- This topic has 84 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
The lounge has been fun recently with all the memes – but isn’t a good argument long overdue?
Russell Brand. You can’t escape him.
A sleazy creep who is getting what he has long deserved?
Or someone who is being picked on for going off message and asking awkward questions?
What about the media, which indulged his behaviour for years but now tells us they always knew he was a wrong ‘un?
And whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It has always been my understanding that, if you are a victim of a crime, you go to the police, not the media, to air your complaint.
I don’t like the bloke one bit, but it’s for the police>cps>courts path to dispense justice if it is required, not media/social media.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"“A sleazy creep who is getting what he has long deserved?
Or someone who is being picked on for going off message and asking awkward questions?”
Could be a bit of both. The moment he came on the circuit, he made it quite clear that there was a broad slice of smut attached to him and his act. People knew what they they were getting with him.
On the flip side, there are attention-seeking, disruptive types who’ll jump on the bandwagon with intentions to bring someone like him down.
A few years ago, I watched a documentary about the racing driver James Hunt. There was one particular interview with him taking place outside. During the talk, a scantily dressed woman walked by him and gave him a half-provocative smile. He responded by pinching her bum as she drifted past. Nothing was said. That seemed to be the norm in those days though. Saucy larking around or just plain sleaze?
I like a bit of handbags at ten paces too Cork, but I think we’re
going to pretty much agree on this one. I’ve never been a fan of
the guy but Chezza is right, you don’t bring it up with the press
when not one of them had gone to the police. A lot of people will
have their mind made up that he’s guilty. Maybe he is, but I’d
rather leave it up to police/courts to deal with it. Newspapers
don’t give a **** whether it’s true or not, so long as they can
get their “scandal” story out first.Never liked the guy since that “PRANK” on Andrew Sachs.
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.W*nker , another example of someone with a very limited talent believing they are untouchable
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
The Andrew Sachs incident was ignited by Jonathan Ross however Brand was fuelled by Ross’s comment and so the “prank” went into full flow. I don’t have time for either of them I find them both vile individuals.
The more I know the less I understand.
I have not yet seen the Channel 4 documentary but as I understand it, this investigation goes back years. These things take time, you can’t go around making such accusations all over TV and newspapers without having some pretty solid evidence to back it up. Any idea that it’s some sort of media retaliation for promoting conspiracy theories is, I think, wide of the mark.
Not that ‘the media’ in general is free from blame here. If he has done anything somebody, somewhere in a position of power must have known something but did nothing, or worse covered it up.
It’s not as simple as saying ‘go to the police’:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66843086
Note that 1.6% of reported rapes lead to a charge (not conviction). Are 99% of them lying? I don’t think so. Are the women accusing him now all lying and have fabricated enough evidence for The Times and Channel 4 to be prepared to name him? Seems unlikely but we will see.
If he has committed any crimes and this story encourages someone to go to the police, then perhaps it’s done its job.
As for ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it depends on the media outlet and whether your name is Huw Edwards or Dan Wootton.
Lots of trademark fair comment from you IMO as always, Richard.
But while I appreciate it’s easy for me to say as a bloke, I’m just not comfortable with retrospectively supplying material for a TV documentary as an alternative to making a complaint to the police at the time.
The media has a role to play in society, but attempting to do the Police’s job for them should never be part of the media’s remit IMO.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"I agree the media is not there to do the police’s job for them but it is the media’s job to hold the rich and powerful to account and I would argue that’s what’s going on here.
I have now seen the documentary and there is some powerful testimony. Not everything alleged was illegal but some of it was certainly highly inappropriate and if what was described is true, it is inconceivable to me that management did not know what was going on, at least to some extent. I don’t think the BBC or Channel 4 come out of it particularly well.
You get the feeling that this will not be the last such scandal and it certainly isn’t the first.
Three things i remember about Brand from the early noughties.
1) My lad who was about 20 at time of Brand’s high popularity and he thought Brand was hilarious, whereas i thought he was a creep, not funny and, basically, a prat.
2) Noel Gallagher severely disliked him and took the proverbial out of his Mockney accent
3) A Campbell, Miliband, New Labour saw Brand as part of ‘Cool Britannia’.
Havent heard much comment from ‘them’ this week on the issue and their past ‘support’ for Brand
However, it’s pretty obvious there’s been an organised ‘hunt’ against him and his past antics. Why has it all come out now? Why have peeps dragged up stuff many years on?
Rumours are that The Times started this ‘investigation’ in 2019 – why? I dont know.
Added speculation is that Brand knew The Times had started in 2019, and that is the time he really bigged up his Youtube activity and following, to build up a big cult support.Ian with the current state of the country the police need all the assistance they can , Brand may believe there is a witchunt but if he s guilty he,s guilty
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
All fair comment – tbh, I haven’t seen the documentary and am experimenting these past few weeks with not even checking news websites (I used to do a brief daily scan of BBC and SKY News).
The quality of my existence feels enhanced and I’m in no rush to return.
I’m only even aware of the Brand issue because I walk past the newspaper display en route to the check out at Waitrose!
Ignorance is bliss!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"It’s not a rumour that The Times started in 2019, they have said they did because that’s when they received a report.
I do not know when he started his Youtube stuff or why but if he did it to attract cult support in response to The Times’ investigation, what did he think it was going to find? He denies everything so surely it wouldn’t matter what the Times was looking at, there was nothing for them to find.
As for the victims ‘dragging stuff up’, do you really think the sort of behaviour alleged ever really leaves you? I imagine it messes you up for life in one way or another and takes quite some time to come to terms with it. It’s a 100/1 shot at best to get a charge and I imagine those odds go down much further when it’s someone rich and famous.
It’s taken time to come out because for once someone is doing proper journalism and investigating, gathering evidence etc. If any of this can be proven to be false then Brand’s lawyers will have a field day.
HDLG SAYS
Ian with the current state of the country the police need all the assistance they can , Brand may believe there is a witchunt but if he s guilty he,s guilty
Like I’d said earlier I don’t like him, but to be fair the keyword is “IF”
You've got to accentuate the positive.
Eliminate the negative.
Latch on to the affirmative.
Don't mess with mister in between.I am also uncomfortable with trial by media but the bloke repeatedly admitted sexual assaults live on stage. That it was tolerated, indeed encouraged was unacceptable, even by the standards of the time.
Channel 4 really ought to have presented its evidence to the police with agreement for exclusive coverage after all investigations were completed. Little chance of a fair trial now, though Brand has the option to sue for defamation of course. I imagine he won’t and will persist with his ridiculous “punished for being a conspiracy theorist” angle.
Note that some women DID try to go through legal channels. With this sort of response, you can see why others might chose alternative routes
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.