Russell Brand

[Jubbs]

10 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

 Every few weeks someone becomes a victim of a Big Brother type "two minutes of hate".  There is no real evidence against many of these public hate victims. Look at the newspaper headlines from 10, 20 or 30 years ago and ask yourself if these things turned out to be true.

Have a read of the article, spend 90 minutes watching the documentary and get back to this thread. It seems like you need some education on the matter.

[Normanton Lad]

6 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Except with Brand there is substantial evidence, it's literally been posted on this page of the thread... At this point, what are you actually on about?

I'm saying that you should decide what is true by going on your own experience and logic rather than accepting what the papers, the Government or even the courts tell you is true.  

I don't watch TV. All I know about Brand is that he claims he has had sex with hundreds or even thousands of women. If that is true then if he is very rough with women or even raping them then you would expect far more complainants to have come forward by now.  

[Normanton Lad]

14 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

Have a read of the article, spend 90 minutes watching the documentary and get back to this thread. It seems like you need some education on the matter.

I'm too old to waste 90 minutes on "a documentary" which will only show evidence from one side.  It would be like a court case where you only get to hear what the prosecution lawyer has to say.

[Archied]

19 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

I'm too old to waste 90 minutes on "a documentary" which will only show evidence from one side.  It would be like a court case where you only get to hear what the prosecution lawyer has to say.

Got a feeling this one has legs and will turn out to be true , it’s been put better by another poster but the thing that throws a bit of smoke is the motivation for going after him now and the motivation for allowing him the space to do what he was doing at the time ,, perhaps even cheer him on 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Normanton Lad said:

There is no real evidence against many of these

A weird defence when there is literally no evidence that the allegations against RB are some sort of coordinated attack/media conspiracy to silence him, yet here we are

 

 

[PistoldPete]

3 hours ago, Normanton Lad said:

How do you know this is true? The credence the pitchfork carriers on here give to articles in the papers is shocking.

If you have ever read an article about someone or something you know very well then you find that the article is usually full of errors and lies. You should assume that all the other articles are just as inaccurate.

These articles are the result of four years of investigations. Now that Rupert has finally retired, Times wouldn't risk his pension on an expensive lawsuit.  

[Ram-Alf]

24 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

These articles are the result of four years of investigations. Now that Rupert has finally retired, Times wouldn't risk his pension on an expensive lawsuit.  

I think RB would be one of the most stupidest people on earth to go for an expensive lawsuit...it would be like a man taking his boxers off in a nudist camp...it would all come out...as Baldrick once said...stupidy stupidy stupid

Edited September 21, 2023 by The Last Post

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, Normanton Lad said:

 Every few weeks someone becomes a victim of a Big Brother type "two minutes of hate".  There is no real evidence against many of these public hate victims. Look at the newspaper headlines from 10, 20 or 30 years ago and ask yourself if these things turned out to be true.

[Anag Ram]

Punishment sorted

 

 

[Normanton Lad]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

A weird defence when there is literally no evidence that the allegations against RB are some sort of coordinated attack/media conspiracy to silence him, yet here we are

 

 

No coordinated attack? Then why did Caroline Dinenage MP, the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport, try to tell Rumble to stop showing Brand videos? Why would the government get involved in this when Brand is at the moment legally guilty of nothing?

Dinenage said Brand was promoting "inappropriate behaviour". That's rich coming from the daughter of a friend of and ghost writer for the Kray brothers. I don't remember anyone complaining about Fred helping the Krays make even more money from a life of crime and murder.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Normanton Lad

[Comrade 86]

2 hours ago, Normanton Lad said:

I'm saying that you should decide what is true by going on your own experience and logic rather than accepting what the papers, the Government or even the courts tell you is true.  

I don't watch TV. All I know about Brand is that he claims he has had sex with hundreds or even thousands of women. If that is true then if he is very rough with women or even raping them then you would expect far more complainants to have come forward by now.  

So your defence of Brand is that not enough women have claimed he raped them?

You're a f****** weirdo mate.

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

No coordinated attack? Then why did Caroline Dinenage MP, the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport, try to tell Rumble to stop showing Brand videos? Why would the government get involved in this when Brand is at the moment legally guilty of nothing?

Dinenage said Brand was promoting "inappropriate behaviour". That's rich coming from the daughter of a friend and ghost writer of the Kray brothers. I don't remember anyone complaining about Fred helping the Krays make even more money from a life of crime and murder.

A bit of a tenuous fact. part of a coordinated support campaign for Russell Brand maybe? Someone must like him i suppose for him to have that many followers. Like Andrew Tate no accounting for the gullible. 

[Archied]

28 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

No coordinated attack? Then why did Caroline Dinenage MP, the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport, try to tell Rumble to stop showing Brand videos? Why would the government get involved in this when Brand is at the moment legally guilty of nothing?

Dinenage said Brand was promoting "inappropriate behaviour". That's rich coming from the daughter of a friend of and ghost writer for the Kray brothers. I don't remember anyone complaining about Fred helping the Krays make even more money from a life of crime and murder.

