Interesting article - Russell Brand related

[Mexboroseasider]

Edwards was a reactionary publication that wasn’t properly investigated, based on a single ‘allegation’. It was also (at least apparently) out of character. That said some of his behaviour has probably crossed a line as you say.

I see a world of difference with this Brand investigation.

Well no case is ever going to be exactly the same but I was picking up on the points made about the impact media exposes can have on a person’s life, career etc. And what the media should be reporting on, what they shouldn’t be reporting on and the grey areas in between.

Specifically on Brand….

While I read his book and think some of his pronouncements in the past have been interesting, I’ve never been a particular fan. Equally though I don’t have the visceral hatred that some people seem to have.

I think his “the MMS/Establishment are out to get me” defence is bollux. The sort of nonsense that Trump, Farage and Wootton have all come out with in the past.

By his own admission he has been very promiscuous in the past.

The fact the vast majority of those flings were probably consensual certainly doesn’t mean that they all have been. It goes without saying that if complaints are made to the police they should be investigated and charges brought if appropriate. Then it should be reported on in the same way as criminal cases are always reported on.

As for the reprehensible/predatory but non criminal behaviour, I think the allegations are almost certainly true. Apparently there was a blacklist circulated by female comedians of five male comedians who couldn’t be trusted. His name was on it. On balance I think it’s probably fair that that sort of behaviour is made public, although I’m open minded about it.

 

[Curryman]

I never liked the man, and I say that advisedly, always thought of him as a fraudulent nice guy, and after the incident with Andrew Sachs from Fawlty Towers I was amazed that the BBC etc continued to pander to him or his cohort Jonathan Ross. It seems the BBC is infested with those whose fame and wealth has gone not to their head but their trousers. There is a never ending trail of them from Uncle Mac (affectionately known as Uncle Dick!) in the fifties, till the present day.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I never liked the man, and I say that advisedly, always thought of him as a fraudulent nice guy, and after the incident with Andrew Sachs from Fawlty Towers I was amazed that the BBC etc continued to pander to him or his cohort Jonathan Ross. It seems the BBC is infested with those whose fame and wealth has gone not to their head but their trousers. There is a never ending trail of them from Uncle Mac (affectionately known as Uncle Dick!) in the fifties, till the present day.

I bet Ross isn’t happy that everyone is being reminded about his role in the Sachs incident.

 

[Tangerine10]

As a bloke I cant comment on women's taste in men, but I always thought he looked scruffy with greasy hair and a horse head.
As for trial by media; "live by the sword, die by the sword"
The Andrew Sacks prank should have been the end of his and Ross's career but ironically it probably boosted them.
Not for me - scum

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

The way I see it, is the big corporations that employed and encouraged Brand's behaviour are now trying to cover their backs, whilst other media are trying to cash in with the stories and coverage. Why did they not first encourage these women to go to the police? They want the story, nothing else.

So yes I am very cynical - they don't care about the public ( What effect has Brand had on me or you?) but only the viewing figures and public perception of their organisations.

I do agree with your last sentence though.

It’s impossible to say what would motivate any reporter to investigate anything really. Whether it’s Russell Brand or the War in Ukraine a whole range of motivating factors exist.

I’m not entirely sure it particularly matters though in truth. If it’s in the public interest to invest and report, then it should be done.

Arguably the broadcasters have plenty to lose too in reporting on these crimes. They certainly don’t come out of it unblemished (especially, given what has preceded).

Also by bringing this to public attention they will potentially encourage other alleged victims to come forward, the women involved may now feel more confident to take the matters up with the police etc..

Why should these things just be swept under the carpet and ignored unless there is a criminal conviction ? Surely we’ve made that mistake to considerable cost in the past ?

Well no case is ever going to be exactly the same but I was picking up on the points made about the impact media exposes can have on a person’s life, career etc. And what the media should be reporting on, what they shouldn’t be reporting on and the grey areas in between.

Yep, the Media has a responsibility to act ‘responsibly’. The fact that ‘outing’ an individual can ruin their career (and I’m yet to be convinced that Edwards career is ruined, based on the initial complaint alone) is not a reason not to report on someone / something though.

