Russell BRAND

The appalling Russell Brand's offences all came from the time when he was fawned over by the Left. Never out of The Guardian, BBC and C4. They're now trying desperately to pretend that never happened.

Some particularly deluded "Progressives" even thought that Brand had enough sway with the young voters to get Labour elected in 2015.

Even "The Independent" newspaper has today run a political commentary piece about how Miliband should be "ashamed of snuggling up" to Brand.

Any sign of Milliclown making a statement to the House about what he knew and when he knew it? Two-Tier had to go public about his dealings with Mandelson.

LOLOL

The Guardian evidently having a go at rewriting history. ANYTHING to try and disappear from the scene of the crime.

SHAMELESS

.
https://order-order.com/2026/11/06/guardians-rank-history-rewriting-russell-brand-hypocrisy/

Laurence Fox, is that it Donny ? 

In response i give you - Danepak Ed, Owen Jones, Burnham, the odious Alistair Campbell, George Monbiot as well as many other journalists at The Guardian and New Statesmen.

Whatabout, eh

Whilst Russell brand is grifting of thick right wingers, because he was cancelled elsewhere.

You just don't seem to get it, but that's likely
due to your low intelligence.

What part of "all his convictions relate to crimes during the period senior figures on the Left were fawning over him " is hard to understand ?

You really are the Durham Dunce, yet you accuse others of "not getting it " ffs what a clown

Ye Gods, The Guardian was so in thrall to Brand they gave him the job of writing an Opinion piece about Lady Thatcher after she passed.

Brand was 4 years old when she became PM and 15 when she was ousted. Incredible that a nonentity like him would be handpicked to write her political epitaph.

Amazed they haven't deleted it yet or the remainder of his other pieces for them. Rewriting history comes naturally to Progressive Socialist Communist types.

.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher

Non of it is hard to understand

But that he was forced out of that gang, and into grifting off thick right wingers instead, seems totally beyond your limited comprehension

I thought I was supposed to be the clown around here.

You still are.

YHTL does have a point, his crimes were widely known for at least 6 years, he got the boot from his customers when they knew, He looked for new customers and team woke right with their history of protecting pdfiles were willing to buy everything he was selling.


They bought everything. Look at the threads on this forum, right upto a few days before his conviction team woke right were backing him as the victim.

The social worker has turnt up ...time for a Pint

Well said Mr O'Neill

.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/11/05/good-riddance-to-the-insane-cult-of-russell-brand/

Escapee - what are you on about ? Brand went Tonto during the lockdown days and decided to try his luck with conspiracy nonsense.
Nobody is saying he didn't switch away from the Left at that time, but the incontrovertible fact is that ALL of his convictions (and other alleged offences) happened during the time senior Labour figures , politicians and publications were bigging him up in nauseating fashion EVEN THOUGH he had been binned by the BBC over the disgraceful Andrew Sachs incident. The most prominent of those politicians is our current Prime Minister , You couldn't make it up.



There will always be some (on all sides of politics) who question evidence in cases like this, even if it seems clear he is guilty as heck. It happens in just about every court case, certainly high profile ones that get played out in public.

People can have opinions without "backing Brand as the victim". It doesn't mean they support him does it. Don't forget he wasn't found guilty on all charges, the jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt and so there were obviously question marks in their minds around a couple of the charges brought against him.

As for "his crimes were widely known for at least six years", well that's just plain wrong as the Dispatches programme and newspaper articles only came out in September 2023.

his own rear entrance will be getting re-branded regularly for the next 5-10 years.

had his head in a womans lap Nose facing inwards , And touched a womans Breast

Check out what Dan Neidle has to say on his twitter account re Russel Brand and a victim called Sylvie Berki.  It’s another very distressing read. Without doubt Sylvie’s case needs exposing.

2014

Cant stand the man , but the Evidence is Flimsy at best

More to come see what they are

Not heard of that one Donnie

Looks like Brand thought he could get away with all sorts of deviance when he was being surrounded over and fawned over by the left then realised when he moved to "team woke right" as Escapee likes to call it he realised he had to stop that behaviour and turn over a new leaf.

I wonder what it is about lefties that made him feel he could get away with it when amongst them.

Now we know why he came up with a surprise last minute endorsement of Miliband and begged all his fans to vote for him. He would have been much better shielded from legal problems with a prime minister in his pocket.

How many times has this count mentioned milliband?




Your desperation has become mildy amusing to watch.

Check out the cope.

You're not coping well are you.

Gurgling "milliband" on these threads everytime you take your thumb out of your mouth.

