Russell Brand allegations: Why the alleged victims went to the media and not the police 

They came to the media first because the courts in the uk have been failing to prosecute, the rate for prosecution is really low. Yes innocent until proven guilty but they are allowed to allege and he has a right to defend himself... it does not give online trolls the right to abuse them online and in person. It should a be taken seriously and I'm seeing a huge amount of victim blaming already.

Decency also demands that you take the women's statements as true unless you have proof otherwise. Same with Brand's denial through his RU-vid channel.

@@mrharry448 hahaha what? That's not decency that's idiotic. You shouldn't trust anyone unless they have the facts to back it up. Russell is innocent until proven guilty. The accusers gender (man or woman) doesn't make them more believable than the other. What you're doing is just being a simp

@@alastairwallace6153 the courts in the uk do not fail to prosecute, they went to the media because they have no evidence to vack up their claim, they went to the media because that's where yhe quick buck is and they wouldn't have to defend their allegation. They would have if they went yo the police so this makes their allegation questionable. This doesn't give the online trills the right to abuse Russell online or further push false allegations. I also see a large amount of people blaming the victim here but brand will be ok

🔥

Like... it depends what you mean "trust". Can't be bothered to go through a damaging legal process where you will probably get a not guilty verdict is a particular form of distrust. It's a similar way in which I distrust people who would sell me a sports car. I belive they would give me a sports car and it would work... it's just I dint want one and it'd be no use to me. However I might buy a bus ticket

And several do so at the same time concerning different incidents many years apart. Even if we accept the argument that going to media is more effective, why wasn't that done at the time? The obvious inference is that the complainants were encouraged by the journalists, or some other person. Whether Brand is guilty or not, clearly there is an agenda in play

I agree that he, and any other accused, deserves his day in court. However, the fact it was an open secret in media circles that he is a prolific predator and even the things that have come out of his own mouth have contributed to the public’s perception of his probable guilt.

Why are you jumping to presume that the independent statements of four women are automatically lies unless they can be verified by CCTV footage? If you are an adult you can accept that theirs AND Brand's denial are all true in the absence of godlike knowledge

Brand had been told about the investigation and presumably spent much of the last year trying to bury the story.. He had (and still has) plenty of opportunity to defend himself. He purports to have witnesses so these allegations are of no surprise to him. As a victim of abuse I totally understand why these women were reluctant to come forward until there was a strength in numbers..

Coming forward in numbers is fine, but not through the media. That will destroy his career even if he's innocent. It's up to the court to punish people, not the media. This journalist here is guilty too.

pretending your opinion is the goalpost is Gaslighting, aka Grooming. Accusation in a mirror (AiM), mirror politics, mirror propaganda, mirror image propaganda, or mirror argument is a hate-speech incitement technique where one falsely attributes to one's adversaries the intentions that one has for oneself and/or the actions that one is in the process of enacting. *>>Gaslighting is a psychological term used to describe* the process of *grooming* someone into believing that they are losing it or going crazy. *Gaslighting a child is perhaps the most egregious form of child abuse, sometimes called Crazy Making. *In the context of child sexual abuse (CSA) the **_gaslighting_** is often used to convince the victim all the abusive behaviours are fine, normal and an expression of “love” (for eg Patriotism, Christianity, Service). It is used to ensure the victim doesn’t speak out about it and doesn’t fight back. It can also be used in concert with other **_grooming_** tactics like fear and isolation. Ultimately the aim is to legitimise a worldview that is detached from reality, and therefore arbitrary. Now they can call evil good and good evil* *>>Trivializing:* *The victim’s feels are made to feel like they don’t matter, are **_unfounded_** or they are weak for thinking so.* (woke/ lib/ groomer/ infidel etc) *>>Countering: This is quintessential gaslighting.* *They **_directly counter the memories and perceptions of the victim._* *>>Repetitive Questions: The abusive partner makes the victim doubt what they think or feel by asking the same question multiple times.* Questions are asked so many times the victim doubts their own answers. *>>Diverting: The abuser diverts the subject and puts the blame into outside circumstances.* *>>No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity* is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to *protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample* by trying to _exclude the counterexample_ improperly. This is the Core of White Supremacist ideology. *"What Others Say" (Appeal to populism)* The abuser tells the victim what other people "think" about the victim, the abuser and/or the situation on whole. Also known as an appeal to populism, the basis of Authoritarian Communism, and Cults. "if many believe it then it must be true" (regardless whether people actually agree with the position and whether it is true or not). Bolshevism itself means "the Majority" and is no different to Fascist appeals to a "moral majority" when in truth they account for a mere 13% of the population. Mocking is also an appeal to populism, that's why Comedy can be a form of Propaganda, by establishing a collective baseline that targets an "other". All these tactics are employed to make a False Claim Fallacy: the *reliance of a premise on prior unsupported or unstated assumptions that turn out to be false* A false assumption occurs whenever the truth of a premise depends on some necessary condition which is merely stipulated or *assumed to be present when it is not in fact present at all* _"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."_ George Orwell, 1984 _"Deny, Deflect, Disinform"_ Roger Stone

