Snarky Oracle!
Telly Talk Supreme
Megyn Kelley is a bit strident for my taste, and my politics is often different (she's been a registered Democrat, Republican, and Independent) but this is kind of funny...
Russell Brand convicted of 7000 rapes (approximately)
- Thread starter Snarky Oracle!
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
CeeCee72
Telly Talk Star
Didn't she actually say that she had a consensual threesome with Brand and that the second encounter started out as consensual until he abused her?
As for Megan Kelly, she doesn't appear to know more than anyone else - as usual.
The fact remains that Brand himself lied to the police, admitted it on the stand, and asked for the court's forgiveness. Sure that went a long way towards damaging his credibility with jury.
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
And that means it's not happening?
Even in this thread with not too many participants there are three negative comments about his personality.
You can imagine what the rest of the internet looks like.
Shame and embarrassment? So now even the spectators are victims? Maybe they should sue him.
Well that certainly takes the nuance out of my previous post, which was more about the retroactive prophecy in the "disliked person" becoming "rapist".
Comments like, "he's always looked kinda rape-y to me".
I don't even know what a rape-y person looks like.
My comments are not about his guilt because obviously that's been decided by the court.
All I'm saying is that there's a lot of hypocrisy going on.
Let's not forget that it's not a crime to be weird or to look rape-y or to upload peculiar youtube videos (videos that we're not forced to watch).
Last edited:
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
She's going aaaall the way! (saying much more than she should).
But is it true that the heaviest part of the verdict is based on that incident as described in the video?
Angela Channing
Telly Talk Veteran
There has been a certain amount of revisionism by people who are now saying they never liked him or thought there was something off about him. Some people like to be wise after the fact but that shouldn't distract from the fact that Brand is a vile rapist who is finally facing justice for his horrific crimes. That is what we should focus on, along with his victims, not on whether or not he is weird.
Just read the court transcripts, they show the overwhelming evidence against Brand, it made jury's decision inevitable.
Snarky Oracle!
Telly Talk Supreme
Apparently, it is.
But that's what you say in all your posts!
Frank Underwood
Telly Talk Champion
Three years in the making, it seems. There was a contentious discussion about the Russell Brand allegations back in 2023:
What struck me both then and now is that the four women who got the ball rolling never came forward or went to the police themselves. Instead, journalists sought out anybody connected to Brand and interviewed them. In doing so, they found four women who claimed Brand had raped or sexually assaulted them. The timing of the investigation was suspect to me because it was during Brand's newfound career as an anti-establishment podcast host.
Gone were the days when he was a Hollywood darling married to pop star Katy Perry. It's blatantly obvious that Brand was a sleazebag (even he says as much), but Hollywood didn't care when he was "one of them." And unlike Brand, Cosby and Weinstein still had their supporters in both Hollywood and the political establishment after their accusers came forward. Brand had also been getting attacked for his "dangerous" anti-establishment views before these allegations surfaced. Apparently, the women that Brand was criminally charged for raping and sexually assaulting came forward after watching the documentary about him. The neoliberal establishment can't stop talking about Brand's sleazy past, yet the groundwork for his conviction was only set after he spoke out against their politics. If they always thought he was as "problematic" as they claim, why did they wait so long to expose him?
It's well established that Brand was a sleaze, but is he also a rapist? I won't presume to say. However, the way they "found out" is certainly unconventional, to say the least. It's clear that the "journalists" who broke the story were on a fishing expedition. To paraphrase JR Ewing, they weren't looking for merit badges, they were looking for dirt. And also thanks to JR, we know if dirt can't be found, it can be manufactured. Brand was no saint (even by his own admission), so painting him as a rapist and a sexual abuser wouldn't be hard to do. To be clear, I'm not saying the accusations of sexual abuse were manufactured or that the women who came forward are lying. All I know is that the establishment wanted Brand to go away, and now they got their wish.
Before his conviction, they used the accusations to prevent his ability to monetize his videos on YouTube. Bringing down Brand has always been personal for them. I'm also not a Megyn Kellley fan, but I think she's right about the judge. His personal commentary about Brand made it clear that he was far from impartial. Some people act like the judicial system isn't capable of being swayed by personal biases, even though it has been on many occasions.
