Sexual allegations of one kind or another seems to be the go-to mechanism for the feds to smear someone. Not entirely sure why, but after Abu Ghraib, there may be some projection in it.
Reddit supports everything because it's half PR at this point. Before they were labeling it as marketing it was showing up on employment ads as, " working Reddit accounts". People were posting them on r/conspiracy, and admin was taking them down.
If this had been a few years back, when he was the weirdo liberal darling, instead of the weirdo wrongthinking liberal heretic...well, these fuckers might still be calling for his head, because they're retarded cultists.
Also, seeing Maher get increasingly nervous was great, even though Brand was saying things he knew was true, and probably agreed with.
This is 300% a smear. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner, honestly. Brand's been pissing off the right people for years now, of course this was going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if we're about to see the next Alex Jones treatment, either. At least he's been doing the smart thing and building backups; he's got Rumble if nothing else.
All that needs to be said really. Just flat denial. If it happened then you would have done something back then. You didn't, so now you're just making shit up.
Statutes of limitations exist specifically to keep people from doing this kind of very effective character attack, which is why leftists didn't incorporate the concept when they shifted their justice system to the court of public opinion.
What did Katy Perry do to him? I recognize Orlando Bloom is girly looking, but did she kiss a real girl? Was she hot and then cold? Did she yell in simlish at random times?
Having no knowledge of what you're referring to, I find it interesting that she married a man that is anerexic. No one likes to work with Orlando Bloom either though. I thought that's what they had in common.
A few years ago this might've blacklisted him, now? So long as he doesn't apologise and he carries on as normal, I think he has enough clout that people will probably watch him MORE as they'll wonder what's going on, see this clip, and recognise it as a smear campaign.
The pussy pass is getting revoked more that sexual assault allegations without any criminal court action is not as effective anymore. The only ones still effective are to do with children but lying about that and found lying would probably burn every bridge imaginable so that's why we don't see it in anything other than twisted bitchy mothers in family court.
I watched the whole thing. Why has no-one, including the comedian with information on numerous comedians and celebrities who have done "criminal acts" and Channel 4 with Brand's alleged "criminality", gone to the police? Surely we want to get any "criminal" who is a threat and a danger off the street, given their day in court and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, put in prison - right? Instead, Channel 4 at the end of the programme just invited people to contact them if they had any allegation on any celebrity or comedian.
Worse still, there were other agendas being suggested. Beside the usual "listen and believe" we would expect, there were also suggestions that anyone under 22 should be considered a "child" and for age-gap relationships to be banned because they consider them exploitative. No doubt to lobby for any future anti-misogyny law that is coming to the UK, Scotland first.
One of the contributors, the former controller of BBC One, stated that when it comes to safeguarding, the broadcaster is jointly responsible. Who did Brand predominately work for? Channel 4. So either Channel 4 is doing a smear job against Brand and have destroyed their reputation or Channel 4 has repeatedly failed in its duty of safeguarding vulnerable women. Which is it, Channel 4?
I'm am watching the suggestion from Better Bachelor that AI was used to generate the voice of Nadia for The Sunday Times, who collaborated with Channel 4. Joker's rationale seems reasonable. Though it is likely that the excuse will be that they used a generator to "protect the anonymity of the victim". But then, why not disclose it? Everything here looks shady.
The tactics being used here mirror those used in East Germany by the Stasi against dissenters and critics of the state. It is likely that media corporations like Channel 4 have files on everyone with improprieties ready to be aired when necessary. But only for those who happen to be against the mainstream and establishment narrative. Brand will be the first, he will most certainly not be the last.
Brand will have Channel 4 in checkmate. And Channel 4 doesn't realise. And Channel 4 thinks they're already winning. In reality, this is probably Channel 4's Jimmy Savile moment that harmed the reputation of the BBC.
Channel 4 is a statutory corporation. What that means is that the Government owns it but like the BBC, it has editorial independence from the Government. It isn't funded by the licence fee like the BBC but by advertising and sponsorships like the other commercial broadcasters. It is the forth largest reaching UK broadcaster behind the BBC, ITV and Sky according to BARB. For people in the US and a few other countries, we don't name our traditional terrestrial channels based on the frequency they broadcast on, we name them based on prominence - BBC One and Two first before ITV (legally known as Channel 3), Channel 4 and Channel 5.
