Russell Brand - Trial By Media?

[Dorjezigzag]

Russell Brand's latest video. He'll be doing a longer video on Monday, that one unsurprisingly on Rumble.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kIQxQF6nFts

[ExomatrixTV]

• Now The GOVERNMENT is Trying to Shut Him Down:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RqmKjQ9ML7E

"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

Voltaire

[scotslad]

a wee update from Russell...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kIQxQF6nFts

Whilst I agree with his message and sentiment, with eyes wide open and all the double hand gestures (I know he's reading a teleprompter, but) weirdly, he reminds me of Aleister Crowley (also one of the most hated and feared men of the UK Govt) in his time.

One thing for sure, it appears he aint going down without a fight

[Matthew]

If he keeps focus and awareness on the online safety bill then that looks good to me. Anything else is misdirection. Intentional or unintentional the effect is the same.

[norman]

Russell Brand fans may not like this. Lou and Kat have a right proper natter . . . . ( I've not seen the videos they mention here, or read this thread from the start for that matter, RB does not interest me much )

Liberty Tactics - Russell Brand - Thoughts
41 minutes Posted Sep 20, 2023

[Parsi-X]

Incoming hit piece about RB coming to 60 Mins Australia tomorrow evening with one of his alleged accusers.. will be watching this one.

Posted by thirtythree (here)
Interesting and very plausible. If Brand is legit wrongly accused he should be filing a defamation suit.

I have a similar feeling about Andrew Tate as well i.e. he's also a shill.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

According to our dear legacy media (Sunday Times, The Times, and the Channel 4 investigation) these are the details of the allegations, made by four women, against Brand:

• One woman alleges that Brand raped her without a condom against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She says Brand tried to stop her leaving until she told him she was going to the bathroom. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, which the Times says it has confirmed via medical records

• A second woman, in the UK, alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship. Looking back, she says, he "engaged in the behaviours of a groomer"

• A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles. She alleges she repeatedly told Brand to get off her, and when he eventually relented he "flipped" and was "super angry". She says he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation

• The fourth woman has alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand in the UK and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her.

Article...

These all took place between 2006 and 2013.

The pretty obvious (and mostly rhetorical) questions are:
Where were the police, what were they doing? These are serious offences. Why wasn't Brand arrested, there and then, on each of these occasions? Why no investigation in all these years? Why the silence of these women for all these years? ...Why now? And why is the government getting involved, writing letters to silence and ruin a man on the grounds of "allegations"? And on that point, since when did ''allegations" mean guilty? Since when is a man convicted before he's even been charged?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Mari (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Miller (here)
However, there’s still that nagging doubt that at least one of his accusers is telling the truth.

Maybe! Of course, it has to be possible.

But let's put it like this. I wonder how many other YouTube content creators have criminal records of some kind??

When you think about it, I think the majority of 'influencers' - especially in politics, have a skeleton in their cupboard, known (and sometimes orchestrated by the elite, via honey traps) and held over them as a control leash so that the influencer behaves themselves, ie, continues the Narrative. Whether RB is actually guilty (and he could well be part of the 'game') it explains why so many in positions of power or influence have stayed silent for so long.

Very slightly off-topic here, but I was told long ago by 'Charles' that it was just so, so very easy to control or silence 'inconvenient' voices. He said:

1. I'd be astonished how many people just take the money that they're bribed with.
2. 'Honey traps' are simple to set up and are very often used, sometimes if the bribe fails to work.
3. Terminating the person's life is a last resort, as it's usually way too visible and messy.

[ExomatrixTV]

• UK Parliament Demands Russell Brand CANCELLED On Rumble! BREAKING NEWS!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GrzQ1lPGj9o

• This rant in this video is in my view (near) perfect!
• 100% worth your time!

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[ExomatrixTV]

• "They Are Preemptively Convicting Him!" Piers Morgan On Russell Brand Deplatforming:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=y04iTPnwtL4

Piers Morgan Uncensored is joined by Daily Wire political commentator Michael Knowles to react to the news of a letter from MP Caroline Dinenage being sent to social media platform Rumble questioning whether they will suspend monetisation of the controversial star Russell Brand amidst abuse allegations being made against him.

Piers thinks it is absolutely ridiculous that MPs are getting involved in this situation as Brand has not been found guilty and it sets a dangerous precedent as they are "preemptively convicting him".

Michael tells Piers: "YouTube and Rumble are not supposed to be enforcing the law."

