Russel Brand... your thoughts?

[AlsoTapered]

I don't think their is any difference in meaning. One one hand he's creepy and manipulative, on the other he's a glassy-eyed, pseudointellectual conspiracy peddler (though that might be just manipulation) and on the third hand he's extremely arrogant and has repeatedly shown incredibly poor judgement and impulse control.

I think here in England, we recognize that type of person and, well, arsehole is just a compact way of stating the above.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

This remind me....as a yank, perhaps the Brits here could tell me, whats the precise difference between an asshole and an arsehole?

And which one would be most befitting with respect to Russell Brand

As @AlsoTapered says, there is no difference. You say 'ass', we say 'arse'. The meaning is the same...

 

[negrogesic]

As @AlsoTapered says, there is no difference. You say 'ass', we say 'arse'. The meaning is the same...

I always thought an arsehole was like an asshole but with more wrinkles (.....)*(.....)

 

[AlsoTapered]

I always thought an arsehole was like an asshole but with more wrinkles (.....)*(.....)

I refer the honourable gentleman to Gray's Anatomy, section 72, page 1023-1027.

 

[elgoucho9]

It's like a cash grab or a land grab seemingly

Opportunity has presented itself for 'establishment' to attack Brand so they have taken it.

Whether they have created that opportunity is unclear. Looks like a solid, intense, no-stone-left-unturned bit of investigative journalism to me though, but ofc I can't be certain. I'm not even certain I exist though, or that you do. Certainty...it's tricky eh.

I'm not sure where the 'pedo' allegations are coming from, I haven't seen that. What I have seen is rapist / predator / general cunt to women allegations, and I'd say the evidence for the latter of those two is compelling. Not criminal though is it? Unsavoury, most definitely. The rapist bit being true wouldn't surprise me either, but would also be unsurprised were that not to be the case.

I'm thinking about taking a break from all media for a couple of weeks, fucking exhausting and demoralising

Nail, head, hammer with this. The second last paragraph in particular is becoming the problem though. I already said in both this and the Andrew Tate thread, i'm not a fan of either, and for one resson or other think they're both cunts.

The problem comes when people start labelling people they don't know in real life and presume to be cunts as paedophiles, cos, fuck him anyway, right?

The world is a very different place to what it was, Jack-The-Lad, from 20 years ago is now a mysoginist/paedophile, according to the real paedophiles who run the media.

I just can't stand this logic and this whole woke culture it's absolute nonsense. If it was really about going after nonces why were details on Prince Andrew just sealed for 65 years? Or where is Ghislane Maxwell's client list? The whole thing is horseshit, even if Brand is a rapist, that's not why he's being hung out to dry here.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

It’s just a meaningless pejorative at this point, or at least it very often is…certain people online have carpet-bombed the discourse with “pedo” and “groomer” etc that yeah, whenever someone is accused of any kind of sexual transgression (or even non-sexual transgressions, amazingly), hey, might as well just take on the pedo label too right just another symptom of internet brain rot I guess

 

[AlsoTapered]

https://www.similarweb.com/website/russellbrand.com/#competitors

Google Analytics are a useful tool to see who is visiting the RB website. I note the terms and conditions surrounding the access to his site have been updated:

Russell Brand | Recovery: Freedom From Your Addictions

This is the age of addiction, a condition so epidemic, so all encompassing and ubiquitous that unless you are fortunate enough to be an extreme case, you probably don't know that you have it.

www.russellbrand.com

I really don't know if a site failing to honour 'Do Not Track' requests is unusual but from the rest of the document, it would appear that the host reserves the right it identify anyone accessing the site.

I find that slightly at odds with RB's comments about 'Big Brother' since I do know that some sites explicitly state that they do not track users.

Their doesn't appear to be any independent data regarding how many views RBs podcasts on Rumble attract. The media figures vary wildly but it appears that only people WITH Rumble channels can obtain analytics and said analytics seem to be a service one has to pay for. But I admit I'm not entirely clear on that last point.

 

[Ismene2]

Fuck and burn him.

 

[Jackal]

Nail, head, hammer with this. The second last paragraph in particular is becoming the problem though. I already said in both this and the Andrew Tate thread, i'm not a fan of either, and for one resson or other think they're both cunts.

The problem comes when people start labelling people they don't know in real life and presume to be cunts as paedophiles, cos, fuck him anyway, right?

The world is a very different place to what it was, Jack-The-Lad, from 20 years ago is now a mysoginist/paedophile, according to the real paedophiles who run the media.

I just can't stand this logic and this whole woke culture it's absolute nonsense. If it was really about going after nonces why were details on Prince Andrew just sealed for 65 years? Or where is Ghislane Maxwell's client list? The whole thing is horseshit, even if Brand is a rapist, that's not why he's being hung out to dry here.

well put

 

[Frog Dreams]

even if Brand is a rapist, that's not why he's being hung out to dry here.

This baffles me.
If he is guilty of rape, shouldn't he be accountable?

