Why People Have Lost Their Minds Over Russell Brand
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- ⭐ Check out guard.io/legalbytes for a 7-day trial and 20% off your subscription + the ability to protect 5 family members from hackers and scammers. Thanks again to Guardio for sponsoring this video!
In this video, we're going over the MeToo allegations against Russell Brand that arose out of relationships he had between 2006 and 2013. The allegations come out of a joint investigation by The Times and Channel 4 News in the United Kingdom. What do you think?
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Introduction
2:58 Russell Brand
9:22 The Allegations and Their Problems
19:59 What's Damaging for Russell Brand
26:08 What Do YOU Think?
To Become a Member of Byte Club, you can pick between YT, Locals, or Patreon:
YT Members: / @legalbytesmedia
Locals: legalbytes.locals.com
Patreon: / legalbytes
--------------------
🚨 Our podcast:
Anchor: anchor.fm/legalbytes
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4i3YLop...
Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google Podcast: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
--------------------
🚨 We have a @LegalBytes Clips channel for clips from our live streams. Subscribe here: / @legalbytesclips4042
--------------------
Follow me here!
Twitter: / legalbytesmedia
Instagram: / legalbytesmedia
Facebook: / legalbytesmedia
--------------------
🫖 Dragon's Treasure Teas: Visit www.thedragonstreasure.com/?d... for 10% off some delicious teas and to support this channel!
--------------------
Merch: legal-bytes.creator-spring.com
--------------------
#RussellBrand #RussellBrandAllegations #MeToo
⭐ Check out guard.io/legalbytes for a 7-day trial and 20% off your subscription + the ability to protect 5 family members from hackers and scammers. Thanks again to Guardio for sponsoring this video!
There is no statute of limitations in England & Wales. That's why we've had many children's tv presenters from the 1970's & 1980's (Operation Yew Tree) prosecuted and subsequently jailed
The perspective you're bringing here is deeply Americentric. Rose McGown is assuming that the rules in the USA apply everywhere and they do NOT and there are good reasons for that. Such Americentrism, especially about the legal system is highly offensive. Guarding the women's identities is the law in England and Wales, even if they never go to the police.
Brand may well be targetted because he is seen as populist scum but that does not mean he is innocent of the accusations, and not publishing the yeild 4 years of meticulous work because he's a rabble rouser would be just as corrupt as refusing to publish something similar if it were about a conservative politician. And let's be real here, this is what it takes to have a charming, funny white English celebrity investigated by the police in the UK.
He would love to think he's on the level of Julian Assange but he absolutely is not.
I would also point out that Brand's behaviour at the time was very well known. You can see him on panel shows where he's getting a hostile reception and jokes are made at his expense based on his sexual activity. I know he says he's found redemption but he has made no attempt to make amends to the women he hurt, and has even dismissed the idea because there are just too many of them! What sort of logic is that? What sort of recovering addict dismisses Step 8 of the Twelve Steps?
And finally, Brand is an uncontrolled extrovert. Everybody knows everything he's done because he's told us. When he exposed himself to a woman in a radio station's toilets, he then went on air and laughed about it! The only deception was in telling us that he wasn't serious. If you want context for this case, look up Jimmy Saville. That case has had a huge influence on culture, media and the law in the UK. It's also worth noting that the task force for the Saville investigation is now investigating Brand.
a quick question i hope you can help me with, so if an agreement to wear a condom is between both of them but he takes it off or does not wear one that is considered rape? but if a woman says she is on the pill and is lying is that considered rape? genuine question i am not trying to be smart.
@@padraiglyons5574 The definition or meaning of the word 'stealthing' is when someone removes a condom during sex without the other person's consent or lies about having put one on in the first place. Stealthing is rape under English and Welsh law. This means that someone who carries it out can be prosecuted for rape
thank you i genuinely never heard that law before but its certainly an interesting one.
@@CaroleEvans93436
There is no statute of limitations in the UK, for example, lots of former children's presenters and radio DJs were charged with events from the 70s and 80s
The UK also protects victims of crimes with anonymity unless proven to be liars later
But at least one of these allegations was of misconduct in the US.
I wonder if Alyte could opine about the outcome of legal action against this tardy complainant in the US?
The anonymity is an issue because we can't check that they are actually being verified accurately.
It makes sense if someone is underage but if they are 30s, 40s, 50s it's a disservice to justice itself.
@@link01uk It's probably past the statute of limitations. She said that she did seriously consider having him charged but, with the discouragement of the police, decided against it. Most do decide against it because it is a retraumatising experience with little hope for a conviction at the end of it.
@@VioletDeathRei The accusers aren’t anonymous to the reporters or their teams of defamation lawyers. There’s no way in hell they should be subjected to Brand’s toxic cult.
@@amattes1960Unfortunate that the strongest case (we’ve seen so far) was in the US. It would make sense to me to have an exception for cases where there was a contemporaneous police report.
The UK has no statute of limitations and the victims identity is protected by law, to prevent them being hounded by the press and any potential jury being affected. It's not considered in the public interest for the victims details to be made public unless a court decides otherwise, in the same way names of defendents can have press injunctions preventing them being named.
It is in the public interest because the court actually severing justice and not political ends is in the public interest.
Palarment itself put their finger on the scale here it's already a huge human rights issue if anything turns out to be shady here.
@@VioletDeathRei yeah, the court can serve justice without the victims being hounded and harassed.
@@manderly33 Okay, then why does the same not go for the accused? That's why it's called justice, because it goes equally for both sides. If one cannot remain anonymous, the other also shouldn't be. That goes doubly so if the only threat the victims face is "being harassed", while there will be no legal ramifications at all for a false accusation.
@@Arphemius thats not how the British system works. If this was two people not in the public eye then both identities would remain confidential. However Brand is a public figure and yes, there are legal rammifications if the accusation is proven to be false. The UK legal system is the home of legal tourism for a reason - because it tends to be pretty good in that respect.
@@bill8791 what an idiotic assessment. People don't choose a particular legal system to decide on their fate because it's fair, they choose it because they know it's going to lean towards them and the uk is a shithole of legal swamp as it gets so that international corporations in collaboration with corrupt, puppet governments decide that these courts are the arbitrators of for when bad economic deals for nations are eventually struck down by homegrown political forces. That tells me all I need to know about how UK legal system operates.
