Russell Brand

Yes & it’s not hard to find he backed them as far back as 2015.

https://socialist.net/milibrand-russell-brand-changes-tune-and-calls-for-labour-vote/

Russell Brand has endorsed Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister, saying he is “committed to serving the people of Britain.”

The comedian and actor, who backed Ed Miliband in the last General Election, has shared a blog post announcing that he will be backing Labour again.
“A Labour government won’t be perfect, it will be operating within a system that opposes its new, manifest agenda to serve the people it will be elected to govern,” he wrote on Huffington Post.

“Jeremy Corbyn won’t be perfect, he is a human being. We have a chance to elect a politician who is committed to serving the people of Britain. To supporting the NHS, public services and educating the young people to whom the future belongs.”


Urging people not to vote for Theresa May, Brand said that a vote for the Conservatives would be a vote for discarding the “opportunity for change.”

“Electing the Tories for another five years, to throw the opportunity for change into the distant indeterminate wasteland of 2022 would be an act of collective self-loathing bordering on mass sadomasochism,” he said.

“We must have some faith in humanity, some faith in one another, some hope that we can build a better society together, rather than burrowing downward from the gutter to whatever circle may be propping up *.”

Referencing Corbyn’s connections to the IRA, the Radio X DJ said that the allegations didn’t “meet up to scrutiny.”
“Even the more ‘controversial’ stuff in his search history doesn’t hold up to scrutiny – meeting with the IRA; he wasn’t at a barn dance in Londonderry downing Guinness in a balaclava, he was perspicaciously acknowledging the necessity for negotiation in pursuit of a peaceful solution,” he said.

“Which is what happened, years later. You could say that he was ahead of his time. Or a leader.”

Brand, who has previously urged fans not to vote at all, famously interviewed Miliband two years ago ahead of the General Election.

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/...remy-corbyn-in-general-election-a3553786.html

 

I agree with this. As much as he's a very dislikable character for some, he could well be innocent. I wouldn't just start throwing vitriol his way just because someone said something. I took long in the tooth not to believe everything I hear, especially if it's against someone who's been poking away at the elites for years.

That's not to say he's not guilty and if he is, * him he needs whatever is coming to him but I'll await to see the evidence against him first before I judge him which IMO is the correct thing to do.

I remember a case here in Ireland where this bird who slept with this fella who wasn't liked. She cried rape. He got charged for it but a few locals got him and bear * outa him and he died. The tramp who made the accusations was drunk one night and told one of her mates that he didn't really rape her, she only said that because she didn't want a bad name for sleeping with him.

Another one In north Belfast this girl said this fella messed about with her when she was young. His life ruined, jailed, lost the house, misses , work etc.. but it turned out her own ma made her say it because she detested him. His name was cleared but still to this day there's some still class him as a pedo yet he's innocent.

Watch the clips on YouTube about the girl who caused the Muslim fella of rape yet it was Tommy Robinson if all people who helped clear his name. The lengths that girl went to to create lies was madness. A spiteful little tramp is all I can call the *.

So with thst said, never judge untill you know everything because you could well look like an idiot and be part of the problem. I treat everyone innocent untill proven guilty and in this case, I can see why some would want him silenced. I come from a place where the Brits used to place the dirtiest of tricks to slander republicans and this could be similar tactics used to silence him.

Again thou, if he did rape then he deserves all what he gets.

 

Yes, 16 is legal age and definitely a creepy * if he did have * with her at that age but in the terms of the law he's done nothing wrong if it was consensual. I could never see myself with anyone under 30 now and I'm in my 40s. Even that age it would feel strange.

To throw something into the mix too. If your a good catholic, I think the age of consent is 12 years of age. I think it's because Mary was supposed to be 12 when her and Joseph where married. And throw more controversy into the mix, I'm near sure Joseph was in his 70s when he was with Mary. That's going by the scriptures. I remember studying it years ago and was blown away by it. With that said, I was brought up as a Catholic and find it * disgusting if it's true these ages.

 

,.....sorry, I shouldn't laugh, but tears are tripping me after reading about Mary and Joseph in a thread about Russell Brand! Ya mad *.

Probably Joseph had dementia at that age and why he didn't think too much about his young virgin wife telling him she's up the duff by *.