Nobody has attempted thus far to bring cases to trial. For now that's not even an issue.

Always trust the legal opinion of someone wearing a Sgt Pepper jacket!

"The journalists saw this as breaking their “big story” that is career positive for them." That's precisely the point I made in another video and got attacked for. I'm not sure these journalists did this exposé for anything less than viewership/readership, as well as raising their own profiles. Whether Brand is guilty or innocent, the fact he has been subject to trial by TV undermines any proper justice. Any one of us could be attacked in this way, for any reason. Any one of us could have their lives ruined by people making accusations in the media, be it television, newspaper or social media. If there is evidence enough for an arrest, charges and ultimately for the CPS to agree that a trial is necessary, that is what should be done. God knows our judicial system is not perfect, but it's the only one we have. If we allow this sort of kangaroo court to prevail over due process, then we are all at risk - including victims who might never see actual justice!

@@paddymeboy… instead trust the opinion of a man dressed as the messiah 😜 😛 😜

@@steveblog1 I'm a little inclined to the cynical view that many journalists are concerned more about their careers than the value of the stories they uncover.

She lives in a country where people may be judged by qualities other than appearance?

She's a blue meany.

She is a nut job

Sometimes it's the best way to get victims to come forward as has been the case in many other rapes down the years.

@@minkleymcmoo5248 I’m all for reporting on the cases taking place in the courts if that helps reporting percentages, absolutely. But literally, the court of public opinion _instead_ of the court of law. No. That’s going backwards.

@@minkleymcmoo5248 Friendly reminder that out of all 60 women that accused Cosby, 3 were found to be credible, and the jury only found him guilty of 1; though it was in a way where if he was guilty of one it meant he was guilty of all 3. Those 3 credible ones were among the first, and the one he was found guilty of, was the woman who he had previously settled with in the past over allegations. This is just the best example, but in other cases of multiple women jumping on the accusations of someone rich, most of those that come out after the initial few, wind up being dismissed due to non credible information, or outright lying under oath.

there is no suggestion they were paid

@@paulrichards6894 Oh you mean Ch4 did NOT put in great big bold letters "We paid them", so that means they weren't paid??? I watched the entire documentary, the fact they never mentioned they *weren't* paid, is a suggestion they were.

Furthermore, many of us would like to know if the "victims" contacted Ch4, or was it Ch4 that first contacted them?

I'd like to think they weren't paid; however, the timing and fact that opponents of the establishment keep having accusations of one sort or another levied against them while accusations against the establishment are....oh Trump is being sued again, what was I saying? >.>

At about 4:35 in this video it says the women have not been paid.

So she went to the house of a known drug addict with promiscuous tendencies related to said drug use, late at night for, based on her own implications, sex. And is now claiming that she didn't consent to anything? However, it can be argued(though Russel isn't the type to do this himself) that because Russel was often heavily inhibited by drugs that have promote promiscuous behaviors, he wasn't in the right state of mind to really consent to anything himself, especially in regards to anyone sober, presumably like said accuser. Devil's advocate.

