|
Post by doug61 on Sept 28, 2023 16:41:13 GMT
All these people should really be viewed equally and purely on the evidence. From the short time I watched which covered the LA rape allegations and the texts from Brand apologising and the victim immediately texting back "No, means no" and going to a rape clinic the very next day, it does seem very damning. Yes, quite. There was a long thread about Brand on the old TalkPunk board, in which I was the only person who criticised him for his posturing and hypocrisy and identified him as a wrong 'un. Everybody else, including Lord E, was defending him, as at the time he was saying all the things that appeal to left-wingers. In particular, he was campaigning against gentrification pushing working-class people out of east London, whilst living in a recently gentrified area himself β in other words, campaigning against a problem that he himself had helped to cause. Yet people fell for it, as they always do β to the Left, what people say is more important than what they do and blatant hypocrisy can always be excused. Similarly, there was recently a Guardian article in which several Labour politicians argued against private education. One of the below-the-line commentators pointed out that most of those politicians sent their kids to private school. Cue the usual hand-wringing arguments stating that those people were only sending their children to private schools because they had no choice while private schools exist, and that there was nothing unreasonable about their behaviour. Brand is simply a hollow creature who is extremely adept at playing the media. I suspect that the only genuine thing about him is his huge appetite for women β preferably timid and submissive. You can be a sexual predator and all round scumbag and also have humane and sensible political viewpoints, they aren't mutually exclusive. It's not terrorism, his political views didn't fuel his acts.
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Sept 28, 2023 19:47:01 GMT
You can be a sexual predator and all round scumbag and also have humane and sensible political viewpoints, they aren't mutually exclusive. It's not terrorism, his political views didn't fuel his acts. Bad (and, of course, good) people can have views that are right-wing, left-wing or anywhere in between. It was the disconnect between Brand's actions and words that made me suspicious of him β it takes quite some chutzpah to campaign against a problem that you yourself specifically helped to cause. Anyone with that much confidence and that little integrity is not likely to be particularly admirable in other aspects of their life.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Sept 29, 2023 8:31:44 GMT
Sociopaths can be very plausible
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on Nov 4, 2023 12:13:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Nov 14, 2023 17:04:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on Dec 18, 2023 19:15:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on Feb 14, 2024 17:45:29 GMT
Russell Brand has denied sexually assaulting a woman on a film set, saying his accuser has a "faulty memory of the events".
In a civil lawsuit in November, the woman accused the actor and comedian of exposing himself and assaulting her while filming Arthur in 2010.
But his lawyers have said the lawsuit is "premised on the false claim" that he was visibly intoxicated at the time.
He was playing a drunk character but was sober in reality, they said.
The woman appeared to be "unable to distinguish acting from reality", they said in legal papers filed on Tuesday.
In her lawsuit, filed with New York State Supreme Court, the unnamed woman claimed the actor had "appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, and was carrying a bottle of vodka on set".
He then exposed himself in full view of the cast and crew, her papers said.
The woman said that later the same day, Brand entered the bathroom after her and assaulted her as "a member of production crew guarded the door from outside".
In his response, he has denied those allegations and said he did not recognise her name or photo, and did not remember having any interactions with her.
His legal papers said: "Famously, the character, Arthur Bach, originally played by Dudley Moore in the 1981 comedy, Arthur, is a drunk.
"Brand, an actor and comedian, played the same role in the 2010 remake. While Brand's job was to act drunk and portray a drunk the film, he did not drink a sip of alcohol or consume any drugs at any time during production."
Brand's lawyer added that "the "open alcohol bottle" was a prop for the film.
Her "faulty memory of the events she alleged in her complaint - more than 13 years after they supposedly happened - is fatal to her claims", the statement added.
At the time of the filming, Brand had not taken drugs or alcohol for about eight years, his lawyers said.
Film studio Warner Bros Pictures and other companies involved in the production are also named as defendants.
He is also facing a number of other accusations of rape, sexual assaults and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013.
In December, London's Metropolitan Police said he had been questioned in relation to nine alleged offences, and that its inquiries were continuing.
He has previously said his relationships have "always" been consensual
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on May 14, 2024 17:45:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on May 14, 2024 19:36:09 GMT
He's absolutely bonkers
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on Jul 23, 2024 13:47:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by personunknown on Jul 23, 2024 15:38:25 GMT
Brand fans might think his utterances are deep and profound but to me it's just babble and noise.
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on Jul 23, 2024 16:33:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stu77 on Jul 24, 2024 11:29:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by smogquixote on Jul 28, 2024 23:30:19 GMT
He is cynically leaning into the Trump crowd as they donβt hold any of their idols to account
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jul 29, 2024 7:57:06 GMT
Fortunately, in the modern world, in which we all live in our own little silos, it's possible to completely ignore the likes of Brand
When's his prosecution?
|
|