| Brand found guilty on 20:38 - Nov 5 | Mullet |
| Brand found guilty on 19:37 - Nov 5 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s really frustrating when that happens. You don’t want ‘worst kept secret’, we need people like him to be dobbed in asap to hopefully prevent further victims. Obviously it’s not easy for the victims to come forward of course and without that presumably there’s not a lot anyone else can do, and presumably victims are even more nervous of coming forward because our handling of rape accusations is so appallingly bad. Still frustrating though.
Glad this fker has been found out at last and hopefully the victims will get a bit of closure. |
If you see the clips of the first police interview after the channel 4 documentary he immediately describes it as defamatory etc. he’s threatened people with legal action and presumably blacklisting etc for years it seems.
It’s always the same. Same as those further back protected by Thatcher, the Monarch etc the higher you go the more financial and soft power there is to bury you with. |  |
|  |
| Brand found guilty on 21:36 - Nov 5 | GlasgowBlue |
| Brand found guilty on 16:08 - Nov 5 by Mullet |
Quite. Mind you people believed he was truly a Christian, and before that left wing and a hero.
It’s been widely known about in the comedy/media world for a long time. It only made me despise him more. He’s another intellectual for the idiotic. A shallow, narcissistic fake you can spot a mile off. |
“ intellectual for the idiotic”. Yep, that was obvious from the start. Just another snake oil salesman. I hope his stay in prison is as unpleasant the vile acts he committed on his victims. |  |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 22:32 - Nov 5 | Swansea_Blue |
| Brand found guilty on 20:38 - Nov 5 by Mullet |
If you see the clips of the first police interview after the channel 4 documentary he immediately describes it as defamatory etc. he’s threatened people with legal action and presumably blacklisting etc for years it seems.
It’s always the same. Same as those further back protected by Thatcher, the Monarch etc the higher you go the more financial and soft power there is to bury you with. |
Yeah, we’ve got a major problem with our defamation laws in this country (balanced in favour of those with deep enough pockets to abuse the system). I read the Gurniad article today talking about the media culture that led to complaints not being escalated and victims and witnesses fearing to come forward for fear of losing their jobs. Horrible stuff. I certainly wouldn’t blame anyone for being reluctant to speak out. It’s just frustrating that you get people like this who are known abusers who are allowed to carry on offending. |  |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 22:50 - Nov 5 | Basuco |
Brand and his then girlfriend Jemima Goldsmith had a permanent, life long injunction against her! WTF? |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 23:01 - Nov 5 | Swansea_Blue |
Wow. I hadn’t seen this, but yes that demonstrates perfectly what’s wrong with our legal system. We’re known internationally as the place you can silence anyone you want to, as long as you’ve got the money to do so. | |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 23:21 - Nov 5 | Kievthegreat |
Sharing again from a better, less fashy source:
Now Russell Brand's been convicted of rape, we need to talk about Sylvie Berki. Because she can't speak for herself.
In 2014, Ms Berki said she'd been assaulted by Russell Brand.
But if she talks about it, even now, she risks jail. — Dan Neidle (@danneidle.bsky.social) 2026-11-05T17:04:06.956Z
|  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 05:09 - Nov 6 | Benters |
| Brand found guilty on 15:19 - Nov 5 by BelsteadCav |
Hopefully his mate David W will be next |
Fingers crossed. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Brand found guilty on 08:46 - Nov 6 | giant_stow |
| Brand found guilty on 23:01 - Nov 5 by Swansea_Blue |
Wow. I hadn’t seen this, but yes that demonstrates perfectly what’s wrong with our legal system. We’re known internationally as the place you can silence anyone you want to, as long as you’ve got the money to do so. |
Its mind blowing that someone could be treated like that and also that judges would go along with it. |  |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 08:52 - Nov 6 | soupytwist |
| Brand found guilty on 16:08 - Nov 5 by Mullet |
Quite. Mind you people believed he was truly a Christian, and before that left wing and a hero.