Classic victim blaming. This woman probably asks herself every day why she went when she had originally said no but he used emotional blackmail on her and lied saying he'd had a really bad day and all he wanted was a cuddle. She trusted him and didn't think he would do that to her. Until he did.

@@MiniT-x8qshut up 😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@MiniT-x8q So she knew him well in order to trust him?

​@@MiniT-x8qyou have to be accountable for your own behaviour. There's a big difference to being a victim and playing the victim.

Mongoloid

You contradict yourself and don't even notice.

​@@sheilamacdougal4874how?

They got that bloke off 'That'70s' show last week. I heard he was going to blow the lid off the moon landings.

​@@mrharry448strange how the go for brand from gossip but they won't touch the epstein list

When the papers are leading with his ‘rise to prominence’ before getting into the story of these allegations it tells me all I need to know.

I think more do than don't and the one's that are not sure, wouldn't say ludicrous. Maybe if you had a daughter who had alledgedly been abused by an abuser and brought it up years later, you would have a different perspective. Bit naive I think.

​@@sp-pz8uc clearly from all the comments more believe Russell than they do the women. If you had a daughter would you let he4 go to a celebrities house to stay the night at her own free will at a consensual age?

Person X on RU-vid told me they didn’t commit a crime, and now I must believe them because people never lie in their self-interest and the trappings of parasocial relationships don’t exist. See how that works? Neither side knows definitively whether the alleged actions happened or not; we can only make reasoned appraisals of the evidence thus far available and wait for further information

Supporting or defending. It makes no difference, important thing is that it works to waste everyone's time and stall attention from other things. Just like with all the world news heating up, blanket it with UFOs and everyone acts as if it's a timeline development and everything is fine. Civilians are living up to its stupidity taking the bate of diverting attention to paid off stunts. Anti-Russel campaign is likely already paid off to carry on for 3 months. It's not a matter of he's innocent or not. It's so messed up.

Thats the problem the MSM lie all the time & hide things they don't want us to see thats why the public question it when allegations like these come out in public.

You can believe three women and the plethora of corroborating evidence they bring. Then again, you can continue to be one of Brand's useful idiots.

Fake account trying to destroy truth. Gtf

These are real victims; how ignorant are you? This is perfectly typical of sex abuse cases.

more people have come forward.....he is a wrong un

​@@paulrichards6894of course they have, nothing like a piece of the pie, free pie tastes good, ask Amber hearde

​@@sheilamacdougal4874how do you know they're real victims?

Assange and Trump are rapists. There. I connected the dots for you.

Dam right

I'm a 61 year old man and i could make allegations regarding what happened to me over forty years ago - and those allegations would be true regardless of the passage of time. Many people, perhaps even yourself, have a past that they know to be true but who have not, for whatever complex reasons of psychology, felt able to raise. You know it.

I disagree. I don't care about the time (even though it is a factor) but their is no excuse not to go to the police but to create a Documentary. They say they won't get convictions through police like the Documentary was meant to bring a conviction.

Even if there’s four of them

When you are in your mid 30s you should leave a 16 y o alone. Why would you excuse this stuff?

Nonsense.

You must be even older than me !

It is easier to create the news than to just report it.

she has awful dress sense

John Lennon would be spinning in his grave.

@@NeilPaterson-jc5ev Really?

@@PedroMiguel-if3ll Yes really! Spinning like top at this insipid woman making a mockery of British legal system and doing her bit to shut down free speech - she is part of the problem and I personally have complained to the BAR about her discussing a case before any charges have even been brought. She should be struck off.

Yes, definitely adds weight & gravitas to her blatherings!.

Unclear on exactly what you're justifying here?

Because TV, Radio and film companies he was making millions for had many lawyers protecting him... As stated in the documentary, and his behaviour was rarely reprimanded.. Until he publicly did reprehensible things.. ie.. 9/11 Osama Bin Laden outfit Sachsgate.. Etc

He's guilty by media because he's guilty.

yes but he said mean things about pharmaceutical companies and main stream media, that's NOT okay

So agreeing with you. Hoping millions will stand up for Russell🕊🧡

@@sunflower-oo1ff Your sycophancy is touching. Another useful idiot.

