Russell Brand... your thoughts?

[Bleaney]

It's the people that mask too well; that are too charming, too nice, too smiley, too friendly, etc, that make me inherently suspicious. And I've been proved correct in my beliefs or perception, on more than one occasion, to say the least.

Surface level charm may sometimes be all it takes to secure certain employment positions, or to seduce members of the opposite sex.

The employment charade that HR expect you to play, is a game that I especially despise, and I've experimented a few times with various levels of refusing to play the game at various stages of job hunting over recent years. I've just refused to buy into it. Of course the HR people I've encountered when doing this have either openly despised me, or could not possibly have ended certain phone conversations any quicker .

Sorry for going off topic, but back on topic; surface level smarm / charm = inherently distrustful imho.

Of course this will be a very minority view point. But will probably get more people agreeing, at least to some extent, and in some circumstances, among parts of either the drug using communities, or parts of the neurodivergent communities, than in the wider population as a whole. And probably especially among the neurodivergent drug using communities, where tolerance for bullshit is often very low, and seems to get exponentially lower and lower as we age, in my experience.

 

[MsDiz]

It's the people that mask too well; that are too charming, too nice, too smiley, too friendly, etc, that make me inherently suspicious. And I've been proved correct in my beliefs or perception, on more than one occasion, to say the least.

Surface level charm may sometimes be all it takes to secure certain employment positions, or to seduce members of the opposite sex.

The employment charade that HR expect you to play, is a game that I especially despise, and I've experimented a few times with various levels of refusing to play the game at various stages of job hunting over recent years. I've just refused to buy into it. Of course the HR people I've encountered when doing this have either openly despised me, or could not possibly have ended certain phone conversations any quicker .

Sorry for going off topic, but back on topic; surface level smarm / charm = inherently distrustful imho.

Of course this will be a very minority view point. But will probably get more people agreeing, at least to some extent, and in some circumstances, among parts of either the drug using communities, or parts of the neurodivergent communities, than in the wider population as a whole. And probably especially among the neurodivergent drug using communities, where tolerance for bullshit is often very low, and seems to get exponentially lower and lower as we age, in my experience.

Exactly, Russel Brand’s true nature was always out in the open for everyone to see. I don’t know if you’ve read his book but if it’s allowed into evidence then he’s screwed! I vividly remember this quote but I’ll get the proper thing….

"When we first got Topsy, she would be allowed to sleep in the bed with me. But when Colin came, an absurd edict was introduced whereby she was no longer allowed upstairs. I evidently had a lot of anger and hate in me about this because I would perch at the top of the stairs and lure her to come up. 'Topsy. Topsy. Topsy.' Then, when she would slink nervously upward to the forbidden terrain of the upper floor, I would suddenly become Mr. Hyde. “Oh, dear. Topsy,” I would declaim in a rather arch manner. “You know perfectly well you're not allowed upstairs.” Before cruelly kicking her back down to the bottom again, where I would rejoin her and give her a sympathetic cuddle, regretfully muttering, “Oh Christ, were you kicked down the stairs? This is terrible.'”

He wrote that, there are so many more quotes that are crazy. He is so narcissistic that he wrote that and thought it was ok.

 

[4DQSAR]

I don’t know if I would label him as someone with ASPD. It is a spectrum and whilst bad there are a lot worse people who are diagnosed with NPD.

Being on such a spectrum doesn't automatically means a person cannot recognize they have a personality disorder nor that treatment isn't available. But I posit that a person's disorders can be modified by their surroundings/life experiences.

Take someone on the spectum to whom luck brings success, it re-enforces the delusion. The delusion that they ARE more intelligent and that the lives of others is depricated. Then place them in a situation where their behaviors are hidden and excused and is it a surprise that will re-enforce even more.

It's been noted by psychiatrists that while mental illnesses are best identified via one-to-one interviews, it's also agreed that for personality disorders, viewing a person's behaviors over a much longer time-frame and crucially, when the person thinks they are unobserved so don't hide their real selves is the only way a diagnosis can be given. I think I said nobody neatly fits into a single box of the (increasingly dubious) DSM criteria.

When found guilty, THEN psychiatrists can use all extant information and provide a clinical diagnosis. But almost nobody on the spectrum ASKS to be diagnosed - to them the world must be so simple. If they do it, it's fine, BECAUSE them doing it makes it so...

 

[MsDiz]

Being on such a spectrum doesn't automatically means a person cannot recognize they have a personality disorder nor that treatment isn't available.

But take someone on the spectum and if luck brings success, it re-enforces the delusion. The delusion that they ARE more intelligent and that the lives of other. Then place them in a situation where behaviors are hidden and excused and is it a surprise that will re-enforce even more.

It's been noted by psychiatrists that while mental illnesses are best identified via one-to-one interviews, it's also agreed that for personality disorders, viewing a person's behavior over a much longer time-frame and crucially, when the person thinks the are unobserved so don't hide their real selves that a diagnosis can be given. I think I said nobody neatly fits into a single box of the (increasingly dubious) DSM criteria.

