Russell Brand expecting accusations soon.

Rose65 said:
True. Elvis Presley and the young Priscilla too.
Not nice but not illegal. You g girls can be perfectly willing and give consent. Much though it is morally not good.
Click to expand...
The context of Elvis and Priscilla was entirely different. 70 years ago in the US South, young men often married teenage girls. (Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin - talk about a career derailment!) Those kinds of matchups were considered quite bizarre to the rest of the US, but were not uncommon behavior in the South.

My question with Priscilla's parents, with the parents of Michael Jackson's young "friends" who had sleepovers at his house, and dozens of other cases where (apparently willing) parents whose children/teens/very young adults were smitten by older, far more powerful men, whose motivations are often quite selfish:

What did you think was going to happen? Did you not expect your child to be exploited? Or were you tamping down those nagging thoughts (and no doubt the warnings by those close to you) because you were too busy enjoying the reflected glory of being in this powerful person's orbit?
 

Rose65 said:
Selling their stories - I presume the papers are paying them.
Let's have their names anyway, if they are serious why are they hiding behind false first names? These are allegations, not proven crimes.
Click to expand...
they weren't selling their stories.. there was an investigation into Russel Brand and his action in the past by several newspapers and investigative mediums and these people came forward as part of that investigations.. really I wish you wouldn't post nonsense, when you clearly have no knowledge as to what has been reported..
 

I honestly cannot understand how any woman finds this sleaze attractive... beyond my ken... however, I believe that everything should follow a procedure and a trial by media will thwart that.

There may be a good outcome after all...
A Parliamentary inquiry could be launched into the culture of "open secrets" in the TV industry in Britain.
This is long overdue. Too many distasteful goings on in this industry and taxpayers are forking out for these romps.

Caroline Dineage, chair of the Commons Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, will not let it go and MPs are getting in on the act. Wow! So much for running the country!
 
Shalimar said:
The willingness of many to castigate the victims is one of the primary reasons they avoid calling the police. I am particularly saddened when those most critical are women. I yearn for the day when women support each other.
Click to expand...
Shalimar... women do support each other.
I hear you and agree and am terribly sorry you had awful things happen to you … there are many reasons as you state why some women do not come forward.

At the other end, there are some women who have an axe to grind and will go to lengths to discredit a man when the relationship has ended… and… this is the attitude that offends me greatly.

I have no doubt about the debauched character Russell Brand presents, most of us who are British know about his antics. Yet we see women gravitating towards this type of person. I have to ask why?

When these women are thwarted, they come out daggers drawn Whether this is the case with Brand accusers we shall have to wait and see.

What galls me more than anything is the trial by media not only in his case but in many others. People love to dive in and muddy the waters even more, and this happens even when they have no first hand information

There are many “groupies” in the entertainment industry and they are not all young, believe me.

My sympathy lies with the genuine cases of abuse and I have been involved in charities that help to protect women who have been hurt.
This involvement has also helped me to recognise who is lying and who is speaking with integrity.
 
Another social media celebrity name that I am only vaguely aware of from entertainment headlines on news aggregation sites that I never open nor do I have any post smartphone social media accounts where such people are apparently discussed.
 
First, before we chop off Brand's head and other parts, there are no actual legal charges against him. The "investigation" is by newspaper journalists. Anyone can tell a reporter that, of course, I was raped and molested by Brand. But it is another to stand up in court and testify. I think I'll wait till the real cops arrest him.
 
hollydolly said:
I'm with you Rose...Loath and Despise him AND Jonathan Ross.. and I know JR.. and his family personally... still think he's despicable..

Tonight the show is on, so we'll see what's going to be uncovered, until then I won't make any comment.. but Brand has gone into a panic, and has released a Video, denying that any of it wasn't consensual .. and justifying his actions years ago...

TBH He looks demented


Click to expand...
I agree 100% he is disgusting and vulgar.
 
Well, more has come out since my initial post in this thread, and while I'm not following this story closely, I've got to say - taint looking good.

If true, there are no excuses. His defense right now seems to be "I was promiscuous". I hope he's holding back a better explanation, because that won't cut it.
 
Rose65 said:
Over the age of consent, her mother tried to stop her but she wouldn't. You can't control teenage girls. Yes he was morally wrong but not criminally. What does she want now, apart from money?
Click to expand...

She wants "staggered ages of consent" to be considered. In that people can have 'relations' within a given age bracket, but not outside of that bracket. An example she gives is that it can remain legal for 16 and 18 year olds to have a sexual relationship with each other, but not older adults and a 16 year old. That would become illegal due to the significant difference in the power dynamics between the ages of the two people. And therefore the potential for exploitation.
 
Magna-Carta said:
She wants "staggered ages of consent" to be considered. In that people can have 'relations' within a given age bracket, but not outside of that bracket. An example she gives is that it can remain legal for 16 and 18 year olds to have a sexual relationship with each other, but not older adults and a 16 year old. That would become illegal due to the significant difference in the power dynamics between the ages of the two people. And therefore the potential for exploitation.
Click to expand...
Sounds ideal, but far too complicated and difficult to apply. Today's is a promiscuous world.
 
