Russell Brand

[Turkish]

I wish we wouldn’t see Narindar Kaur for a decade or two, she’s in her element over this. 

[benjii]

10 hours ago, Turkish said:

nor should it!! He's going to have a hell of a time in the click too, they dont tend to like sex offenders.....

I saw a clip of Jimmy Carr....

"I think Russell Brand's attitude towards consensual sex is about to undergo a radical shift".

[benjii]

7 hours ago, Turkish said:

I wish we wouldn’t see Narindar Kaur for a decade or two, she’s in her element over this. 

You would, though?

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, benjii said:

You would, though?

Only if she consented 

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, benjii said:

I saw a clip of Jimmy Carr....

"I think Russell Brand's attitude towards consensual sex is about to undergo a radical shift".

"I think Russell Brand is going to jail for something he didn't do.......

...ask consent".

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I've not followed the trial in depth. But I was curious, with low conviction rates, what questions the jury were asked to decide upon for the verdicts. With historical allegations, there's little to no forensic evidence.

From the questions, you can see what the defence would call "public trawling" for more incidents is important. The various victim testimony builds up a pattern of actions and behaviour. The reinforcement of predatory behaviour; the personality shift moving consensual encounters into rape.

All supported by a wide selection of witnesses who can confirm that behaviour.

This is for a well known figure. Looking at the questions it's a reminder of how difficult it can be, if there's not a number of victims, and not a lot of people who can talk about the behaviour, and incidents, to secure a conviction.

 

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/russell-brand-trial-close-jury-wife-b3076395.html

[rallyboy]

A whole valley constantly full of smoke tends to confirm that there is a fire.

[benjii]

Well, that's weird.

 

In all seriousness, chaps, if you're a father, try to do a good job.

Musk, Trump....  weird/abusive fathers. Don't fuck your kids up.

 

 

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, benjii said:

Well, that's weird.

 

In all seriousness, chaps, if you're a father, try to do a good job.

Musk, Trump....  weird/abusive fathers. Don't fuck your kids up.

 

 

Well fucked up. I have always found it weird people wanting to talk to others about what they did with a woman. 

[Osvaldorama]

I just hope this harsh sentence is the start of a new justice system that punishes sexual crimes appropriately.

Seen far too many lenient rulings in the last few years:

 

[AlexLaw76]

Russell Brand should have read the 'leaflets' at the time...

[Holmes_and_Watson]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Well fucked up. I have always found it weird people wanting to talk to others about what they did with a woman. 

I might not have been listening closely to the bit I bothered with  (because, eeeeewwwww) but there was a moment I thought they were at least within earshot of each other. For extra creepiness.

[whelk]

Just now, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I might not have been listening closely to the bit I bothered with  (because, eeeeewwwww) but there was a moment I thought they were at least within earshot of each other. For extra creepiness.

Yeah who doesn’t shag a woman with their dad doing the same on an adjacent bed

[AlexLaw76]

Thing is with Brand, many public figures and people with significant influence in the media have been hinting/known about about his behaviour for years, yet no one stepped up (publicly at least). Why?

Sean Lock had his card marked a long time ago...

http

 

[benjii]

10 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Thing is with Brand, many public figures and people with significant influence in the media have been hinting/known about about his behaviour for years, yet no one stepped up (publicly at least). Why?

Sean Lock had his card marked a long time ago...

http

 

Fear of litigation, I guess. If you know it but can't prove it.

[benjii]

25 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I just hope this harsh sentence is the start of a new justice system that punishes sexual crimes appropriately.

Seen far too many lenient rulings in the last few years:

 

No, it's the exact sort of sentence people have, and will, continue to get for rape.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 minutes ago, benjii said:

Fear of litigation, I guess. If you know it but can't prove it.

I heard that about the likes of Seville.

But to still give them jobs and contracts? There must be a way of politely declining to hire a presenter, without letting them know what you think of them.

"We're moving the format in a new direction, you rapist scumbag."

Hmmm, it is tougher than I thought. Definite urge to hold them to account.

 

[Farmer Saint]

31 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I just hope this harsh sentence is the start of a new justice system that punishes sexual crimes appropriately.

Seen far too many lenient rulings in the last few years:

 

Did you listen to the sentencing, and what each part of the sentence was for?

[Sir Ralph]

42 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I just hope this harsh sentence is the start of a new justice system that punishes sexual crimes appropriately.

