MovieChat Forums > Russell Brand Discussion > I believe the victims

I believe the victims


I don't know them but if the victim went to a rape crisis Center on the day and there is cell phone proof she was only with him on that day, then yes, I believe her

reply

I believe them too.

reply

based on what?

reply

Did you read the allegations? They definitely sound credible.

reply

how?

reply

Ask yourself this: is it typical that after a consensual sexual encounter, someone would go to a rape crisis centre? If a woman you slept with texted you that she felt taken advantage and that no means no, how would an innocent man respond? Would he not defend himself and point out that it was consensual and that the woman did not say no? How many women would be willing to accuse the same man of rape if it was consensual? If you consider the facts and evidence as we have them now, it definitely looks like he is guilty.

reply

Sounds like you just described a mentally ill woman. Many such cases.

reply

Which is more likely that multiple women that Brand slept with were mentally ill and are all falsely accusing him or that he is guilty?

reply

Of the multiple women, how many have actually evidence? Sounds like the typical dog pile needed to convince people of something that isn't true. Strength in numbers bullshit and weird how they all decided to come out at once. This is actually a HUGE red flag to clear thinkers.

reply

It sounds like you want to believe he is innocent, no matter what.

reply

You know how I know he's guilty? When the cops show up to arrest him and charge him before a news media alerts it, then I'm suspicious. Then when the prosecutor pulls out a bloody set of panties and they victim puts them on to show they fit. Then when those panties have both their DNAs on it. So yeah, per usual, the burden of proof is on the accuser because that's how the system was set up. To prevent LIARS from accusing innocent people, and it was set for that reason because this is and ALWAYS was a VERY COMMON THING. TO LIE.

reply

She went to the rape crisis center and did not press charges - really?

I got raped and got all of my tests done, but let's wait for this dude to get more famous, then I'll reveal it all! lol

Seriously though - this is not how it works.

reply

He got less famous. The guy was appearing in Hollywood movies at the time of the incident. Now he is a YouTuber pandering to gullible Americans.

reply

He's making more money now than he ever was before.

reply

He was still more relevant and famous in mainstream media at the time. Stop being a rapist apologist, it's pathetic.

reply

Stop believing an accusation equals fact. You're calling the guy a rapist without any evidence coming forward.

reply

If you've actually seen the Dispatches documentary you will see that the claims are more than credible and cross referenced with third party organisations and sources. This isn't a 'he said she said' case. These random apologists on a movie forum are going by absolutely nothing but their feelings. The evidence is piled against him right now and it's not looking good.

reply

lol, you act like documentaries can't have a slant or an agenda.

reply

Well, no, I don't think that's what LiquidOcelot is saying. The Channel 4 documentary clearly has a 'slant' and an 'agenda'. The slant is that Russell Brand has a history of sexual offences and reprehensible behaviour and the 'agenda' is exposing this.

The question is not whether the documentary has a slant or an agenda, but whether it makes its case through the gathering and presentation of supporting evidence. And it also has to make a case that wouldn't fall foul of strict UK broadcasting regulations, and laws on libel and defamation.

They can't just make shit up. They'd be sued into oblivion.

reply

a slant doesn't have to be fictional, but you can misrepresent a lot of things through selective omissions and selective inclusions. I think it's hilarious that people have a problem with letting facts presented in a legal setting be what determines a person's guilt.

reply

Do you know anything about UK broadcasting regulations? Do you know anything about UK libel laws? Do you know anything about anything at all? Or do you just pontificate?

reply

That in no way adresses my very valid point about selective journalism. Nice way to deflect though. Again its laughable that waiting for courtroom evidence is such a problem for you.

reply

I'll take that as a no. Top tip: if you don't know anything about a subject, keep schtum until you do.

reply

more deflection and more confirming you don't care about the legal process. I heard you rape kids. No need for a trial, lets get you locked up you kid fucker. See how that works?

reply


You've conceded that you haven't seen the documentary and you've tacitly conceded that you know nothing about the legal and regulatory framework under which the documentary was permitted to be broadcast.

You don't know anything. You're wasting both our time.

reply

I'm sorry, but I don't like conversing with people who fuck kids. And as you've established, it doesn't need a trial to be confirmed. The accusation was made, so by your own logic you fuck kids, sicko. I'm not engaging any further with someone who likes to have intercourse with children. You should be locked up.

reply

No, no, you're being obtuse. You can make those baseless allegations on a movie forum. But you could not broadcast them on British television -- because of the legal and regulatory frameworks under which British television operates... about which you know nothing. You can't just make any old claim in a British TV documentary. You have to have legally watertight evidence to back up your claims.




reply

kid fucker

reply

Childish. Go away and have a think about yourself.

reply

kid fucker

reply

Except your assertion holds zero credibility because you're just an idiot on a movie forum with no evidence, victims or witnesses to speak of. You absolutely suck at debating. Just quit while you're behind.

reply

[deleted]

Lame. Uneducated idiot.

reply

[deleted]

only sad bitches report posts!🤣🤡

reply

Not me twat. Never reported anyone before.

reply

I didn't say you did, explicitly, but you knew what I was referring to....convenient.

reply

You replied to me specifically you epic tard.

reply

So you didn't watch the documentary and have no idea what you're even commenting on. Thanks for confirming.

reply

no, I know documentaries are often full of shit, and I'm smart enough to think for myself. I don't need a documentary to tell me what to think. Thanks for confirming that you do though.

reply

Again, confirming you don't even have basic knowledge on the subject you're discussing. Run along now.

reply

It’s what they do though isn’t it? No other information apart from what has been alleged and it’s pitchfork to the ready.

reply

You got that right. It's crazy that they are giving me shit for simply saying we should let the facts come out in a court of law. Fucking clowns.

reply

you are gaslighting - but alas, that's normal in the new normal era - carry on, citizen

reply

LOL at gaslighting. You sound like a bimbo fighting with her boyfriend. Next time make a compelling argument otherwise you'll continue to get called out on it.

reply

and you are now openly trolling - jeez....

reply

Stop your whining.

reply

Yeah, that clown was calling me a rape apologist for saying we should let the facts come out in a legal proceeding.

reply

This is wrong. He's never been more popular than he is now.

reply

Wrong. The world does not revolve around the US, his victims were mainly in the UK and he was more famous in the UK at the time than he is today.

reply

He got less famous.