I really appreciate this video so much, and also appreciate Rose McGowan's querying of journalst ethics. I've been finding it hard to understand how we, as a society but also personally, balance listening to these allegations compassionately without passing judgment on the accused. I can't imagine what it would be like to be wrongly accused of something like this, or to be feeling like you were wrong for stepping forward as a victim. And these cases can take months to finalise or sometimes never be decided on so it's hard to know how to act in the meantime.
I think about the same thing, to be the wronged party, falsely accused, in either scenario would be unimaginably painful
@@SvendBosanvovski Except that people are coming to quick judgment and it’s impacting his income.
They didn’t step forward though they were approached by the media as was stated
@@Ketowskieh his income was already on the decline tbh. He's become a right leaning conspiracy guy lately. Always talking about this nebulous and malicious "them" and leaning into Anti Semitic rhetoric a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if these companies had been looking at dropping him anyways, and this is just what closed the deal.
@@FIRING_BLIND You’ve tracked his income?
Remember Matt Lauer? He was with CBS for 20 years. Handsome and likable, he was a very unlikely candidate for a rapist, but he was, in fact, a rapist. He also sexually harassed MULTIPLE women over the course of his career while maintaining his nice guy facade.
People can easily compartmentalize their lives. A priest can be kind and helpful during mass while also molesting altar boys in secret.
Many rape victims never go to the police. Probably most do not. They stand in their shower and wash & wash & wash & wash and try to forget what just happened to them.
I don't really know Russell Brand, but as a victim myself, I don't find it so hard to believe he crossed the line a few times when he was drunk and high as a kite.
It's a tragic mess on all sides.
1. Most in the UK observed him for 15 to 20 years and saw enough to be extremely suspicious of hi.
2. Since his youtube channel launch, just after Marriage to Katy Perry The USA became aware of him and very recently, like since the pandemic, lots of US folks think they know Russell via political commentary and supposed spirituality
IMHO the suspicion that someone who literally said 'I raped a girl!' And was always banging on sincerely about his sexual misconduct is more well founded than "this was always gonna happen, he got too close to the truth" conspiracy theories
Lots of celebrity types like RB behave in a far worse way. Ch4 and the Times went looking for "victims" who told their "stories' to the press who pay money rather than the police where a genuine victim would have gone 14 years ago. The timing is clearly a concerted take down, you may be unaware of the online harms bill which is total censorship or you may want to be told what to think and to be not allowed an opnion but some of us still maintain the ability to think critically and reject this. I'm not a fan of RB but what's happening is obviously unprecedented and unjust. The whole edifice upon which the system stands is totally corrupt and serves the interests of the very few not the many.
Agree with OP
The uk public have known plus comedy industry know too.
UK anonymous is always the Way for r and s/a cases.
More than 900 people in entertainment, including Dermot O’Leary, have signed an open letter calling for “an end to this culture that turns a blind eye to predators operating in plain sight”.
This is just the start after being the 4th predator this year in uk TV.
@@Leigh-ry3ybthe women were not paid.
More than 900 people in entertainment, including Dermot O’Leary, have signed an open letter calling for “an end to this culture that turns a blind eye to predators operating in plain sight”.
Uk government has to investigate, especially after Jimmy Savile case went under cover but known and protected by police and TV bbc
This might be the most balanced take I've yet to see on this topic. Massive respect to you LegalBytes
I absolutely agree. As soon as I saw the title, I just knew - I felt it in my bones - that you'd lend this issue the sensitivity and nuance that it deserves.
What a brilliant thinker.
Agreed totally: this topic needs to be seen from all sides, not just instantly jump on all men or all women. (Just as we should have given both Amber and Johnny a fair hearing.)
I have to say, of the several women who were not having their words read by actresses, those women were immensely compelling. I fully believed those women who spoke in their own voices.
Popcorned Planet and BlackBeltBarrister are also doing balanced takes.... just in case you want more to go watch.
I'm hating the knee jerking to one side or another: let's hear the evidence.
And honestly, he's self confessed he's had 1000-3000 partners, mostly one night (or one hour) things -- could anyone in that position say, in all honesty, that **all** their partners were enthusiastically consenting? Can anyone in that position honestly say they know for certain?
I know of someone who has basically been doing the things Russell is accused of, to hundreds of thousands of women, over a span of 20 years.... these types do exist.... and they can have good politics that many agree with, or be people others find genuinely fun to be around. It doesn't diminish that they have this other side too. People are complex: honestly I don't think the UK state cares about him, they do care about getting rid of abuse in the media right now.
..... for example, we had two presenters sacked yesterday for saying "a man would have to be mentally disturbed to want to sleep with [female politics reporter]".......
......... that female was then flooded with thousands of men telling her what they would love to do to her sexually, and she is terrified, and been given temporary police protection.
.....
One thing I will say, the UK places burden of proof on accusers in defamation trials. If Brand sues the 5 women in the documentary, as well as the several staff members in the documentary who -- in part -- backed up the claims made..... then legally he's in a much stronger position in the UK, and can already show the reputation/financial harms aspect of defamation..... if he doesn't go for defamation in the UK, that actually is as good as saying "yeah this is true". But similarly, the police have to do their thing now, and given so many have come forwards, it may be they have enough to run a trial..... many historical SA cases do come down to he-she said, and that there are multiple disconnected complainants all saying similar things.
@@annakarenina3188 The 16 yr old Woman who claimed RB had assaulted her in bed said, after telling him to stop, she turned over and went to sleep. You would have expected her , at the very least, to either, slept on the sofa, or got a Taxi Home. The 4 Women who claim these allegations, were besotted with Brand.
Completely agree
Thank you so much for dropping the background music Alyte 💙💙💙 Great video!
Also adding my thanks! I appreciate and respect so much that you are very able to talk about two or more sides of a situation and not announce what if any (Elaine has ruined that phrase forever 😂😂) - and not trying to rally or influence viewers to any side or idea. So refreshing!
