Russell Brand: Met Police receive report of alleged sexual assault in 2003

I’m not a fan of Brand but am I the only one who thinks these claims of sexual attacks from years ago have to stop…I expect this chap was no angel but its 21 years since this alleged situation happened…and whilst we all wait for the outcome his life and career is in shatters. No innocent till proved guilty here …guilty by media!


woops … just seen @Maree posted that Katie Hopkins video on the other RB thread.

I do think she is onto something.

And I’ve just seen a Farage video, and he says something similar. But Katie spells it out better.

1 Like

This is a friend’s view of things, she may have a good point.

He speaks out against the big pharmaceutical companies, the government, Ukraine war etc etc… just like Julian Assange did, he needs shutting up and this is how they do it.


I thought the one who has behaved very well and come out of this with a lot of dignity is Georgina Baillie, Andrew Sach’s grandaughter

The media was bound to dig what Brand did to her again, and it must be hard

But in this interview she’s showing no bitterness or publicity seeking, seems to have accepted his apology and making amends and speaks about him with compassion

But she’s not calling the women who accused him liars either

I think she did very well, spoke honestly and fairly as she sees it, and didn’t get caught up in the media feeding frenzy


I agree, but it’s a very difficult point of view to hold. People accuse you of not believing the victims, being a rape apologist, etc etc

But people’s life’s and reputations shouldn’t be destroyed just because of accusations, only when guilt is proved in court

He may have done what they say he did, he probably did, but anyone can accuse anyone of anything, that’s not enough in itself

I see YouTube have suspended his revenues for “violating our creator’s responsibility policy”

“If a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community,”

How can that be right when none of these accusations have been proven yet?

I’ll take it to the extreme, please don’t all hate on me, but none of claims against Jimmy Saville were proved in court :scream:

I know there’s overwhelming evidence and I don’t doubt most of it was true. But I also think there may have been a lot of jumping on the bandwagon in his case too


Seeing who is supporting Brand so far, Katie Hopkins, Andrew Tate, Laurence Fox, Elon Musk, Michael Barrymore………hmm with friends like these…….


I’m of the same opinion - Brand’s been found guilty by media and sentence is being carried out by mob hysteria.


Excellent posts @Maree and @Rox


You would have to be blind not to see what is happening, one of the best threads on here. :clap: :clap:


All people I think are repulsive :nauseated_face: Add Farage to that list :face_vomiting:

A lot of them are publicity trolls of course

They make their living from being controversial and inflammatory, the more controversial, the more views and likes, the more dosh they trouser :pound:

And they have no qualms about inflaming a situation if they can make money out of it

And I doubt their support is genuine, they’re just exploring his situation to suit their own agenda, publicity and income

I wonder if he wishes they’d keep their support to themselves?

It must be strange for him, who always used to be very Left-wing, to find himself supported by the Rabid Right?

That in itself should make him query the direction his life has taken


the term shoot the messenger comes to mind…
but only if the message dont conform

1 Like

Confused by his own “contrarieties”.


I don’t think claims of historic sexual abuse should have to stop - there should not be any timescale cut-off point for bringing sexual crimes to trial.

However, airing the accusations in the media and having trial by media in a mass media feeding frenzy is what needs to stop.
It is not right that someone’s life, reputation and career should be damaged by a criminal allegation that has not even been looked at by the police to decide if there is sufficient evidence to pass the CPS grounds for charging and trial.

I understand it would be difficult for anyone who had experienced historic sexual abuse to go to the police and expect to be believed - especially if the alleged abuser was a “celebrity” - we have seen before how often victims were disbelieved in the past - and I can see how an unofficial journalist-type investigation where several people are interviewed and they realise they were “not the only ones” may then feel empowered to make an official complaint to the police.
This type of publicity has helped to uncover a lot of historic abuse by some celebrities. Since the “me too” movement and the successful conviction of some rich, powerful or celebrity status individuals, the police must be more aware of the need to investigate every complaint seriously, so maybe it’s time for this type of allegation to be referred directly to the police instead of journalists splashing it all over the media first.


The timeline of events

  • Friday: Russell Brand posts a two-and-a-half minute video to his social media channels denying allegations he described as “serious”, but did not go into detail
  • Saturday afternoon: The Sunday Times publishes an investigation piece, in collaboration with the The Times and Channel 4, into allegations Brand sexually assaulted four women between 2006 and 2013
  • Saturday evening: Channel 4 airs its investigation into the allegations. At the same time, Brand plays a packed live show in Wembley
  • Sunday: Broadcasters including the BBC, Channel 4 and Banijay UK announce internal investigations, and a women’s charity terminates partnership with Brand. The Met Police says it is also looking at the allegations
  • Monday morning: Brand’s talent agency and two book publishers part ways with him. One of Brand’s accusers appears on the BBC’s Woman’s Hour programme
  • Monday afternoon: The Met Police announces it has received a report of an alleged sexual assault in 2003 following the media investigations into Brand. The remainder of Brand’s live tour is postponed
  • Tuesday morning: YouTube says it has suspended Russell Brand’s channels from making money from adverts for “violating” its “creator responsibility policy”

What has happened today?

  • The BBC has removed some programmes from its iPlayer and Sounds sites that feature Russell Brand
  • A spokesman says the corporation "assessed that it [the content] now falls below public expectations”
  • An episode of QI and podcast with Joe Wicks are no longer available
  • Earlier, it was announced that YouTube has stopped Brand making money from his videos on the platform
  • YouTube said: “If a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community”
  • Brand has not spoken publicly since Friday, but denies the allegations of sexual assault and misconduct made against him in the joint Times, Sunday Times, and Channel 4 investigation

Pre-emptive strikes.

1 Like

I keep thinking about what the ghastly Thatcher said about trial by media

And while reluctant to agree with the witch on anything, taken out of context and in the abstract, it sounds about right

“The freedom of peoples depends fundamentally on the rule of law, a fair legal system. The place to have trials or accusations is a court of law, the Common Law that has come right up from Magna Carta, which has come right up through the British courts – a court of law is the place where you deal with these matters. If you ever get trial by television or guilt by accusation, that day freedom dies because you have not had it done with all of the careful rules that have developed in a court of law. Press and television rely on freedom. Those who rely on freedom must uphold the rule of law and have a duty and a responsibility to do so and not try to substitute their own system for it.”

But she only said that because she didn’t like the investigations into the IRA killings

And that’s the problem with trying to restrict what the media are allowed to investigate and report on

It’s important they’re allowed to bring things into the spotlight that have previously gone unnoticed and such investigations have often given a voice to people who didn’t previously feel they had anywhere to turn


yes but what she liked most about ‘The Rule of Law’ was her ability to change it when she required


Trial by media once again . What happened to innocent until proven guilty . Does that not apply to famous people.


Director general orders review of Russell Brand’s BBC career.

Next, I expect debates in the Commons and the Lords, torch-lit processions and a baying lynch-mob - all in the name of justice … :roll_eyes:

1 Like