Russell Brand expecting accusations soon.

There must be other things one can do besides constantly posting bad things about someone...
I shall post something good instead about the demon boy...

 

Persons who have suffered sx.ule assault have various reasons for delaying coming forward, or not coming forward at all. For instance, the trauma is catastrophic, and never entirely leaves you. The fortunate ones

adapt. After all these years, I still carry shame, have periods of self doubt where I wonder, could I have done something, anything, to protect

myself? As if, somehow, it was my responsibility to protect myself from such perpetrators. How sad, that any victim should feel this way. This

culture still puts the victim on trial. Then, there is the power dynamic. Wealthy, powerful, famous etc people versus a shattered girl/woman who is

‘prostituting her privacy in order for/ revenge, publicity, etc’. I actually had a woman accuse me of such. Who could blame a victim for avoiding

a hellish spectacle? What are the stats around successful prosecution of r.pe? Appalling. Some find the capacity to come forward at a later

date. I applaud their bravery and fortitude. But, there is no shame if one does not. I stayed silent after my professor assaulted me. Aside from the effects of CPTSD, I would never

have received my PhD, and I would have been blacklisted. We need to support sx.ul assault victims, not criticise those who cannot risk further

trauma. I know all too well the despair of being victimised twice, once by the r.pst, and then pilloried by my peers.
 

Last edited:
So in your opinion these women who were raped and assaulted...just didn't have guts !...How sad !!
Is it not innocent until proven guilty in the UK? proven guilty unfortunately is now more done in an instant in the media.

Let the person have their day in court with facts not ... there is more then one person saying it so it must be true...
Waiting a decade or more to report brings many questions... and so many seem to jump on board ... strength in numbers perhaps or just the more will make it more believable.

Many from various posts made here about WHO knew about questionable behavior.... for staff to say they were made to be PIMPS ... it is really simple quit /walk away / go to executives or press then not a decade later jumping on saying "yeah i remember this one time..." and " i needed the job so i would do any despicable thing and blame someone else for it." how much was their values and conscience worth?

Executives saying no car service can not be used that way.. or simply saying enough is enough.... they do not why .... $$$$. coming out later and making a we were dealing with or some other hog wash is CYA nothing more.

how many of these accusers have been paid off or are they seeking $$

I know many women have their own reasons to do things.... most people know what is going on in any workplace.......... i knew who the womanizer or groping type guys were ... and chose to not even be close to a position to be near these men. let alone with them.

When a accusation is made yes the courts need the details and in some celebrity type accusers........ went back to homes/ hotels etc again and again ....
 
Last edited:
Never said that. Never mentioned a jury trial.
Still applies to the point that women lie for various reasons.
As if the same doesn't apply to men.

This is what you did say : "Three accused Judge Kavanaugh and they proved to be false, "
I would ask what firm evidence was offered to disprove the accusations and during what kind of inquiry. Trial by internet is totally unreliable.

She said, he said something else, does not amount to proof either way.

I remember reading something many years ago that said that unless a rapist left a trail of blood and semen leading from the woman to the perp, the charge of rape would fail in a court of law and the woman would be branded a liar. Most women know this and stay silent, at least at first.
 
Persons who have suffered sx.ule assault have various reasons for delaying coming forward, or not coming forward at all. For instance, the trauma is enormous, and never entirely leaves you. The fortunate ones

adapt. After all these years, I still carry shame, have periods of self doubt where I wonder if I could have done something, anything, to protect

myself. As if, somehow, it was my responsibility to protect myself from such perpetrators. How sad, that any victim should feel this way. This

culture still puts the victim on trial. Then, there is the power dynamic. Wealthy, powerful, famous etc people versus a shattered girl/woman who is