This rush to judgment is troubling. I see comments that prove the commenter didn't watch the video. Were this a court case, which it currently is not, one allegation was made in California. So no, we don't have to only speak about laws in the United Kingdom.
I'll voice my opinion to the facts if or when a trial is completed. The presumption of guilt in the media these days is a perversion of justice that should go down as a modern day disgrace.
Loved trap door! Ahhh the good old days
@The_rabbit_hole +1 for you sir. Berk is impressed.
Totally agree. Brand has been criticising the power brokers and their institutions very openly. And these psychopaths never defend themselves by attacking critical voices...
Thank you so much for this….Best analysis I’ve heard…and so needed it is…
Excellent. The best coverage of this issue
I’ve seen so far. Grateful for your questions and desire for more information before coming to any firm conclusions. It’s refreshing and a departure from the heavily polarized climate.
So I'm very confused about that Rose segment being included in this video. She seemed to be saying that the reporting was suspect, because pseudonyms were used for alleged victims, and this is somehow against journalistic practice??
I'm not a journalist, but I have always been told (and observed) that when dealing with victims - especially of sexual assault - it is RECOMMENDED to protect their privacy. The journalist/staff should know and verify the persons identity internally, but not share it unless the person agrees to it. Also they are not "rules", they are journalistic ethics guidelines and apparently a hot button issue that not all publications see eye to eye on.
In the EU and UK there are even laws that force media to protect the identity of victims of sexual assault, which seems pretty relevant.
And Rose is saying that this is somehow new? LegalBytes doesn't challenge this, so what am I missing here?
I'm also wondering who could realistically see *Russell Brand* as any kind of credible threat to those in power - other than perhaps Mr. Brand himself. What's the point of "throwing him to the wolves" unless he has perceived power? I don't know who did or didn't do what, but this whole rhetoric with "theys and thems" sounds like conspiracies coming from a fan.
Katy Perry said she would not elaborate, but locked reasons/evidence for her divorce from him "in a safe, for a rainy day".
A wonderful middle ground video with some great information. Thanks for this video with information on the story, as we know and see it today. Cheers
Very helpful, thank you for this!
Absolutely spot on with your assessment 😊
I absolutely loved this unbiased legal view of what is happening. Most are just jumping on the bandwagon of "he's innocent, here's why (insert personal opinion and people from his past that fit the narrative), and "he's guilty, off with his hEaD" (insert personal opinion and past videos). We need to allow due legal process before we start fighting each other in a situation NONE of know the truth of....yet. There's plenty of time to cancel him AFTER he's proven guilty through the legal process. It's not like he's 90 and there's limited time. Thank you so much for this video.
@ceebee987, he IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt.
That is how the law works. Other aspects of life and behaviour are not govererned by the law.
The justice system is deeply flawed. These allegations are the product of a long investigation, in a country where plaintiffs are favored by libel laws.
Plus there’s just hours of video of him acting like a sex pest to women who are working, and there’s the fact that this is another “this was an open secret for years” situation.
Also: any man is more likely to be raped himself than falsely accused.
I’m perfectly able to use Occam’s Razor here.
Bottom line is, those who think he's innocent will believe that, even if he's convicted (His supporters already think that the establishment is out to get him.) Those who think not, will hold the contrary opinion even if no charges are brought. Fron that point of view, the decision of the law is irrelevant.
@@moggpiano8043 u're projecting. If the US alleged victim comes forward and actually files criminal charges and produces the rape crisis center report, they claim they have evidence frozen, so if evidence matches (DNA) and there were signs of rape noted down and this is all verified in a court of law then absolutely he should be punished.
Alyte! I just love the why you break down a case and explain it. Your brain works a lot like mine lol 😉 thanks so much for your content!
Thank you for turning off the background music!! It was so much better to listen to!!! Very thorough video on RB!
@legalbytes: Thank you for this analysis
Great video, Alyte, and I agree with you completely. Accepting allegations as true before they have been proven is dangerous. These accusations are very serious and should be taken seriously, and it's important to keep in mind that it will also impact the accused's life whether they are true or not, as we saw with Depp being dropped from major movies and other opportunities. If they are true, people absolutely want to see justice served, and rightfully so (eg: Masterson). But if it's not, the damage is done and that person's life is still ruined. I'm waiting until more is revealed through the investigation etc. There are claims that more evidence exists on both sides so I'm sure we'll all know more facts soon enough. I hope you continue to cover this!
I have no voice, you do. I found a book that was written by one of Russell's exes. She devotes a full chapter to her relationship with him. One thing that stood out to me - she said he told her she had problems...it was to do with her eating. She said that she knew she did not have an eating problem. So Russell comes across as body shaming and controlling. Yet...two years later she was on a tv show called Rehab, she was seeking treatment for Bulimia! She said she had it since she was 17....when she dated Russell - he was 28 and she was 20.
That's the trouble with "my truth"; "my truth" then can be very different to "my truth" now! 🙂
Thr trouble with concepts like "controlling behaviours" is they are so nebulous everyone could accuse each other; we all exert influence over each other in some way.
@@markpostgate2551 Exactly, and recollections may vary....even as we ourselves evolve in our understanding.
Amazing balance and insight👏
I’m going to tell everyone now. Not every case that happened pre ‘me too’ came out during that time. There is also the possibility (and this piece involves no investigative journalism, keep in mind) that the women did come out and it seems the cases were all known about in small circles. It took a journalist to connect those dots.
22:40 "Someone put that ugly pillow on my chair again" 🥰
I came to the comments to see if anyone noticed this 😂🐾
fantastic and balanced content! excellent perspective
I love your channel. balance and respectful
I'm inclined to believe it- he's got a history of icky sexual behaviour and serious disrespect towards women. He got fired from the BBC for calling someone up and saying he'd slept with their grandaughter (and playing the messages on radio) and he apologised to the grandfather a year or two later, but took another 5 years to get around to apologising to the woman who he'd talked about. His break up text to Katy Perry also seems like a particularly cruel way to announce to a spouse you're breaking up and the timing could hardly have been worse (right before she was due to perform on new years eve, she was filming a tour documentary so there's fottage of her crying her eyes out in her stage costume).