An admiral.

clare - The proud man is a feminista rentagub! She is continually trying to disavow her proudman surname!......Always quick to indulge in a bit of misandry, as is the misandrist feminista who actually interviewed her.

Given her campaigning... as an activist but one who has some academic background

Ringo just called - he wants his Sgt Pepper uniform back

Very good point. 👌

i think he could be guilty but i agree if they are lying they should be jailed

What are you babbling about?

​@@sheilamacdougal4874do your own research SHEILA.

I was abused over 40 years ago and if I was approached and said "mate you werent the only other one, Four more have come forward and are willing to speak out" you're damn fxxxking right i would.. If you've never been sexually assaulted you won't understand the loneliness and confusion..

Four people means nothing with Russel Brand. He slept with at least a hundred girls. 4%, or 1 in 20 being crazy liers is not strange at all. Not all women are wonderful beings.

pretending your opinion is the goalpost is Gaslighting, aka Grooming. Accusation in a mirror (AiM), mirror politics, mirror propaganda, mirror image propaganda, or mirror argument is a hate-speech incitement technique where one falsely attributes to one's adversaries the intentions that one has for oneself and/or the actions that one is in the process of enacting. *>>Gaslighting is a psychological term used to describe* the process of *grooming* someone into believing that they are losing it or going crazy. *Gaslighting a child is perhaps the most egregious form of child abuse, sometimes called Crazy Making. *In the context of child sexual abuse (CSA) the **_gaslighting_** is often used to convince the victim all the abusive behaviours are fine, normal and an expression of “love” (for eg Patriotism, Christianity, Service). It is used to ensure the victim doesn’t speak out about it and doesn’t fight back. It can also be used in concert with other **_grooming_** tactics like fear and isolation. Ultimately the aim is to legitimise a worldview that is detached from reality, and therefore arbitrary. Now they can call evil good and good evil* *>>Trivializing:* *The victim’s feels are made to feel like they don’t matter, are **_unfounded_** or they are weak for thinking so.* (woke/ lib/ groomer/ infidel etc) *>>Countering: This is quintessential gaslighting.* *They **_directly counter the memories and perceptions of the victim._* *>>Repetitive Questions: The abusive partner makes the victim doubt what they think or feel by asking the same question multiple times.* Questions are asked so many times the victim doubts their own answers. *>>Diverting: The abuser diverts the subject and puts the blame into outside circumstances.* *>>No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity* is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to *protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample* by trying to _exclude the counterexample_ improperly. This is the Core of White Supremacist ideology. *"What Others Say" (Appeal to populism)* The abuser tells the victim what other people "think" about the victim, the abuser and/or the situation on whole. Also known as an appeal to populism, the basis of Authoritarian Communism, and Cults. "if many believe it then it must be true" (regardless whether people actually agree with the position and whether it is true or not). Bolshevism itself means "the Majority" and is no different to Fascist appeals to a "moral majority" when in truth they account for a mere 13% of the population. Mocking is also an appeal to populism, that's why Comedy can be a form of Propaganda, by establishing a collective baseline that targets an "other". All these tactics are employed to make a False Claim Fallacy: the *reliance of a premise on prior unsupported or unstated assumptions that turn out to be false* A false assumption occurs whenever the truth of a premise depends on some necessary condition which is merely stipulated or *assumed to be present when it is not in fact present at all* _"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."_ George Orwell, 1984 _"Deny, Deflect, Disinform"_ Roger Stone

​@@seanjones180 for what its worth these are all Shapiros bot farms defending his Epstein

same as the journalist's work on Jimmy Savile?

Incredible and credible is what was actually said.

​@@NonFlyiingDutchmanyou know thr bbccovered it up right

@@NonFlyiingDutchman - Dunno. As far as I know Jimmy Savile was not convicted of any sex crimes. Please correct me if I'm wrong and let me know what crimes he was convicted of? Ta

@@Blazedreptile you know there are similar allegations of covering up with Brand right?

7 million viewers listen to the "blatherings " of this oaf , good heavens, surely an indictment of the vacuous nature of our society ,

@@Chichesterfrotesque1001 "blatherings" you say

@@Cruzeoc101 Yes.