• Gutfeld + Guests Reacts To Russell Brand Sexual Assault Allegations:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Eep2oc_FMjs

'Gutfeld!' panelists react to actor and comedian Russell Brand being accused of the rape and sexual assault of four women, which Brand denied.

• Brand was so critical of the Right for so long and now it's the Right who are the only ones defending him.
• Greg's monologue about a sick and perverse cultural oddity (cancellation via allegation) is spot on. Not only was he absolutely correct, the panel augmented his opinions. Well done.
• I remember Brett Kavanaugh accusations that were completely false.
• The odd thing is they never went after him at the height of his career, only when he actually started speaking on facts.
• Good for Rose McGowan for saying that the alleged victims have to come forward and not indict someone based upon “anonymous” claims.
• Thank you Gutfeld for your effort of pouring some water on this heated story and the way they are publicly convicting him already.
• Accusers with false accusations, should receive the same sentence the accused would have received. That alone will slow down these false accusations.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Russell Brand | 'When I was arrested the accusers were called 'victims' straight away' Jim Davidson:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ysRjrannoG4

Comedy legend, Jim Davidson, is on Uncancelled this week, where he discusses the Russell Brand allegations, Diane Abbott leaving Labour, and how he defended Clive Myrie.

• Here’s Who’s Behind The Russell Brand Witch Hunt!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yXNxyTbh6JY

New revelations surfaced by The Grayzone reveal that the source of the targeted media hit on Russell Brand is a Member of Parliament who previously helpoed direct the British government’s crusade against so-called “vaccine disinformation.” Caroline Dinenage is the head of the UK parliament’s Culture, Media and Sports committee has come under fire for targeting Brand, an act which many are calling a massive breach of ethics and wholly inappropriate.

Guest host Craig “Pasta” Jardula and Kurt Metzger speak with political commentator Kim Iversen about the Brand case and the precedent set by a government body seeking to destroy the livelihood of a political commentator based solely on unproven allegations.

[Bruce G Charlton]

One trap that we all tend to fall in - in such issues, and because of the way they are deliberately presented - is to insist upon proper "legal procedure"; which implicitly assumes that such a procedure leads to the truth, and its outcomes should be relied-upon.

That just isn't the case, in a society (like ours) where there is no intent to be honest or to serve justice. It has been for many years, and still is, almost trivially easy for those with power to follow procedures, while getting whatever is their desired result.

In other words; in reality it really makes no difference either way whether someone is alleged-against, charged, tried, acquitted or convicted - because as of here-and-now, we simply cannot rely on The System to lead us to the truth.

And therefore those who oppose the totalitarian system need to be careful that we are not indirectly endorsing the validity of totalitarian procedures by demanding what will never happen in the system as-is - i.e. a 'fair trial', 'justice', honesty etc.

In other words; I think we should not be implying (by our reactions, by our responses - and, most importantly, in our own minds!) that if someone like RB was charged, tried and a legal decision was reached - then that result ought-to-be-regarded as valid and true, because it was arrived at by 'proper procedures'.

What all this means in practice; is that external sources cannot and should not be trusted; and each of us should be making up his mind on issues we judge to be of significant importance (which the RB business is not, IMO) on the basis of (for example) whatever information sources we regard as reliable, whatever inferences are most rigorous and appropriate, and (vitally) spiritual intuition.

However; while we may assert and defend our conclusions; we should not expect other people to agree with us! Yet, surely, the important thing is that we ought to take as much personal responsibility for our own views as possible. It is our-selves (our highest selves) that we need to satisfy, not 'other people'.

[jaybee]

.

GB News weighs in on it all... they too had a 'letter' from Dinenage ... one point I'd like to make regarding the 'letters' - there's something extra annoying when threatening letters are sent from Government Committees using people's first names - a pathetic tactic to veil the formal threat lurking behind all the chumminess -


'Baroness Caroline Dinenage has to go' | Nana Akua(4:04)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=59YdsFnynfw

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not sure exactly what Dinenage's role was in controlling + suppressing information during the Fake Pandemic - for example coercing the unsuspecting public to have dangerous injections and accept unnecessary damaging lockdowns - plus denying access to cheap, safe drugs like ivermectin / hydroxychloroquine ... etc - but as said earlier in the thread looks like her husband was deeply entrenched in the propaganda and state generated mayhem -

as a couple they could be circumstantially responsible for countless 'vaccine' induced deaths, injuries and mental health issues -

but we are supposed to start jumping up and down pointing the finger at Russell Brand because unsubstantiated allegations from over ten years ago are made - via a TV station 'investigation'....

