Posted by Dovetail Joint on September 19, 2023, 6:15 am
I was listening to Radio5 Live and they replayed, for all those people who were at work all day, the interview with 'Alice' the woman who had a sexual relationship with Russell Brand when she was sixteen and he was in his early thirties.
I thought the interview was... problematic. 'Alice' was critiquing he teenage selv and regretting her actions. She said her mother warned her and was violently opposed to her relationship with the older Brand. But she ingnored this advice and being grounded and sneaked off to be with him. The mature woman now insists that she was not able to take proper decisions about who she had relationships with and was being groomed by Brand. Ah, the benefits of hindsight.
The Women's Hour presenter, actually, if I remember correctly, used the term 'technically legal' about Brand having sex with 'Alice', that seems a rather loaded term... 'technically legal'. It was more than 'technically legal' surely? It was legal, not a crime and absolutely legal sex. As the law stands a sixteen year old can have sex with anyone they choose, perfectly legally. Who decides what the 'proper' or 'appropriate' age for sex is? The presenters of Woman's Hour?
'Alice' then ridiculed Brand's view that he isn't part of the mainstream anymore. Of course he is, said 'Alice'. He's part of the mainstream and has a Youtube channel! He's talking about a plot against him, a conspiracy theory, that's nonsense. without missing beat or a breath, 'Alice' then presents her own 'conspiracy theory' about Brand. That he's worked for years to build-up his Youtube profile as a defence, and followers, in order to protect himself for the day when he knew the truth of his behavior would come to light!
'Alice' who is clearly a modern, middle-class, feminist, talked about 'men like him' use their power to manipulate women and the public. 'Alice' clearly had an agenda, a 'feminist' agenda aimed not just at Brand, but lots of other men, who have power and behave like him.
Then they 5Live had an interview with the leading journalists from despatches who had a team investigating Brand, for years.
They too had a 'feminist' agenda relating to power in society. They obviously consider themselves to be a 'vanguard'. They talked about how society 'had moved on' and now one could address the behavior of men like Brand. This is before he's been charged with anything, let alone convicted of any crime! As far as we know, he's an innocent man, still.
She didn't think the women they interviewed should have gone to the police with their allegations. That was up to them, their decision entirely. Which I thought was a bit odd personally. After all we are talking about serious crimes here.
I could go on, and on. They clearly 'had it in' for Brand and his 6 million Youtube followers. They even mentioned his conspiracy theories about Covid and Ukraine.
Finally they mentiond the latest development, were a woman has complained to the Met about attempted rape in Soho London, apparently in the street, back in 2003. Good luck proving that in court.
YouTube demonitizes Brand
Posted by RaskolnikovX on September 19, 2023, 8:54 am, in reply to "Burning Brand"
YouTube has suspended Russell Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform following allegations of rape and sexual assault in a massive hit to his finances.
The video-sharing and social media site said it had suspended Brand’s channel from the YouTube partner programme after serious allegations against him, meaning his videos are no longer able to monetise on the platform.
The 48-year-old comedian and actor has been accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013, when he was at the height of his fame working for the BBC, Channel 4 and starring in Hollywood films. He denies the allegations, saying all his relationships were consensual.
The Met police said on Monday they had received an allegation of sexual assault in Soho, central London, in 2003. The force added that as yet no investigation had been launched.
Suspending Brand’s ability to earn money from his YouTube channel is a major blow to the comedian’s finances. YouTube pays creators a cut of the money it earns from showing adverts next to their videos, which can be a highly lucrative business.
Brand had prepared for this eventuality by moving many of his videos across to rival site Rumble, although this a relatively niche outlet that does not give Brand access to the 6.5 million subscribers he has built up during a decade on YouTube.
Although Brand no longer works for mainstream media outlets, his alternative media empire still relies on several online platforms such as YouTube that host his content and process payments. Brand’s book publisher has already said it will pause future projects with the performer.
A spokesperson for YouTube said: “We have suspended monetisation on Russell Brand’s channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.”
Industry experts have estimated Brand probably makes between £2,000 to £4,000 a video, which,, based on five videos a week, could produce close to £1m a year.
YouTube’s creator responsibility guidelines state that “if a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms users, employees, or ecosystem, the platform may take action to protect its community, including by suspending monetisation.
“When a creator is suspended from the YouTube partner programme, they are prohibited from using a new or alternate channel to circumvent our enforcement decision.”
YouTube’s move follows decisions to suspend Brand’s live tour and cancel future publishing plans.