He was on screen being aggresively flirty/sexual with women, often ignoring their discomfort. Danii Minogue said he was a vile predator years ago. He's fallen out with quite a few celebs over how he treated them/their daughters, there's jsut enough stuff that's been said over nearly two decades for me to believe that he's at the very least, creepy and overly pushy and delights in making other people uncomfortable by taking sexual disscusions way too far. The court of law has to assume innocent until proven guilty, but given his history and the wide range of things said about him vs multiple accusations I'm willing to believe them over him.
The age differences in the accusations aren't out of the ordinary for him- he dated his wife briefly when she was 19 and he was 30. He was 30 when he made the phone call and he was talking about a 20 year old.
not sure where he's based now, but from a UK perspective his current 'the media are all lying' is a very fringe belief to hold- I think trump has made it a more mainstream take in the US but in the UK while we don't trust the media to tell us the whole truth and to be unbiased the idea that they're all working together as some huge consipracy isn't a common belief.
Well done👏
Fantastic analysis.
It's a shame because Brand is a success story of maturity. Yes, he was and will always be a pig for his youth, but his arch has been impressive. Regardless, if he acted inappropriately or criminally, then he needs to be held accountable. His newfound spiritual awakening does not negate that.
He'll be alright. Come out even stronger perhaps.
He's a narcissist and cannot change.
He's just applied a new face.
He's been called out for years on tv shows.
But it hit the cutting room floor.
Its no secret see Katherine Ryan the Canadian comedian.
He got kicked off msm because of his actions.
Was he a "pig in his youth"? What were the girls, then? Hoares?
If. Evidence???
Very balanced discussion here. Thank you. I appreciate the inclusion of the very sentient audio clip from Rose McGowan. I’m going to consider those statements for a good bit.
Yeah the documentary seemed very believable to me. It sounds like nobody who knew him was surprised at all.
To be fair, nobody wants to be associated with a rapist, so if such claims are made and there's a sliver of a possibility (let alone perhaps some reasonable suspicion), most will abandon their friends at the drop of a hat
I honestly think trying to get celebs "cancelled" and revoking their income on allegations has always been a bad strategy. For one thing, it doesn't WORK. Most people accused manage to do fine and even drum up more support. Bystanders who have survived similar things get triggered. Our justice systems are far from perfect, but I do think we should focus on fixing those rather than trying to use the court of public opinion instead. At the end of the day, best case scenario, its just large scale enacted revenge in the place of true accountability and it helps exactly no one.
Thank you so much for this. So refreshing to see such an objective and balanced take.
Nicely done ✅
The dog making itself comfortable was so cute
I'm hoping I can be as eloquent as you are. I'm getting ready to start a commentary channel, you're providing me a gold standard.
Thank you for this very well-researched video. Only thing I‘d add is that Russell‘s refusal to take any accountability (let alone acknowledge he may have hurt people in the way they‘ve claimed) when he himself admitted to and made fun of some of the allegations, is completely at odds with his new found „lets be kind and do good in the world“ ideology.
A point on what you said is the recovery programme he works. In 12th step you are advised to “cease fighting anyone and anything”. Therefore, encouraged to seek a peaceful life, which is the total opposite of what he has done.
Asking people being prosecuted to admit fault is an incredibly damaging standard and I'd assume being on a law channel you'd understand why.
Even if guilty no one pleas so without a deal because charges are stacked in such a way as to over punish because you are likely to get off for most of them.
It's like asking someone to jump off a cliff without a bungee cord.
you are misled by this lawyer, Russell isn't at fault it is the women he was with who 'were' at fault' they knew exactly what they were doing at the time, and with whom they were, a celebrity, now they complain historically about it. Every woman is responsible for her own actions and who she has sex with, before marriage is an absolute no no, so its not his fault at all !
@@deborahdaviesdd-artist1059He is a reformed Man now. He has been in therapy and is now clean from Drug and Alcohol abuse. Also sought therapy for his Sexual addiction.
I wanna be kind. But I fucking won't if the are NWO scum.
hey hey, just want to chime in and remind everyone. The allegation isn't merely he had sex with a minor, or a sixteen year old girl. The allegation is that he had sex with a minor without her consent, by forcing himself upon her and penetrating her. While obstentively a 30 year old man having sex with 16 year olds are indeed 100% gross, this is not the actual argument; since we shouldn't let Russell and his defenders deflect the argument into talking about age of consent. The topic is: Russell Brand forced himself on a woman of any age, the age of this girl just happens to be 16. He forced himself on her, that's the accusation and the accusation other women have made. Hope this helps!
Trouble is, without the media there wouldn’t be a case. It’s almost always involved in the matter of taking to account powerful people, institutions, and corporations. I don’t the process can always be equated with taking claims to the ‘court of public opinion’. Look at the Catholic church scandal, that took decades of investigative journalism to reveal. The Met has said they would not have been able to move forward on these allegations without a strong, credible collective voice being given to these otherwise isolated alleged victims.
Brand has an even more recent transition to a conspiracy theorist and cult like status leader, which I think is why this is getting another level energy and outrage. He has literally been telling people for years there is a conspiracy and people will eventually come for him in some way. I don’t think it really matters if he had some intentions in this all along, the damage it does to our trust in society towards everything and the way it misleads people against each other is off the charts.
He is working tirelessly to expose corruption. He is being sledged as a conspiracy theorist cause he's managing it.
Excellent assessment and podcast thanks very much. I liked and subscribed. James J Walsh in Limerick city Ireland 🇮🇪
Your work is very important as a lawyer and a woman whom is taking the case with the reality of the first impression. I'm 100% on what you said.
21:50 btw it's worth noting that the articles which talk about that evidence keep referring to "text mesages" but some portion of what is shown as a "text message" is referred as an "email", which is extremely confusing, so I am not sure whether this was just a mistake or whether they are combining text messages and emails into a graphic that appears to show these as a back and forth text conversation.
Yes they are. They did the same thing in the tabloids with Megan and Kate. They actually made up the texts based on Harry's recollections and then artistically put them in made up screenshots.
The me too movement didn’t hit in the UK like it did in the US
Russell Brand has been an open secret in the comedy industry for years and years, but people are to fearful to say anything because he is litigious
And defamation laws in the UK are much less stringent than in the US. The burden of proof lies with the defendant versus the person bringing the claim.