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that he has literally millions of loyal viewers (over 6 million on YouTube alone) who align with his anti war - anti big Pharma - anti establishment - anti Big Government message - - - (/sarcasm)

[scotslad]

Fair play to Russell for focusing in his video response to raising awareness of the "Online safety Bill", a piece of legislation aimed at at apparently improving online safety and reducing harmful content on the internet. Unfortunately the wider public know very little about this piece of legislation and the far reaching (if not over reaching) powers that the Govt is wishing to have on content publishers and social media platforms and its potential negative impacts on freedom of speech. (it certainly appears the govt are trying everything to silence Russell and what he is sharing about Covid, The Ukraine, Biden et al.)

As I understand it, some concerns about the new "online safety bill"include:

Overbroad Definitions

Critics argue that the bill's definitions of harmful content and harmful communications are overly broad and vague, potentially leading to overreach and censorship of legitimate speech that may be deemed offensive or controversial but not necessarily harmful.

Chilling Effect

The fear of potential fines and legal consequences for online platforms may lead them to overly restrict user-generated content and implement strict content moderation policies. This "chilling effect" can discourage individuals from expressing their opinions freely online.

Lack of Clarity

The bill lacks clear guidelines on what constitutes harmful content and doesn't sufficiently differentiate between harmful speech and protected speech, which could result in the suppression of legitimate political discourse, satire, or artistic expression.

Private Censorship: The bill places the onus on online platforms to police and remove harmful content, effectively turning them into de facto censors. Critics argue that this could lead to the suppression of diverse viewpoints as platforms may adopt a risk-averse approach to avoid legal repercussions.

Disproportionate Penalties

Some have expressed concerns about the potential for disproportionately high fines for online platforms that fail to remove harmful content swiftly. This could incentivize overly aggressive content removal policies, which may stifle legitimate discussions and content sharing.

Impact on Small Platforms, publishers & content creators

Smaller online platforms may struggle to comply with the bill's requirements due to limited resources. This could result in these platforms either shutting down or overzealously censoring content to avoid legal liabilities, limiting user choices and competition.

Lack of Safeguards

Critics argue that the bill lacks adequate safeguards against abuse and misapplication. They fear that it may be used to target certain political or ideological groups, stifling dissent and limiting democratic discourse.

Surveillance Concerns

The bill may encourage the collection of extensive user data to monitor and enforce content removal, raising concerns about online privacy and government surveillance.

Is it just a matter of time before other govts (USA and futher afield) launch similar legislation to control the internet?

For me, while the Online Safety Bill aims to protect users from harmful content and online abuse, there are concerns that its broad definitions, potential for over-censorship, and lack of clear safeguards may inadvertently restrict freedom of speech and expression on the internet and at the same time, destroying people's right to earn income and revenue from sharing their content, facts and "truth".

This appears to much bigger perhaps than we originally thought and the implications - far more wider reaching...

[Matthew]

Posted by scotslad (here)
Fair play to Russell for focusing in his video response to raising awareness of the "Online safety Bill"...

Yes although he's always late to the party. The bill has passed by the time he drew attention away from him onto it. People might think his heart is in the right place but he's unlucky.

Echoes of 2022

John Bowe
@JohnBoweActor
Watch Russell Brand’s latest Rumble video. A little late to the party, @rustyrockets, but I love your enthusiasm. Funny but I’d swear I’ve said all that a hundred times on here. But I’m just a failed actor. What do I know?? 😑

Matthew C73 ✝️
@BinaryUnicorn
Lol said with aplomb I hope. The "failed" as you put it is a good sign. Brand is always late to the party but quick to misdirect along the way

[scotslad]

Couple of very interesting points made (Listen carefully from 3:32 onwards about Caroline Dynage's husband The UK Govt and the psychological warfare division. The plot thickens...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KrLyCMtZHtQ

Also, I am remdinded of Alex Salmond, the former First Minister of Scotland who faced a series of accusations of sexual misconduct in 2018, leading to a very high-profile court case that resulted in accusations in the media and destroyed his political career, however...

Here's a summary of the accusations, the outcome of his court case, and the evidence presented. Does the approach sound familiar?

Multiple Allegations

Several women accused Alex Salmond of sexual misconduct, including allegations of sexual harassment and attempted rape. These alleged incidents took place during his time as First Minister and within the Scottish government.

Outcome of Court Case

Not Guilty Verdicts: In March 2020, Alex Salmond faced a trial in the High Court of Edinburgh. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on 12 charges, including charges of sexual assault, attempted rape, and indecent assault.