It has the same left wing bent as the majority of other broadcasters and is probably one of the most left leaning broadcasters. It is a general entertainment channel predominately showing American sitcoms, daytime programming for women, The Simpsons, Hollyoaks - a young adult soap, news as per their broadcast licence and prime time general entertainment and documentary programming as well as films (they have their own film production company that also has a channel on terrestrial television) and sport, predominately football/soccer.
They recently aired an Hollyoaks special episode on incels, smearing them as radicalised extremists. They just announced that the soap is moving online. They have also non-platformed the Conservative Party from a climate change debate on their news programme.
In terms of financial health, their revenue was £1.14bn for 2022. However, they have recently axed a number of shows as they may now be struggling financially. It may be in part because they've invested in a number of sporting rights.
So if I'm understanding correctly, a huge portion of the UK domestic broadcast TV market is dominated by Crown corporations between the BBC and Channel 4?
And with it mentioned that Brand was distantly a Channel 4 employee/presenter, what kind of programming did he run?
The BBC is a corporation whose existence is granted by a Royal Charter, funded by the licence fee and Channel 4 is a statutory owned corporation, funded by commercials and sponsorship. ITV and Channel 5 are purely commercial companies but they as well as the BBC and Channel 4 are classed as public service broadcasters. Back in the analogue terrestrial days, there was only space for four, later five, channels to broadcast and so bandwidth was scarce and running a television channel was deemed a privilege that carried obligations. Such as having to broadcast a minimum number of news bulletins, kids programming, documentaries and other obligations. Back then we did not have the woke and bias issues we do now.
We even had Teletext services (for those who don't know what Teletext is, it is a news and information service broadcast over the air free of charge in unused parts of the TV picture data) and they also carried public service broadcasting obligations, including for Channel 4.
They still have those obligations today in return for holding the first five electronic programme guide positions on all platforms.
Brand was primarily on Big Brother's Eforum and its rebrand, Big Brother's Big Forum, The Russell Brand Show, Russell Brand's Ponderland as well as the odd comedy stand-up show, one-off shows plus guest appearances on other shows. He's also been on BBC Radio 2, talkSPORT, FX, MTV and BBC Four.
If it can be proven that Channel 4 has used AI to misinform the public and smear Brand, Brand takes Channel 4 to court for defamation and he wins, Channel 4's reputation will be destroyed. From a channel that was set-up to be the alternative to one that attacks the alternative.
Same tactic they used against Julian Assange-
some fake sexual allegations (which were later dropped)
Reddit is 100% supporting these allegations and calling for him to be summarily lynched.
Edit: from 1:17:00 is the funniest summary -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYMUkdG4vHE
"I was raped because he put his penis in my mouth. After this we dated for 3 months afterwards until I found him in bed with another woman."
Meanwhile, the allegations made against Biden...
Tara Reade had the honesty to come forward and make the allegations under oath.
These Russel Brand allegations are anonymous fantasies at this point.
Sexual allegations of one kind or another seems to be the go-to mechanism for the feds to smear someone. Not entirely sure why, but after Abu Ghraib, there may be some projection in it.
Reddit supports everything because it's half PR at this point. Before they were labeling it as marketing it was showing up on employment ads as, " working Reddit accounts". People were posting them on r/conspiracy, and admin was taking them down.
Bots or human bots. It's PR.
These women have NEVER gone to the police?
The UK famously had Alison Saunders - a fanatical feminist chief prosecutor. She tried to lock up HUNDREDS of innocent men for rape - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6460037/hundreds-may-have-been-wrongly-convicted-for-rape-cps-must-review-old-cases/
I don't think that this is even simping, its more basic than that. They're in NPC mode and are hating Brand because they've been told to hate Brand.
If this had been a few years back, when he was the weirdo liberal darling, instead of the weirdo wrongthinking liberal heretic...well, these fuckers might still be calling for his head, because they're retarded cultists.