I think its a warning for him to shut up! Which he won't. He's upset the elite.

If anything, based on the establishment's script, this is either a ploy to enrage his "cult following" as the media is describing it, or prevent his continuous "through peaceful means" rhetoric that is preventing people from being more violent. If they wanted control, there were/are better ways. If they want a bloodbath the world over, either for population thinning or some other goal, they need people angry, and at each others throats. And rhetoric towards 7million "cult followers" about changing the world through peaceful discussion and votes is not going to achieve that.

Exactly, I believe in evidence not someone's word, women have lied about these kinds of situations in the past, it makes a mockery of real victims.

It’s fecking laughable, RB speaks truth, therefore, he’s a target for TPTB… Also, I don’t think he’s ever struggled to get laid, ffs… 🤦‍♀️

@@emmahowells8334 l agree with you

@@margaretmatthews4872 Trial by media isn't the way to go it should be done in court only, after all that's why we have them, trial by media that way will always put innocent away along with guilty, rather than just putting away the guilty.

@@emmahowells8334 yes because in court you are cross examined & the defendant can reply but this is anonymous & also in court they can declare how much the media paid them & we don't want innocent people going to jail thanks Emma

He knows perfectly well who. Are you dumb?

​@@sheilamacdougal4874she's not dumb, we don't know if they're liers or if he even met them or not, he has the right to defend himself fairly and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.. in court...

@@AG-qc8ek He has no right whatsoever to be presumed innocent; what are you talking about? We the public are not a court of law and have no obligation to presume anything. We can listen to the evidence - testimonies of 5 victims now, with plenty of corroborating evidence, and a slew of further information about what a repugnant character he is (to discerning people, at any rate) and we can make up our own minds. The testimonies are obviously highly plausible, and the journalists are reputable and have investigated the claims responsibly. He's guilty.

​​@@sheilamacdougal4874he is innocent until proven guilty, we cannot presume his guilt but we can presume his innocence

@@Cruzeoc101 Utter nonsense.

He's talking about people like himself

The world is not that simple.

Russell Brand is a egocentric hypocrite - he was a great admirer of Jimmy Saville and was dismissive when the true scale of Saville’s crimes were revealed. This guy also partied with Weinstein. If you listen to his channel then you know 99% of it is unproven tinfoil hat conspiracy bs.

I dont doubt it's a hit job but Brand is a narcissist ego wanna be cult leader. His behaviour has been in plain sight for yrs. They always end up Gurus. I dont know if he guilty but I know where I'd bet if forced to

You've been taken in by one of the Rich and Powerful dissing the Rich and Powerful. That's both hilarious and tragic.

It appears that without so much as even charges being brought, let alone a conviction, and in the absence of evidence, then it would appear that he has an extremely strong case for a Defamation Action.

And yet he is not. He says he has witnesses who directly conflict the allegations; hasn't named any of them and none of them have come forward. He says it's all lies and a targeted attack, yet he hasn't made any legal move. If what he is saying is true it would be the easiest defamation case the world has ever seen. But he hasn't, wonder why.

Nitwit

If only an established news and affairs team like dispatches had contemplated the possibility of Brand suing them.. If only they had an award winning team of researchers to be able to verify claims.. If only they had highly experienced technical experts for provenance surrounding the text messages which Brand sent "apologising" for his behaviour.. If only they had your foresight

​@@SmileyMikeeYou do a defamation claim in court, not through the media. He hasn't come forward yet because it takes months to set up a case and the media attacked him just a couple of days from now.

This is your experience of going to the police?

To be frank, as a victim of crime very few women in their right minds would go to the police to report a crime against the person and expect to be treated respectfully. I'm a woman, published on the issue and I know full well whereof I speak. The possible exception might be domestic violence for a number of reasons.

That appears to be the problem for them, as it looks as though they and or the Journalists involved have been advised that in the absence of evidence then charges and or a conviction are unlikely. Hence the hit piece, and now this apologetic doubling down.