 

[Junior_BentsPlatformShoes]

'Arguably the broadcasters have plenty to lose too in reporting on these crimes. They certainly don’t come out of it unblemished (especially, given what has preceded).'

Damage limitation - state you're doing a thorough investigation etc etc. They're happy to get the ratings and coverage with these celebs when the going is good and gloss over any inappropriate behaviour until they absolutely have to.

I've never stated things should be swept under the carpet, and quite rightly if he has done things against the law, he should be prosecuted. It's the media mob mentality of guilty until found innocent that I don't like and the way in which ' in the public interest' is used to sell more news and stories about the alleged offences. Whatever your moral code is, unless the law is broken, I really don't need to know about the state of Huw Edwards marriage or his sexuality. I don't even need to know about internal emails he's sent- that is for his employers to sort out in private.
A lot of it is salacious gossiping to make money, with any care for alleged victims or public interest in a very distant second place.

 

[spudgun]

I never liked the man, and I say that advisedly, always thought of him as a fraudulent nice guy, and after the incident with Andrew Sachs from Fawlty Towers I was amazed that the BBC etc continued to pander to him or his cohort Jonathan Ross. It seems the BBC is infested with those whose fame and wealth has gone not to their head but their trousers. There is a never ending trail of them from Uncle Mac (affectionately known as Uncle Dick!) in the fifties, till the present day.

But we should remember that the BBC employs over 20,000 people and you are quoting a fella from over 70 years ago.

Brand resigned from the BBC over the incident (so the BBC didn`t "pander to him") and Ross was suspended for 12 weeks (which was a pretty firm punishment). Sachs and his grand daughter accepted their apologies and the daughter bore them no ill-will (she said), which possibly coloured the BBC response to Ross.

In any large organisation over 70 years there will be `wrong `uns`, but to claim that they are "infested" is a little OTT.

Not defending Ross or Brand who are a pair of tossers, but just applying a little perspective.

Pro rata I would agree with you if you said that Parliament was "infested" with miscreants MPs....

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

@Junior_BentsPlatformShoes, I’m not really sure the whole ‘damage limitation’ thing particularly washes with me to be honest.

For a start off, in many cases (as we’re seeing right here) it can have quite the opposite effect and leave them open to ‘cover their arse’ accusations. It’s a double edged sword imho… I really don’t see significant gain (financial, reputational or otherwise) from this.

It was a matter that needed to be reported, it has been reported and that’s job done …

 

[Toastrack]

It’s a good article that, and very true. In the 00’s the culture changed and women were supposed to be more accepting of misogynistic behaviour, to appear cool.

Repelling it made you appear a prude or just not down with the lads and the mood at the time.

Players like Brand used that as an ‘in’ to hone their already predatory behaviour into acceptable comedy, and we see now, probably worse.

You would think that the broadcasters and production companies wouldn't tolerate behaviour like this now, they can't be seen to.
But these attitudes still linger.

Lucy Beaumont (in the new series of Taskmaster) said in a podcast just a couple of months ago that even now there are ’10 to 15′ predatory men on the comedy circuit.
"It just gets covered up. Their agents know and the channels know and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. There's been times when I've just wanted to go on Twitter and just let people know everyone that we talk about, but not allowed to say.
There's this guy, this guy, this guy and this guy that your young girls are not safe around these men. And they're patrons of charities, and they're paid the biggest sums of money and you can't trust them. It needs ridding. How long are we going to in private say 'Did you hear about so and so that's doing that again?'. We know who they are - they're not that good anyway."

The broadcasters and the agents are still turning a blind eye because they want the ratings, they want to discover the next comedy superstars.
Sadly, money and the yearning for fame still prevail.

Lucy Beaumont claims there are 10 male predators in the comedy circuit

Comedian Lucy Beaumont, famed for To Hull and Back and Meet The Richardsons, addressed the subject of predatory behaviour within the comedy industry on a podcast

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Junior_BentsPlatformShoes]

@Junior_BentsPlatformShoes, I’m not really sure the whole ‘damage limitation’ thing particularly washes with me to be honest.

For a start off, in many cases (as we’re seeing right here) it can have quite the opposite effect and leave them open to ‘cover their arse’ accusations. It’s a double edged sword imho… I really don’t see significant gain (financial, reputational or otherwise) from this.