The allegations in the Times, the Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches include claims Brand assaulted one of the women when she was a 16-year-old schoolgirl, while another woman has claimed he raped her against a wall in his home in Los Angeles. The Sunday Times published texts to her – from a phone number that it said multiple sources verified as belonging to Brand – in which he said: “I’m sorry. That was crazy and selfish.”
A third woman says she was assaulted in the same house the following year after working with Brand on a project.
Before the first allegations were published, Brand posted a video online on Friday saying he had been “promiscuous” but that all of his relationships had been “consensual”.
Brand’s publisher, Bluebird, said “all future publishing” with the comedian had been paused. A planned title, Recovery: The Workbook, by Brand was due to be published in December 2025, according to the company’s website.
The remaining shows on Brand’s Bipolarisation tour were postponed after an announcement on Monday. A statement from the promoters said: “We are postponing these few remaining addiction charity fundraiser shows, we don’t like doing it – but we know you’ll understand.”
How many people do you think you could find that violate that pious "creator responsibility policy" spiel in a quick ten minute search on YouTube? I bet the various arms of the US military have plenty of channels and they are detroying the ecosystem and killing plenty of users, just not important, western, white ones.
Also, they keep repeating this as if it proves anything:
The Sunday Times published texts to her – from a phone number that it said multiple sources verified as belonging to Brand – in which he said: “I’m sorry. That was crazy and selfish.”
Unless the context is given this is pretty much meaningless and far from the admission of rape they seem to think it is.
...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Posted by Ken Waldron on September 19, 2023, 4:02 pm, in reply to "Burning Brand"
All he had to do to be a really successful celeb was...support the Conservative party, be a personal "jester" for price (king) Charles and spend many happy Xmas's as a personal friend and guest staying at Chequers with the Tory prime minister.
Then he could have done whatever he wanted with a guaranteed establishment cover-up till he actually joined the corpses like the ones in the Stoke Mandeville hospital morgue that you used to fiddle with....couldn't he Mr Savile?
Cyrik Smith says he agrees....
Posted by Keith-264 on September 19, 2023, 4:14 pm, in reply to "Its not difficult..."
nmClio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Jackie on September 19, 2023, 4:10 pm, in reply to "Burning Brand"
You're right, the relationship with the teenager was legal, period.
"As far as we know, he's an innocent man, still" I wouldn't say as far as we know. In the eyes of the law, he's innocent until proven guilty.
I can kind of see why YouTube would demonitize his channel. They haven't cancelled it so he still has the platform, they just aren't letting him make money from it now. It's true as Ras says that there are no doubt lots of YouTube posters with similar accusations against them who haven't been similarly punished.
I have mixed feelings about this Russell Brand issue. I used to follow and respect his pov, I didn't like the direction he was going in (while aware that lots of people feel as he does), I don't like women having to restrict their behaviour in order to avoid being assumed to be getting what they deserve when they are sexually assaulted, I don't like women being viewed as expendable sexual prey.
I can also see that people with bipolar disorder and/or addictions could feel targeted by what's happening to Brand.
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Keith-264 on September 19, 2023, 4:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Burning Brand"
I don't like women having to restrict their behaviour in order to avoid being assumed to be getting what they deserve when they are sexually assaulted, I don't like women being viewed as expendable sexual prey.
I don't like this for anyone.Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Jackie on September 19, 2023, 4:51 pm, in reply to "Re: Burning Brand"
Of course! But I think it’s an issue for more women and girls than for any other group. Anyway, I will reflect my own experience cause that’s what I know. And others will reflect theirs.
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Dovetail Joint on September 19, 2023, 6:56 pm, in reply to "Re: Burning Brand"
Calling Brand a 'sexual predator' is a loaded phrase. Doesn't it imply that women are 'victims' or like chickens surrounded by foxes?
I started having sex pretty early myself and I knew a number of girls who were having sex 'early' too. At the age of 14 wasn't uncommon at all. I knew a lot of young girls/women who had sex with older guys, because they were more 'experienced' compared to fourteen or fifteen year old boys. This might have had something to do the music and drug scene we were involved in.
Where I live 'kids' have sex, when they feel like it and nobody appears to concern themselves with the 'rules'. They make them up as they go along.
The British middle class have always had a 'thing' about sex and a horror of what the lower orders actually got up to. The puritan, progressive, liberal/left in the media, especially the 'feminists' have an agenda. They are exploiting women in order to get power for themselves. It's about power and a platform. All they want is to push a lot of men aside, so they can grab their positions, and they use sex as the battering ram to smash the patriarchy. It's not about dismantling the power structure at all, it's about replacing male bosses, with female bosses.