Brand is someone who went a very long way with very limited talent.

In regards to the verdict as I haven't been following the case, was he convicted because....

a) there was irrefutable evidence
b) the word of witnesses
c) he said / she said (and a lot of she's at that)

?

c)

And what she/they said was in direct contradiction to what they have been saying for 20 years.

The deep state strikes again, they got the dissident

So all these women are liars, everyone of them, and poor old Pervy Russ is just hard done by. Shall we get the violins out ?

Quite obviously (for example), the perception of an event occurring when an individual is immature and carefree is often completely different to when they look back on things they did when they are middle aged and mature. Many people would be shamed and ashamed of what they were willing to do decades ago. They might even want to/find it easier to cope by putting the blame for their poor choices at the time on other people.

That is a generalisation. Nobody knows for sure unless they were there all those years ago. We are however in possession of logic, and logic tells you that young people can be infatuated by 'stars' and getting some attention from them, get treated/used by them, and regret that activity in later life. Is it criminal, more than likely not, but this case seems to revolve around this individual being a horrible person and treating some of the women throwing themselves at him badly ie taking advantage. But, applying logic again, I'd say it's most likely to have been consenting activity at the time (and regret, sometimes deep) afterwards. It's probably why he was a trophy boy of the political left at the time. A woman scorned can be vindictive, given the opportunity. This character might be a genuine waypist, but I think it's less likely, personally.

When Brand or Markle are mentioned on a news bulletin I turn it off or change channels. How the fate of these 2 odious men is supposed to interest me is a mystery. Especially when we have 2 active war zones, an economic crisis, an upheaval in the US Congress, planes being grounded, thousands of tonnes of food going to waste and protesters trashing large parts of Europe!

Pretty obvious, modern day legacy media will never resist the opportunity to give older white dudes a good kicking. ie VIRTUE SIGNALLING. Especially one like Brand who is now lambasted for the behaviour he used to be celebrated for in the mainstream, and by politicians. To be honest I know very little about Markle (aside from the very basics), and care even less. But people will definitely see it as another opportunity to flex up their VIRTUE SIGNALLING.

And clickbait. Clicks are currency, and both stories are likely to appeal to red top / twatter types.

not defending he may have been a wrong un but  back in the day the press /media championed him as "swordsman of the year " he was young and possibly reckless did those birds not have an inkling that if they went to a hotel room with said  swordsman that tea and scones and seeing his etchings so to speak might not be top of the list in nightime activitys.

Foyle the victim of the r8pe had a threesome with him 2 weeks before hand in his dressing room at a gig 5 minutes after meeting him.

She was by all extents not a shrinking violet herself but equally that doesn’t mean he was entitled to take her up the wrong un without permission which is what the jury believed happened.

now he's a convicted rapist Brand a forum hero for shrewd/cider

I can see why the jury took a dim view of the back door degeneracy. The average person thinks it's degenerate even when it's consentual.

now he's a convicted rapist Brand a forum hero for shrewd/cider

Do you want to point out the parts that I have made him out to be heroic? You might want to read the thread or get a responsible adult to read it out for you in particular the second post on the thread.

You really are one of the thickest idiots on here and that says a lot.

There could be more charges for Brand. Mark Rowley appealed for more victims to come forward and said he wouldn't be surprised if many, many more come forward. Makes sense I suppose, but I wonder why there was no appeal for victims of grooming gangs.

now he's a convicted rapist Brand a forum hero for shrewd/cider


It doesn't bother me that he was a darling of the left wing establishment. I can look past that.

A prosecution of this nature, with no actual evidence afaik should bother all of us.

Unless they belong to the right book club yhtl apparently. Why do you think it's so much more high priority for the likes of Rowley to appeal for victims of Brand to come forward than victims of grooming gangs?

Grape gangs aren't even a corollary as children can't consent to sexx with adults, even if they think that they wanted to. It's therefore a much lower bar for a conviction, the CPS only needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that sexx happened/was organised.

A journalist on 5 live this morning was admitting that stories about Brand were circulating as long as 20 years ago but tended to be dismissed at the time.

R * PE carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment with the average being 10 years, what with the other 2 convictions and the fact that they might want to make an example of him given that this is such a high profile case, and will send out a message, I think he'll get north of 10 years, and with no early release for such crimes, old Russell is looking at some series porridge.

Let's be realistic here. Mr Brand is GUILTY! This could have been precipitated by a TV expose' nevertheless he's absolutely guilty - not even the slightest doubt.