I really think this case doesn’t translate too well. UK story evaluated under USA law.
A UK story about allegations of misconduct in the US...
I very much liked the balance of this coverage.
True, there are differences. The issue of the women stating their names and showing their faces is different in the UK. There they and their families are protected against abuse and death threats etc before a trial is held
@@link01uk Not all the allegations o cured in the USA most are from the time concerning him on channels 4’s Big brothers big mouth and more have been reported to the Met since
Thanks you for your objective commentary. I listened to some of the documentary (a radio version) and I have to admit that the choice to use actors to represent the victims struck me as a bit odd. I can absolutely understand the hesitation for a victim to come forward for fear of public ridicule. However, I don't understand why the creators didn't just read the victims' statements instead of hiring actors. An actor, by their very nature, is going to add emotion, intonations, and other inflections. This performative aspect of the documentary adds another layer to how the audience can interpret the truth of the allegations. Definitely not saying this absolves Brand, I just think that this may spark some backlash for the investigators and may do more of a disservice to the victims than the investigators intended since it may be called into question.
Using actors in documentaries is normal in the UK. I've seen it used quite a lot. The Jeremy Kyle documentary had actors stand in to read crew statements for example.
Yeah, it’s very typical to have actors read victim or whistleblower statements in U.K. documentaries, for shielding identity so audiences are used to it. I think it does the absolute opposite with regards conveying emotion. The actor is never as able to convey the feelings as the real person speaking in their own words do, it always sounds more hollow to me and takes away a lot of the emotional impact… having the actual person tell their story is far, faaaar more emotive.
You shouldn’t be weighing up, or ‘interpreting truth’ as you put it, of the allegations on the basis of emotion anyway. I also don’t think it will effect the investigation as the police will take direct statements of their own and are used to dealing in facts, not emotion. What the audience thinks is kinda irrelevant at the end of the day.. it’s now a police matter, so the documentary investigation has achieved what is arguably its primary aim… to push the investigation forward, and more people coming forward, same as the Saville documentary achieved.
@@kellykilfeather They never use good actors. Same with audio translations of other languages on the news. It's always a bit off. I think the actors focus on pronunciation and understandability more than realism. They seem stage actory.
What did you think of the several women who were speaking for themselves (ie, not actors reading the written statements of 2-3 of the 5 accusers, plus all the PAs and studio staff used their own voices and faces)......
........ when it was the women themselves who had claimed they had been assaulted, and it was the women themselves who were his employees etc: I felt those cases were compelling as people giving an account of something which took place.
The actors felt off, felt forced/faked, which is a real shame ..... I wish those women had agreed to speak for themselves, so we could get a feel for how real it was.
The levels of details, again, I found compelling.
@@gcooper642 - Thanks for the context, I had no idea that this was the norm in UK documentaries!
I don't think that everyone should be forced to be doxxed to the public just to have their claims believed. I understand people have trust issues with institutions but I dont think newspapers exposing the identities of private citizens accusing a celebrity with thousands of fans is how we fix that. If it turns out to be a lie, then we can ask for the identities and more facts but for now I think we have to believe journalistic practices on checking sources while also protecting their identity from the public are being followed into given reasons to believe otherwise.
In the UK apparently they protect the victims identities until it's proven they're lying.
_"I don't think that everyone should be forced to be doxxed to the public just to have their claims believed."_
They shouldn't be believed at all until they show some evidence. You can't just believe every random allegation you hear. People lie all the time. Anyone can put forward anonymous allegations about anyone. I allege Rishi Sunak ***** a farmyard animal. It doesn't mean he did. & no one is saying "dox" these accusers i.e. reveal their home address so why talk about doxxing? But we do need to know that these are 4 actual ladies & not 4 fictituous characters invented by someone powerful & angry or a bent journalist.
"Believe journalistic practices" is a lot of trust to put into institutions that aren't incentivised by justice or morality
This. Claiming Brand should be presumed "innocent" on social media (something he has NO right to - presumption of innocence is for the court of LAW) while baying like hounds for blood, wanting the names of the victims desperate to pile in them & judge them by social media trial jury & executioner. 🧐 Hypocrisy much?
Pretending Brand hasn't ALWAYS been a skeeve around women (an open secret for literal DECADES) because he's presenting himself now as some right wing guru is just disingenuousness of the highest order.
@@forcryinoutloud"Skeeve" isn't a word in the English language. We have to know who his accusers are because we need to know that they are actually real people. Monsters walk among us. The journalists might be monsters. Brand might be a monster. His accusers might be monsters. We don't know about anyone really. But most people are not terrible criminals. Therefore Brand probably isn't 1. & If we don't see the goodness in people then we won't be able to love them.
There is no statute of limitations in the UK for accusations of this nature. Seeing some of the behaviour of Brand it is comparable with Jimmy Saville and no one came forward during his life and we had to wait until he was dead for the horror of his behaviour to be known.
Children had been coming forward for years right into adulthood,a lot of high up people turned a blind eye so it was hard to bring him to justice as a lot of people had a lot to lose.
Let's put it this way, if the government and media really cared about things like this, they would have come after Prince Andrew and would be interrogated to expose who else went to Epstein's island. The fact that they are coming after Russell Brand is because he did something right which is expose the government's corruption and lies on multiple instances. That's why they are after him and not Prince Andrew
I don’t know the truth but at this stage there’s no way you can make that evaluation. This is why we need proper investigation and we are not there yet.
Russel is like the polar opposite ❤
This guy is no quiet & humble Johnny D, this is a big mouth egotist. "I had a spiritual awakening" is a cover to try to stop his past catching up with him. He has also recently said "I always knew this would happen one day" as if that serves as a defence. I bet he knew it would come one day, and for good reason.
Thanks for this, I've been really confused the last few days. I genuinely thought he'd been "Me-too'd" years ago, and I just assumed he'd survived the accusations. Good to know what's actually going on.
