Dispatches - Russell Brand

I gather that RB is now married, with children. If any are girls, I can’t help wondering how he’d feel about men eventually using/abusing them in the way he’s alleged to have done to other people’s daughters.

He has two daughters and his wife is pregnant. Horrible, isn't it?

Time will tell about Brands guilt or innocence but I find the hypocrisy of Channel 4 pretty breathtaking.
Channel 4 is practically soft porn between Naked Attraction, Naked Education and a man playing a keyboard with his penis.
They really need to get their own house in order

NannyCl - so sorry

Witzend I don’t think he sees it as abuse he sees it as a bit of fun or has he settled down and behaved any better since he’s been married and had babies These abuses do seem historical perhaps he’s grown up, I don’t know, I haven’t seen him on tv or heard much about him for some years

Mcbab

Time will tell about Brands guilt or innocence but I find the hypocrisy of Channel 4 pretty breathtaking.
Channel 4 is practically soft porn between Naked Attraction, Naked Education and a man playing a keyboard with his penis.
They really need to get their own house in order

Ch4 is not a programme maker - it commissions shows from independent programme makers. This is why Nadine Dorries' idea of selling it off was so idiotic - there is nothing to sell, and closing Ch4 would have closed down the independents.

Endemol was responsible for Big Brother and its spinoffs, not Ch4. The commissioning editors may have questions to answer, but realistically they just buy the programmes, not make them.

I agree that the programmes you mention sound pretty dreadful, but AFAIK there are no allegations surrounding them. They could be accused of creating a permissive sexual climate, but so could much of the media, really.

BlueBelle

Witzend I don’t think he sees it as abuse he sees it as a bit of fun or has he settled down and behaved any better since he’s been married and had babies These abuses do seem historical perhaps he’s grown up, I don’t know, I haven’t seen him on tv or heard much about him for some years

He's reinvented himself as a 'guru' talking about sobriety and things like yoga. He is also a conspiracy theorist in the manner of David Ike - I'm less sure about that side of things but it seems that he's against corporations and believes that the media are conspiring to make us spend money and behave in particular ways. There seem to be links to Alt Right too.

He popped up a lot on my FB page a while ago (uninvited!) and it took a bit of doing to block him. Heaven knows what was in my algorithms to suggest that I might be interested in him or his philosophies. Anyway, one theory is that he has gathered supporters and created a new 'hippy' image as a preventative measure against his past catching up with him. I think that's more than possible, but as they used to say on Big Brother, You Decide.

(if it helps in your decision- making, amongst his supporters are Elon Musk, Andrew Tate and Laurence Fox. . . .)

Channel 4’s programme has opened the door to those who have accusations of abuse at his hands to come forward.

He is trying to position himself as the person that elites want to silence, so that is why all these accusations are being made.

This fancy was soundly squelched by one of his accusers, who said that he was mainstream, he made a film with Universal Studios last year.

if it helps your decision-making, his supporters are Elon Musk, Andrew Tate and Laurence Fox

Reading some of the comments on this thread reminds me why victims of sexual assaults don’t immediately report

I have no wish or need to make a decision on his guilt or innocence

Anniebach

I have no wish or need to make a decision on his guilt or innocence

Fair enough.

Doodledog

Mcbab

Time will tell about Brands guilt or innocence but I find the hypocrisy of Channel 4 pretty breathtaking.
Channel 4 is practically soft porn between Naked Attraction, Naked Education and a man playing a keyboard with his penis.
They really need to get their own house in order

Ch4 is not a programme maker - it commissions shows from independent programme makers. This is why Nadine Dorries' idea of selling it off was so idiotic - there is nothing to sell, and closing Ch4 would have closed down the independents.

Endemol was responsible for Big Brother and its spinoffs, not Ch4. The commissioning editors may have questions to answer, but realistically they just buy the programmes, not make them.

I agree that the programmes you mention sound pretty dreadful, but AFAIK there are no allegations surrounding them. They could be accused of creating a permissive sexual climate, but so could much of the media, really.

I do know that Channel 4 is not a programme maker 😉 However decisions are taken on what programmes are aired and ‘pretty dreadful” is rather an understatement. Vulgar, salacious and downright indecent is more like it!

Sorry - I didn't mean to patronise. A lot of people assume that they make programmes.

I don't watch any of those programmes, but I'm sure you're right. That doesn't mean that the presenters are necessarily abusive though.

I am quite comfortable in making a judgement on the behaviour that was broadcast live on air. I saw and heard the way he harrassed the newsreader, etc, so yes I have made a judgement on that.

If anything, the Sunday Times article was even more disturbing than the programme.