The likes of that former contributor to That's Life! whose name I've forgotten , Epstein, Weinstein and now Brand are all absolutely guilty. I hope most, if not all, would take the same course as Epstein, and not be accorded an opportunity to re-offend in the future. These scums need to rot in jail as far as I'm concerned.

There is a distinct possibility that Brand will, like Ian Watkins, die in prison.

I hope today is the 'best' day of his life. He needs it!

So, he will serve about just under 7 years if he is well behaved? Still be in his fifties when released.

Gonna having a tag for the rest of his LIFE
Unless he flees to the usa

With Labours early release scheme he will be out for Xmas.

They have to look after their own.

There is a queue of grape cases to come against him.

He is unlikely to be out before he's a pensioner.

yep all the Filthy Book reading Rapists and Torturers will all be well out before this c"""

Appeal is more or less certain to come , didnt get a fair trial etc .

If only the lefty sh1tbogs showed as much disgust towards the Filthy Starni gangs operating all over the UK

Your forum post has been submitted and will be posted after a moderator approves it.

No Chance...

The grape victim is so brave!... Probably not the word I'd use to describe her.. S**g would be me apt.

more!

Friking keyboard..

An ex-girlfriend of Russell Brand has accused him of "violence, coercive control and abuse" while the two were together.

Jemima Goldsmith, who dated the disgraced entertainer for roughly a year around 2014, alleged that she "had to call the police to have him removed from my house in 2014 during a violent incident" but chose not to press charges.

In a lengthy statement on social media, the 52-year-old said she was "in awe of the courageous women who came forward at Brand's trial" and was "glad and relieved" he had "finally faced justice".

Are there different sentencing guidelines for judges where Cultural Enrichers are concerned? Many of them appear to have received extraordinarily lenient sentences for the r@pe of sexually-underaged girls.

OF COURSE  .. BOOKREADERS AND DO AS YER LIKEYS =  UNTOUCHABLES

None of these leftie locos can explain why they obsess about Brand and never mention the far greater problem of the book readers. Is it because he's white?

Brown privilege.

So if I have got this right, he has been convicted with no evidence other than a jury believing the victims ? is that right?  if that is the case I would imagine they'd be an appeal though I haven't heard of any possible appeal.

You can't just appeal unless you have proper grounds to do so Susq. They would have to show he had an unfair trial or that in some way the verdict is unsafe.

The jury sat through several weeks of evidence and were obviously convinced by most of the victims testimony. On a couple of counts he was acquitted.
That would indicate to me the jury did a fair job according to what they heard.

I have absolutely no idea if Brand is actually guilty or not,

In the UK they have this thing called a trial where 12 jurors listen to all the evidence and decide on guilt or innocence.

HTH

In the UK we also have miscarriages of justice. See Andrew Malkinson.

Being found guilty by a jury doesn't demonstrate ACTUAL guilt.

HTH

In fact, being found not guilty by a jury doesn't demonstrate ACTUAL innocence either.

HTAH

Peedo protector?

Left and right taking sides disowning own, Hindu then Christian.  He's a fake narcissistic B.S. merchant, a chameleon, shifting sides to suit his own agenda.

I'd be amazed if he's not guilty.  I take him for what he always as.  A sick individual, who was always all about himself.

He was farming the left to further his career and now he's farming the right to avoid justice.

'mainstream' left wing / socialist for most of his adult life. appeared on question time as such. supported by them, including barnum.

now he's farming the right to avoid justice

What does that mean, specifically?

I would imagine he is guilty of all of the charges even the one's he got off on, but it is still worrying from a point of view that someone can be convicted with no actual evidence.

He was scamming the left, when the left found out about his SA they booted him out, He then started scamming the right who also knew about his SA but seeing as their cult leader also has an extensive history of SA, they accepted him with open arms.

Some of team woke right are still defending him on here.

You don't think witnesses to a crime giving a statement or evidence at a trial is evidence?

To Susque

I personally know very little about what Brand has been up to lately. I thought he was doing anti establishment type content. Which is more far left than right. I believe he was against lockdown, that wasn't right wing either.

It's pretty funny though, I've repeated my opinion that the old convention of right/left wing no longer applies, and this is an example of that. He was most certainly left wing when that convention applied. Now someone who goes against the permitted narrative is considered 'right wing'. Fairly lazy analysis, I'd say.

Cder, are there any lefties defending him in these threads?


Look thru them, the only people defending and supporting him are team woke right.

If he is a lefty, why are so many team woke right defending him?

