list of people who the Deep State have fitted up with rape allegations because they were about to blow the lid off the whole establishment.

Apparently there's loads of them. It always happens.

[Silvio Tattiescone]

19 minutes ago, BTFD said:

You'll struggle to get an answer here. We're still waiting for more than Assange on the list of people who the Deep State have fitted up with rape allegations because they were about to blow the lid off the whole establishment.

Apparently there's loads of them. It always happens.

You never hear about them because anyone who's a threat to the New World Order, Deep State, Bilderburgers gets quietly disappeared in a way that nobody notices.  Like Epstein.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

14 hours ago, StellarHibee said:

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.

To be fair @EH75 wasn’t so much saying that Brand was a right wing grifter as suggesting that he was using a similar playbook. it was the “grifter” part that was more pertinent 

 

 

[Wee-Bey]

3 hours ago, welshbairn said:

The American Right's pet commie.

I mean, anyone to the left of Reagan will be a commie to some of these people.

He's probably more of a left libertarian than a communist.