Dispatches channel 4 expose **Read Opening Post before posting**

Multiple posters have claimed it's a political hit job against him....

And cast aspersions as to the motives of C4 / The Times and the women involved.

Plenty of those allegations turned out to be true. Weinstein, Cosby, Savillle to name a few.

The programme was very credible. The women making the serious allegations have nothing to gain from this. If they were just after a payday this would have come out years ago.

These crimes are hard to prove but the allegations are credible since they're coming from multiple unrelated sources.

Probably won't hurt Brand too much among his current followers though. Not the smartest types.

Brand's agents must be in on the conspiracy too.

Alex Jones has now said it's a conspiracy against Brand. Then again he denied Sandy Hook happened. That seems to be the level of his defenders. Far right liars and frauds, genuinely evil ones at that.

Does it apply to Jimmy Savile in your view? Savile was never convicted of anything, remember.

Quote from thread:

"It's strange that this hit piece is coming out now when the popularity of his political views is high, rather than several years ago during the metoo movement."

I've never been a fan of Russel Brand. I originally found him to be loud and obnoxious and then he shifted to being some man-of-the-people intellectual who was challenging the mainstream using lots of big words and talking excitedly but never really saying anything ground-breaking. I haven't read any of his books or watched his material but what descriptions I've seen of it suggest its all style and no substance.

What is out in the open about his relationship with Katy Perry gives food for thought. He uploaded a picture of her without makeup without her permission. It might not sound like a big deal but it did upset her. That was the selfish way he'd behave with his wife. According to Wikipedia, the last time he spoke to her was a message to say he was getting a divorce. Sure, divorces aren't fun but it doesn't paint him in a great light.

There was all his revolution talk while he was living the life of riley, too. To me, he's always come across as insincere and thinks people will go along with him because he's a 'cheeky chappy'.

I read that article in the Times. If true, it's very bad for him. You can say the 16-year-old got into the relationship consensually but she was certainly upset about him shoving it into her mouth. Consent for one thing doesn't mean consent for everything, as seems to be the case with the one he allegedly raped. If that text exchange is true, its damning.

The video he posted just shows how he'll defend himself and there'll be plenty of lemmings who lap it up. They won't believe it if he's found guilty and a report on the BBC from his show last night suggests the crowd were engaging in mainstream media bashing.

His agency dropping him is bad news but they're also fucked if they've been sitting on this info for three years and are only acting now because this is coming out in the open.

In fairness Andrew Sachs not speaking to his grand daughter for 8 years due to that incident is his own fault that he let upset and embarassment sop him from speaking to his grandchild.

Lets also remember the media which is now deciding to destroy Brand (and he fully deserves it if the accusations are true) were all for him and promoting him as this lovable rogue when he was making money for them.They were fine to indulge his behavior when he was popular in mainstream media , now that he isn't suddenly his behavior is a problem (when it should always have been seen as a problem) .

The reason there is going to be so much going to town on him now as that so many of the media fell for his cheeky chappy, lovable rogue act and liked him for it and in order to assuage their own guilt they have to go to town on him now.He was almost certainly particularly popular with the female demographic (based on the type of shows and movies he appeared in) but of course you won't hear that being admitted from now on.To anyone sensible gave all the indications of being a slimebag from day 1 and yet people decided to ignore this.

Andrew Sachs embarrassment and upset is a direct result of Russell Btand (and Johnathan Ross’s) actions.

I do agree that certain aspects of the media are going full circle on him.

I dint like the fact that RB threatened a woman that he’d get his kegal s onto her. Pure balance of power stuff.

But he wasn't convicted. Brand's defenders are using the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra to try and defend him. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a strictly legal term. And it's a very strict term, so if one is to apply it to Brand, it has to apply to Savile too.

Brand is only "innocent until proven guilty" in a strictly legal sense, for the moment.

But this term doesn't and shouldn't apply to what people think. People are entitled to draw their own conclusions about a person, and any person with any shred of morals or decency will have firmly drawn their own conclusions about Brand after last night's programme. As they would have many years ago about Savile when the allegations about him came into the public eye.

Examples of this always happening?

The first 10 mins of the documentary, in particular, are extremely damaging to Brand. The allegation is unambiguous, she went to rape treatment facility, text messages from Brand apologising. Enough evidence there for serious questions to be asked. Definitely credible in my opinion.

There is a massive difference between his sexist bullying behavior which was tolerated but maybe never became an actual crime and these allegations.

Weinstein was carrying out assaults for years so was Savillle. Their power kept them safe. Brand could bep in serious trouble.

Do people really believe that Channel 4, and The Sunday Times want to give Brand millions in damages, through making up stories about him. There's a lot of simply minds out there if they believe that.

I'm sure you'd all be happy enough if your 16 year old daughter was picked up from school in a taxi and delivered to a 31 year old man. Which is literally what happened. Defend that.

You haven't refuted anything I've said.

In fact you've made your bias clear for all to see. You've equated successful prosecutions with an automatic guilt of the defendent, when the reality is that the person could well be innocent and in fact the charges themselves are false.

India is the false accusation capital of the world, 80% of cases there are proven to be false. However when that happens over here we have feminist groups doing what you just did. Claiming that if a prosecution is unsuccesful the defendant is still guilty. This is true even where the accuser is proven to have lied.

"The crimes are hard to prove"

Well yes, but mud is easy to sling. When Conor McGregor was falsely accused of rape literally everyone on social media declared him guilty with alacrity, as soon as the CCTV was available she suddenly changed her tune. Not one of those people apologised and as for his accuser...

Brand and practically no one can defend against anonymous allegations from a decade or more ago. These days our courts are so stacked against men you can have CCTV evidence exonerate you and the state will still press charges

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/i-m-not-the-same-sil-fox-comedian-seeks-damages-after-sex-assault-case-is-dismissed-1.4488854