Although Brand's made a lot of political points I agree with, I still aim to be objective. If he's guilty, he deserves to be locked up. However, the unusual way these allegations came to light leaves room for skepticism IMO. Writing that skepticism off as a misogynistic conspiracy theory doesn't make sense to me, considering people have been targeted by false allegations in the past. I try to choose my words carefully because I feel it's impossible to know the truth in these cases 100%, but I certainly see nothing wrong in pointing out how this benefits the establishment or how they clearly targeted Brand.
I also haven't followed Brand as much lately since his conversion to Christianity. Not that I have a problem with that, but it did feel like his views started to shift towards the right somewhat around that time (I recall him defending Jerry Seinfeld over his mocking "free Palestine" chants as well.) Not that that has anything to do with his conviction, of course, but I thought I would add that in case anybody thinks I'm just some blind, rabid Russell Brand fan.
"That 70s Show" star Danny Masterson sentenced to 30 Years to Life for Two Rapes
The statute of limitations has been revoked. Danny Masterson Sentenced to 30 Years to Life for Raping Two Women – The Hollywood Reporter
tellytalk.net
What struck me both then and now is that the four women who got the ball rolling never came forward or went to the police themselves. Instead, journalists sought out anybody connected to Brand and interviewed them. In doing so, they found four women who claimed Brand had raped or sexually assaulted them. The timing of the investigation was suspect to me because it was during Brand's newfound career as an anti-establishment podcast host.
Gone were the days when he was a Hollywood darling married to pop star Katy Perry. It's blatantly obvious that Brand was a sleazebag (even he says as much), but Hollywood didn't care when he was "one of them." And unlike Brand, Cosby and Weinstein still had their supporters in both Hollywood and the political establishment after their accusers came forward. Brand had also been getting attacked for his "dangerous" anti-establishment views before these allegations surfaced. Apparently, the women that Brand was criminally charged for raping and sexually assaulting came forward after watching the documentary about him. The neoliberal establishment can't stop talking about Brand's sleazy past, yet the groundwork for his conviction was only set after he spoke out against their politics. If they always thought he was as "problematic" as they claim, why did they wait so long to expose him?
It's well established that Brand was a sleaze, but is he also a rapist? I won't presume to say. However, the way they "found out" is certainly unconventional, to say the least. It's clear that the "journalists" who broke the story were on a fishing expedition. To paraphrase JR Ewing, they weren't looking for merit badges, they were looking for dirt. And also thanks to JR, we know if dirt can't be found, it can be manufactured. Brand was no saint (even by his own admission), so painting him as a rapist and a sexual abuser wouldn't be hard to do. To be clear, I'm not saying the accusations of sexual abuse were manufactured or that the women who came forward are lying. All I know is that the establishment wanted Brand to go away, and now they got their wish.
Before his conviction, they used the accusations to prevent his ability to monetize his videos on YouTube. Bringing down Brand has always been personal for them. I'm also not a Megyn Kellley fan, but I think she's right about the judge. His personal commentary about Brand made it clear that he was far from impartial. Some people act like the judicial system isn't capable of being swayed by personal biases, even though it has been on many occasions.
Although Brand's made a lot of political points I agree with, I still aim to be objective. If he's guilty, he deserves to be locked up. However, the unusual way these allegations came to light leaves room for skepticism IMO. Writing that skepticism off as a misogynistic conspiracy theory doesn't make sense to me, considering people have been targeted by false allegations in the past. I try to choose my words carefully because I feel it's impossible to know the truth in these cases 100%, but I certainly see nothing wrong in pointing out how this benefits the establishment or how they clearly targeted Brand.
I also haven't followed Brand as much lately since his conversion to Christianity. Not that I have a problem with that, but it did feel like his views started to shift towards the right somewhat around that time (I recall him defending Jerry Seinfeld over his mocking "free Palestine" chants as well.) Not that that has anything to do with his conviction, of course, but I thought I would add that in case anybody thinks I'm just some blind, rabid Russell Brand fan.
Last edited:
Snarky Oracle!
Telly Talk Supreme
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
Life would be so much easier if everything's true or false, black or white. In reality, life is messy, complicated, random, contradictory and paradoxical.
It's possible that Brand is super-guilty but that doesn't necessarily make it a straightforward trial and conviction - no matter how many people say, "look at the court transcripts. Facts are facts".
Because it's not unreasonable to question the intention to nail him, and that's how a conviction that looks perfectly justified on paper can be tarnished by ulterior motives and hypocrisy.