It was a matter that needed to be reported, it has been reported and that’s job done …

What I was implying is that Channel 4 and the BBC were happy to employ Brand at the peak of his fame and ignore any warning signs (barring the BBC sacking him after the phone messages he and Jonathan Ross sent). Now their investigations are happening to indeed cover themselves, but also they're happy to continue to sell the story (the BBC has live updates on the go).

The media culture as a whole has a lot to answer for - it propagates and protects inappropriate behaviour if there is worth in it - the real issue here is how institutions have operated and continue to operate, allowing this to happen, but then also are moral arbiters once the story breaks.

 

[Lala]

I bet Ross isn’t happy that everyone is being reminded about his role in the Sachs incident.

Yes, he has had what seemed to be a very blessed escape from responsibility with that one. It was cruel, nasty and again misogynistic stunt they pulled and so very public.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

What I was implying is that Channel 4 and the BBC were happy to employ Brand at the peak of his fame and ignore any warning signs (barring the BBC sacking him after the phone messages he and Jonathan Ross sent). Now their investigations are happening to indeed cover themselves, but also they're happy to continue to sell the story (the BBC has live updates on the go).

The media culture as a whole has a lot to answer for - it propagates and protects inappropriate behaviour if there is worth in it - the real issue here is how institutions have operated and continue to operate, allowing this to happen, but then also are moral arbiters once the story breaks.

Channel 4 and the BBC are large organisations and have employed many famous individuals.

Both organisations operate a range of departments independently of each other and both organisations will have gone through significant changes in personnel since the time when Brand was in situ.

This recent report has also shone a light on the organisation’s themselves, the lack of diligence and safeguarding systems… runners recruiting potential sexual partners etc… (all quite Savile-esque) to be honest.

The real issue here is not the media as you claim though. The issue here is very definitely and obviously an individual who has (whilst operating across a whole range of media) engaged in vile behaviour and is alleged to have committed a number of sexually related crimes against women.

Trying to twist this into some kind of ‘blame the messenger’ type of nonsense and diminish his actions, seriously fails to acknowledge the fact of the matter.

Of course those who share some responsibility should be brought to book, but that’s not a reason to prevent our major media outlets from doing their job properly, nor question their right to do so.

 

[Junior_BentsPlatformShoes]

'The real issue here is not the media as you claim though. The issue here is very definitely and obviously an individual who has (whilst operating across a whole range of media) engaged in vile behaviour and is alleged to have committed a number of sexually related crimes against women.'

I beg to differ, it is both. The media have long needed to clean up their acts, and as I said, to be moral arbiters when it suits isn't good enough.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

'The real issue here is not the media as you claim though. The issue here is very definitely and obviously an individual who has (whilst operating across a whole range of media) engaged in vile behaviour and is alleged to have committed a number of sexually related crimes against women.'

I beg to differ, it is both. The media have long needed to clean up their acts, and as I said, to be moral arbiters when it suits isn't good enough.

So first the ‘real issue’ was the media… now the ‘real issue’ is both. Which is it?

Brand is clearly the ‘real issue’, because he’s the main protagonist and the whole sordid affair centres around him…

The matter of the media, the individuals who may have facilitated or tacitly enabled his behaviour is a different issue.

How would you suggest the Media is supposed to deal with these issues?

Should Channel 4 be forced to disband completely in the event that any individuals working within their organisation are found to have behaved in a way that gives rise to concern?

Should they simply not have investigated or reported these matters at all?

So how do we ever move forward ?

In your world it’s impossible for pretty much any major (and probably most minor) media outlets to ever report on anything, because let’s face it, there isn’t a single one that could claim to be blemish free…

 

[spudgun]

'The real issue here is not the media as you claim though. The issue here is very definitely and obviously an individual who has (whilst operating across a whole range of media) engaged in vile behaviour and is alleged to have committed a number of sexually related crimes against women.'

I beg to differ, it is both. The media have long needed to clean up their acts, and as I said, to be moral arbiters when it suits isn't good enough.

Would be nice, but I think you`re asking an awful lot of the media there...