It’s been widely known about in the comedy/media world for a long time. It only made me despise him more. He’s another intellectual for the idiotic. A shallow, narcissistic fake you can spot a mile off. |
His 'conversion' to Christianity, complete with baptism in the Thames doesn't in my view reflect well on the former chief scout Bear Grylls, who participated in it. |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 09:03 - Nov 6 | strikalite |
Pity he can't take his cnt mate Jonathon Ross with him, never forgive or forget that phone call they made to Andrew Sachs, sums the pair up.. |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 09:05 - Nov 6 | BloomBlue |
The really important thing, for me, in this case is on the rape conviction the woman had agreed to consensual sex with him, then decided she had reached the point of it not continuing and said No, but he didn't stop and that was the actual rape.
I remember a time in this country where a husband couldn't be charged with rape if his wife had agreed to sex, but wanted to stop after it had started. That trial/case in 1991 changed it, but its still brilliant courts / juries are still upholding that.
Although not surprising I see the victim is being blamed by hundreds on social media because she agreed to the initial sex, men will always be men, feels like the 70s all over again. |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 10:21 - Nov 6 | hype313 |
He's toast, and there are 2 more victims who have come forward.
I read from someone in the legal system, he should be getting double digit time. |  |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 18:40 - Nov 6 | Mullet |
| Brand found guilty on 10:21 - Nov 6 by hype313 |
He's toast, and there are 2 more victims who have come forward.
I read from someone in the legal system, he should be getting double digit time. |
https://barristerblogger.com/2
This breaks it down with an "educated guess" as they put it and explains why it is not the top end of sentencing.
Likewise, the impact of the other offences are covered. Not nice reading though obviously. | |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 07:25 - Nov 7 | GlasgowBlue |
Hiding in plain sight. And people laughed along.
| |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 08:08 - Nov 7 | MattinLondon |
| Brand found guilty on 07:25 - Nov 7 by GlasgowBlue |
Hiding in plain sight. And people laughed along.
|
People laughed along because they had no idea what he was - it’s easy to see things with hindsight but at the time how many people would’ve taken that seriously?
Plus he added ‘I killed her after’ which added to the tone of a comedian not being completely serious.
He is a vile rapist but people laughed along (at the time) because they simply had no idea what he was. [Post edited 7 Nov 8:18]
|  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 08:40 - Nov 7 | Mullet |
| Brand found guilty on 08:08 - Nov 7 by MattinLondon |
People laughed along because they had no idea what he was - it’s easy to see things with hindsight but at the time how many people would’ve taken that seriously?
Plus he added ‘I killed her after’ which added to the tone of a comedian not being completely serious.
He is a vile rapist but people laughed along (at the time) because they simply had no idea what he was. [Post edited 7 Nov 8:18]
|
Same as many performers, when they are put on the TV (especially pre social media) you sort of have less choice or chance not to engage. Same as Saville etc.
The question is who was really influenced by people like him. Who thought it was ok to groom younger women outside of their age group, to treat them badly, to coerce and abuse them. There's a societal harm too isn't there? | |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 09:04 - Nov 7 | MattinLondon |
| Brand found guilty on 08:40 - Nov 7 by Mullet |
Same as many performers, when they are put on the TV (especially pre social media) you sort of have less choice or chance not to engage. Same as Saville etc.
The question is who was really influenced by people like him. Who thought it was ok to groom younger women outside of their age group, to treat them badly, to coerce and abuse them. There's a societal harm too isn't there? |
There needs to be some sort of enquiry across all platforms as to why he was able to get away with it - and there probably will be in due course.
But this disgusting behaviour doesn’t start and end with Brand, Saville, Harris, Glitter. I do think that a lot more powerful media personalities sleep with one eye open out of fear that their past behaviour may well catch up with them. And not just in the media - influential men (maybe some women as well) who took advantage of their position. | | | |
| Brand found guilty on 13:56 - Nov 7 | Kievthegreat |
As an update to the induction he was granted against an accuser, Dan Neidle got access to the final injunction and it's even more dystopian as she was also prevented from discussing her accusations any further with the police.
A good reminder that injunctions like this do not protect based on innocence, but the powerful who can afford giant legal teams to secure them.
On Thursday I wrote about the 2014 injunction Russell Brand obtained against a woman who accused him of assault.
I've now obtained the final order. It's breathtaking.
She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.