Angela Channing
Telly Talk Veteran
Nobody in the UK cares about what Russell Brand used to say on his YouTube channel or anywhere else because he had zero influence and nobody here has taken him seriously for over a decade, if ever. I can't think of anyone who would want to "nail' him for the nonsense he used to spout. So yes, it is unreasonable to question the intentions of those who investigated and convicted him. It's straightforward: they wanted a dangerous sex predator locked away for the crimes he committed.
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
Angela Channing
Telly Talk Veteran
Sadly no, there is only a 4% conviction rate in all rape cases.Because that happens to all dangerous sex predators.
Out of interest, who exactly do you think in the UK wanted to "nail" Russell Brand, beyond those who wanted him convicted for his sex crimes?
Frank Underwood
Telly Talk Champion
When you wait until a person is an outsider to work backwards from your conclusion that they're a rapist, there might be an ulterior motive. Brand had a well-known sordid past, but the fact that the investigation happened two decades after he became a star suggests there might be another reason for it.
Brand had left the "cool kid's" club. In fact, he was actively speaking out against it. Of course, it's clear from this thread how somebody's perception of a person can create a biased take. For example, one can believe that Brand's political views were "nonsense," but considering the media wrote article after article criticizing him for his "dangerous" anti-establishment views, one got the impression that they wanted to shut him up as quickly as possible.
To say it's unreasonable to question the intentions of the people who investigated Brand is quite revealing, as it represents the mindset of the people who had been criticizing his political views. The neoliberal establishment gleefully called out Fox News, but they found it unreasonable that Brand also accused MSNBC of propaganda (as in the video Snarky posted above.) Brand's criticisms of big pharma, money in politics, endless wars, corporate capture of government, the decimation of the working class, and government-sponsored censorship on social media were also unreasonable to the establishment. There's a shared agenda among neoliberal-minded people in both the US and the UK, so it's not a shock that they're on the same page about Brand.
As I said before, I can't presume to know whether Brand is actually a rapist or not. People can think the worst of people they dislike, and they just might end up being right. However, I certainly think it's reasonable to maintain a healthy dose of cynicism about the people who investigated and convicted him. When people have such clear biases going into an investigation and a trial such as this, it does call into question their objectivity and impartiality.
Brand had left the "cool kid's" club. In fact, he was actively speaking out against it. Of course, it's clear from this thread how somebody's perception of a person can create a biased take. For example, one can believe that Brand's political views were "nonsense," but considering the media wrote article after article criticizing him for his "dangerous" anti-establishment views, one got the impression that they wanted to shut him up as quickly as possible.
To say it's unreasonable to question the intentions of the people who investigated Brand is quite revealing, as it represents the mindset of the people who had been criticizing his political views. The neoliberal establishment gleefully called out Fox News, but they found it unreasonable that Brand also accused MSNBC of propaganda (as in the video Snarky posted above.) Brand's criticisms of big pharma, money in politics, endless wars, corporate capture of government, the decimation of the working class, and government-sponsored censorship on social media were also unreasonable to the establishment. There's a shared agenda among neoliberal-minded people in both the US and the UK, so it's not a shock that they're on the same page about Brand.
As I said before, I can't presume to know whether Brand is actually a rapist or not. People can think the worst of people they dislike, and they just might end up being right. However, I certainly think it's reasonable to maintain a healthy dose of cynicism about the people who investigated and convicted him. When people have such clear biases going into an investigation and a trial such as this, it does call into question their objectivity and impartiality.
Last edited:
CeeCee72
Telly Talk Star
Well, I mean, even if I concede that the investigation may have been politically motivated, that doesn't mean he isn't guilty. The
investigation into Trump was politically motivated, but he is damn sure guilty. The investigation into Hunter Biden was politically motivated, but he was damn sure guilty. Hell, the investigation into R Kelly was politically motivated (they were under tremendous public pressure) AND driven by journalists and he is guilty as hell.
Instead of talking about what motivated an investigation, maybe we should be talking about why the rich and powerful are never investigated until it becomes politically beneficial.
investigation into Trump was politically motivated, but he is damn sure guilty. The investigation into Hunter Biden was politically motivated, but he was damn sure guilty. Hell, the investigation into R Kelly was politically motivated (they were under tremendous public pressure) AND driven by journalists and he is guilty as hell.
Instead of talking about what motivated an investigation, maybe we should be talking about why the rich and powerful are never investigated until it becomes politically beneficial.
Angela Channing
Telly Talk Veteran
I don't think they did. Mostly the media ignored him because no one took him seriously, especially when he became full MAGA. I don't think I've seen him on mainstream TV, radio and newspapers for many 10 years, until he was outed as a sex offender.