 

[Lala]

'The real issue here is not the media as you claim though. The issue here is very definitely and obviously an individual who has (whilst operating across a whole range of media) engaged in vile behaviour and is alleged to have committed a number of sexually related crimes against women.'

I beg to differ, it is both. The media have long needed to clean up their acts, and as I said, to be moral arbiters when it suits isn't good enough.

I don’t view the media as moral arbiters to be honest Junior.

I think most of us know that their actions have been duplicitous on many levels.

I’m still glad they are reporting on this now though, even if some forms of the media past and present, and many people within ‘the business’ part enabled his behaviour back in the day.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I’d also add that the media aren’t the ‘moral arbiters’… The public are. And I doubt many of us are entirely blemish free either.

 

[Tangerinemoss]

I really don't go along with the view that unless he is prosecuted, he is not guilty. There are several celebs who have called him out, not all recently, for his vile behaviour.

Questioning why behaviour wasn't reported before ( the rape allegation was) is also an odd one. I would have hoped post Me too, most people would have a better understanding of the psychology of victims, and why many need to be part of a group before they can speak out.

Simple question for those prepared to defend him. Would you be happy with your daughter or grand daughter being around him?

 

[Lytham_fy8]

I never liked the man, and I say that advisedly, always thought of him as a fraudulent nice guy, and after the incident with Andrew Sachs from Fawlty Towers I was amazed that the BBC etc continued to pander to him or his cohort Jonathan Ross. It seems the BBC is infested with those whose fame and wealth has gone not to their head but their trousers. There is a never ending trail of them from Uncle Mac (affectionately known as Uncle Dick!) in the fifties, till the present day.

He never worked for the BBC again after the Sachs incident.

Nice try at crowbarring it in though.

 

[Lytham_fy8]

I’d also add that the media aren’t the ‘moral arbiters’… The public are. And I doubt many of us are entirely blemish free either.

The very concept of a moral arbiter is obviously an incongruous load of shite anyway.

 

[Lytham_fy8]

While we're on the subject of enablement and morality, let's not forget we all knowingly and willingly funded a convicted rapist of a 16 year old for over 20 years.

Best not get too preachy then.

 

[foggy]

What I don't like about these 'investigations' by newspapers and tv production companies is that it's all about making money - they don't really care about the girls who have come forward and their welfare, they're happy to sell newspapers and get audience viewing figures.

This is a very harsh comment without evidence. C4 can play 12 minutes per hour of advertising and they played about 4 during that programme, despite it being during peak hours on a Saturday night. That is very unusual and I can only guess was intentionally reduced due to the nature of the programme, so attributing it to profit motive doesn't make sense.

The investigation from the journalists from the Sunday Times and C4 has been a dedicated effort over thousands over hours over years and many from women, who statistically speaking are likely to have suffered some form of sexual assault/abuse in their own lives. Given that they also work in TV, it's not hard to see why they would feel motivated to tell this difficult story, and attributing them to emotionless, heartless robots who only care about money that they wouldn't even make, is silly.

Yes the wider media will jump on a story like this and it quickly becomes breathless and I'm sure many will see it as an opportunity to flog papers. But the initial work done by the investigative teams involved was not motivated by money. Otherwise they wouldn't have slashed their advertising slots by two thirds.

 

[Bend it like Suddick]

and like it or not there was a reason Mason Greenwood isn't being prosecuted

The reason being the 'victim' who is now repatriated with a baby with him refused to testify. It's surprising how these aggrieved females (and Im not being facetious as in my career they were always my priority) stick by 'their man' especially when they have plenty of money or kids involved. Coleen Rooney springs to mind

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Makes my blood boil.

Saturday night he was doing a live gig the audience gave him a standing ovation both before and after the show.

Seems his audience is as bad as him.

Let’s hope he goes down for a very long time horrible person.

 

[Junior_BentsPlatformShoes]

This is a very harsh comment without evidence. C4 can play 12 minutes per hour of advertising and they played about 4 during that programme, despite it being during peak hours on a Saturday night. That is very unusual and I can only guess was intentionally reduced due to the nature of the programme, so attributing it to profit motive doesn't make sense.

