West Ham Online

Dispatches tonight could be about him so he has jumped in first dismissing claims and rumours and saying anything he did in past was consensual. No doubt it will be said that this is The Matrix coming after him due to his opposition to mainstream media.

And I'd also like the 50 or so MPs.mentioend below strung up too!!

And I'd also like the 50 or so MPs.mentioend below strung up too!!

"Thats not true Hammer Oz. I did know him and through the entire ""dodgy"" period and have made it clear of the truth but its mocked or ignored due to not fitting the agenda pushed on here. The vidoe he put out was to be expected..totally ignore the claims but get his followers whipped up into a frenzy about a matrix attack. The chat on here became about if he is right or left wing and about the timing of the claims rather than about what if its true. I mean one person has even said he would happily do what RB did, with women, if he was in RB position. Where are Russell's actual friends support?.there isn't any. There ia support from people about a matrix attack but they dont know him. His best friend of old distanced himself from.him in the docu. His former good friennd and PA threw him under the bus on the doc (helen), the comedy world has genrally comdemned him, strangers or former partners have told their story and still peoeple who follow him.but don't know him are in denial. My partner and i ejected him 3 times from parties at mine or my venue for behaviour l, I lost my best friendship with his manager due to me not liking his behaviour. I did a lot for Russell and his charity Focus 12 back in the day and yet always had this dark feeling in my bones when he was around. Having seen that video, I'm airing on the side of people who have claimed this whole move into news and politics (of the US, not his country of birth) was yet another manipulation by this king manipulator to give himself the perfect defence of matrix attack. It seems he stopped his Hollywood pursuit abruptly around the time of the rape allegation in US. Films came out after but production was wrapped up circa 2012. Hiding in Plain Sight is a very apt phrase for him. As for timing, the investigation started 18months ago not last week. But people who actually know him have known for minimum 15 years and just assumed he had got away with it. Bet Noel Fielding is shitting himself too. I still think he will ride this out due to lack of evidence and I'm all for forgivenes but only if you admit to ur wrongdoings rather than mocking the victims or denying jt. Admit that was you and give the people a chance to make their own decision of if they still want to follow you, sadly I think people still will. It's the worship gene we all carry. Beware of false prophets."

"Like everyone on here, don’t know the person or the facts. Why is fact is that spoke out about the Covid hoax and the money that was stolen from the tax payer The people in charge love that don’t they, they go ‘Ok, you caught us’ They would never discredit the person, they hate paedos, look at the way Prince Andrew and Epstein’s client list has been pursued"