 

No.

Point proven. You n your like will fall over yourselves to defend him.

I said he has changed his views recently to pander to idiots who can do nothing than quote twitter and you quote stuff from 2015.

 

Aye I know but it's still grooming..

I mean he can get away with noncing by way of technicality but he's an out and out beast as she was a schoolgirl and that's how everyone would look at him..

He'll probably get away with it all anyway, just look at the likes of that other beast Schofield..

 

Wait, so you do or don't like him?

 

Its not "defending the accused". Its defending their right to a fair trial and that means they are entitled to the presumption of innocence and defense in Court under cross-examination of all the evidence. Its called The Law.

We don't trial and convict people on the basis of a television show. Its even more dangerous to say that we should.

 

Talk about taking a quote completely out of context in an effort to manipulate.

His posts were nothing to do with demanding a fair trial. Without watching the programme or reading the accusations he instantly defended Brand and tried to undermine women.

This thread is extremely embarrassing like too many of the other threads of this nature on here. We've got too many people on this forum that seriously need to have their views addressed.

 

Just to be clear, do you think the police and the Courts are the right process to deal with criminal acts of this nature or should anonymous accusations in TV interviews be enough to pass a guilty judgement?


Also by whom and how should the addressing of opposing views happen?

 

I completely respect what you are saying and I agree we have some suspect characters on the forum, but just offering a bit of counsel that you are free to tell me to * off with.

I don't believe for a minute the opening posts from Bono etc. were in defence of Brand, a loathsome man may I add....all I read was the defence of the judicial process which I also believe is at risk through this trial by media obsession we have in the Western world now.

My intuition tells me his is absolutely capable of the accusations but every * deserves a fair trial....by legal process not by media circus.

 

I don't mean to sound dismissive of men and false accusations, but at the end of the day, for women who are victims, there will be some who contemplate or worse yet, actually commit, suicide because they are so completely taken by the trauma.

Given how utterly impossible it seems to get a conviction I'm conflicted about how this effects men as someone who has two sons and a daughter.

So much is said on how this impacts a man with false accusations, yet nowhere in this thread have I seen anyone really talk in the same about how it actually impacts women in the same way

 

I'd say your right that he'll get away with it. Money talks. That's just the way the world is but if it was consensual and not breaking the law then everyone just has to accept it even thou it's something we don't agree with.

 

I ain’t defending the Guy you asked for evidence that he campaigned for labour which I provided. I don’t get how you’ve come to the conclusion that “you and your Like” are defending him.

perhaps read my initial post regarding this.

 

I believe is because the complainants have gone to the media before going to the police.

 

Who has has said he is guilty based on the TV programme?

Lots of people are enforcing the innocent until proven guilty line. Yet in other cases they are happy to accept people have committed the crimes they've been accused of. Nobody defends Jimmy Saville and he was never found guilty.

The majority of people believe Mason Greenwood is guilty. He's not convicted.

Look at the different reactions on this forum to Edwards and Schofield.

Prince Andrew is torn to pieces on this forum.

Using an example close to home. Leigh Grittiths was investigated by the police who said he hadn't committed a crime. This forum and Celtic fans decided he was a nonce. He hadn't committed a crime nevermind faced a trial and found guilty. Yet everyone openly called him a paedophile and made sure he was thrown out the club.


Edit. Just reading the comments in the other threads. The same people that claim innocent until proven guilty for Brand have the completely opposite view for Schofield. Abusive comments and convinced he is guilty.

 

Here is a good take on things.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-naive-cynicism-of-russell-brands-hasty-defenders/

 

@Onefootwonder Despite your denials its obvious what you and The Spectator Article are saying is : lets convict (and punish) on the basis of the reporting in the media aka the TV program, because doing it legally is too hard.

That's pretty much it.

In Australia there have been two similar Trial By Media high profile cases recently: Geoffrey Rush and Higgins V Lehrman. Rush was paid $2million in defamation, and I've posted a summary of the second case.

 

*? You're making things up in your head.

I have at no point demanded he should be convicted due to the programme. At no point have I said he should be punished on the basis of the programme.

That's a few times now you've resorted to gaslighting and manipulation.

The Spectator article is asking for people to look at the allegations before jumping in on all the conspiracy theories.