Yes, that's when I first heard #MeToo type accusations about him. I remember it distinctly because, since I'm in Australia, all I knew of him was a couple of movies and his teaming up with Noel Fielding for The Big Fat Quiz, where he came off as silly and unthreatening. So I was very disappointed to hear that he was so well known for sexually harrassing women at work. He was taken aside by some well respected older comedian and told to cut it out. Then time moved on, I learnt a lot more about addiction and abuse, and here he is again. Now I can see him clearly for what he is: a nonce and a wanker trying out-manouvre accountability using populist sensibilities and pretentious language.
@@amattes1960in the late 90s I left home at 16 I had two jobs and my own flat I didn't look 16 and pursued a 33 year old man who ended up my BF who was dubious about going out with me because if my age. To call a man a nonce with out understanding all the circumstances is a bit strong.
I know I was pushy and knew what I wanted, my choices where all my own. Some 16 year old are children others are young adults with there own sense of self, I truly believe nowadays 16 year old are not world wise, being stuck to a screen believing those human interactions to be true rather than experiencing them face to face.
BTW that 16 year old who has made the -g+r 🍇 aligations works for CH4 the channel that made this documentary!
I would never condone 🍇 but have had too many girlfriends that call it after a relationship has finished tbh I am fed up with that.
I really was all ears ... until I got to 22:40. There, I got TERRIBLY distracted ... 🐶🐾❤️
I find it odd that, as a lawyer, you didn't mention one obvious fact - both the Times and Channel 4 will have had lawyers pour over the reports and any evidence that was provided by the accusers. Brand is known to be litigious - he successfully sued a paper for defamation once before - so they would have wanted their reporting to be bullet proof. Also, when commenting about why the women didn't come forward sooner or go to the police, a passing mention of the conviction rates for sexual assaults and rapes would have been pertinent. The fact is that a minority of the cases of rape reported to he police go to trial at all and those that do, less than half result in a conviction. And then on occasion, a convicted rapist gets a slap on the wrist from the judge (Brock Turner). Why should any victim put themselves through that?
It's not just Brand is litigious but the defamation laws in the UK tend to favor the plaintiff. It was a big shock when Johnny Depp lost his defamation case in the UK.
This is a great point, it’s what the “extreme” “and I chose that word specifically”…tend to ignore, the reporters lawyers would have treated it as presenting evidence to a court. The problem is the lack of logical and critical thinking on behalf of his followers. Maybe it is the case, and in some circumstances, as in this situation unfortunately, that we the human race are innately tribal.
I’d add to your comment; she left out the fact that the journalists spent 4 years investigating, this was thoroughly looked into.
Uk law allows hearsay as evidence.
but instead, go to media? lol no
I love how your dog is like why is this pillow in my spot, it’s got to go
"My truth" actually means "My feelings", not the objective truth.
Glad you have done i video I hope you continue covering this ❤
I love that you put a video out on this topic! I am curious to know why did this investigation start in 2019 two years or so after the height of the Me Too movement if they occurred from 2006-2013. The main issue I had was that I wish they would separate out the potential legal SA allegations vs. just creepy behavior or discussions criticisms of British law and the Age of Consent being 16. We still don't know enough to understand whether Russell committed any crimes or not. Are the victims going to go to the police to charge him?
They were busy cold calling anyone who knew him for 4 years. It would be amazing if women who actually go to the police and media to get this kind of attention and effort. Would have been an expensive investigation.
Why do Americans assume that a cultural moment or movement that happens there is automatically happening elsewhere???? The US is not the whole world! It's so effing annoying!
Most cases were in London and the Metropolitan Police would be where women would have to report any sexual abuse. Recently we have a met officer convicted of rape and murder, Another convicted of numerous rapes and a third convicted of raping a woman police officer. 1,600 officers of the
Police are talking to other victims as well who've come forward since the program
Police were involved pretty fast.
Very well said. It’s a comfort to find islands of sanity, like your channel, in a world that has gone completely insane.
Im glad that you encourage feedback. It seems that the mainstream media publish news on CZcams complete with music production and try to influence the viewer but then disable feedback. Do they think the public are going to fall for their lame old tactics.
what do I think?
I think seeing your dog climb up on the chair cutely in the background definitely adds to these videos! :D
your pets are so cute!
Has anyone ever tallied how many of the people that the Sun has gone after are publicly left-leaning vs. how many right-leaning people with the same allegations the Sun was silent about?
Brand is right wing, I don't know why people think he's a leftie, he used to be on the left but he's gone all boomer brain. If the sun went after him then it's because they don't want this coming out around election time when he's banging on about brexit and maga.
They go after all leanings political wise. Also wealth wise poor or rich n9 matter
Thank you for a relatively objective primer on the matter. I love how sober and reasonable you are about things like this, and we need more voices like yours in the midst of the shouting match between the extremes.
Can I say, I really appreciate that you put the citation information on-screen when it comes to interview footage and stuff! So much better than similar content creators who hide that info way down in the description, or don't share it at all. (Though I wish you included the year that the footage was from, because that context can be so important, especially in a piece like this where you're hopping around the timeline a lot).
"Due process is a fundamental principle of law designed to protect the rights of individuals from arbitrary and unjust actions of the government. Before any person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, they must be given notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to be heard in an impartial tribunal."
A letter sent to Rumble (and presumably CZcams) from Dame Caroline Dineage (member of UK parliment) stated...
"We are concerned the he may be able to profit from his content on the platform".
"We would like to know weather Rumble intends to join CZcams in suspending Mr. Brand's ability to earn money on the platform"
That doesn't sound like due process to me.
At the risk of being a bit Russel, I think you are just wonderful. Subscribed.
Shout out to the pupper for knocking the pillow off the chair in the background to make room for sleeps.
Indy is funny like that-she doesn’t mess around when it comes to sleeps!! 😂
Finally! A take I can get behind 100%! Truth is truth, claiming “truth” as one’s own is contradictory to the very definition of it! Let the legal process play out.
The contents of the text messages were authenticated by the journalists BUT the ‘text message display’ was just something knocked-up by the Sunday Times’s art director (which is why there’s a Sunday Times trademark under the text message images accompanying the article).
Re: the text messages, if you look at the originally released images (other outlets have often cropped it), right at the bottom, it says, "Graphic: The Times and The Sunday Times".
