Russell Brand is being accused of rape

[LSD-Rumi]

1 hour ago, Hello from Russia said:

But she wasn't really raped (I watched the documentary)

They had a sexual relationship going and already had sex multiple times. It was just this time he went too hard on her (too masculine mode) and she got scared, after which he stopped being sexy with her and let her go home easily (as she requested)

He raped her dude. She asked him to stop and pushed him, until he pushed her against the wall and fucked her against her will which is the defenition of rape. 

She said she had gone for therapy for six month after that incident, so don't be quick to dismiss such things. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by LSD-Rumi

[Florian]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Florian @Princess Arabia

You two just have different perspectives. Avoid personal attacks.

nah man, I would appreciate if you could delete my account. 

[LSD-Rumi]

@Hello from Russia

11 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

Yes, but all these girls were already his girlfriends

I don't think they were his "girlfriends", he fucked her once or twice before.

Anyways, if your girlfriend was in a bad mood and you wanted to have sex badly and she said no and was cold to you and you then forced yourself on her and fucked her against the wall, that would be rape and it will harm her a lot. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by LSD-Rumi

[Tanz]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Jodistrict How do you explain Russell's own texts apologizing to the allegedly raped girl the next day?

They were screenshots rather than messages stored on her phone, it can be photoshoped.  They are going to need to procure the messages from apple some how and do an audit of russells numbers and see if what is on her phone is actually him.

[zurew]

13 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

You just go for it, seducing your partner, and if he isn't really in a mood for this he pushes back.

If its your partner, then you can have a one time extensive conversation with her (especially if you two are into cnc) , where you make it extremely clear what word or act she can do that will clearly signal, that you should stop what you are doing. 

If its not your partner , then you shouldn't push after a no, because its just too risky and too much downside.

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Jodistrict How do you explain Russell's own texts apologizing to the allegedly raped girl the next day?

He didn’t, he just said sorry, it could have been about anything, such as it was consensual but she said otherwise after and he was saying sorry as in sorry she felt that way. Why assume the medias framing is correct?

[Raze]

42 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

He raped her dude. She asked him to stop and pushed him, until he pushed her against the wall and fucked her against her will which is the defenition of rape. 

Feel free to provide your proof this actually happened, and no, your “guilty until proven innocent” standard doesn’t apply.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Raze

[Hello from Russia]

46 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

He raped her dude. She asked him to stop and pushed him, until he pushed her against the wall and fucked her against her will which is the defenition of rape. 

She said she had gone for therapy for six month after that incident, so don't be quick to dismiss such things. 

I watched a full 1 hour documentary and there was no such thing in the material

There might be some other materials tho, can you provide a link to the source?

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Hello from Russia

[Hello from Russia]

45 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

@Hello from Russia

I don't think they were his "girlfriends", he fucked her once or twice before.

Anyways, if your girlfriend was in a bad mood and you wanted to have sex badly and she said no and was cold to you and you then forced yourself on her and fucked her against the wall, that would be rape and it will harm her a lot. 

?

After she said "no" he pulled back and said sorry -> didn't push further

[Adrian colby]

A little info from uk barrister. 

[Consept]

19 minutes ago, Raze said:

Feel free to provide your proof this actually happened, and no, your “guilty until proven innocent” standard doesn’t apply.

Its not a case of 'guilty until proven innocent', the fact is people can do messed up things and get off on a technicality or because witnesses dont come forward or whatever the reason. In the case of rape and sexual assault the conviction rate in the UK is extremely low, something like less than 5% because its usually one persons word against another. 

When someone is in the public eye it would be very important for the evidence to be presented to the public, if it isnt true then that person can fight it. Now in the UK liable laws are so tight that no one can just accuse anyone in the mainstream because if it isnt true they could be severely hit. Do you not think it was worthwhile for someone like Epstein to be named? Or should he have just been allowed to keep doing what he was doing until enough evidence was gathered to prosecute. In the UK we had a 'celebrity' DJ called Jimmy Saville (who Brand offered his assistant to sexually on air btw) who for decades went around and raped any young girl he could get his hands, including disabled people in hospital, he died before everything came out and was never prosecuted but dont you think it would be in the public interest for him to have been exposed as early as possible in his career? 

So this is more nuanced than innocent until proven guilty, to take it to a micro level, if you heard that one of your neighbors was pedophile although never convicted of any crime, would you be happy them to be around your daughter? Would you not be pissed off if you didnt know and then found out later?