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Jackie on September 19, 2023, 7:48 pm, in reply to "Re: Burning Brand"
I didn't call him a sexual predator. I don't know what he did.
I do know that there are sexual predators targeting women and girls, whether or not those women and girls think of themselves as victims.
You might laugh me off the board for this But Tess of the d'Urbervilles and lots of other literature talked about it long before your 'feminists' started their 'agenda' of 'replacing male bosses, with female bosses'.
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Dovetail Joint on September 19, 2023, 8:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Burning Brand"
I know you didn't. The term 'sexual predator' has been thrown around in the media over the last few days.
The left/liberal 'class' has chosen the platform or battlefield of sex and gender, because they've totally given up on the 'class war'. It's a harmless reservation or playground for middle class people, a sandbox, which has virtually no relevance or isn't a threat to the established economic order of capitalism. Middle class 'feminists' in the media seem to have next to no knowledge about how people live or behave.
Modern middle class feminism is just a crass way of climbing up the career ladder. They claim its' about equality for women, but it's really about opportunity for them to climb the greasy pole.
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Keith-264 on September 19, 2023, 8:29 pm, in reply to "Re: Burning Brand"
I haven't paid much attention to the Brand scandal but the way that he has been portrayed in the corp-0-rat media is the opposite of justice. I've no doubt that the anti-Brand partisans are ambitious climbers, quick to hide their "complicity" in the past but I wouldn't blame feminism, more a bastardised pseudo-feminism in some of the blah, blah, blah-ers bereft of anything as vulgar as concern for working-class women.Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Dovetail Joint on September 19, 2023, 8:57 pm, in reply to "Re: Burning Brand"
That's why I put it... 'feminism' in quotation marks.
Re: Burning Brand
Posted by Keith-264 on September 20, 2023, 7:34 pm, in reply to "Re: Burning Brand"
YesClio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
It's easier to claim victim status than it is to admit to poor judgement
Posted by SueC on September 19, 2023, 7:00 pm, in reply to "Burning Brand"
I suspect that many of the historical claims of rape, sexual assault and grooming arise because women are haunted by previous bad or unhappy experiences and cannot accept those experiences happened because they were young, wanted to appear more grown-up than they actually were and had poor judgement about the guys with whom they were eager to be involved.
It's feminism 101 - women are responsible for their own behaviour. Everyone makes bad decisions - women of my generation used to say that you get to kiss a lot of frogs before finding your own Prince Charming. It's a phrase that recognises bad experiences happen - but, if you're wise, you learn from them. And you don't mistake them for crimes.
It would be better all round if they (the media) didn't conflate various bad behaviour with the alleged crimes for quite a few reasons but mostly it plays into the "out to take him down" defence and makes the serious alleged crimes look less important.
There should also be more context to all of the incidents. If some of these women were in some kind of relationship with him while he was smashing the rocks and brown it's possible, but I would say very unlikely, that they weren't getting high while with him. As noted in another thread on here, that doesn't stop rape being rape but it complicates things as far as how accurate the recollections are and also gives a very different picture about the circumstances. It's like that Bill Burr bit about how the #MeToo stories kind of tailed off from actual crimes into just bad dates: "He was twenty minutes late...the chicken was overcooked..."
SueC's post about bad experiences and guilt arising from them seems very pertinent to me and is something that you don't see mentioned in the coverage of this in the media. It's just "Woman says this happened 20 years ago, man guilty, burn him".
It seems the initial frenzy has died down so now I guess we have to wait and see whether any actual legal action occurs but he's already been tarred and feathered whatever the final outcome.
I'm not much of a fan of his, particularly his more recent incarnation, but this trial by anonymous accusation in the media is exactly the kind of thing "they" have constantly been claiming doesn't exist and leaves a bad taste in the mouth....err...so to speak. ...no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party...So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.
Re: It's easier to claim victim status than it is to admit to poor judgement
I doubt that there are many people who don't cringe about their younger selves as they breathe a sigh of relief that they don't drop themselves in it as much as they used to do. (That's me that is.)
Victim status sells papers but as you point out, it can be a false sanctuary, not a healthy frame of mind.Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Re: It's easier to claim victim status than it is to admit to poor judgement
The film is a partisan disgrace. Manipulative journalism at its frightening worst. I was shocked that it was that bad. It's like the methods employed by the media to demonize foreign leaders and justify the destruction of their countries for their crimes. I kept thinking about the crass dogmas behind the 'Responsibility to Protect' nonsense. It's when one sees something as truly ghastly as the Dispatches show, that one realizes how precious due process and fair trials really are. God save us if these 'vanguard progressives' are stopped soon.
on September 19, 2023, 6:15 am