These acquittals cleared him of the criminal charges brought against him.

One Charge, Not Proven

Salmond was found not guilty on a further charge of sexual assault with intent to rape. However, the jury returned a verdict of "not proven" on this specific charge, which is a unique verdict in Scottish law indicating that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt but also insufficient evidence to prove innocence.

The Evidence?

Testimonies: During the trial, both the accusers and Alex Salmond provided testimonies. The defense argued that some of the alleged incidents either did not occur or were misinterpreted, emphasizing inconsistencies in the accusers' accounts.

Witnesses?

Several witnesses testified during the trial, including individuals who were present during some of the alleged incidents. Their testimonies were used to corroborate or challenge the accusers' accounts.

Documents and Messages

Text messages, emails, and other documents were presented as evidence. Some of these communications were used to support the defense's argument that there was no criminal behavior involved.

It's important to note that the court case resulted in Alex Salmond's acquittal on the majority of charges, with only one charge ending in a "not proven" verdict. After the trial, Salmond was critical of the process and suggested that there had been a political conspiracy against him, but these claims did not change the court's findings.

Let's not also forget Trump, Assange et al....


...Aye, thiswhole debacle about freedom of speech in the UK and further afield is now getting the limelight it deserves, especially when Channel 4 and Times total subscribers are less than Russell brands. Makes you wpmder about motives, eh?

[gini]

On closer inspection itseems to me that RB as a phenomenon is the perfect public figure for more polarisation (,not unsimilar like Trump),and thats probably the bigger fish than the person RB himself because they know he cant be completely silenced but he can be the big distraction to argue about because there is so much to disagree about him & his outspoken opinions: ,

-his irresponsible hedonistic past & his drug abuse
-the way he treats(ed) women,
-his alleged connection with the 'Illuminatie' (because of the family of his wife),
-his 'narcissistic ' personallity & ridiculed 'guru' aspirations
-or him being 'controlled opposition',
-and ofcourse the unfair trial by the media and the 'dirty' intervention of government to destroy a freedomfighter to make an example out of him..

.Plenty of issues to be disgust about ( apparently for everybody something!)
,and dozens of things to disagree about with different minded people,we can discus him forever without ever coming to a 'consensus' !

Mr Brand has some really big challenges on his plate to deal with so much controversy in 1 person!.
But ive got this feeling that he somehow will handle it by pointing all this out like his own case just being a distraction from whats really going on,lets see..

[Mari]

Posted by gini (here)
,

-his irresponsible hedonistic past & his drug abuse
-the way he treats(ed) women,
-his alleged connection with the 'Illuminatie' (because of the family of his wife),
-his 'narcissistic ' personallity & ridiculed 'guru' aspirations
-or him being 'controlled opposition',
-and ofcourse the unfair trial by the media and the 'dirty' intervention of government to destroy a freedomfighter to make an example out of him..

.

Spot on. The perfect distraction playlist to get us all looking the other way.

[Dennis Leahy]

Interesting. I could swear that Brand did mention the Orwellian 'online safety bill' before, like maybe a month ago. Do you watch all his stuff? Or, is there anyone who watches all his shows and knows for sure? Mandela effect or gaslighting myself? Could be, but I could swear...

Posted by Matthew (here)

Posted by scotslad (here)
Fair play to Russell for focusing in his video response to raising awareness of the "Online safety Bill"...

Yes although he's always late to the party. The bill has passed by the time he drew attention away from him onto it. People might think his heart is in the right place but he's unlucky.

Echoes of 2022

John Bowe
@JohnBoweActor
Watch Russell Brand’s latest Rumble video. A little late to the party, @rustyrockets, but I love your enthusiasm. Funny but I’d swear I’ve said all that a hundred times on here. But I’m just a failed actor. What do I know?? 😑

Matthew C73 ✝️
@BinaryUnicorn
Lol said with aplomb I hope. The "failed" as you put it is a good sign. Brand is always late to the party but quick to misdirect along the way

[Blastolabs]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Interesting. I could swear that Brand did mention the Orwellian 'online safety bill' before, like maybe a month ago. Do you watch all his stuff? Or, is there anyone who watches all his shows and knows for sure? Mandela effect or gaslighting myself? Could be, but I could swear...

I also have a memory of talking about that bill, but I couldn't find it.
That subject would be in line with his focus though.

Just look at the titles of these videos, they ALL have 1-3 million views

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CoUW0iR8ewU

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5bkiEnKLUjI

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zMbxATXqbUk

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=w5skiiRHnpo