[Raze]

16 minutes ago, Consept said:

Its not a case of 'guilty until proven innocent', the fact is people can do messed up things and get off on a technicality or because witnesses dont come forward or whatever the reason. In the case of rape and sexual assault the conviction rate in the UK is extremely low, something like less than 5% because its usually one persons word against another. 

When someone is in the public eye it would be very important for the evidence to be presented to the public, if it isnt true then that person can fight it. Now in the UK liable laws are so tight that no one can just accuse anyone in the mainstream because if it isnt true they could be severely hit. Do you not think it was worthwhile for someone like Epstein to be named? Or should he have just been allowed to keep doing what he was doing until enough evidence was gathered to prosecute. In the UK we had a 'celebrity' DJ called Jimmy Saville (who Brand offered his assistant to sexually on air btw) who for decades went around and raped any young girl he could get his hands, including disabled people in hospital, he died before everything came out and was never prosecuted but dont you think it would be in the public interest for him to have been exposed as early as possible in his career? 

So this is more nuanced than innocent until proven guilty, to take it to a micro level, if you heard that one of your neighbors was pedophile although never convicted of any crime, would you be happy them to be around your daughter? Would you not be pissed off if you didnt know and then found out later?

The user I’m responding to specifically said he thinks it should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

He was stating an allegation as though it was true by virtue of the fact it was said. I simply asked how he knows it was true.

If someone is an active threat that’s different, but these allegations are from 20 years ago, they are just out for revenge. 

The examples you gave are people who should have been reported to the police as long as possible, not waiting decades. 

Having a standard of just believe anything told to the media is not a viable solution. At the very least show the public the evidence. Otherwise anyone can make something up to take down someone they don’t like.

EDIT: also, looking it up the conviction rate for rape cases that make it to court is 75 percent in England and Whales https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/england-juries-convict-defendants-of-rape-more-often-than-acquit

Edited September 21, 2023 by Raze

[Tanz]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

So this is more nuanced than innocent until proven guilty, to take it to a micro level, if you heard that one of your neighbors was pedophile although never convicted of any crime, would you be happy them to be around your daughter? Would you not be pissed off if you didnt know and then found out later?

If this is the case society can have a witch-hunt for anyone just because of an accusation. Its a parents job protect their child, not blow up anyones head that can be suspicious. One in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault.  That is a fucking high number and its terrifying but it all boils down the environment.  Most people I know whom were assaulted as children were neglected by their parents.  

 https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens

[LSD-Rumi]

31 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

?

After she said "no" he pulled back and said sorry -> didn't push further

Did we watch the same documentary?  He pushed her against  the wall and fucked her. Next day she went to a rape clinic, her case was documented and she was prescribed antibiotics. 

Another one involved a minor. He supposedly shoved his dick down her throat while she was crying and then sat on top of her, forced her mouth open and spat in it and then said to her "let that mascara run down". So shit is crazy if it is real. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by LSD-Rumi

[Hello from Russia]

Just now, LSD-Rumi said:

Did we watch the same documentary?  He pushed her against  the wall and fucked her. Next day she went to a rape clinic, her case was documented and she was prescribed antibiotics. 

Another one involved a minor. He supposedly shoved his dick down her throat while she was crying and then sat on top of her, forced her mouth open and spat in it. 

Can you send me what you watched? 

Yeah, I remember a thing with the minor, she didn't complain much though except for this incident

[LSD-Rumi]

@Hello from Russia

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8o4deh

Edited September 21, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Consept]

2 minutes ago, Raze said:

The user I’m responding to specifically said he thinks it should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

He was stating an allegation as though it was true by virtue of the fact it was said. I simply asked how he knows it was true.

If someone is an active threat that’s different, but these allegations are from 20 years ago, they are just out for revenge. 

The examples you gave are people who should have been reported to the police as long as possible, not waiting decades. 

Having a standard of just believe anything told to the media is not a viable solution. At the very least show the public the evidence. Otherwise anyone can make something up to take down someone they don’t like.