‘prostituting her privacy in order for/ revenge, publicity, etc’. I actually had a woman accuse me of such. Who could blame a victim for avoiding

a hellish spectacle? What are the stats around successful prosecution of r.pe? Appalling. Some find the capacity to come forward at a later

date. I applaud their bravery and fortitude. But, there is no shame if one does not. I stayed silent after my professor assaulted me. Aside from the effects of CPTSD, I would never

have received my PhD, and I would have been blacklisted. We need to support sx.ul assault victims, not criticise those who cannot risk further

trauma. I know all too well the despair of being victimised twice, once by the r.pst, and then pilloried by my peers.
Shalimar, I agree with and support all that you have just shared in your post. Your words ring
true with me, and with that said, I will also say you are a very insightful/wise and informative person/woman who brings a great deal of strength and compassion to those who live with the despair, stress, and nightmare of being victimized. Thank you for being you. You are someone who gives others a reason to press on and forward in regard to this topic at hand.
 
Once again trial by media and if i was assaulted i would not wait 10 plus years to bring up allegations. I think this was groupies and most likely consensual but after 10 plus years becomes a he said / she said thing....
I do not like Mr brand or some of the others whose lives were destroyed just by allegations but i think the proof should be there and a reasonable time frame ..... hard to even have clear witnesses after a decade.
 
I'm a bit confused as usual.

Have any of these women gone to the police?

The police in the US & UK have stated that they have received no complaints or reports as of yet.

Regardless of the women's reasons for not going to the police 10 to 17 years ago, if it does go to court, any defense, whether we like it or not, will be asking who approached whom regarding the media, and whether money changed hands. Motives will be questioned in court, and doubt will be brought into the mix, whether there is doubt in reality or not.

I would urge the women to speak to the police in the UK and US right now. Why let this drag out and be in the control of the media? In the meantime, trial by media and by forum will continue. At what point will fair and just due process start, if at all?
 
Last edited:
As if the same doesn't apply to men.

This is what you did say : "Three accused Judge Kavanaugh and they proved to be false, "
I would ask what firm evidence was offered to disprove the accusations and during what kind of inquiry. Trial by internet is totally unreliable.

She said, he said something else, does not amount to proof either way.

I remember reading something many years ago that said that unless a rapist left a trail of blood and semen leading from the woman to the perp, the charge of rape would fail in a court of law and the woman would be branded a liar. Most women know this and stay silent, at least at first.

And I was responding to your comment; 'I don't remember Judge Kavanaugh ever facing a jury of his peers? '
Now, that could have been rhetorical, but it sounded like you thought I mentioned a jury.....I didn't

In this country, we don't have to 'disprove' any accusations.
The proof lies on the one making the accusation.
 
I must have been living in a cave, because I have no idea who these guys are. So, of course, I have no idea who is telling the truth. Yet, the entertainment industry has never been glutted with saint-like characters. The "casting couch" is as old as the camera. Based on the odds, I'd say the accusers are way closer to the truth.

All true what you say but .... If one lays down on the "casting couch" Whose fault is that ?
 
The police in the US & UK have stated that they have received no complaints or reports as of yet.

Regardless of the women's reasons for not going to the police 10 to 17 years ago, if it does go to court, any defense, whether we like it or not, will be asking who approached whom regarding the media, and whether money changed hands. Motives will be questioned in court, and doubt will be brought into the mix, whether there is doubt in reality or not.

I would urge the women to speak to the police in the UK and US right now. Why let this drag out and be in the control of the media? In the meantime, trial by media and by forum will continue. At what point will fair and just due process start, if at all?
False claims is a punishable offense. Raises it to a whole new level.
Maybe thats why they don't go to the police.
 
False claims is a punishable offense. Raises it to a whole new level.
Maybe thats why they don't go to the police.

I don't think reasons for not going to the police can be put under a single banner. There are many reasons why someone might think they can't go to the police, regardless of the crime. False claims are not necessarily the reason in every case.

Trial by the populace or Trial by Public Opinion isn't the way forward, though. It seems that someone's career is likely to come to an end due to stories and serious criminal accusations. Somehow, I don't see this ever going to court. In the meantime, these accusations will continue and have continued today on BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour. From the woman who was 16 years old at the time, using the voice of an actor, and interviewed as 'Alice,' as she doesn't want to give her real name.