​@@iggle6448Then how can they expect anything to change. When no one has gone to the police even as of today. It makes media allegations meaningless. It also makes their motives questionable. If you are going to do a documentary at least go to the police the day before documentary release.

@@emj3161 Good questions. I rather suspect that a few women going to the police won't change anything. The UK criminal justice system is malfunctioning on several levels. I wouldn't be the only one suggesting that It needs a complete overhaul and that discriminatory attitudes need to be eradicated. These women are UK and US - so there are different timeframes and procedures to follow. Who knows? These women may be speaking with police in their own jurisdictions. But we can't necessarily expect that to be announced. You know, just about nothing in real life criminal justice happens like it does in police procedural tv series where everything's done and dusted within 45 minutes! Thus, nothing so far renders these allegations meaningless or says anything about motives. It'll all unfold in good time.

And thus thier need to dole out the punishment they deem he deserves!

@@Ironic_Jihad Indeed, it appears to be the case.

*journalists Learn basic English.

@@frontenac5083 Your point appears to be one of 'grammar' and not a point of language. 7 out of 10 for effort though.

​@@frontenac5083nobody likes the grammar police

More likely it's because he assaulted women.

​@@RaRa-eu9mwwhen? Any evidence to back that up?

@@Cruzeoc101 Watch the Dispatches episode. 1.5 hours of evidence.

​@@RaRa-eu9mw1.5 hours of gossip, if they had evidence it would be in court, is it in court? Nope

Nah the strange bit is the story broke Saturday, but he was sent messages from both the BBC and C4 on Friday. Why worn someone you are about to expose, unless you are trying to intimidate them into doing something, or are covering for them. And why spend 4 years looking for dirt on someone if you are going to cover for them?

Exactly

When my wife lied to the Police and then to a District judge, I was arrested ! I divorced her and her lies were solely to achieve a better financial settlement.

Not doing so is assisting offenders reoffend. Each time nothing is done their confidence increases. Those who fail to report are in part responsible for those who subsequently suffer at the hands of offenders.

You're profoundly ignorant. It's not "her", but three different women, with corroborating evidence.

​@@sheilamacdougal4874so you're saying the corrobwith eachother and still never went to the police but the media, that's some next level ignorance

@@Cruzeoc101 The corroborating evidence includes the slimeball's own emails. But I agree that to a misogynist pig and sycophant of a celebrity no evidence is ever sufficient.

Hmmm... i really liked it - kinda fun.

its is worrying he has so many fans as he is an anti-vaxxer.....a man who was an cambridge educated lawyer who refused to have the vaccine died named brand as one of the people who influenced his decision....wonder how many listened to this idiot

​@@paulrichards6894oh I see you're a vaxxer, that explains a lot

She inspired zero confidence, little wonder prosecutions are so low.

If it was a well known FACT that he was 'trouble', then this doesn't look like a witch-hunt, does it. Under those circumstances it looks far more like justice might belatedly be served. And forgetting the women and their failures to read the room, where were all The Men, who must also have been privy to 'well-known fact[s]', when this harm was being perpetrated?

jeanette - You are right. It is ridiculous and very misandrist as well!

Yeah, we should most definitely blame the victims for having the audacity to be victimized.

Classic blame the victim manoeuvre to shift all accountability away from the alleged perpetrator. It’s also a tactic often used by the same people that will also say that those actions couldn’t possibly have occurred because Brand had changed his ways by time such and such

How do you know it’s a witch hunt

Is that what he tells you? I'm sure that as a 'free thinker' yourself you can stretch to thinking that it is actually highly likely these women are telling the truth. Or do you always think the way you are told to think in your tiny little box?

@mrharry448 I've never met or listened to the lady in question. Have met Russel and listened to him enough to draw my own conclusion. I'm not sure of the little box you are talking about, but you yourself having never met this woman would lead me to believe it is you that are "being told what to think" otherwise what grounds would you base your previous comment? Genuinely curious 🤔

Prayers for Russell & his family Amen 🙏

By not coming forward they simply give offenders the confidence to keep doing it.

@@jjefferyworboys8138 it is usually someone you know.