 

Yeah definitely the evidence should be shown which was what happened in this case and then its up to the public to decide whether they still want to give money and support Brand. Also I agree false allegations should not be allowed, in the UK the current law comes down extremely hard on false allegations, if you take a look at this case - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49576940  where basically well known celebrity has his name put out there in terms of him committing some kind of sexual assault which he believed there was absolutely no substance to, he sued the BBC and got a few million in damages and legal fees. Point being media outlets can not post just print allegations without substantial evidence otherwise they will get sued and suffer reputational damage. So the media is very careful with naming names. As i said if Brand really feels there is no truth here he should sue, even if he doesnt care about the money it would save his reputation as it did with Cliff Richard. Of course he wont which is not a good indication of innocence. 

Yes those people shouldve been reported to the police but this was the same with Brand, he had at least a 10 year plus period where he was operating like this. The trouble with celebrities, is that they have a lot of power, that is why its hard to report them, not only that they have lawyers, this is how all these people operated in the way they did, Weinstein, Epstein etc. 

I would agree that Brand most likely doesnt operate this way any more and it would be nice to say 'ah well slap on the wrist, at least youve cleaned yourself up', but how would you feel if someone raped your sister and didnt get any justice and then even denied it 10 years later? Unfortunately for him karma has caught up 

 

 

[Consept]

11 minutes ago, Tanz said:

If this is the case society can have a witch-hunt for anyone just because of an accusation. Its a parents job protect their child, not blow up anyones head that can be suspicious. One in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault.  That is a fucking high number and its terrifying but it all boils down the environment.  Most people I know whom were assaulted as children were neglected by their parents.  

 https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens

As i said in the previous post, media cannot just accuse anyone at least in the UK there has to be solid evidence, a random accusation wouldnt cut it, which is partly why he got away with it for so long until solid evidence was available. 

Of course parents need to protect their kids but people that groom have specific strategies to isolate them from their parents so the parents dont even know whats going on. In the doc they talked about how when Brand was seeing the 16 year old he would get her to lie to her parents about staying at a friends house when he would have her picked up. Someone like Brand who is vey powerful and charismatic is more than able to manipulate to get what he wants. 

[Danioover9000]

@LSD-Rumi , @Hello from Russia , @Consept and @zurew, calm down everyone, let's not make this a heated debate and personal attacks. Tone down the instigating. These are all just allegations, YouTube overreacted and canceled his Channel over allegations that are not corroborated yet. We still don't know an official investigation is launched, no official court date for Russel Brand. None of this is supported in the court of law.

[Raze]

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

Yeah definitely the evidence should be shown which was what happened in this case and then its up to the public to decide whether they still want to give money and support Brand. Also I agree false allegations should not be allowed, in the UK the current law comes down extremely hard on false allegations, if you take a look at this case - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49576940  where basically well known celebrity has his name put out there in terms of him committing some kind of sexual assault which he believed there was absolutely no substance to, he sued the BBC and got a few million in damages and legal fees. Point being media outlets can not post just print allegations without substantial evidence otherwise they will get sued and suffer reputational damage. So the media is very careful with naming names. As i said if Brand really feels there is no truth here he should sue, even if he doesnt care about the money it would save his reputation as it did with Cliff Richard. Of course he wont which is not a good indication of innocence. 

Yes those people shouldve been reported to the police but this was the same with Brand, he had at least a 10 year plus period where he was operating like this. The trouble with celebrities, is that they have a lot of power, that is why its hard to report them, not only that they have lawyers, this is how all these people operated in the way they did, Weinstein, Epstein etc. 

I would agree that Brand most likely doesnt operate this way any more and it would be nice to say 'ah well slap on the wrist, at least youve cleaned yourself up', but how would you feel if someone raped your sister and didnt get any justice and then even denied it 10 years later? Unfortunately for him karma has caught up 

 

 

“the evidence should be shown which is what happened in this case”, no it didn’t, no evidence was shown, we just have allegations.

The case you linked says he wasn’t awarded for false allegations, he was awarded because they filmed a raid on his house violating his privacy.

It isn’t harder to report celebrities than anyone else, having lawyers doesn’t stop reports, they come in after you report.

I’m not saying he should get a slap on the wrist, you brought up reporting to the media with examples like Epstein and Saville being that it could be done as a way to stop them from continuing harms when police reporting doesn’t work. In this case that argument doesn’t fly because if Brand did do it, he already stopped.

If he did do it he shouldn’t get a slap on the wrist - he should actually get punished but only after a proper police investigation and trial in court, not allegations made by the media.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Raze