🧵: — Dan Neidle (@danneidle.bsky.social) 2026-11-07T09:56:45.287Z
| | | |
| Brand found guilty on 16:17 - Nov 7 | Bugs |
| Brand found guilty on 13:56 - Nov 7 by Kievthegreat |
As an update to the induction he was granted against an accuser, Dan Neidle got access to the final injunction and it's even more dystopian as she was also prevented from discussing her accusations any further with the police.
A good reminder that injunctions like this do not protect based on innocence, but the powerful who can afford giant legal teams to secure them.
On Thursday I wrote about the 2014 injunction Russell Brand obtained against a woman who accused him of assault.
I've now obtained the final order. It's breathtaking.
She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.
🧵: — Dan Neidle (@danneidle.bsky.social) 2026-11-07T09:56:45.287Z
|
That is insane. |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 16:30 - Nov 7 | Swansea_Blue |
| Brand found guilty on 13:56 - Nov 7 by Kievthegreat |
As an update to the induction he was granted against an accuser, Dan Neidle got access to the final injunction and it's even more dystopian as she was also prevented from discussing her accusations any further with the police.
A good reminder that injunctions like this do not protect based on innocence, but the powerful who can afford giant legal teams to secure them.
On Thursday I wrote about the 2014 injunction Russell Brand obtained against a woman who accused him of assault.
I've now obtained the final order. It's breathtaking.
She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.
🧵: — Dan Neidle (@danneidle.bsky.social) 2026-11-07T09:56:45.287Z
|
Judges have a tough job to do, but in this case it looks like a case of The Not So Honourable Justice Jay. An accomplice to a rapist isn’t something I’d want on my CV! | |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 16:56 - Nov 7 | DJR |
| Brand found guilty on 16:30 - Nov 7 by Swansea_Blue |
Judges have a tough job to do, but in this case it looks like a case of The Not So Honourable Justice Jay. An accomplice to a rapist isn’t something I’d want on my CV! |
This was reported at the time, and the suggestion from these articles is that Brand pushed her and a dog jumped on her but the police didn't think there was a case to answer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/
https://www.dailymail.com/news
Of course, I don't know what went on but maybe it was just an actual case of harassment by the woman and events are not as sinister as Neidle is making out.
But it certainly does seem a curious case for a tax lawyer to take up. [Post edited 7 Nov 17:09]
|  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 17:10 - Nov 7 | GlasgowBlue |
| Brand found guilty on 08:08 - Nov 7 by MattinLondon |
People laughed along because they had no idea what he was - it’s easy to see things with hindsight but at the time how many people would’ve taken that seriously?
Plus he added ‘I killed her after’ which added to the tone of a comedian not being completely serious.
He is a vile rapist but people laughed along (at the time) because they simply had no idea what he was. [Post edited 7 Nov 8:18]
|
A friend of my wife's from Uni was involved in the Edinburgh comedy scene around this time. She was advised not to be alone with him.
As somebody posted earlier in this thread "Feels like a case of people close to him at the time at least having some suspicion that all was not right with him".
If his "problematic" behavior was known at the time in comedy circles then he shouldn't have been indulged as he was.
Maybe my downvoter thought this was funny as well.
[Post edited 7 Nov 17:14]
| |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 17:22 - Nov 7 | GlasgowBlue |
| Brand found guilty on 13:56 - Nov 7 by Kievthegreat |
As an update to the induction he was granted against an accuser, Dan Neidle got access to the final injunction and it's even more dystopian as she was also prevented from discussing her accusations any further with the police.
A good reminder that injunctions like this do not protect based on innocence, but the powerful who can afford giant legal teams to secure them.
On Thursday I wrote about the 2014 injunction Russell Brand obtained against a woman who accused him of assault.
I've now obtained the final order. It's breathtaking.
She had no lawyer. No trial. Yet she was silenced for life - even barred from speaking to the police.
🧵: — Dan Neidle (@danneidle.bsky.social) 2026-11-07T09:56:45.287Z
|
Sky News aired somebody working with the Good Law project claiming tht several members of a well known Irish Rap act and an English comedian/author have allegedly been using SLAPPs to silence accusations of sexual violence. [Post edited 7 Nov 17:31]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