The jury was 8 men and 4 women, so in the defendant's favour.  The trial went on for several weeks.  That's a lot of evidence and a lot of witnesses.  We didn't listen to it.  The jury did.

I've not seen anyone defending him on here.

that doesn't surprise me cider

The verdict was unanimous and took 8 and a half hours to reach it's verdict.  Considering the amount of evidence and number of charges I don't personally see that as a long time to reach it's conclusion

I can see why left wing / labour supporters would try to distance themselves from him now, since many of them were previously fawning over him.

My discomfort is a conviction based on what someone said has happened many years ago. As I stated previously, I don't care that he is a former hero of the left.

I don't believe there was any independent evidence to base the conviction on, however if there was, kindly share it.

The conviction wasn't based on what "someone" said.  It was based on what several someone's said and I suspect plenty of third party evidence too.  It wasn't one crime he got convicted of, it was four.  And it was unanimous, and the jury was weighted in the defence's favour.

Let's be realistic.  If it was based on what "someone" said several years ago the case never gets anywhere.

We're obviously talking about the grape conviction, specifically. Aside from the lassie who was willingly opening her legs for him at that time, what other evidence are you referencing? Please be specific.

The prosecution's total of 24 witnesses included the six complainants, former colleagues, a former personal assistant (such as Helen Berger), former friends, and family members or managers who heard early disclosures about the incidents.

So there was no actual proof that he committed the crimes? a jury convicted him because they believed him to be guilty based on the likeliness of guilt, i.e. several people claiming the same thing?

Brand says he is a reformed character since he joined a book club, but it didn't seem to help in this case because it was the wrong book club. We all know if he had joined the right book club he would have been let off or given a unduly lenient sentence.

The prosecution's total of 24 witnesses included the six complainants, former colleagues, a former personal assistant (such as Helen Berger), former friends, and family members or managers who heard early disclosures about the incidents.


that's a no, then

24 witnesses, 4 convictions, a unanimous and timely verdict, a jury weighted in the defendant's favour, and a defendant with financial resources to get one of the best counsels.  It doesn't scream to me that this is a case where the verdict is dubious.  The opposite, but then I'm not swayed by any narratives in the media emanating from the defendant.

I would be very surprised if he wasn't guilty of every charge, however there is literally no evidence, all hopes were pinned on accounts of victims/witnesses who were no doubt encouraged to go the extra length and exaggerate anything they could to be made to be more believable and to make sure he was given an even longer sentence. That seems worrying for the British justice system in general if that's what people are being convicted by, seems to be a case of you have to prove your innocence here otherwise you are guilty.

The narrative that he was guilty before the trial even took place was a lot stronger, it seems to me.

I'm asking you to share the specific, independent evidence. There may well not be any, but the variables you are citing are irrelevant to that request. There have been recent cases of people being filmed committing their alleged crimes and they've been acquitted, or mis trials called, failed to reach a verdict, given a softer charge et al. Calocane slaughtered four people in the street and was not convicted of mudder (as an example).

To correct that, Calocane slaughtered three, not four.

Not sure why you would say the jury was weighted in his favour. I'm not questioning the verdict but saying the jury was weighted in his favour is just made up bollax.

Plenty of studies by professional bodies have noted that men are more likely to acquit in sexual assault cases.  Do your research before make BS allegations

SirNorbertClarke11
Peedo protector?

Behave yourself Norbert!

The conspiracy theories were a good way for him to use his massive following to discredit the mainstream media. He only labelled them as liars after he fell out with them because of Manuelgate. I doubt if he believed it all. Leftie copers are trying make out he converted to the right when in fact he was exploiting them. He's definitely a leftie so the leftie locos will just have to cope harder.

And plenty of studies show that women jurors are less sympathetic than men towards female complainers of sexual crime when they consider their behaviour to be promiscuous.

Either way to try and say a randomly selected jury of 12 people was weighted in someones favour because a far larger sample showed a slight bias based on gender is just your usual guess work.

That claim is generally false. While it is true that introducing evidence of a victim's "promiscuity" or prior sexual history negatively impacts how all jurors view her credibility, mock jury research consistently shows that male jurors remain less sympathetic and more likely to blame the victim than female jurors, even in these specific scenarios.

So can you post these 'plenty of studies' that you claim or are you just posting your us BS?

I'm expecting you to take my word for it exactly like you are doing Bearcub.

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1412&context=lawineq

This may be completely wrong but i heard somewhere that he didnt actually refute any of the testimony against him. If true i presume he either knew he was going away or was banking on some kind of leniency