Law russell brand allegations

[Poatan Power]

If you aren't familiar with UK libel laws then you aren't really in an intellectual position to comment on the matter intelligently or fairly.

I didn't speak about the matter of libel at all. I didn't speak to the media "lying" or committing any crime of the sort. You're coming out of left field talking to me about it and I have no idea what you're talking about. I literally said I wouldn't call it conspiracy theory to presume that media outlets that don't like Russell would gobble up this information and use it accordingly and to its utmost damage to Russell. I'm all for your input on libel but I'm not sure why it's directed at me. If you're asserting that all of these allegations must be true because the Times wouldn't open themselves up for litigation unless Russell was 100% a rapist I don't know how to help you.

I think that's pretty much a textbook conspiracy theory. You're theorizing that they're conspiring against him with no evidence at all. The motive sounds a bit ridiculous, and the mechanism is unexplained. The straightforward explanation is rejected without any clear basis.

But I didn't do that...I didn't say there wasn't evidence. I mean, there isn't evidence really I suppose, it's conjecture and accusation and probably not any meaningful physical evidence to examine or go by. I guess it was in my f/u post but, what I am meaning to say is, it isn't a big jump to be slanted toward thinking media outlets that Russell actively campaigns against would welcome this allegation with or without veracity and use it as advantageously as possible. As I've said, you never really recover from this allegation even if it's proven completely fabricated (such as the Duke LaCrosse team). it's like wrestling a pig in the mud. Dismissing all of this without prejudice is just giving in to your own bias and conspiracy proclivities, sure, but the scales are easy to tip that direction given the circumstances. I guess is what I'm saying.

I think there has been a move of both CT nutters toward the right (as a political coalition--some claim leftist ideals) and of educated, sane folks toward the left. White college-educated voters were around 50/50 as late as 2000, and non-college whites were around 50/50 that same year. Now it's high-50s/high-30s. I think in the early '10s, anti-vaxers were on both sides but more commonly on the left, while that's an extreme rightist thing now. 9/11 Truthers were similar in that they were on both sides but probably more on the left. That CT has faded, but it flipped in the '10s IIRC.

That's about right. When the crash happened in 2008 there was a lot of leftists beating the war drum about the politicians, media and wall street all being in bed and in on the money making schemes that up ended the economy. Now if you talk about that it seems that comes from a middle right or middle slightly left perspective, as opposed to what use to be a blue haired vegan position 15 years ago.

 

[fica]

So the Times fabricated both the text messages and medical records from a rape crisis center?

Exactly you think only times is involved in this.and you can not get random test and day it is some imaginary girls kit

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

Btw the NY Times is a CIA run news organization

 

[avenue94]

Btw the NY Times is a CIA run news organization

Btw the NY Times is not the Times in question here. Christ almighty living up to ignorant American stereotypes in this thread left and right.

If you're asserting that all of these allegations must be true because the Times wouldn't open themselves up for litigation unless Russell was 100% a rapist I don't know how to help you.

I'm asserting that option 1 is far more likely than the other 2 options. It's not a 50/50 kind of thing with what we've been presented.
1. The allegations are credible, if not true, based on the contemporaneous evidence and multiple women who have made this allegations.
2. The Times was negligent in its factchecked and is going to get sued and lose badly.
3. The Times made it up and is going to get sued badly.

I literally said I wouldn't call it conspiracy theory to presume that media outlets that don't like Russell would gobble up this information and use it accordingly and to its utmost damage to Russell.

Was it the reporters? Which ones? Or was it the factchecker? Or the legal counsel that would have reviewed the story extensively before publishing? Was it the the editor who supervised the whole process and signed off on spending thousands of man hours and effectively hundreds of thousands of pounds to delve into these allegations? Or was it the conservative leaning owners of the Times?

Media outlets aren't monolithic, and the idea that someone did this because they had an axe to grind falls apart when you consider how many people worked on the piece, let alone the documentary.

I mean, there isn't evidence really I suppose, it's conjecture and accusation and probably not any meaningful physical evidence to examine or go by

We have text messages and medical records. Do you think they are legit, or do you think they were fabricated?

Dismissing all of this without prejudice is just giving in to your own bias and conspiracy proclivities, sure, but the scales are easy to tip that direction given the circumstances.

How do you get 4 women to fabricate allegations and by extension agree to get sued for millions of pounds?

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

Btw the NY Times is not the Times in question here. Christ almighty living up to ignorant American stereotypes in this thread left and right.

I don't remember saying it was. Try to keep up

 

[avenue94]

I don't remember saying it was. Try to keep up

So why are you posting about the NY Times in a thread based on British reporting? Do you post about the NY Times in every thread that catches your fancy?

 

[BForrester]

I've never watched any of his videos so I don't know whether he is or not, but is there a single right wing voice who doesn't get labeled a grifter on this sub-forum? I don't think there is.

When people start suddenly espousing right-wing views and their faltering careers experience a resurgance, it smacks of "grift".

 

[Bojka]

When people start suddenly espousing right-wing views and their faltering careers experience a resurgance, it smacks of "grift".

Again, I don't know about Brand in particular, but this is how a lot of people suddenly 'became' right wing. Replace bigot with grifter as that's the left's new favourite ad hominem.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

So why are you posting about the NY Times in a thread based on British reporting? Do you post about the NY Times in every thread that catches your fancy?

Nope I saw you guys arguing about it and just thought I would mention it.

 

[avenue94]

Nope I saw you guys arguing about it and just thought I would mention it.