Have seen the letter and I don’t think it’s the wisest thing to have done on lots of levels 

[Normanton Lad]

30 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

A bit of a tenuous fact. part of a coordinated support campaign for Russell Brand maybe? Someone must like him i suppose for him to have that many followers. Like Andrew Tate no accounting for the gullible. 

It wasn’t long ago when several women accused Alex Salmond of being a sex case. Nine women accused him of assaulting them. He had as many accusers as Brand and yet he was found innocent.

In court it turned out that there seemed to be coordination in the actions of his accusers. At the time he was a thorn in the side of some senior politicians.

[RoyMac5]

41 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

It wasn’t long ago when several women accused Alex Salmond of being a sex case. Nine women accused him of assaulting them. He had as many accusers as Brand and yet he was found innocent.

In court it turned out that there seemed to be coordination in the actions of his accusers. At the time he was a thorn in the side of some senior politicians.

"A Scottish government inquiry upheld five complaints of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond, sparking the police investigation that led to his eventual prosecution.

The allegations were made against the former first minister by two female civil servants in early 2018 to an internal government inquiry, which was later struck out by a judge after a legal challenge from Salmond.

Leslie Evans, the Scottish government’s permanent secretary, ruled five complaints from Ms A and Ms B were credible after an eight-month-long investigation into 11 allegations against Salmond. Three were rejected and a decision reserved on three others for procedural reasons.

Salmond has repeatedly denied any criminal wrongdoing and immediately launched a legal challenge after news of Evans’s inquiry was leaked to the Daily Record in August 2018."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/30/alex-salmond-inquiry-upheld-five-sexual-harassment-complaints

These 'things' aren't straightforward are they?

[Normanton Lad]

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

"A Scottish government inquiry upheld five complaints of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond, sparking the police investigation that led to his eventual prosecution.

The allegations were made against the former first minister by two female civil servants in early 2018 to an internal government inquiry, which was later struck out by a judge after a legal challenge from Salmond.

Leslie Evans, the Scottish government’s permanent secretary, ruled five complaints from Ms A and Ms B were credible after an eight-month-long investigation into 11 allegations against Salmond. Three were rejected and a decision reserved on three others for procedural reasons.

Salmond has repeatedly denied any criminal wrongdoing and immediately launched a legal challenge after news of Evans’s inquiry was leaked to the Daily Record in August 2018."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/30/alex-salmond-inquiry-upheld-five-sexual-harassment-complaints

These 'things' aren't straightforward are they?

From the same article :

"In January 2019, a judge threw out the inquiry report after it emerged the official investigating the complaints had had prior contact with the complainants."

"Salmond was later awarded £512,250 in legal costs after winning his judicial review against the Scottish government. Evans and senior officials were accused of failing to disclose to the court significant information about the internal inquiry, including the actions of the official conducting the investigation. The court ruled those procedural irregularities mean the inquiry was unlawful and 'tainted by apparent bias'. "

Former ambassador jailed for Alex Salmond case blogposts

"Murray claims he is fulfilling the same role in his blogging about the Salmond case, alleging the former Scottish National party leader and first minister was the victim of a conspiracy involving the Scottish government, the SNP and the lord advocate, James Wolffe QC."

 

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Normanton Lad said:

From the same article :

"In January 2019, a judge threw out the inquiry report after it emerged the official investigating the complaints had had prior contact with the complainants."

"Salmond was later awarded £512,250 in legal costs after winning his judicial review against the Scottish government. Evans and senior officials were accused of failing to disclose to the court significant information about the internal inquiry, including the actions of the official conducting the investigation. The court ruled those procedural irregularities mean the inquiry was unlawful and 'tainted by apparent bias'. "

Former ambassador jailed for Alex Salmond case blogposts

"Murray claims he is fulfilling the same role in his blogging about the Salmond case, alleging the former Scottish National party leader and first minister was the victim of a conspiracy involving the Scottish government, the SNP and the lord advocate, James Wolffe QC."

 

Exactly.

But the final point: "The inquiry results were annulled and Evans’s report was withheld from the Holyrood investigation. The Scottish government argues, however, that Ms A and Ms B’s allegations could still be reinvestigated."

That is how difficult it is.

 

[uttoxram75]

I read many years ago that Brand was gay. He's also related to many branches of British nobility, right up to the Royal Family. 

It will be interesting to see what happens in court. 

My cynicism tells me it will never go to court and its all a false flag story.

[Anag Ram]

I think the media coverage has to have an impact on the justice Brand gets in any subsequent court proceedings.

He has been declared guilty by the media and any juror is likely to be swayed by that.

I have no idea what the truth is but I hope true justice is served.

I also think there are a lot of men guilty of the crimes he is accused of. That doesn’t make his behaviour any more acceptable, but there are definitely double standards at play in all of this.

[ramit]

This has the earmarks of a hit job.  I don't agree with Watson that it's a left-right issue, he has his horse to flog, but he makes strong points in this video.