The investigation from the journalists from the Sunday Times and C4 has been a dedicated effort over thousands over hours over years and many from women, who statistically speaking are likely to have suffered some form of sexual assault/abuse in their own lives. Given that they also work in TV, it's not hard to see why they would feel motivated to tell this difficult story, and attributing them to emotionless, heartless robots who only care about money that they wouldn't even make, is silly.

Yes the wider media will jump on a story like this and it quickly becomes breathless and I'm sure many will see it as an opportunity to flog papers. But the initial work done by the investigative teams involved was not motivated by money. Otherwise they wouldn't have slashed their advertising slots by two thirds.

I'll have a listen to this later:

Newscast - The Investigation into Russell Brand - BBC Sounds

How did Channel 4’s Dispatches & The Sunday Times put the investigation together?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Halifax71]

The reason being the 'victim' who is now repatriated with a baby with him refused to testify. It's surprising how these aggrieved females (and Im not being facetious as in my career they were always my priority) stick by 'their man' especially when they have plenty of money or kids involved. Coleen Rooney springs to mind

The decision, according to the CPS, was based on "a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light, which meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

And to a lesser extent, Man Utd statement ""concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged".

Again, I've no doubt that Greenwood is clearly no saint, but going back to my point earlier, this trial by media / the avftt know it alls has to stop. I'm not going to drag up the thread but many will recall the vitriol directed at Bez.

Edit, meant to add, once convicted, open season.

 

[Bend it like Suddick]

The decision, according to the CPS, was based on "a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light, which meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

Point taken Halifax, however CPS could have prosecuted him without her testifying, basing the prosecution with her original complaint/statement, but from experience in recent years CPS have seriously lost their bottle in doing so, hence the generic 'no longer a realistic prospect of conviction'.
Bearing in mind the audio tape etc, IMHO hes a very lucky boy.

I can see this with Brand panning out similarly, unless more substantial info comes to light. Having said that his mainstream career is fecked.

 

[Matesrates]

Thinking about the furore over this and Phillip Schofield, it’s interesting that they managed to shut down the Huw Edwards scandal in a matter of days, never to be mentioned again.

 

[Bend it like Suddick]

it’s interesting that they managed to shut down the Huw Edwards scandal in a matter of days, never to be mentioned again.

until now

 

[Lytham_fy8]

Thinking about the furore over this and Phillip Schofield, it’s interesting that they managed to shut down the Huw Edwards scandal in a matter of days, never to be mentioned again.

Because it wasn't a scandal.

 

[foggy]

Thinking about the furore over this and Phillip Schofield, it’s interesting that they managed to shut down the Huw Edwards scandal in a matter of days, never to be mentioned again.

Unless I missed something Huw Edwards isn't alleged to have done anything illegal, instead it's a story of workplace inappropriate - but consensual - behaviour. That doesn't quite have the same broader media cache of a story that will run and run. Plus The Sun ballsed up the story originally which I imagine has made others weary.

 

[Macseasider]

Was always a big fan of Brand's. Enjoyed his style of comedic social commentary and his books. Was rather gutted when this story broke. My initial reaction was that it would be a jilted ex-conquest or two trying to make a quick buck. He has never denied or hidden from his promiscuous past. Alas this all appears very very serious. The law will determine how so.

 

[TotallyTangerine]

The decision, according to the CPS, was based on "a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light, which meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

And to a lesser extent, Man Utd statement ""concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged".

Again, I've no doubt that Greenwood is clearly no saint, but going back to my point earlier, this trial by media / the avftt know it alls has to stop. I'm not going to drag up the thread but many will recall the vitriol directed at Bez.

Edit, meant to add, once convicted, open season.

Brand is always very forthright with his opinions, so I’m just sharing my thoughts about him

 

[Wizaard]

What I don't like about these 'investigations' by newspapers and tv production companies is that it's all about making money - they don't really care about the girls who have come forward and their welfare, they're happy to sell newspapers and get audience viewing figures. Not to mention that playing devil's advocate, if Brand is innocent of the accusations, he's been annihilated, humiliated and already judged as guilty in the press and any form of career and probably marriage and friendships are well and truly over.

I don't have a lot of time for Brand, and perhaps he is finally a victim of what he made a living doing in the 90's and 00's, but the way trial by modern media is done isn't right.