Seen far too many lenient rulings in the last few years:

 

On January 28, 2025, Salihi followed and slapped the bottom of a 42-year-old woman on Lombard Street. Later that same day, he groped a 14-year-old girl who was on a Harry Potter sightseeing tour with her family in Leadenhall Market. Following the second incident, the girl's family confronted him inside a nearby restaurant, where he threw a chair through a window.

Edited 24 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

On January 28, 2025, Salihi followed and slapped the bottom of a 42-year-old woman on Lombard Street. Later that same day, he groped a 14-year-old girl who was on a Harry Potter sightseeing tour with her family in Leadenhall Market. Following the second incident, the girl's family confronted him inside a nearby restaurant, where he threw a chair through a window.

What a prick, but far less serious than the sexual assaults that Brand got 18 months for. Don't forget there are also aggravating factors, such as humiliation as it was done in front of an audience.

Edited 16 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What a prick, but far less serious than the sexual assaults that Brand got 18 months for.

Brand got 9 months for grabbing a breast and 8 months for laying his head on a women’s lap. I’d say in that context what this guy did is worse in the context of those sentences. How does the judiciary square that off. Our mate also threw a chair through a window. His assault also involved a minor

Edited 9 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Brand got 9 months for grabbing a breast and 8 months for laying his head on a women’s lap. I’d say in that context what this guy did is worse in the context of those sentences. How does the judiciary square that off

 

No he didn't, this is what he did:

Your victim in count 3 was a professional woman at the party of a man you both knew. It was July 2004, and she had seen you on the television and wanted to be introduced to you, as she thought you were funny. You were told there was a woman who wanted to meet you. That was all you needed to feel entitled to grab her breasts as she sat talking to you. In your trial, you said you had never touched a woman sexually without her consent, and that included this woman. In light of the jury’s verdicts, that was one of a series of lies you told. The effect on her had her wandering the streets of London, phoning a friend in the middle of night, tearful and distressed. I accept I need to be cautious in assessing her reaction, as the jury acquitted you of a later attack on the same woman, but something caused her that great upset. In her victim impact statement, which she read to the court this morning, she spoke of being extremely upset and traumatised, feeling vulnerable every time she went out for the evening, and feeling sick on the many occasions she saw you in newspapers or on the television. In terms of the relevant guideline, that offence falls into category 3B. It displayed your casual, arrogant disregard of any woman’s right to say “no” to you. In my view, the degree of upset caused to the victim is significantly above that which would normally follow from a sexual assault in the 3B category, so this is an occasion where I am satisfied it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to go above the prescribed sentencing range.

Around the same time, the victim in count 5 was doing her job. You appeared with an entourage of a woman and two or three men. In the trial, the victim gave an account which I accept without reservation. She said:

 

“He said, “aye, aye”, and grabbed me by my face and started to kiss me. He was pushing his body against mine, walking me backwards so my back was against the wall. The three men and a woman were stood there. He was just kissing me, he was very frenzied, no greeting, no time for me to understand what went on. This was a perfect stranger who just grabbed me and ran his hands over my body while I had my back against the wall.

 

“The kiss was hard and sloppy, he kissed me all down my neck, and his hands were, at that same time, all over me. He touched my bum and my breasts, with his other hand just pinning me against the wall with his body pressed up against me, so I was not able to move. It was rough, very, very rough. I was in shock.

 

“The others did nothing. I looked at the woman; I looked at her; she didn’t say anything, nor did the men, they did not move. It was the middle of my working day. There was a point where I somehow managed to put my hand and I pushed him and told him to “f*** off”, quite loud, then he kind of stumbled back and he made like a sound like it was funny, and there was a guy by the door, he started to laugh.”

That offence falls into the upper part of category 2B as it was sustained, there was the added humiliation of you assaulting her in front of an audience and the laughter afterwards, and the violence used to pin her to the wall was beyond the force that any sexual assault will involve.

Count 7 shows yet again your staggering arrogance, and it shows how your entourage indulged your dreadful behaviour. Towards the end of 2009, you were making an advertisement for a DVD of your work. You were there with two men who were your friends or associates. The victim was a woman, helping produce the advertisement. You got into a bad mood and she was then told by one of the men with you that you would not continue unless she gave you a massage. She was taken aback but felt she had no choice. You then entered the room and placed your face in her lap, positioned so that when you told her to get on with it, she could feel your breath on her vagina. She reluctantly pressed her thumbs into your shoulders, then exclaimed how bony you were, leading your acolytes to laugh (possibly at you rather than her), and you to leap up and start insulting her with childish but sexualised comments about whether she had a “fanny”. Those insults, in front of an audience, said after the assault, amount to an additional humiliation. The whole episode reeks of casual disrespect and your belief that fame meant you could act how you liked, when you liked, unhindered by the rules by which decent people live. Your victim for that offence wrote, in her impact statement, of being left upset, losing her trust in people and not feeling safe in her workplace: That count falls into category 2B of the guidelines, and her words are a reminder that even in crimes which, under the guidelines I have to follow, are not the most serious, the consequences for the victim are profound and lasting.