The problem comes when people start labelling people they don't know in real life and presume to be cunts as paedophiles, cos, fuck him anyway, right?

according to the real paedophiles who run the media.

Aren't you labelling media moguls paedophiles?

What is the difference?

 

[AlsoTapered]

This baffles me.
If he is guilty of rape, shouldn't he be accountable?

The process of criminal law demands an extremely high level of proof. It remains to be seen if the police will provide the CPS with sufficient proof for a charge to be made. Even then, it's only a jury who have access to all the evidence who are in a position to decide.

I find RB extremely manipulative and dislike him intensely, but he should be granted the same rights as everyone else i.e. the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

I have to say that HE is quite free to sue the various media outlets if they have lied about his actions. Indeed I would expect a successful civil action to not only clear his name but to punish said media and ensure that he is suitable compensated. I'm surprised that neither he nor his legal team have mentioned such an action.

But as things stand, all we can do is to wait and see.

 

[Frog Dreams]

He has literally sexually assaulted people on camera.

I've seen him do it.

I'm not going to presume innocence.

Did he rape someone? I don't know. But if he did, he should be accountable.

 

[AlsoTapered]

He has literally sexually assaulted people on camera.

I've seen him do it.

I'm not going to presume innocence.

Did he rape someone? I don't know. But if he did, he should be accountable.

The law still requires someone to make a criminal complaint. I presume the police investigation is still collecting evidence.

Whatever my personal opinion, I think it's better to allow the process of law to grind it's way to it's conclusion.

Of course, IF RB chose to use civil law, to defend himself, their is no presumption that he would win; since the legal standard is lower. That may be why he has not threatened to undertake such an action. But that is purely speculation on my part.

 

[Frog Dreams]

I don't want to lynch him.
Not sure we disagree on anything?

 

[Juniper Bruhmomentius]

We need mr Hands' opinion on Russell Brand. Sadly he got fucked to death by a horse.

 

[elgoucho9]

This baffles me.
If he is guilty of rape, shouldn't he be accountable?





Aren't you labelling media moguls paedophiles?

What is the difference?

What i said really isn't that hard to comprehend. The reason it's being brought up now isn't because they care brands a rapist, it's because he's been speaking out against them.

If the whole Epstein/Maxwell case didn't open your eyes to the fact the world is run by paedophiles i don't know what will. Media, government, the royal family, the vatican, is all run by paedophiles.

Slate what i'm saying, believe what you like. But there's a reason they aren't chasing up Ghislane Maxwell's client list.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/us/ghislaine-maxwell-pilot/index.html

Prince Andrew took at least FOUR flights on Jeffrey Epstein's plane

An MoS investigation has discovered flight logs that show the Duke of York did fly on Epstein's jet at least four times. They included flights to and from Epstein's private Caribbean island.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Or if you google 'Epstein's flight logs', there is a file you can download. I'm not sure how to share but many hollywood stars, musicians, people from the media.

So based on this do we think the media really cares for Russel Brand being a rapist. Or did they decide to feed him to the wolves at a certain time because he was speaking against them? Perhaps even to cover up other news. Or because it's a hot topic and it makes them lots of money. In my opinion it's not because they care one bit if he's a rapist anyway. If they cared about rapists and paedophiles they would be going after Epstein/Maxwell's client list.

 

[Juniper Bruhmomentius]

Prince Andrew is nothing. I remember when Epstein news hit Bill Clinton had many trips. Cant bother to google.

 

[Frog Dreams]

The problem comes when people start labelling people they don't know in real life and presume to be cunts as paedophiles

If the whole Epstein/Maxwell case didn't open your eyes to the fact the world is run by paedophiles i don't know what will. Media, government, the royal family, the vatican, is all run by paedophiles.

the real paedophiles who run the media.

You know: all the members of the royal family, everyone in the media, all the governments of the world and everyone high up in the vatican IRL?

 

[AlsoTapered]

I don't want to lynch him.
Not sure we disagree on anything?

Approach - I'm quite prepared to trust that the police will investigate - but it's an extremely slow process.

Repeatedly professing innocence, especially when a person has materially lost a great deal SHOULD result in them seeking redress in the civil court. Yet that's not an avenue RB has mentioned at any juncture. Because he's more likely to lose a civil case. He knows it and I know it.

It's possible that a victim could also launch a civil case.

So, when you consider all 3 possibilities, it seems very very likely that the facts will emerge sooner or later. I'm prepared to wait. This isn't going to go away.

But I don't have the facts and so I'm not going to presume guilt or innocence.

 

[elgoucho9]

You know: all the members of the royal family, everyone in the media, all the governments of the world and everyone high up in the vatican IRL?

i know that Prince Andrew is wanted by the fbi in america. Charles best mate and marriage councillor was Jimmy Saville.

Ex and current US presidents have accusations of molestation against them.

The vatican has covered up a tonne of child sex crimes.

So what do you think? None of it is linked. Call me crazy if you like i'll call you naive as fuck.