"Russell Brand and the presumption of innocence The public loses from such unserious debate Peter Ramsay Should the presumption of innocence apply to Russell Brand in the court of public opinion, as it should in a court of law? It is a question that has sharply divided social media this past week, and both sides have a point. To say, as one prominent commentator did, that “the state” has to presume your innocence, whereas the “average person” does not, is simplifying things a bit. After all, the police will in practice often have to presume guilt if they hope to assemble enough evidence to charge a person. Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is a specific legal doctrine which seeks to limit the potential dangers arising from prosecution by the state. It is the most important decision-making rule in the criminal procedure. Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email Already registered? Sign in Yet the precise implications of the rule, and the effects that it ought to have, are disputed by lawyers and legal academics. Many, for instance, think that a practice such as the use of the dock in British courts violates the presumption, as it risks prejudicing a defendant in front of a jury. Others disagree. But few would dispute that the core of the idea is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Today, English judges are advised to tell a jury that they must be “sure” of a defendant’s guilt before convicting. The reason for the rule is commonly thought to be to protect the individual citizen from the power of the state, and the presumption does indeed have this effect. Nobody will have their property or liberty taken from them by the Crown’s judicial servants, unless the prosecutor, an agent of the Crown Prosecution Service, is able to make a jury or magistrate “sure” that the person violated the criminal law. This emphasis on liberty, however, obscures another side to this heavy burden of proof. When a jury declares itself sure that the law was broken, it also implicitly declares its belief that the state’s immense penal power is being used in the public interest, and not being abused in pursuit of private or factional interests, for personal revenge or political advantage. In other words, the presumption of innocence protects the integrity and the authority of the state as a truly public institution. It reassures us, the Crown’s subjects, that the Crown’s agents are what they claim to be: the representatives of the supposed common interests protected by the criminal law, even if they sometimes get it wrong. That the presumption is a guarantee of the state’s authority is the underlying reason why it is so important in modern nations, and why even obviously repressive or corrupt regimes will often pretend to uphold it. So, those who claim the presumption of innocence does not apply to public debate about Brand’s guilt are partly correct. The presumption is a core rule of public law which serves critical and specific political functions, and perhaps its name should be honoured by reserving it for legal proceedings. The weakness of their argument, however, is that the same considerations that lead the state to maintain the legal rule should lead ordinary citizens to be very cautious about public statements concerning the guilt of a person accused of wrongdoing. When people who do not have direct evidence concerning Brand’s alleged offences make arguments that assume his guilt, the rest of us know that, since they neither witnessed anything nor heard all the evidence tested in court, they cannot possibly know for “sure” one way or the other. As a result, they reveal themselves as people who share the qualities of a state that does not maintain the presumption of innocence in its legal procedures. And this can have certain potency. As John Stuart Mill pointed out long ago, the law and its police, courts and prisons are not the only instrument of censorship. Similarly, they are not the only way to restrict the lives of citizens. Stoking outrage, hysteria and fear in civil society can do that too. Consider how YouTube has already decided to stop Brand making any money from his channel, though none of the accusations is proved. Second, those who imply guilt without sufficient knowledge also reveal themselves to be people who are not capable of exercising real public authority, because their commitment to the public interest cannot be trusted. They are willing to defame another person on mere suspicion that the accused might have broken the law. True, they are not claiming to represent the public in the formal way a prosecutor does. Nevertheless, they discount the possibility that the accused may have done nothing contrary to the public interest in order to grind their personal or political axe. This transformation of a criminal accusation into a political weapon confuses law with politics. Of course, the criminal law is the outcome of politics. When our political representatives decide that it is in the public interest to condemn and exclude a particular wrongdoing from social life, they make it a matter for prosecution and punishment by the state. Whether or not they are right about what is in the public interest is itself what political dispute is about; think of drugs laws or hate speech offences. But it is a serious mistake to imagine that, because law is the outcome of politics, law is a good way to do politics. Publicly assuming that unproven criminal accusations are true for political gain only undermines trust in the good faith of political participants, and trust in public life as a whole. If the authorities were to take no action, to fail to investigate an individual following public accusations, then matters might be different. But that is a bridge we are not even close to crossing yet. In the meantime, the relish with which some commentators seem to discuss accusations of criminal wrongdoing is a marker of a political culture that is instinctively repressive and simultaneously unserious. It is not even two months since Kevin Spacey was acquitted of similar charges that had served to destroy his career, yet here we are again. Perhaps this time, Russell Brand will be proved guilty. Either way, those commentators who have already proclaimed his guilt will have only reinforced an idea propounded by Brand himself: that they cannot be trusted with the public interest."

Nice. Gonna get really fun.

Just been released https://youtu.be/kIQxQF6nFts?si=QXAxB89RFPWc0a81

"It's always been tough area to know what the right path is to release this stuff. It used to be that in the courts the accuser or victim couldn't be named in sexual offenses. Now I think that got extended to the accused since the whole thing comes with such a stigma. Not sure its good having Brand, whatever yo think of him, having his name and reputation destroyed forever by a news report on evidence that hasn't been tested before a court - but then what does the news organization that has information do - just sit on it, just pass it on to police in every situation? As for the BBC and Channel 4, as was said they are often more on a contract and working for a production house than necessarily directly employed by the stations themselves. And what do they do if they discover something, quietly cut links and say nothing and if it falls short of a crime what do they report to the police?"

"""Chances are that the BBC/C4 did raise concerns about his behaviour with the company he actually worked for and they felt that they had done all they could."" Yeah, like Nike claiming that they didnt know their factories in the far east were slave labour camps.. because a 3rd party contractor was employed.. lol Wouldn't stop the C4/Beeb doing a hit job on them.. What gets me about the whole story is not Brand, it's the whole ""we are judge and jury fuck what the law says"" media. I just can't deal with how much the whole establishment think they are gods or something. How on earth should the BBC/C4 be allowed to investigate themselves on this? This should be an independent inquiry from the get go. Self policing clearly doesn't work otherwise the geezer wouldn't have been employed by you on and off for the last 2 decades!"

man's a cսnt - but let him have a trial first sleep with dogs you get fleas

Everyone is a genius with the benefit of hindsight. But nobody said anything despite all these warning signs? Plus it gives some shit comedians some air time.