 

 

I think you just don't understand how the law works.

Edited 7 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No he didn't, this is what he did:

Your victim in count 3 was a professional woman at the party of a man you both knew. It was July 2004, and she had seen you on the television and wanted to be introduced to you, as she thought you were funny. You were told there was a woman who wanted to meet you. That was all you needed to feel entitled to grab her breasts as she sat talking to you. In your trial, you said you had never touched a woman sexually without her consent, and that included this woman. In light of the jury’s verdicts, that was one of a series of lies you told. The effect on her had her wandering the streets of London, phoning a friend in the middle of night, tearful and distressed. I accept I need to be cautious in assessing her reaction, as the jury acquitted you of a later attack on the same woman, but something caused her that great upset. In her victim impact statement, which she read to the court this morning, she spoke of being extremely upset and traumatised, feeling vulnerable every time she went out for the evening, and feeling sick on the many occasions she saw you in newspapers or on the television. In terms of the relevant guideline, that offence falls into category 3B. It displayed your casual, arrogant disregard of any woman’s right to say “no” to you. In my view, the degree of upset caused to the victim is significantly above that which would normally follow from a sexual assault in the 3B category, so this is an occasion where I am satisfied it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to go above the prescribed sentencing range.

stood there. He was just kissing me, he was very frenzied, no greeting, no time for me to understand what went on. This was a perfect stranger who just grabbed me and ran his hands over my body while I had my back against the wall.

 

“The kiss was hard and sloppy, he kissed me all down my neck, and his hands were, at that same time, all over me. He touched my bum and my breasts, with his other hand just pinning me against the wall with his body pressed up against me, so I was not able to move. It was rough, very, very rough. I was in shock.

 

“The others did nothing. I looked at the woman; I looked at her; she didn’t say anything, nor did the men, they did not move. It was the middle of my working day. There was a point where I somehow managed to put my hand and I pushed him and told him to “f*** off”, quite loud, then he kind of stumbled back and he made like a sound like it was funny, and there was a guy by the door, he started to laugh.”

That offence falls into the upper part of category 2B as it was sustained, there was the added humiliation of you assaulting her in front of an audience and the laughter afterwards, and the violence used to pin her to the wall was beyond the force that any sexual assault will involve.

Count 7 shows yet again your staggering arrogance, and it shows how your entourage indulged your dreadful behaviour. Towards the end of 2009, you were making an advertisement for a DVD of your work. You were there with two men who were your friends or associates. The victim was a woman, helping produce the advertisement. You got into a bad mood and she was then told by one of the men with you that you would not continue unless she gave you a massage. She was taken aback but felt she had no choice. You then entered the room and placed your face in her lap, positioned so that when you told her to get on with it, she could feel your breath on her vagina. She reluctantly pressed her thumbs into your shoulders, then exclaimed how bony you were, leading your acolytes to laugh (possibly at you rather than her), and you to leap up and start insulting her with childish but sexualised comments about whether she had a “fanny”. Those insults, in front of an audience, said after the assault, amount to an additional humiliation. The whole episode reeks of casual disrespect and your belief that fame meant you could act how you liked, when you liked, unhindered by the rules by which decent people live. Your victim for that offence wrote, in her impact statement, of being left upset, losing her trust in people and not feeling safe in her workplace: That count falls into category 2B of the guidelines, and her words are a reminder that even in crimes which, under the guidelines I have to follow, are not the most serious, the consequences for the victim are profound and lasting.

So our mates case which also involved two assaults, including a minor and violence should get a £400 compared to brands total of 17 months in jail? I’m sure the 14 year old girl was very upset too

Edited 6 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So our mates case which also involved two assaults, including a minor and violence should get a £400 compared to brands total of 17 months in jail? I’m sure the 14 year old girl was very upset too

What violence was there against the person? Have you read the full ruling from that case?

Edited 3 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What violence was there against the person? Have you read the full ruling from that case?

He threw a chair against the window when confronted. He also assaulted a MINOR. The judges ruling you need to pay for. Are you defending the £400 fine for these assaults?