I hope justice is served properly in the end.

He's already married. But still shags around.

 

[Wizaard]

Thinking about the furore over this and Phillip Schofield, it’s interesting that they managed to shut down the Huw Edwards scandal in a matter of days, never to be mentioned again.

Because it wasn't a scandal when the full story came out.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

The decision, according to the CPS, was based on "a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light, which meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

And to a lesser extent, Man Utd statement ""concluded that the material posted online did not provide a full picture and that Mason did not commit the offences in respect of which he was originally charged".

Again, I've no doubt that Greenwood is clearly no saint, but going back to my point earlier, this trial by media / the avftt know it alls has to stop. I'm not going to drag up the thread but many will recall the vitriol directed at Bez.

Edit, meant to add, once convicted, open season.

The court of ‘public opinion’ has always existed though. We’re all free to form our own opinions and make our own judgement based on what we see, hear and feel about a particular individual.

The court of public opinion doesn’t require the same standard of evidence and if we see a **, we can judge them as such. Simple as that really.

Greenwood is a **, by his actions and his words… He’s not been criminally convicted, but he will be judged by society and that is the consequence of his own actions… tough shit

 

[JJpool]

Haven't read the thread however seeing his YouTube be demonetised seems a bit much, as of yet he's committed no crime.

To see the UK parliamentary committe pushing rumble to cut his money too again doesn't seem right.

He's got to be entitled to a fair trial. You can't just accusations in thr media yhrn people are pressured to cut monet or ties etc. That's a potentially dangerous path, but it's the way the world is going.

No idea if he did it or not, people who have been with him before have said obviously nothing happened with them, but clearly he was very flirtatious and pushing the boundaries in his past.

He was basically a hard left activist and only more recently had drifted to the 'right'. What he was like was well known and everyone was happy to have him on their side back then, so it does seem a bit rich some coming out the way they are now.

Video site Rumble defends allowing Russell Brand to monetise clips

A video platform has furiously defended making money out of Russell Brand's content and letting him continue doing so - vowing it would carry on regardless.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Sven]

Haven't read the thread however seeing his YouTube be demonetised seems a bit much, as of yet he's committed no crime.

To see the UK parliamentary committe pushing rumble to cut his money too again doesn't seem right.

He's got to be entitled to a fair trial. You can't just accusations in thr media yhrn people are pressured to cut monet or ties etc. That's a potentially dangerous path, but it's the way the world is going.

No idea if he did it or not, people who have been with him before have said obviously nothing happened with them, but clearly he was very flirtatious and pushing the boundaries in his past.

He was basically a hard left activist and only more recently had drifted to the 'right'. What he was like was well known and everyone was happy to have him on their side back then, so it does seem a bit rich some coming out the way they are now.

Video site Rumble defends allowing Russell Brand to monetise clips

A video platform has furiously defended making money out of Russell Brand's content and letting him continue doing so - vowing it would carry on regardless.

www.dailymail.co.uk

How has he drifted to the right? Genuine question, haven't watched him for a long time.

 

[JJpool]

How has he drifted to the right? Genuine question, haven't watched him for a long time.

I haven't either, but because he's been questioning covid a lot, many things that now associate him worh the right.

He seemed to interview many on the right as well.

Search is Russell Brand right wing.

 

[Lala]

Haven't read the thread however seeing his YouTube be demonetised seems a bit much, as of yet he's committed no crime.

To see the UK parliamentary committe pushing rumble to cut his money too again doesn't seem right.

He's got to be entitled to a fair trial. You can't just accusations in thr media yhrn people are pressured to cut monet or ties etc. That's a potentially dangerous path, but it's the way the world is going.

No idea if he did it or not, people who have been with him before have said obviously nothing happened with them, but clearly he was very flirtatious and pushing the boundaries in his past.

He was basically a hard left activist and only more recently had drifted to the 'right'. What he was like was well known and everyone was happy to have him on their side back then, so it does seem a bit rich some coming out the way they are now.