So, the original distributor of this image was not actually claiming that this was a screenshot of the conversation; just that it was a graphical represention of it.
The problem with this is that a) i'd argue that this was an implied screenshot (or at the very least they should have known that people would read it as such). So, this disclaimer should have been more than small print at the bottom of the image.
b) why is it not a screenshot. I'm guessing because they wanted to edit out irrelevant stuff. But, we're not told that.
c) this takes us one more step away from primary sources. Not only have we got to trust the journalists that these were between Brand and this girl, but we have to trust that these texts are represented accurately. I've got to believe that the journalists are betting their careers and reputations on this stuff standing up in court, but we still need to take it on faith.
Really informative and balanced. Thank you for speaking sense in the chaos!
The way things are going men will be frightened to approach women
In fear of being accused of sexual assaults
So many young men have now got a complex
As someone who has been assaulted as an adult AND as a child, i do believe there is an obligation to say who you are, excepting of course in the case that they're still minors. But i DO also understand not wanting to be linked forever with my trauma in the public mind, particularly if you're famous.
But i also believe men should have the right to go through the court of law. Ive seen too many truly good men brought to throw knees over false allegations, and there really is no going back, even in the cases I've seen where they were exonerated factually. They're forever afraid, and no one compensates them for everything they lost.
I thought this was great commentary on what we know so far. Thank you LegalBytes!
Alyte, will you be covering the SBF trial???
If you are not a viewer of Brand but are prepared to comment on these circumstances... something by admission that you're therefore unaware of, then it stands to reason that YOU are the problem.
I go for months at a time without giving Russell Brand a single thought. Years even. I strongly doubt the validity of the this video's title.
Thanks
Thank you so much for the Super Thanks!! Very kind and generous of you!! 💙
I think you are spot on.
Seems odd to me that anyone who describes themselves as a free independent thinker winds up spouting the exact same message on the fair right …
While people's arguments against anonymity may feel valid, the overarching issue is one of perceived credibility, and IMO is of crucial importance with subjects such as this. A big celebrity will have the means at their disposal to shield themselves, councillors, fans, legal teams etc. An individual has very little if that, and also are usually I'll equipped mentally to deal with the attention.
"My truth" is a phrase I particularly dislike. BINGO!!!
Thanks for your informative commentary. I think all women, all people, should be listened to. Which, before Me Too, that was, not as prevalent. I don't think the media should be punishing Russell before the trial, but don't think Me Too should be blamed, either, as it was a historical landmark, obviously much needed, especially with all the sexism in Hollywood, as well as just about any place, or business that has alot of money and/or power. ❤The very things Russell talks about, like all the destruction to enviornment, etc., Would heal from it's core if women had equality, as they are the constructive, nurturing ones, not that men don't have that side, but are not encouraged enough to be balanced, which could help solve alot of the very problems he speaks of. Women got the vote, in U.S., in 1920, then the women's movement resurged in the 1960s, the Me Too is major, like those epic, historical changes, and should not be thrown out with the bath water because one person said all women should be believed, when the male- streamed media, someone as ignorant and disrespectful as DTs son, made a big joke out of it, and Amber heard. ❤ I feel horrible this is all happening, but u are right, we need to hear them all out, and the media needs to take responsibility for cutting off Russell, so the Me Too movement doesn't get scapegoted for that. Respectfully❤❤❤❤❤
It is hard to say right now. I mean I could believe either of the two possibilities. Will have to keep an eye on it.
Speaking as a victim myself, I am team Russell. The fact that these women went to the media instead of police bothers me. The fact that these women are anonymous bothers me. The fact that the text messages definitely look altered bothers me. Someone noticed that Russell SUPPOSEDLY texted the American spelling of "behavior" vs. the British spelling of "behaviour" is telling. He's British! Many of the powerful elites want him to shut up, and this is a classic way to try to silence him. And, since WHEN does a politician (in the UK) intervene in sexual legal cases contacting the defendant's employers and demanding they demonetize and/or fire him?! It's not a politician's business! This is a hit job.
And you and Rose are right. This crap hurts REAL victims!
IMO, the court of public opinion is not convicting a person of a crime but individuals deciding that they don't like a person and won't support with views or purchases. For example, being creepy is not a crime but if enough people think that, then that is the public decision.
Brand says his sexual activities were always consensual and this may be legally true but might not be general public idea. Is consent after persuasion, pressure or bullying, what the public think consent should be? Brand with his fast talking & big vocabulary is likely quite persuasive.
So persuasive is Brand that I can imagine him talking someone into doing something they regret. This could apply to physical activities or TV hosts laughing or management failure to stop him.
I personally see this as infantilizing the women. Feeling pressured or not you have a choice to consent.
The Metropolitan police have received a plethora of other allegations and are investigating Brand
This does not mean anything.....
It means something.
@@Joenzetie it means you’ll get a an answer on whether the allegations can be proven or whether it’s a defamation case, and if so why? And why has this been touted as an open secret on the British comedy circuit for years if there in no truth to it. I means an awful lot to those alleged victims.
What’s the tune at the end of the video?
I like the dog better then that pillow to. He looks much better.
I appreciate “listen and investigate.” Someone close to me was falsely accused and it was very hard to see the police being ridiculously biased in her favor. In court it became clear that she had a pattern of doing this, actively trying to ruin men’s lives.
I completely agree : it is important to wait for any criminal investigations until all evidence has been examined snd ruled on to condemn an individual. We live in a kind of rape culture and that needs to be addressed but not on the backs of men who are accused . That is important for the credibility of any victim .
I appreciate your take on this, but I do want to add some context that a non-British audience may not be aware of with regard to why the accusers did not come forward sooner. Firstly, Russell Brand did get in mild trouble for inappropriate behaviour in the past (there was an issue of him phoning the grandfather of an ex and leaving lewd messages about her as part of his radio show) but short of a short-term punishment (he lost that show), it did not harm his career in any meaningful way.