Also, seeing Maher get increasingly nervous was great, even though Brand was saying things he knew was true, and probably agreed with.
This is 300% a smear. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner, honestly. Brand's been pissing off the right people for years now, of course this was going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if we're about to see the next Alex Jones treatment, either. At least he's been doing the smart thing and building backups; he's got Rumble if nothing else.
Crazy how they've completley weaponized Sexual Assault.
I'm not good with this, oh it happened 20 yrs ago on repeat. There's a problem with this being allowed.
"It happened 20 years ago"
> No it didn't.
All that needs to be said really. Just flat denial. If it happened then you would have done something back then. You didn't, so now you're just making shit up.
Rember how they did M Manson? They said he was drunk when he did it, so every time he tries to defend himself they told him he didn't remember.
He knew what the deal was 20 years ago. They targeted him as far as I'm concerned.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4kQMDSw3Aqo
Pretty much exactly as everyone here expected when #MeToo first reared its hideous gold-digging hydra-heads.
Brandon Fraiser is the only person who will tell you that movement did them any good. And, he was never anything but honest.
Fake sex accussations go back centuries in american politics.
Biden just put up a monument to the political power of white women making fake rape accussations.
It's actually not even a little bit new, bizarrely. It's as tradotional jailing your opponents for "treason" or starting a war to stay in office.
Statutes of limitations exist specifically to keep people from doing this kind of very effective character attack, which is why leftists didn't incorporate the concept when they shifted their justice system to the court of public opinion.
What did Katy Perry do to him? I recognize Orlando Bloom is girly looking, but did she kiss a real girl? Was she hot and then cold? Did she yell in simlish at random times?
In the last few days I read that KP had issues with Taylor Swift, and now your saying she had issues with this person too. What's wrong with KP?
She's a degenerate weirdo, a diva bitch, and has no problem with sexually assaulting young men.
Having no knowledge of what you're referring to, I find it interesting that she married a man that is anerexic. No one likes to work with Orlando Bloom either though. I thought that's what they had in common.
Still salty that JonTron sang Firework better than she did?
Long ago I read KP was competing with too many artists for songs, and then she's stopped putting out hits.
A few years ago this might've blacklisted him, now? So long as he doesn't apologise and he carries on as normal, I think he has enough clout that people will probably watch him MORE as they'll wonder what's going on, see this clip, and recognise it as a smear campaign.
The pussy pass is getting revoked more that sexual assault allegations without any criminal court action is not as effective anymore. The only ones still effective are to do with children but lying about that and found lying would probably burn every bridge imaginable so that's why we don't see it in anything other than twisted bitchy mothers in family court.
I watched the whole thing. Why has no-one, including the comedian with information on numerous comedians and celebrities who have done "criminal acts" and Channel 4 with Brand's alleged "criminality", gone to the police? Surely we want to get any "criminal" who is a threat and a danger off the street, given their day in court and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, put in prison - right? Instead, Channel 4 at the end of the programme just invited people to contact them if they had any allegation on any celebrity or comedian.
Worse still, there were other agendas being suggested. Beside the usual "listen and believe" we would expect, there were also suggestions that anyone under 22 should be considered a "child" and for age-gap relationships to be banned because they consider them exploitative. No doubt to lobby for any future anti-misogyny law that is coming to the UK, Scotland first.
One of the contributors, the former controller of BBC One, stated that when it comes to safeguarding, the broadcaster is jointly responsible. Who did Brand predominately work for? Channel 4. So either Channel 4 is doing a smear job against Brand and have destroyed their reputation or Channel 4 has repeatedly failed in its duty of safeguarding vulnerable women. Which is it, Channel 4?
I'm am watching the suggestion from Better Bachelor that AI was used to generate the voice of Nadia for The Sunday Times, who collaborated with Channel 4. Joker's rationale seems reasonable. Though it is likely that the excuse will be that they used a generator to "protect the anonymity of the victim". But then, why not disclose it? Everything here looks shady.