Video site Rumble defends allowing Russell Brand to monetise clips

A video platform has furiously defended making money out of Russell Brand's content and letting him continue doing so - vowing it would carry on regardless.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Who was happy to have him? I don’t think the woman who he flashed his **** at the first time she stumbled across him in the studios in LA and then bragged about it on air ( currently being investigated now) was happy to have him.
Just because somebody, everybody, or anybody was happy to entertain him it makes absolutely no difference to how he may have behaved at times when it wasn’t wanted,
These kind of justifications have to stop.

Yes, let it take its criminal course of action now.

Russell Brand faces new allegations he 'laughed' on radio show after 'exposing himself to woman'

The comedian and presenter has denied the claims against him, saying his relationships were "always consensual".

news.sky.com

 

[B_Side_The_C_Side]

Just as a point of context, is this Russel Brand situation very similar to the one that actor Noel Clarke found himself in 18 months ago

Allegations were made by 20 women who had previously worked with him and the Guardian newspaper made it the subject of an exposé on the actor the week he received his BAFTA award
The Met Police investigated this for 6 moths and ended up saying there was not enough evidence to warrant any criminal investigation.

Will this be the same situation with Brand?

I know Noel Clarke is trying to sue the Guardian for £10m but this has little to no chance of winning because the newspaper reported a direct source who offered opinion.

This is similar to Brand getting his cock out in LA or comedian Louis C K who had multiple allegation's of sexual misconduct but because of his star status, nobody said anything.
Look what Trump said........When you're a 'star' you can grab them by the 'pussy'

Personally, I think this is 'another' case of shitty people using their power to get their kicks....and the power of celebrity.

 

[JJpool]

Who was happy to have him? I don’t think the woman who he flashed his **** at the first time she stumbled across him in the studios in LA and then bragged about it on air ( currently being investigated now) was happy to have him.
Just because somebody, everybody, or anybody was happy to entertain him it makes absolutely no difference to how he may have behaved at times when it wasn’t wanted,
These kind of justifications have to stop.

Yes, let it take its criminal course of action now.

Russell Brand faces new allegations he 'laughed' on radio show after 'exposing himself to woman'

The comedian and presenter has denied the claims against him, saying his relationships were "always consensual".

news.sky.com

People on the left, at the time he was acting like he was. He was the darling of the left and people knew what he was like then.

Not sure the point you're trying to make, I've not tried to defend anything he may have done.

All I've said is as of yet he's done nothing illegal and has been treated to trial by media and is getting money stopped from pressure from some areas, over allegations only at this stage.

If all it takes is allegations before people are shut down its a very slippery slope.

 

[Lala]

People on the left, at the time he was acting like he was. He was the darling of the left and people knew what he was like then.

Not sure the point you're trying to make, I've not tried to defend anything he may have done.

All I've said is as of yet he's done nothing illegal and has been treated to trial by media and is getting money stopped from pressure from some areas, over allegations only at this stage.

If all it takes is allegations before people are shut down its a very slippery slope.

I simply don’t look at these things as left, right or middle. They are stand alone allegations made about a person.
My original point was, maybe badly made, that it doesn't matter what else has gone on with who before, in terms of who has supported or employed him.

 

[spudgun]

People on the left, at the time he was acting like he was. He was the darling of the left and people knew what he was like then.

Putting people into convenient left and right boxes, and concluding that other people will support someone from the same wing, and even more, will overlook serious misdemeanours because of some partisan affiliation is nonsense.

Lala was right to challenge your post.

I personally have never looked at anyone and judged them on whether they are left, right or centre. And I would suspect most people don`t subscribe to your footballification of culture....

 

[JJpool]

I simply don’t look at these things as left, right or middle. They are stand alone allegations made about a person.
My original point was, maybe badly made, that it doesn't matter what else has gone on with who before, in terms of who has supported or employed him.

Well that's the whole point of the debate about the conspiracy some are claiming.

So of course you mention his political shift in a thread about why people are defending him.

The main point I made was that of his money being shut down, when as of now he's not been convicted of anything, only in the trial by media.

 

[JJpool]

Putting people into convenient left and right boxes, and concluding that other people will support someone from the same wing, and even more, will overlook serious misdemeanours because of some partisan affiliation is nonsense.

Lala was right to challenge your post.