@@jjefferyworboys8138 I’m sorry. But you are naive. As a woman, it is your friend, cousin, date, cop friend and someone you know who rapes you. It is the majority of women who have experienced this. We suffer in silence, but the trust is destroyed forever.

Exactly and they have none. Well the LA women said she went to a grape clinic so they should have evidence right? Well obviously when she went there was no evidence of grape and that's even if she went. Either way the only reason this hasn't gone to police or court is because it's not real and a hit job.

It’s usually impossible to get evidence hence it comes down to one person’s word against anothers. And an accuser will be humiliated and taken apart in court, and in social media if the alleged perpetrator is famous. Can you blame them? And no, I don’t know if he is guilty.

@@StillAliveAndKicking_ LA girl said she went to clinic. If that is true, they would have evidence but either she wasn't graped and therefore no evidence was found at the clinic but more likely she never went to the clinic because this is just a hit piece!

@@lukemurray4950 she has the right to her records. If she went and had a r kit done they should still have that I expect. However, records are not often kept longer than 7 years. If there are records she most definitely can get hold of them as her evidence.

@@babette1762 but this is what I am saying, she didn't go and get them and she won't because this is just a hit piece.

That's ludicrous.

@@sheilamacdougal4874 Well, how else can anyone, particularly a celebrity get a fair trial?

@@leemorrell9912 What trial are you babbling about? No victim has gone to the police and there is no trial.

@@sheilamacdougal4874 Exactly, so why should the press be allowed to slander his name and report on it at this stage. They did exactly the same with Cliff Richard

so if was your daughter the first thing you would think she was lying and its all a conspiracy??

​@@paulrichards6894if my daughter was visiting a guy late at night I would assume she was only there for 1 thing

@@paulrichards6894 I didn't say that. I ment they hold onto stuff until that person serves no purpose n they expose the truth. IF Russell hadn't trod on their toes, nothing would of been said. Hence straight to media before police.

Yeah, I mostly agree with you, although I can’t say I know whether the allegations are exactly true, I don’t know. But assuming that they are, the way this has been done by The Times and Despatches makes the whole thing look like a strategically timed hit piece that is politically motivated. I mean, if you wanted to present these allegations to the world in a way that maximises skepticism and conspiracy theorising you couldn’t discredit these girls testimonies more than if you did it in this way. It certainly doesn’t appear that they had the victims best interests as their central concern. It’s perfectly possible for both things to be simaltaeniously true. The allegations could be true and this could be a politically motivated hit piece. What does that say about the journalists if that is the case?

I get the impression lots of shocking behaviour goes on that we don’t know about by many more people in this industry than we know about, whether it gets reported on or ignored depends on other factors we don’t know about rather than how much credible evidence there is for allegations.

Evidence?

Well said 👏

First they came for the champagne socialist grifters, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a champagne socialist grifter...

Did the girls approach the media, or did the media approach _them_ and offer them money?

@@methylene5 Even if they were approached for money, they knew he would be destroyed in the media. That's the girls choice instead of going to the police. They are responsible. It's worse than Amber Heard. At least she didn't explicitly mention his name. Time for the girls to cough up millions in damages like Amber.

Maybe engage with what's actually being said?

@@luzr6613 - Nah, no time for that. Heard the proud man loads. She's just a broken record

She said nothing of the kind.

​@@sheilamacdougal4874 your ignorance is showing

@@Cruzeoc101 Dumb troll, go ahead and quote where she said that women should be believed without evidence.

That guest is a liar, pushing the old r*pe myth that people think "women were dressed a certain way", or "women were asking for it". Actual r*pe myths are along the lines of "women never lie about it", or "only 2% are false allegations", etc. No mention of that of course.

I wouldn't want this woman as my barrister, she inspires zero confidence.

@paulroberts7544 Absolutely

​@JackRyan-ng1boone of his lovers 😂

It's "believe all women" again. And if women who he was sexually active with, including his current wife who first became involved when she was 18, and Katy Perry who he was married to during the time of one of the alleged rapes, speak out in his favor, it will once again change to "believe the women we tell you to believe".

Maybe a freedom of information request will work here. Not pertaining to any individual but paid expenses to contributors as a whole.