So these accusations are not completely out of the blue. Even the video clip you show is not "promiscuous" behaviour, it's Brand touching a woman without her consent, and her laughter is a known stress response: Brand did this style of comedy for years, and to be fair to him, it was enabled by the TV stations and producers because "she laughed", but it is not appropriate and not consensual, not to mention the imbalance of power and the fact no one is stepping in to stop him. He's been called out on this for pretty much his entire career, and there were dark rumours about his marriage to Katy Perry. So no, this isn't coming from absolutely nowhere - it's been known for years that his "edgy" behaviour often crossed a line, but his employers helped to blur that for years.
Secondly, you have to look at the behaviours of the British TV and media industry with regard to sex crimes and inappropriate behaviour when it comes to their bankable stars. For example, the BBC and the freaking police protected Jimmy Savile until 2012 - a year after his death - despite knowing full well that he was harming children because tons of people came forward. Rolf Harris is another example of someone caught in the wake of the Savile investigation, known as Operation Yewtree. Again, this is NOT to claim that Brand is guilty, but is purely in regard to the question, "Why didn't they report earlier?" that you asked in the video.
I think that a non-British audience needs to understand the power that the BBC, ITV and Channel Four have in the UK when it comes to the careers of media personalities, and that this has come on top of other British media personalities being caught doing inappropriate things in the very recent past (looking at you, Phillip Schofield). What comes out over and over again is that the BBC, Channel Four, and ITV HAD received reports from victims, their own staff, and other individuals but did not act until the story broke in the papers. In some cases, the police were complicit in the coverup, and in others, people stayed quiet because speaking out was the end of their careers. This was still happening as of this year in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with Brand. In his specific case, we've got literal footage of him crossing the line into grossly inappropriate and occasionally technically illegal in the UK (inappropriate touching) behaviours that he never faced any consequences for, and in some cases, was actually celebrated for. I hope that context helps answer the "why" and "why now", to people; also it's taken four years for the media investigation to be published, so the allegations were first taken to the press during metoo, but don't forget the impact of the pandemic.
Bravo! 1000 likes for you! 👏👏👏
So he made a prank call, which was not inappropriate behavior, and the clip is completely innocuous also. Rumors about his marriage, which means gossip, means nothing. The idea that his employers shielded him from accusation when they also immediately fired him after a prank call is laughable. Lies upon lies upon lies. That is why no one can trust a word you people say and why they stand with the accused right out of the gate in many cases. You caused that.
@@Arphemius would exposing genitals in a workplace be considered inappropriate to you? Just figuring out where the bar is
@@littlerabbit584
Clearly "appropriate" and "inappropriate" are value judgements, subjective and cultural. Even with the example you give; getting your genitals out in public would be perfectly appropriate in a culture without trousers, and it is not appropriate in ours - so there is no way we can deny that is cultural. It's a bit bizarre to claim that what was done in the name of comedy was not inappropriate since it was their inappropriateness that made them funny. If they are not inappropriate why are we laughing? A boundary had been breached and that was what made it funny - it is transgressive.
It seems to me that the big reason this is being fought in media and not in the courts is because it is culture itself on trial and not the man, and you can't put the culture on trial in the courts because the courts are downstream of culture. Culture will find itself not-guilty. The things he is accused of are not yet crimes; he is being accused of them so the law will be changed by the affected shift in public opinion.
To illustrate - he is accused of gr**ming a sixteen year old girl, which is not illegal, but the accuser thinks it should be.
Another - it is not yet considered "r*pe" if you have consensual sex with your partner without informing her that you are not using a condom, even if she has told you in the past she wants you to wear a condom, but the accuser thinks it should be.
You can't argue what the law should be in a criminal trial; that has to be debated in society and then the law changed.
Don't have a go at me and say that is unfair: I am not endorsing the strategy; I am decoding it and explaining its reasoning that the campaigners, I believe, are slyly keeping hidden.
That's one side of it:
The other is the desire to silence Russell Brand, who still is a breaker of boundaries, but of a different sort.
Whereas once, he was a breaker of the boundaries of sexual inhibition, he is now the breaker of the boundaries between the siloed echo chambers of the political tribes. The propaganda of the MSM relies on its consumers being in two separate and non-communicative camps that only perceive caricatured versions of each other that are threatening and dehumanized. Having established this situation, they can shape how you think by telling you to be in opposition to their strawmanned representation of the group you are conditioned to hate.
When there is unfiltered and respectful conversation between the two sides that breaks the con. That is the current day boundary breaking he is really being punished for, by the corporations.
How the feminists are using Brand as the figurehead of the lad culture of the 2000s in order to put lad culture itself on trial just happens to coincide with the corporate interests who want to keep us siloed.
So maybe this is just a collusion of interests.
Maybe... but, on the other hand, maybe a gendering of the political silos (both of which are economically neoliberal by the way) is deliberate, because we saw that in 2016 with the pink pussy hat march where Clinton was presented as the feminist choice and Trump as the manly choice, at least performatively (notably, Clinton was the more war-hawkish of the two so she was hardly a feminine choice). A vote for Trump was portrayed as a misogynistic vote whilst the threat of "leftism" is presented in right wing spaces as a feminine threat of social security and coddling. This is an ahistorical claim because when there was a left that supported the interests of workers and labour it tended to have more male supporters than female supporters and it was as it moved towards the political centre it came to be the more female-supported political party.
So maybe the feminist and corporate interests being aligned is by design rather than coincidence, since dividing men from women is the most fundamental of identitarian divisions...
Not quite past the chin-scratching stage on that one.
God forbid people should be able to grow and learn as humanbeings. The argument that he's faking it is insane to me.
Probably one of the more thoughtful comments made about this debacle.
Spot on. A little disconcerting that the English government meddled in his financial affairs, with regards to monetization.
Thanks for your your honest view ❤on this. I believe they want him to shut up.
What brand said was that he has evidence which contradicts "the narrative", to be that coukd be very different from evidence which could disprove his guilt
Interesting idea, but he did also say everything was consensual, so he is saying he is not guilty as well. But, not everyone has the same definition of consensual.
I'm loving the pooch. You can tell a lot about the owner by their dog. Ahhh how sweet x
Thank you. I don´t form an opinion before hearing the other side .
I loved watching your dog depillowing the chair😂 Also appreciate your balanced view on this topic.
At last some critical thinking and analysis of the complex issues in this case. The approach so far has represented a serious threat to justice for Brand AND any genuine complainant.