"They all recognise the destination unknown ""15 Minutes of Fame Gravy Train"" and are not afraid to jump on board whenever it stops to refuel."

The god damn awful Nish Kumar getting the boot in now. The “ comedian “ who describes himself as a cisgender heterosexual states he saw it coming and everyone knew about it and it still goes on in the comedy world. I fucking loathe Kumar and his shit “ comedy “ the woke fuck.

"The BBC are desperately struggling to put daylight between Brand and their approved, pre-recorded broadcasts of him...not to mention, the schoolgirl allegedly assaulted here, for whom they sent a car to pick her up from her school and deliver her to Brand. How the fuck that one ever got authorised is beyond me."

So if the BBC or channel 4 had exactly the proof out now then they should not have broadcast his show though I'd assume? But we want to blame cancel culture for YouTube not even canceling but saying he won't make money from them via his shows?

"joyo 7:40 Fri Sep 22 Well, if she's got at least two legs and no arse splinters we can be pretty sure it wasn't the under-aged doris you roared up in Cambodia. So at least you won't be getting a visit from the feds at your abandoned lock-up squat in Upminster...just yet."

"Oxbore 6.56 Do you think, maybe, that the 16 year old he is alleged to have shagged is a now C4/Times/Sunday Times reporter's wife My you really are one sick old fart,does the care home know you post this kind of shit?"

"He wouldn't have been employed directly by the BBC or C4 - would have been on a Lineker. Chances are that the BBC/C4 did raise concerns about his behaviour with the company he actually worked for and they felt that they had done all they could. Possibly the contract between the BBC/C4 & his company was for the delivery of ""A Comedian"", and if he was self-employed, he was the only comedian on the books available. Equally, concerns about Russell Brand's behaviour would have been raised with...Russell Brand... I suspect that the contract termination clause was prohibitively expensive, or, more likely, they were coining it in on the back of his performances and so kept schtum. Eating your cake and (still) having it springs to mind."

"Misbehaviour could have been addressed as it would/should in any workplace Again - how should they have addressed this. You seem to want to have a way to both whine about him being cancelled and also whine about Channel 4 and the BBC not taking action to what, remove him from the air - aka - cancelling him."

Didn't the times report specifically say that someone came to them with allegations in 2019 and they have been working to get to the point where they had enough to report but not get sued since then?

I agree that you have to question why this has come to prominence now when I understand none of this behaviour has occurred for years

He was working on BBC & C4 productions under their direction and dealing with their people. Misbehaviour could have been addressed as it would/should in any workplace The creepy behaviour of Huw Edwards doesnt seem to have been addressed early either SO MUCH FOR LEARNING LESSONS FROM SAVILLE I understand his Youtube work is just him producing stuff and using that as a platform. Would he have any interaction with Youttube staff or they any dealings with his actual production of content? Has any Youtube employee raised complaints against him?

He was working on BBC & C4 productions under their direction and dealing with their people. Misbehaviour could have been addressed as it would/should in any workplace The creepy behaviour of Huw Edwards doesnt seem to have been addressed early either SO MUCH FOR LEARNING LESSONS FROM SAVILLE I understand his Youtube work is just him producing stuff and using that as a platform. Would he have any interaction with Youttube staff or they any dealings with his actual production of content? Has any Youtube employee raised complaints against him?

"If he were acting now as he was then, I'd have no issue, if I was bothered, with having to search for his stuff away from MSM...but he isn't. THEN he was shagging anything that lacked a three-piece suite, today he's shagging the establishment, showing a fetish for political portfolios, the industrio-military complex and big pharma. As Corporal Jones often said: ""THEY don't like it up 'em"" (""But, in 2023,"" he would have had to have added, ""they're more than entitled to hand it out""). Do you think, maybe, that the 16 year old he is alleged to have shagged is a now C4/Times/Sunday Times reporter's wife?"

"By dealt with it you mean taken him off the air or what? Isn't that what YouTube have done in ""cancelling"" him. Found out about his behavior and demonetized him? Or we think BBC and C4 should have put bromide in his tea?"