Russell, on the other hand, will no doubt continue to attempt to defend himself on social media. Most of the rest of us might take sides based on what we heard first, because that is how most people make judgments, based on what they hear first. They will make these preconceived judgments regardless of whether any facts or evidence has been presented.

Everyone else within this story, within the media for which he worked, will be running around trying to figure out how they can protect themselves from the fallout. I would like to think the police and investigators would have better control of the story and conduct a thorough investigation before it becomes a public spectacle. Preferably, for the legal authorities to have the opportunity to gather evidence, conduct interviews, and build a case before it becomes highly publicised. Controlling the flow of information to preserve evidence is really important. The role of the police becomes more difficult when information and evidence aren't controlled before going to court. Not that any of the accusers have made a complaint to the police.

I wonder, might we be seeing media outlets taking control of this story to 'sell' it and to keep their shareholders happy?
 
Last edited:
All true what you say but .... If one lays down on the "casting couch" Whose fault is that ?
That is a perplexing question. "Casting couch" is only a metaphor. The concept doesn't exist until a perpetrator or the person in power creates it as a condition of employment. Now if an actress says, "I'll take a ride on the casting couch if you give me a job," then I don't know if fault can be assigned or not. Although such an event would probably not make it to the media, and it would remain a non issue.
 
I've read the twaddle of the woman who was 16 when she had a relationship with Brand.
He was badly behaved yes. But her story is nonsense. She sounds like a strong willed teenager, having an exciting time, devastated to be ditched when he moved on. No crime committed, she was a willing participant, over the age of consent which she gave.
Her mother knew about it and tried to stop her.
So what is this nonsense?
 
I've read the twaddle of the woman who was 16 when she had a relationship with Brand.
He was badly behaved yes. But her story is nonsense. She sounds like a strong willed teenager, having an exciting time, devastated to be ditched when he moved on. No crime committed, she was a willing participant, over the age of consent which she gave.
Her mother knew about it and tried to stop her.
So what is this nonsense?
How is it nonsense..?.. The girl went with him willingly that's true but she was just a child at school... he sent cabs to pick her up from school to bring her to his home to have s.ex...how the heck is that nonsense ? Unbelievable that you can think a 30 odd year old man was fine having s.ex with a 16 year old because at the time she didn't know any better.. but he damn well did
 
Quite right Rose... the girl was having her fun... probably hoping to wed him. It has not worked out.
Not only that she told the paper Brand sent a BBC car to pick her up at the gates of her school. Lies and more lies.... I was a Media and Production Co-ordinator there and I know how the car system works. It has to go through a certain procedure. Brand or no one else can just send cars to pick people up!
 
How is it nonsense..?.. The girl went with him willingly that's true but she was just a child at school... he sent cabs to pick her up from school to bring her to his home to have s.ex...how the heck is that nonsense ? Unbelievable that you can think a 30 odd year old man was fine having s.ex with a 16 year old because at the time she didn't know any better.. but he damn well did
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?
 
Something someone finds gross does not make it illegal. Never cared for 28 year old Jimmy Page and the 14 year old California groupie with her mom's "permission." That was 50 years ago, should he now be charged?
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.
 
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?
not one of these women have said they want to sue him for any money..where did you get that from ?
 
What I'm heaing about Russell Brand over the last few days is very disturbing. I've never followed him per se, just saw a few bits of his comedy routines where he generally poked fun at himself, heard him interviewed about his early severe drug problems and his general support for rehab funding, and saw him in a couple of amusing, if juvenile, movies on Netflix.

Even before this news, he'd only have rated C-list celeb in the US. Flash in the pan popularity with a young-ish, limited audience well over a decade ago. Never was big on most Americans' radar, which probably explains why few Americans on this thread were aware of his existence, and if we were we had a mostly neutral impression.
 
Last edited:
not one of these women have said they want to sue him for any money..where did you get that from ?
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.
 


Back
Top