I personally have never looked at anyone and judged them on whether they are left, right or centre. And I would suspect most people don`t subscribe to your footballification of culture....

I didn't say people were overlooking serious misdemeanours, they ignored his obvious flirtatious and known ways etc and he'd been acting like that for years and had been very open about it. Many on the left loved him when he was on their side, Owen Jones, James O Brien etc. Channel 4 had direct visibility over what he was doing back then for years, I didn't hear a peep from them back then.

It still remains to be seen if hes actually done anything wrong, if the allegations are true.

If so then he'll obviously be appropriately punished.

It wouldn’t matter about left or right if it wasn't entirely relevant to how many are reacting, but they are reacting like that, so it is relevant to discussion on this thread.

 

[Lala]

I didn't say people were overlooking serious misdemeanours, they ignored his obvious flirtatious and known ways etc and he'd been acting like that for years and had been very open about it. Many on the left loved him when he was on their side, Owen Jones, James O Brien etc. Channel 4 had direct visibility over what he was doing back then for years, I didn't hear a peep from them back then.

It still remains to be seen if hes actually done anything wrong, if the allegations are true.

If so then he'll obviously be appropriately punished.

It wouldn’t matter about left or right if it wasn't entirely relevant to how many are reacting, but they are reacting like that, so it is relevant to discussion on this thread.

If people are reacting through left and right political vantages then thats lost on me. It will be lost on most people I would imagine, and definitely lost on the law.

 

[JJpool]

If people are reacting through left and right political vantages then thats lost on me. It will be lost on most people I would imagine, and definitely lost on the law.

That's why he's being defended by some sections, as people are seeing it as a convenient attack.

I've no idea if allegations are it's true or not, but seems to me his behaviour was well known and he was quite open about it.

Anyway, I only really came to say about until he's convinced he shouldn’t be cancelled, as that would be a dangerous path where allegations and trial by media were judge and jury.

 

[spudgun]

..... they ignored his obvious flirtatious and known ways etc and he'd been acting like that for years and had been very open about it. Many on the left loved him when he was on their side, Owen Jones, James O Brien etc. Channel 4 had direct visibility over what he was doing back then for years, I didn't hear a peep from them back then.

But the people you mention didn`t "ignore his obvious flirtatious and known ways" because they were themselves on the left which you are implying - "we didn`t hear a peep out of them". I imagine O`Brien or Jones (if they knew) would certainly not condone abusive behaviour just because of a similar political persuasion.

Brand`s behaviour was not flagged up by virtually everyone across the spectrum; people on the right, centre, left or whatever did not, to my knowledge, condemn him. They may have heard rumours about him, but as you say nobody even now knows for sure even now, so they wouldn`t have known then.

To imply that left-leaning commentators turned a blind eye to Brand whilst giving a free pass to all others on the political spectrum that turned a blind eye is just massively biased and wrong.

 

[JJpool]

But the people you mention didn`t "ignore his obvious flirtatious and known ways" because they were themselves on the left which you are implying - "we didn`t hear a peep out of them". I imagine O`Brien or Jones (if they knew) would certainly not condone abusive behaviour just because of a similar political persuasion.

Brand`s behaviour was not flagged up by virtually everyone across the spectrum; people on the right, centre, left or whatever did not, to my knowledge, condemn him. They may have heard rumours about him, but as you say nobody even now knows for sure even now, so they wouldn`t have known then.

To imply that left-leaning commentators turned a blind eye to Brand whilst giving a free pass to all others on the political spectrum that turned a blind eye is just massively biased and wrong.

He worked at channel 4 for many years. He did political speeches with Owen Jones for eg.

It's been plastered all over the mainstream media how obvious it all was and an 'open secret' about his flirtatious ways and alleged behaviour etc, yet people did nothing.

Comedian Nish Kumar says presence of sexual predators in industry is 'open secret' following Russell Brand allegations

Nish Kumar claimed reports of Russell Brand's alleged behaviour was known on the comedy circuit, warning, "This stuff is still happening… there are still people working in comedy who people will say, 'Oh, we don't send young women into their dressing room'."

news.sky.com

I'd say it's fair comment to say it raises questions as to why those who associated with him back then didn't raise anything at all when it was apparently well known.