Russell Brand

G-G said:
I can't stand him and wonder why any woman would feel flattered by his attention,
Click to expand...

As a totally, and I mean totally, straight guy looking in on this, I have to say I totally understand how a woman could be flattered by attention from Brand. I can see that some women would find him incredibly attractive - check him in Death on the Nile - and very flattered were he to pay them attention.

As a person/human being, AC put it eloquently enough.

Given the sleb-worshipping encouraged by the media in this country, I completely understand women liking him (until they get to know him).
 
Of course I am not disputing your right, as ever, to truly held opinion GG. I respect it as deeply as all your opinions expressed on this forum through the years. I just fundamentally disagree with you on this occasion.


G-G said:
The man who killed the girl from my school had over 30 convictions - how on earth was he free to keep committing them? How many other victms were there of his that didn't come forward resulting in more women and girls being victims? .
Click to expand...

To try answer this question. He was free because presumably he had served his sentences for those early convictions and under law had cleaned his slate. If this is so then he was as unguilty as Russell Brand is today and like him entitled to his freedom and presumption of innocence until proven guilty of subsequent crimes.
 
A former boxer from the Northeast who many will know, Glenn McCrory found not guilty today of sexual assault claims. Apparently, he called women in London darling and pet, which is a just a friendly thing to do up North.

He hasn't been able to make a living for two years, he's had hell on earth for two years, found not guilty today within 18 minutes of the jury going to deliberate.

If anyone ever doubts why people are innocent until proven guilty go take a look at this case.
 
Last edited:
I know, but I also know women who find him incredibly attractive.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

(And there are fewer greater aphrodisiacs than fame and money.)
 
simmo said:
This one will divide opinion but I want to be absolutely clear that I am making no judgement as to the guilt or innocence of him here.

I applaud rumble for not "cancelling" Russell Brands ability to make money. It is my opinion that a person should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There should never be a presumption of guilt until proven otherwise, which is exactly what various outlets are trying to do (he's far from the first).

I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on how the presumption of innocence should be interpreted in terms of making money whilst awaiting trial.
Click to expand...

Brand should be assumed innocent until proven otherwise (though the case against seems pretty strong, imo), but the brands he is associated with are perfectly at liberty to distance themselves from him, if they think there is any potential for reputational damage via that connection.

These seem like straightforward business decicions to me, rather than any presumption of guilt.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top