When found guilty, THEN psychiatrists can use all extant information and provide a clinical diagnosis. But almost nobody on the spectrum ASKS to be diagnosed - to them the world must be so simple. If they do it, it's fine, BECAUSE them doing it makes it so...

My thesis for my psychology PhD was on Anti Social Personality Disorder actually.

It’s incredibly interesting, surprisingly a lot of those with ASPD do want help, they know they don’t feel how a typical person may feel. I did personally interview over 200 individuals with an ASPD diagnosis as well as over 300 individuals who had recurrent behaviours that were deemed anti social but without the diagnosis. I was pretty shocked myself to be honest. The best accounts I had were from the much younger individuals who just wanted to know what the hell was wrong with them to put it bluntly. Those individuals didn’t even realise it was a personality disorder.

When you live with a view of life you think is normal, it’s hard to think there is something wrong. I have a connective tissue disorder, I was 24 when I realised that not everyone dislocates their hip when they sleep. Now it’s crazy looking back on it, it sounds mad right?? I honestly never thought anything of it. It was my normal. I dislocate my hip, wake up in a bit of pain, click it back in and go back to sleep. Everyone must do this, right? When I was a child I just got on with it, I never even mentioned it to my mother and I am a pretty savvy person, not trying to be OTT but to make a point.

I honestly do feel that ASPD was written off as untreatable for so long but there is a path and whilst not perfect and still in construction, it’s better than a prison cell or a mental health ward.

Of course no one neatly fits in any box but honestly, with Russel, he’s a very very typical grandiose narcissist.

I doubt he would be honest with any psychiatrist, it would be impossible to get him to cooperate honestly. The signs are all there, as you say, you look at the whole person, it’s pretty black and white to me in regard to him.

 

[Ki3ly]

Has he ever hurt anyone though. I mean now that he knows better. haha.


He used to tell jokes. I just look at the headlines and then I don't bother with the rest.

 

[sh1vambuDancer]

My thesis for my psychology PhD was on Anti Social Personality Disorder actually.

It’s incredibly interesting, surprisingly a lot of those with ASPD do want help, they know they don’t feel how a typical person may feel. I did personally interview over 200 individuals with an ASPD diagnosis as well as over 300 individuals who had recurrent behaviours that were deemed anti social but without the diagnosis. I was pretty shocked myself to be honest. The best accounts I had were from the much younger individuals who just wanted to know what the hell was wrong with them to put it bluntly. Those individuals didn’t even realise it was a personality disorder.

When you live with a view of life you think is normal, it’s hard to think there is something wrong. I have a connective tissue disorder, I was 24 when I realised that not everyone dislocates their hip when they sleep. Now it’s crazy looking back on it, it sounds mad right?? I honestly never thought anything of it. It was my normal. I dislocate my hip, wake up in a bit of pain, click it back in and go back to sleep. Everyone must do this, right? When I was a child I just got on with it, I never even mentioned it to my mother and I am a pretty savvy person, not trying to be OTT but to make a point.

I honestly do feel that ASPD was written off as untreatable for so long but there is a path and whilst not perfect and still in construction, it’s better than a prison cell or a mental health ward.

Of course no one neatly fits in any box but honestly, with Russel, he’s a very very typical grandiose narcissist.

I doubt he would be honest with any psychiatrist, it would be impossible to get him to cooperate honestly. The signs are all there, as you say, you look at the whole person, it’s pretty black and white to me in regard to him.

i wanna read ya thesis!!

 

[4DQSAR]

Russell Brand says allegations had devastating impact on him

The entertainer begins giving evidence at his trial on charges including rape at Southwark Crown Court.

www.bbc.co.uk

Defence barrister Ian Winter KC began by taking Brand through the indictment, asking him if he had committed the offences.

After each question, Brand replied "no" loudly towards the jury.

Winter questioned whether Brand had been able to persuade any friend or acquaintance who might have been able to give evidence on his behalf to appear in court.

Brand, wearing a black suit with an open neck white shirt and a loose black tie, replied: "I have not."

Winter asked: "Will they touch you with a bargepole?" Brand said: "No."

 

[Bleaney]

That's his defence barrister asking him those questions?

The prosecution won't have to do very much, it would appear.

 

[4DQSAR]

That's his defence barrister asking him those questions?

The prosecution won't have to do very much, it would appear.

Well, the prosecution has rested.,

You can go read the details but I warn you, some of the witnesses and especially victim statements are unsettling if not downright upsetting.

The 'taxi cab' system used in the UK means Ian Winter KC wasn't chosen by Brand, his number simply came up. He took silk two decades ago so this IS a very competent defence council.

Now who knows what his stratergy will be but in the UK it's quite common for both councils and the judge to be known to each other if not actually be friends. Back-channels exist so that avoiding a trial (to the benefit of all parties) can take place.

Elsewhere I have mentioned what is termed a 'Goodyear Hearing' i.e. if a defendent pleads guilt, what is the likely sentence. But in this case I strongly suspect that by now, it's too late. The prosecution having to have all of those people repeat, in a roomful of strangers, what they went through.