I think a lot of the clips of Brand onstage were fillers as his lawyers will have had them remove anything that is not 100% provable in court. There may be a whole lot more that is 99.9% provable, but they have the right to have it removed until that 0.1% is found. The clips put the accusations in context though, and were chilling at times.

Welbeck, thank you. The clip you posted made very interesting viewing.

I’ve just seen a clip of him being interviewed on a ‘light entertainment’ show. He was laughing about making sure the individual was female before getting down to it. He said he’d raped someone, queue for laughter - ‘then I killed her’. More laughter
Entertainment ?

Iam64

I’ve just seen a clip of him being interviewed on a ‘light entertainment’ show. He was laughing about making sure the individual was female before getting down to it. He said he’d raped someone, queue for laughter - ‘then I killed her’. More laughter
Entertainment ?

That's what Frankie Boyle said about Holly Willoughby

Dillonsgranma

Horrible man. When he and Jonathan Ross phoned manuel to tell him he had slept with his granddaughter, I found the pair of them despicable.
Why anyone would pay to go to a show of his fills me with astonishment. A thoroughly nasty character. Just listen to the interview he did with jimmy saville . Tarred with the sand brush that pair !

Apparently Andrew Sachs was distraught when Brand left a message on his ansaphone about Sach’s grandddaughter saying “Yeah - it was consensual and she wasn’t menstrual’.

Brand made one woman sign a non disclosure. She now lives abroad, wanted to come forward but if she violates the NDA she will be fined £50k.

It shocks me how men with money know they can sleaze around because ‘money talks’ and people in high profile positions (such as an executive producer at the BBC) cover up for them. Beyond awful.

Hopefully the truth will out.

They know they will get away with it as long as people expect their victims to 'prove' what happened when doing so is all but impossible, and as long as it is the victim who has her phone examined and her sexual history gone over with a fine tooth comb, so women are scared to go to the police. These people know that, and they have expensive lawyers who can threaten to destroy the lives of their victims, or if that fails to buy them off.

Apparently this infographic would be more accurate if the light coloured men were referred to as 'rapes' rather than 'rapists', as the number of rapists is unknown (rapists tend to rape more than one victim before getting caught), but there are figures for reported rapes and ways to calculate the number of unreported rapes, but the message is still clear - people get so hung up on protecting the men at the bottom right of the graphic - the tiny number of victims of false reporting that they are happy to sell out the women who are raped. Why?

Here is an article about a woman who reported him to the police.

For those who don't like links, here is a transcript. It is from the Telegraph:

A woman who claims she was sexually assaulted by Russell Brand was prevented from talking about the case when he obtained a gagging order.

The alleged victim went to police following an incident at Brand’s home in 2014 but the case was dropped.

When the woman attempted to highlight her claims in the media and with other organisations, Brand obtained an injunction banning her from speaking out on the grounds of harassment.

The woman, who now lives abroad, could be jailed for contempt of court if she breaches the strict court order.

She attempted to appeal against the ruling but her application was dismissed and she was later ordered to pay £50,000 in legal costs.

Brand has been accused of rape, sexual assault and abuse by women between 2006 and 2013, while he was working for the BBC, Channel 4 and featuring in Hollywood films. He has also been accused of controlling, abusive and predatory behaviour as part of an investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches. He has denied all the allegations, claiming his relationships were “always consensual”.

A lawyer has said libel laws can be used to prevent abuse victims coming forward to make #MeToo allegations.

Harriet Wistrich, director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, said because offences often took place in one to one settings it could be difficult to prove and the courts were sometimes used to silence alleged victims.

She said: “If you want to make allegations against someone with power and money, it’s very difficult to do that unless you are able to prove the truth of those allegations.

"Rape, sexual assault and coercive control can be very difficult to prove as usually such crimes take place in private and there are no direct witnesses, so providing evidence to support the allegation may be difficult.

“If someone is very litigious as I understand Brand has been, it makes it incredibly hard to speak out and you see this with all sorts of wealthy and powerful men who seek to prevent allegations, particularly of sexual misconduct, from coming out.

“Unless you have really really strong evidence, publishers won’t proceed because the risk is too big, the financial stakes are too high.”

Andrew Sachs' granddaughter has said this morning that she doesn't see Brand as a rapist and takes the allegations with a pinch of salt, whilst acknowledging that they must be investigated. She said he was a different person then.
She apparently had a three year relationship with Brand and he never acted inappropriately with her. He also paid for rehab for her when she needed it. Interesting.

the Bbc and channel 4 will be investigated for giving him a platform to perform his inappropriate behaviour on our screens and on air.

the police will only investigate what is reported to them by a victim of sexual assault.

his you tube channel has stopped him gaining money from adverts on his channel now.

A victim of abuse or an alleged victim of abuse ?