Rubbish. He's gotten more famous as a political contrarian who's unwilling to be silent about woke bullshit, among other things. If he was a shill for wokeness this lawsuit would never have seen the light of day, even if there were truth to it. He's being targeted because he's too popular as a political commentator with the "wrong" viewpoints.

reply

Oh, he's undoubtedly become more popular among undereducated Americans. He chose to exploit your ignorance for cash. It's a lucrative market. You're easy marks.

However, to the wider and more significant part of the population, he's become significantly less famous. He's just the owner of a medium-sized, niche YouTube channel now.

reply

Oh, he's undoubtedly become more popular among undereducated Americans. He chose to exploit your ignorance for cash. It's a lucrative market.


Go get another booster, lemming.

reply

Well, I'll resist the invitation to be sidetracked by rhetorical drivel that -- in your mind, anyway -- may constitute cutting wit, and restate for the record: while Brand's popularity may have increased within one specific demographic (that you are seemingly a part of), this does not translate to greater fame beyond that.

He was ubiquitous in the UK in the 2000s and had a crack at Hollywood. Now he's a YouTuber with around six million subscribers/flying monkeys giving him his narcissistic supply. And that's all he is.

reply

I'm not part of Brand's "demographic." I find his style annoying, as I do most Brits who make it in America in any sort of talk show circuit, YouTube or otherwise. John Oliver, Craig Ferguson, Russell Brand, etc. Almost invariably they're annoying douchebags. I agree with Brand on some things, but I think he's mainly just an opportunist resurrecting himself after his sputtered-out acting career. Irrespective of my dislike for his style, or agreement and disagreement on his political views, I think the timing of these current charges is highly suspect and politically motivated. #IdontBelieveHer

reply

SICK.

reply

Good for you. I'm not sure why you're telling me any of this. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The exchange was about whether Russell Brand is more famous now or less famous now. He's less famous now. You were wrong. That's it. I don't need your life story.

reply

I'm not sure why you're telling me any of this.


I said why. All you have to do is read. Give it a try sometime.

reply

You are being trolled - ignore the OP

reply

Exactly my thoughts...

It's hilarious when someone who's probably triple-boosted with a placebo that might kill or cripple him calls anyone listening to someone like Russel "gullible" or "uneducated".

reply

I AM/WAS A FAN OF BRAND...I HAD NO IDEA HE WAS A POLITICAL ANYTHING...MOST PEOPLE DON'T...YOU SEEM TO LIVE IN THE TINY POLITICAL NIGHTMARE BUBBLE...BELIEVE ME,FRIEND...IT IS A SMALL GROUP YOU ARE AMONGST AND IT IS UNHEALTHY.

reply

That's the thing. The British newspaper coverage of this has been all about what Russell Brand was doing in the 2000s. Big Brother, a few Hollywood films, panel shows, his BBC radio show, his autobiography. This is because that's what he's known for here. He's more or less disappeared from view more recently.

He's more famous in Britain than he is anywhere else, and the overwhelming majority of British people wouldn't be able to tell you what he's been up to for the past five years. Maybe 'Oh, I heard he gobshites on about politics now.'

He's just a YouTuber who makes his cash from a very specific type of American, some of whom seem to think they hold a majority viewpoint. They clearly don't in America, let alone in the rest of the frickin' world.

reply

Yep, makes it seem more political than a money grab. These rape victims can't catch a break LOL

reply

rape is more believable if you wait 20 years...

reply

Anyone who thinks he's innocent should watch his Dispatches episode. Which I doubt they will because they already made up their mind.

reply

100% Bullshit. They are trying to bring covid nonsense back, and he is a huge Anti-Covid spokesperson.

The playbook is oh so tiring.

reply

Remember the contemptible and utterly laughable performance by Christine Blasey Ford in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing? This situation with Brand smells similarly, like some political operative on behalf of the Democrats or the UK's Liberal Party trawled through his life looking for anyone who could plausibly target him with a lawsuit. The goal of course is to shut him up. He spoke out against the covid mandates and numerous other idiotic policies championed by liberal parties in the UK and America.

reply

What's more tiring is these fools who fall so easily for it. I swear, I'd rather kill the stupid than the elites. Jews are right in thinking the goy are cattle.

reply

this kind of B.S. happens to anyone that challenges The Machine. Having some woman from decades ago (where there is no physical evidence and potential witnesses have forgotten everything) accuse you of rape, means you have wandered into the crosshairs of the rich and powerful, and nothing more.

reply

https://youtu.be/jYQm9H7tWI8?si=gII-WN5P0rVAP1Kq

remember this gem. Rudis drunk "witness" for the "stolen election"

reply

You’re following the Sabrina Erdely method of analytical reasoning.

reply

[deleted]

What? Besides the fact that your sentence is borderline incoherent, what?

reply

No, you believe the accusers. A victim is someone who has been proven to be a victim, therefore it's not a matter of belief. Thats why the term"believe all victims"is manipulative, but it is used because"believe all accusers"has a much worse ring to it.

reply