The tactics being used here mirror those used in East Germany by the Stasi against dissenters and critics of the state. It is likely that media corporations like Channel 4 have files on everyone with improprieties ready to be aired when necessary. But only for those who happen to be against the mainstream and establishment narrative. Brand will be the first, he will most certainly not be the last.
Brand will have Channel 4 in checkmate. And Channel 4 doesn't realise. And Channel 4 thinks they're already winning. In reality, this is probably Channel 4's Jimmy Savile moment that harmed the reputation of the BBC.
Could someone give a quick summary about who Channel 4 is for those outside the UK?
Ownership, editorial bent, size/reach, type of programming, similar scandals, financial health, affiliations, etc.
Channel 4 is a statutory corporation. What that means is that the Government owns it but like the BBC, it has editorial independence from the Government. It isn't funded by the licence fee like the BBC but by advertising and sponsorships like the other commercial broadcasters. It is the forth largest reaching UK broadcaster behind the BBC, ITV and Sky according to BARB. For people in the US and a few other countries, we don't name our traditional terrestrial channels based on the frequency they broadcast on, we name them based on prominence - BBC One and Two first before ITV (legally known as Channel 3), Channel 4 and Channel 5.
It has the same left wing bent as the majority of other broadcasters and is probably one of the most left leaning broadcasters. It is a general entertainment channel predominately showing American sitcoms, daytime programming for women, The Simpsons, Hollyoaks - a young adult soap, news as per their broadcast licence and prime time general entertainment and documentary programming as well as films (they have their own film production company that also has a channel on terrestrial television) and sport, predominately football/soccer.
They recently aired an Hollyoaks special episode on incels, smearing them as radicalised extremists. They just announced that the soap is moving online. They have also non-platformed the Conservative Party from a climate change debate on their news programme.
In terms of financial health, their revenue was £1.14bn for 2022. However, they have recently axed a number of shows as they may now be struggling financially. It may be in part because they've invested in a number of sporting rights.
Thanks. Great summary.
Interesting naming convention.
So if I'm understanding correctly, a huge portion of the UK domestic broadcast TV market is dominated by Crown corporations between the BBC and Channel 4?
And with it mentioned that Brand was distantly a Channel 4 employee/presenter, what kind of programming did he run?
The BBC is a corporation whose existence is granted by a Royal Charter, funded by the licence fee and Channel 4 is a statutory owned corporation, funded by commercials and sponsorship. ITV and Channel 5 are purely commercial companies but they as well as the BBC and Channel 4 are classed as public service broadcasters. Back in the analogue terrestrial days, there was only space for four, later five, channels to broadcast and so bandwidth was scarce and running a television channel was deemed a privilege that carried obligations. Such as having to broadcast a minimum number of news bulletins, kids programming, documentaries and other obligations. Back then we did not have the woke and bias issues we do now.
We even had Teletext services (for those who don't know what Teletext is, it is a news and information service broadcast over the air free of charge in unused parts of the TV picture data) and they also carried public service broadcasting obligations, including for Channel 4.
They still have those obligations today in return for holding the first five electronic programme guide positions on all platforms.
Brand was primarily on Big Brother's Eforum and its rebrand, Big Brother's Big Forum, The Russell Brand Show, Russell Brand's Ponderland as well as the odd comedy stand-up show, one-off shows plus guest appearances on other shows. He's also been on BBC Radio 2, talkSPORT, FX, MTV and BBC Four.
OK, As I understand it, there's precious little evidence on offer here.
I've seen reports of "verified text messages" that you can see the 'shop on.
Is there actually any evidence one way or the other?
Was she hot?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3CIlnTbYAA-AcV?format=png&name=900x900
If it can be proven that Channel 4 has used AI to misinform the public and smear Brand, Brand takes Channel 4 to court for defamation and he wins, Channel 4's reputation will be destroyed. From a channel that was set-up to be the alternative to one that attacks the alternative.
That's the first volley of accusations for the election season on AI. I expect to hear about it a lot.
Ah, Better Bachelor -- recently subscribed to his channel as well maybe a few weeks ago.