Any compitent KC WOULD ask and recommend to their client the best option. But I suspect Brand will never shift one inch as being found guilty of even lesser chargesd would end his career.

I suggest the fact that Channel 4 conducted what amounted to 'trial by media' will be employed. It may be the only available path.

Nation Could Have Sworn Russell Brand Was Already Convicted Sex Offender

NEW YORK—Stressing that the memory seemed so fresh and vivid in their minds, the confused nation announced Monday that they could have sworn British entertainer Russell Brand was already a convicted sex offender. “Interesting...so Russell Brand definitely wasn’t already found guilty of sexual...

theonion.com

 

[Ptahtek.2.0.1 beta]

perv
since i first saw him

no evidence i dont care enough about him to research

my htoughts

 

[Ki3ly]

He used to repeatedly laugh at the Royals and call them out. So it doesn't look too promising for him

is what I'm saying.

 

[4DQSAR]

Polymarket now at 71% on 'Russell Brand will be found guilty of sexual offence by end of 2027'

I don't understand gambling but as I understand it, Polymarket begins on evens i.e. 50%/50% BUT I believe once the trial began, betting stopped. But by an odd co-indicence around 71% of Polymarket users are male. I don't know if that tells us anything because as Bukowski put it 'you bet on the winner, not the odds'.

 

[4DQSAR]

Russell Brand's wife tells his rape trial he is 'kind and a wonderful father'

Laura Brand tells the jury at his trial she feels "very seen by him" and "I love him very much".

www.bbc.co.uk

Romance isn't dead - RB's wife tells court of giving him a BJ the day after they (briefly) met.

Now I'm not a legal expert BUT I can't help noting that under British law spousal privilege treats both parties as one i.e. one cannot be forced to give prosecution evidence against the other. It also extents to legal privilage i.e. a spouse may instructed by defence council on what to say and not say.

So is this a 'defence' OR does she know and also know she can 'row out', spend ALL of his money (and likely get a fortune from the 'red-top rags' for her story) and THEN file for divorce?

I would LOVE to have seen his face!

 

[Perkins : Reborn]

Can we spell Russell's name correctly in this thread, @Shambles ?

He's total vermin, but it always bothered me.

 

[Bleaney]

So is this a 'defence' OR does she know and also know she can 'row out', spend ALL of his money (and likely get a fortune from the 'red-top rags' for her story) and THEN file for divorce?

For all his faults, Brand is highly intelligent, and there may well have been some kind of prenuptial agreement in place, and while hardly the most romantic and trusting of arrangements, it kind of makes sense where a couple marry with vastly different wealth statuses. All very wealthy people should do this really, imo, just to root out any gold diggers.

I heard the statements Mrs Brand made today, and took them at face value tbh. That may or may not have been naive of me, I guess we'll never really know. Unless she does go down that awful route you suggested and sells him out, and herself at the same time really. Because if she does do that and does stand to make a lot of money out if it, she's would also have made herself cheap at the same time, again, just imho.

 

[Shambles]

Can we spell Russell's name correctly in this thread, @Shambles ?

He's total vermin, but it always bothered me.

I mean if you feel like reporting each instance I guess I could correct them by hand.

Reacharounds may be required if there’s too many though

 

[4DQSAR]

For all his faults, Brand is highly intelligent, and there may well have been some kind of prenuptial agreement in place, and while hardly the most romantic and trusting of arrangements, it kind of makes sense where a couple marry with vastly different wealth statuses. All very wealthy people should do this really, imo, just to root out any gold diggers.

She KNOWS but if nothing else, he will have no option to pay a LOT of child support. Oldest 8 then 7 then 2-3 (he even keeps the birthday a 'secret' which is Brand™ in action).

I'm also uncertain if a prenuptual agreement covers him ending up in jail. As I said UK law is a bit different and 'significant change in circumstances' was tested in law in 2009 (Radmacher v Granatino) and found not to bind a prenuptual agreement. Specifically 'If the incarcerated spouse was the primary earner, their sudden inability to generate income or a collapse in their career viability dramatically shifts the household finances'.

So while he WILL have demanded a prenuptual agreement, he certainly did not and could not plan for this.

 

[Ki3ly]

I thought that they didn't have a prenuptial and is how they did that. Either way it's their family
and I doubt they were in it all just for money. Actually. Maybe some have appreciation for each other.
Out there. bye
If it's attention he's getting some still.

 

[4DQSAR]

Well - the offences took place before they met so she cannot reasonably directly comment.

It's the fact that for so long his behaviors were excused and even covered up that means it took a team of journalists to investigate.

Jimmy Saville was sort of the first domino to fall - where every media company had to go back and really READ the complaints made against 'talent' they had a lot invested in. Because if you announce a TV series and THEN a legal complaint come to light - that's obviously a conflict of interests.

It just seems a bizarre thing to say under oath. It was the defence council who asked the question so unless the goal is to normalize his behaviors (which on reflection MAY be the only path his defence can use), It's off-script.

BUT if he lied to her and she's seen the prosecution evidence, well, hell hath no fury and so on...

 

[Mona Lisa]

He’s an utter prat.