The only people who are bringing up the NY Times are idiots who didn't bother to read the story or make the obvious assumption that if a British news outlet called the Times uncovered a story, it wasn't the NY Times.

 

[The_Renaissance]

It’s crazy how fast people have forgotten this dude was a sex and alcohol addict until he rebranded himself as this spiritual cult leader. It’s easy for people like that to relapse. You guys really can’t remember even a few years back? How is any of this surprising?

Yeah the bloke has always been a borderline wrongun. Always had dodgy vibes about him. I'm always skeptical about these 20yr delayed allegations buy he is someone I've always thought was dodgy
Remember 20yrs ago and sooner this guy was a leftist darling. An absolute soldier. Borderline Communist. But I always thought he seemed shady. His shift to alt right stuff mightve been armour. "They're onto me now, I need to switch sides"

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

debunked smear job

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

Looking back at the Weinstein saga, there were many many credible witnesses. Many of them had a reason to not come forward with allegations, as a failure to get him arrested or fired could be career damaging. Understandable in some cases.

They tried to take down Trump with far less credibility. Jean E Carroll essentially fabricated a story about being sexually abused in a department store, didn't know the date or time, and had no witnesses. One woman, not enough credibility.

Danny Masterson was taken down by 3 allegations that were 15+ years old. No actual evidence, just testimony from alleged victims.

Now Russel Brand, 4 women, 10+ years ago, no evidence yet that I've seen..

This started as legitimate righteous indignation and has morphed in to what could be considered a political weapon.
The previous cases set precedent to say that these allegations hold authoritative power even with a lack of actual evidence. If Danny Masterson can get 30 years in prison for three accusations, what will happen to Russel Brand with 4?

For those who don't know Russel he is a very influential independent media player with a huge following, often making videos about the lies and corruption of the mainstream media.

To think it would be out of the possibility for this to be a coordinated attack, set up by influential people looking to take him down, is naive in my view. This is 100% a real possibility.

Some of the most intelligent people are already speculating this possibility, and as Sherdogs resident genius, I have feel it's my obligation to warn you guys that this is entirely possible.

 

[avenue94]

Now Russel Brand, 4 women, 10+ years ago, no evidence yet that I've seen..

There's medical records and text messages, with the latter quoted. We have a text message from one of the women saying "No means No" and Brand apologizing in response, all at the same time said woman was treated at a rape center. Do you think that was pure coincidence or which party fabricated what?

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

There's medical records and text messages, with the latter quoted. We have a text message from one of the women saying "No means No" and Brand apologizing in response, all at the same time said woman was treated at a rape center. Do you think that was pure coincidence or which party fabricated what?

Can you link me these text messages, I would like to review the evidence.

 

[avenue94]

Can you link me these text messages, I would like to review the evidence.

Let me guess, you're commenting on a story despite not having read the actual story?

 

[Jack V Savage]

But I didn't do that...I didn't say there wasn't evidence. I mean, there isn't evidence really I suppose, it's conjecture and accusation and probably not any meaningful physical evidence to examine or go by. I guess it was in my f/u post but, what I am meaning to say is, it isn't a big jump to be slanted toward thinking media outlets that Russell actively campaigns against would welcome this allegation with or without veracity and use it as advantageously as possible.

To clarify here: I'm saying there's no evidence that the media are coordinating some kind of hit against him, and it's implausible (my understanding is also that this was originally broken by a Murdoch paper, which further undermines the "liberal media is working against him" CT).

That's about right. When the crash happened in 2008 there was a lot of leftists beating the war drum about the politicians, media and wall street all being in bed and in on the money making schemes that up ended the economy. Now if you talk about that it seems that comes from a middle right or middle slightly left perspective, as opposed to what use to be a blue haired vegan position 15 years ago.

It's an underrated shift, IMO, because it compounds. Educated people leave the GOP, uneducated people flock to it, and the result is that the party becomes more friendly to crazy shit and open to false claims about policy, which further drives away anyone who might fix it. Today, it's impossible to remain in good standing on the right without affirming a bunch of plainly untrue claims and at least publicly expressing agnosticism about a few crazy CTs, and the bench of policy people and advisers is really thin on the right.

 

[Natural Order]

I'd be more surprised if the greasy, sex-addicted, drug-addled buffoon didn't rape somebody at some point during his run in the spotlight.

Seems like quite a coordinated attack at a guy barely relevant but if the facts and evidence are there, fuck him.

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr]

Let me guess, you're commenting on a story despite not having read the actual story?

I've read about the story, but not every article. As a genius I'm always willing to accept and analyze new evidence.

Here's the issue with this story.

"One woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day, according to medical records. Text messages show that in the hours after leaving his house, she told Brand that she had been scared by him and felt taken advantage of, adding: “When a girl say NO it means no.” Brand replied saying he was “very sorry".

Here's my issue. First, these are not text messages, they are words printed in an article on the internet, alleging the texts exist. I would like to see the evidence she actually went to a rape crisis center. I would like to see the actual texts before believing these claims.

So he raped her, she went to a rape crisis center, didn't tell anyone, and then texted him "No means no". Why are you texting someone who just raped you? I won't say it's impossible, but the story sounds dubious. I would like to see these facts presented and proven in court.

Until then, nothing has really been proven. I'll withhold judgment until more information is presented

 

[avenue94]

I'd be more surprised if the greasy, sex-addicted, drug-addled buffoon didn't rape somebody at some point during his run in the spotlight.

Seems like quite a coordinated attack at a guy barely relevant but if the facts and evidence are there, fuck him.

There's been blind items about him for years.