VaughanJB said:
If true, there are no excuses. His defense right now seems to be "I was promiscuous". I hope he's holding back a better explanation, because that won't cut it.
Click to expand...
It cuts it with me if his promiscuous self was attached to promiscuous women and there are those as well.

Why years ago..........I remember this woman..........she vowed one summer to treat every relationship as a man would...........it was her 'Summer of Promiscuity' and there was no blame to be found. But.......for other women doing the same, sometimes 'shame' will creep in and a bad boogie man must be found to be held responsible for her own boldness which she now may deeply regret.
 
It is wrong to punish any person, especially financially, for allegations made against him, even from years ago. Nothing yet proven in a court of law.
YouTube has now acted I believe unjustly.

My position is I don't like Russell Brand, but that's just my view, justice is still justice. Being disliked doesn't make a man a criminal.
None of us knows if he did anything against the law. These women may or may not be telling the truth. Only time will tell but meanwhile, how can it be right to destroy the man? It's happening regularly now, this trial by media and hearsay and surely we know it's wrong? Nobody even waits for the police to do their proper investigations.
 

BBC removes some Russell Brand content​

The BBC has announced it has removed some programmes featuring Russell Brand which are deemed to 'fall below public expectations' from its iPlayer and Sounds sites.
A spokesperson for the BBC press office said: 'The BBC does not ban or remove content when it is a matter of public record, unless we have justification for doing so.'

Brand is likely making '£2000-£4000' per video, social media expert claims​

YouTube is vital to Russell Brand's earning ability, enabling him to make money from the advertising revenue YouTube makes each time someone watches one of his videos.
One social media expert told The Guardian that they estimate the comic is 'likely making £2,000 to £4,000 per video', not including any affiliate deals or brand sponsorships that may also be maing him money in the background.
Sponsorship is an area Brand is prominent in, with many of his videos including a product mention and link to it that people can follow.

YouTube suspends Russell Brand from making money on his channel which has six million subscribers and nets him up to £1million a year - for 'violating responsibility policy'​


YouTube has stopped Russell Brand from being able to earn any money through his channel for 'violating our Creator Responsibility policy'.

The 48-year-old produces around five videos a week for his 6.6million subscribers, earning him an estimated £1million a year.

Under the terms of his suspension Brand - whose net worth has been estimated between £15million and £40million - will still be allowed to post videos on the platform but will not receive any of the advertising revenue.

YouTube said in a statement: 'If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community. This decision applies to all channels that may be owned or operated by Russell Brand.'

Other channels associated with his main YouTube page include Football Is Nice, which has some 20,000 subscribers, Awakening With Russell, which has 426,000 subscribers, and Stay Free With Russell Brand, which has 22,200 subscribers.
Advertisers pay YouTube to show their adverts before, during or after videos that are posted on the platform. Most YouTube content creators will not get a say in what ads are served.

The advertising revenue is then split between the platform, owned by YouTube, and whoever made the video. Each receives around half.
On Saturday, The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches reported allegations of abusive and predatory behaviour including rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse said to have been committed by the presenter between 2006 and 2013.
Today, it emerged the BBC has removed shows which feature Russell Brand from its iPlayer site.



Good...Very good... can't get him into court ?...then hit him in his pocket where it will hurt the most.... These s.exual predators can't be allowed to flourish...
 
Rose65 said:
It is wrong to punish any person, especially financially, for allegations made against him, even from years ago. Nothing yet proven in a court of law.
YouTube has now acted I believe unjustly.

My position is I don't like Russell Brand, but that's just my view, justice is still justice. Being disliked doesn't make a man a criminal.
None of us knows if he did anything against the law. These women may or may not be telling the truth. Only time will tell but meanwhile, how can it be right to destroy the man? It's happening regularly now, this trial by media and hearsay and surely we know it's wrong? Nobody even waits for the police to do their proper investigations.
Click to expand...

In my opinion @Rose65 , it mostly is a matter of jealously . People just need to 'take down' successful people, because they themselves are not successful to the degree they think they should be.

Many people think they can sing for example ..... so they are jealous of those that make a career from singing. Many people think they are funny.... so they become jealous of commedians etc.

These people just want the money and fame ....... and they cannot stand the fact that someone else has it.

Then there are the man haters .... anything to destroy a man ...... they don't need facts .... they only need what they believe/think.

jmo
 
rgp said:
In my opinion @Rose65 , it mostly is a matter of jealously . People just need to 'take down' successful people, because they themselves are not successful to the degree they think they should be.

Many people think they can sing for example ..... so they are jealous of those that make a career from singing. Many people think they are funny.... so they become jealous of commedians etc.

These people just want the money and fame ....... and they cannot stand the fact that someone else has it.

Then there are the man haters .... anything to destroy a man ...... they don't need facts .... they only need what they believe/think.

jmo
Click to expand...
There could some of that indeed I suspect.
I just think wait until proper evidence and a court judgment before sentencing anyone, taking their livelihood away and muddying their name forever.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top