I'm really surprised and disappointed how you and others are trying to mitigate the horrors of Brand's crimes by suggesting the establishment were after him for his views rather than his wicked crimes against women. The establishment after him because nobody cared about his views except his MAGA supporters who believe that the world hangs on their every word when in reality the only people listening to their nonsense are others in the echo chambers they inhabit.
Again, you think because you agree with Brand that everyone listens to the nonsense he spouts. Nobody else does, people ignore him. He's never invited on any media or to public meetings over here. He has no influence whatsoever. I would estimate that at least 95% of the UK wouldn't even know what is MSNBC. You try to elevate him to some kind of messiah figure that the everyone listens too and sways their opinions when he is largely irrelevant in the UK. This is why the idea that the establishment (whoever that is meant to be) would be threatened by him is totally ridiculous.
Are you effing kidding me? A jury of 8 men and 4 women unanimously found him guilty. Survivors produced evidence against him that was overwhelming. There is nothing to presume, Russell Brand is a rapist.
Don't concede that, it's total nonsense. No one cares about his politics. He is an evil rapist who violently anally raped a woman leaving her bleeding and in severe pain. The bed was covered in blood, semen and faeces and Brand said the mess belonged to her made her clean it up. The idea that we should ignore what he did, depending on whether or not we agree with his politics, is sickening.
Last edited:
Frank Underwood
Telly Talk Champion
I don't know about the UK, but the US media went after him pretty hard over his political views.
You have an incredible ability to suck all nuance out of a discussion while creating strawman arguments that you project on to people.
I'm not MAGA, and I haven't followed Brand as much since I detected a shift to the right after his conversion to Christianity. I stated exactly what I agreed with Brand on in my previous post, and I also said the mainstream media (at least in the US) attacked him precisely for those political views. To be clear, that was happening before he became involved with MAGA. I also said he could be guilty, and if he is, he deserves to be locked up. But because the world is not black and white, I also think it's fair to question the motives and biases of those who investigated and convicted him, as well as the timing of it.
It has nothing to do with what I "think" of Brand (I made it clear that I don't agree with him on everything, despite your claim to the contrary.) I'm basing it on the reaction to him by US media, as well as how he was treated when he was invited on mainstream media shows (like Morning Joe and the above clip from Bill Maher's program.) Although he was tried and convicted in the UK, there's a shared agenda among their neoliberal class with the neoliberals in the US. I know you'll continue misrepresenting my position, but I'm not proclaiming that Brand is innocent unequivocally. That said, calling out the propagandists, war mongers, censorship programs, and corporate influence in politics can make a person a target, despite you finding them irrelevant.
And Lindsey Clancy isn't guilty of child murder according to 11 jurors. Good to know that jurors are infallible.
By his own account, Brand was a philandering pig who enjoyed unconventional sexual acts. If any of those acts were non-consensual as claimed, then he deserves the prison sentence he received. At the same time, opening an investigation over a decade later once Brand started speaking out against their ideology is noteworthy. It's one thing to believe that Brand is guilty, but it's another to assume the people who investigated him simply wanted justice.
You're the one taking the nuance out of the conversation by saying we want to "ignore what Brand did" because we agree with him.
That's not remotely what's being said, but then you've always had a hard time dealing with complex discussions.
Last edited:
Willie Oleson
Telly Talk Schemer
Exactly. It can be both.
And bias and nuances and circumstances make it possible that rapist #1 deserves more punishment than rapist #2, especially when rapist #1 is an evil rapist. It's precisely that emotional connection, to talk about Brand as if he were the new Hitler, that makes me question the sincerity of the reactions to his conviction.
Today, two more celebrities (forgot their names) have been accused of sexual assault.
There comes a point when I start to think: could it be that sex is being weaponised?
Frank Underwood
Telly Talk Champion
And I've said as much. I don't presume to know if he's guilty or innocent, but apparently, some people believe that's the same as saying he's innocent.
Yes. Politically motivated investigations can end up being legitimate, but I feel it's fair to call out people who wait until a convenient opportunity to strike.
If Brand was still playing nice with Hollywood and towing the Democratic Party/neoliberal line, would they have looked into his past? I'd say it's doubtful. I agree that rich and powerful people suspected of crimes should be investigated immediately rather than when it's politically convenient. After all, justice should be blind. When investigations and trials are politically motivated as opposed to pursued by a sense of justice, it undermines the entire proceeding.
Last edited: