Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; From a left wing hero of 2014, to a green energy heretic who hangs out with Bjørn Lomborg, to accusations of sex offences. But we’ve seen all this before.
In 2014, the George Monbiot lauded Brand’s flawed left wing activism.
Heroes of 2014: Russell Brand
The volatile comedian-turned-activist’s ability to be openly and honestly flawed sets him apart from the grand old men of the left
Mon 29 Dec 2014 22.29 AEDT
No one is better at attacking Russell Brand than Russell Brand. He takes the lavish criticisms aimed at him and, like Cyrano de Bergerac, shows his opponents how to do it properly.
He is volatile, vulnerable, troubled, mercurial, but unlike most people in public life, he makes no attempt to hide it. His emotional honesty helps to explain his appeal, and his ability to inspire people who had switched off from politics.
Yes, his politics are rough and inchoate, but he doesn’t claim to have all the answers. Sometimes he can be incoherent. But even that is a refreshing change from the stifling coherence of some of the grand old men of the left, for whom everything must conform to a rigid scheme of loyalties and enmities, and who appear unable to admit mistakes. This obnoxious and dishonest rigidity, often enforced by a cult-like following, is, I believe, one of the reasons why the left often struggles to build support.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/29/russell-brand-comedian-turned-activist
How quickly things change. The Guardian reclassified Brand as a hate figure when Brand strayed off the establishment narrative thought plantation once too often.
Russell Brand is the latest to platform climate conservative Bjørn Lomborg’s ‘reckless’ net-zero cost claims
Graham Readfearn
Thu 16 Mar 2023 10.00 AEDTThe Danish commentator has been accused of continuing tomisrepresent findings about the costs of cutting emissions, despite pleas from scientists
…
Brand has more than 6 million subscribers on YouTube and this week his channel turned to the Danish political scientist, Bjørn Lomborg, for a “debate” (not really a debate) on climate change.
“I know that polluting the planet cannot be good on a spiritual level and there seems to be significant evidence to suggest that man-made climate change is real,” Brand said.
During the segment on Brand’s “Stay Free” show, viewed 315,000 times in the four days after it was published, Lomborg argued that renewable energy was too expensive and appeared to try to undermine the role that batteries play in storing renewable energy.
The Guardian commentator and environmentalist George Monbiot wrote last week that Brand had seemingly shifted from “challenging injustice to conjuring phantoms”.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/16/russell-brand-is-the-latest-to-platform-climate-conservative-bjrn-lomborgs-reckless-net-zero-cost-claims
Monbiot was even more scathing.
I once admired Russell Brand. But his grim trajectory shows us where politics is heading
George Monbiot
Fri 10 Mar 2023 18.00 AEDTIn an age of distortion, public figures have powerful tools and a responsibility. This is an object lesson in how that can go wrong
In 2014, the Guardian asked me to nominate my hero of the year. To some people’s surprise, I chose Russell Brand. I loved the way he energised young people who had been alienated from politics. I claimed, perhaps hyperbolically, he was “the best thing that has happened to the left in years” (in my defence, there wasn’t, at the time, much competition).
…
In 2014, he was bursting with new ideas and creative ways of presenting them. Today, he wastes his talent on tired and discredited tales: endless iterations of the alleged evils of the World Economic Forum founder, Klaus Schwab, the Great Reset, Bill Gates, Nancy Pelosi, the former US chief medical adviser, Anthony Fauci, Covid vaccines, medical data, the World Health Organization, Pfizer, smart cities and “the globalist masterplan”.
His videos appear to promote “natural immunity” ahead of vaccines, and for a while pushed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments for Covid(they aren’t).
He championed the “Freedom Convoy” that occupied Ottawa, which apparently stood proudly against the “tyranny” of Justin Trudeau’s policies. He hawks Graham Hancock’s widely debunked claims about ancient monuments.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/10/russell-brand-politics-public-figures-responsibility
Now, surprise, Brand has been accused of sexual assault.
Russell Brand allegations come as no surprise to anyone who listened to his jokes
Katy Hall
Age deputy opinion editor
September 21, 2023 — 7.40pmSaveThough the recent accusations made against Russell Brand of rape and sexual assaults are shocking for their alleged levels of violence, that these claims are being levelled against Brand himself is not shocking at all.
Until his recent pivot into the wellness and conspiracy theorist space, a central aspect of Brand’s persona that made him a globally loved comedian and actor was his sexual proclivities. He identified as a sex addict and spoke freely and often about the number of women he had slept with. He regularly used his bedroom antics as material in his comedy routines, while marketing himself as a kind of new-age ethical shagger. Where some go to great lengths to hide their sexual habits, Brand positioned the spotlight on his.
…
Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/russell-brand-allegations-come-as-no-surprise-to-anyone-who-listened-to-his-jokes-20230921-p5e6i7.html
Isn’t it strange that high profile personalities get cancelled and in some cases are accused of sexual assault, after they offend the establishment or tangle with the green movement?
Andrew Tate, another high profile figure, was arrested for sexual assault shortly after tangling with Greta Thunberg. Russell Brand was accused of sexual assault months after he introduced his followers to climate lukewarmer Bjørn Lomborg.
President Trump, probably one of the greatest threats to the green movement today, has repeatedly been accused of sexual misconduct.
Andrew Tate and Russell Brand have certainly done things I consider unsavoury, like Tate’s trademark online misogyny, and Jonathan Ross and Brand’s nasty public humiliation of Faulty Towers actor Andrew Sachs grand daughter, a cruel prank which defined my opinion of Brand for years afterwards.
If any of these people are guilty of the crimes of which they have been accused, they deserve whatever is coming.
But being rude to an ex girlfriend also does automatically make Russell Brand guilty of a sex crime. Andrew Sachs grandaughter Georgina Baillie, the target of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand’s cruel prank, actually spoke up in Brand’s defence a few days ago:
…
“From my own personal experience I do not see Russell as a rapist however a lot of the evidence is very compelling so one has to keep an open mind,” she said. “I want him to continue on his path of recovery and when we make mistakes we make amends that’s what we do.”
“He was always very nice to me,” she continued. “It was always clear what the parameters were and that was mutually agreed upon and never did anything untoward happen – apart from that [the Sachsgate tapes].
“I was struggling with addiction for about 10- 15 years and I was finding it very hard to get clean and sober. So one of my mutual friends between me and Russell called him up and said, ‘Georgie needs some help’, and so he sent me to rehab.
…
Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/russell-brand-andrew-sachs-piers-morgan-b2414109.html
There is another factor which makes me wonder what is really happening. A few days ago Rumble accused a senior member of the British Conservative Government of sending a “deeply inappropriate and dangerous” letter to Rumble, demanding they cancel Brand’s ability to profit from his online content – including Brand’s Rumble interview with climate lukewarmer Bjørn Lomborg.
… On Thursday, Rumble accused a parliamentary committee of “deeply inappropriate” behaviour after Caroline Dinenage, the Conservative chair of the culture, media and sport committee, wrote a letter to the company’s chief executive, Chris Pavlovski, to express concern that Brand “may be able to profit from his content on the platform”.
In a public statement posted on X, Rumble called the letter “disturbing” and said parliament’s demands were “deeply inappropriate and dangerous”. The platform added that it was devoted to an internet “where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform”.
Rumble added: “Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble.” …
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/23/firms-pull-ads-from-rumble-platform-over-russell-brand-videos
Meanwhile leftist climate heroes who infamously hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, in some cases people whose own ex wives have criticised their association with Epstein, nobody in mainstream media or government is demanding they be demonetised, or dragging their reputations through the mud.
I’m not passing judgement on which if any accusations are true, and what people did or didn’t do. I don’t have the evidence in front of me to make such judgements.
Likewise the failure of media or governments to pursue leftist figures doesn’t automatically make them guilty. Climate hero Bill Gates maintains his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was entirely innocent. Bill Gate’s claim in my opinion is plausible, however suspicious his association with Epstein seems. Scum like Epstein would surely have made it a priority to cultivate innocent friendships with powerful people, as a smoke screen to conceal his own crimes, to help shield his less innocent friends, and to create a potential opportunity to dupe innocent people into being sincere character witnesses.
Maybe it’s all a big coincidence that high profile people with the capacity and willingness to damage the climate movement seem to be unusually susceptible to public accusations of sexual assault.
But the question in my mind, if the allegations against “Russell Brand” are “no surprise”, as Sydney Morning Herald reporter Katy Hall claims, why wasn’t more done to address these concerns back when Brand was a hero of the left?
I think it is reasonable to suspect there may be some serious journalistic and possibly even legal double standards at play.
Wildly inappropriate pressure from the British Conservative Government to choke off Russell Brand’s income does nothing to dispel my concerns about this situation. Brand is still innocent in the eyes of the law, at least that is how British justice used to work – yet a senior government committee chairperson is pressuring media organisations to treat Russell like he had already been found guilty.
How can Brand be confident he will be treated fairly by the British justice system, if formal charges are laid in response to the accusations which have been levelled, when the British government is already openly exercising their influence to attack his reputation, deplatform and silence him?
I’d be a lot happier if I could be certain that the intense pressure to shut down Russell Brand, in his moment of vulnerability, was not simply opportunistic political payback for Brand rousing millions of followers to start asking who is cashing in on their green cost of living pain, and all the other ways he has challenged government narratives in recent years. And I’d be happier still, if I knew for sure the British government’s actions were not something worse than opportunism.
Russell Brand’s interview with Bjørn Lomborg – part of Brand’s Rumble stream the British Conservative Government tried to cancel.
This activity looks very much like what one of Nixon’s aides , Donald Segretti, was convicted of, with the very evocative name of “ratf**king”.
I can’t believe you want to discuss or defend Russell Brand in any way, shape or form. Regardless of his views on any subject, Detritus is the only word that comes to mind.
Frankly, I’m disappointed to see this post on WUWT.
Even if Brand is guilty as sin, the British government singling him out and trying to attack his reputation and deplatform him before even charges have been laid absolutely stinks.
Since Brand’s fall from grace in the eyes of the establishment includes charges of climate heresy, of giving Bjørn Lomborg a platform, that makes his story relevant to WUWT.
you nailed it!
Brands problem he ran into the lefts expanded the definition of the Unforgivable Sin. The orginal definition was blasphemy, now you can substitute “Spirit” for anything.
Matthew 12:30-32: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Eric, I have to laugh… Look at the tribal pile on. -60 hahaha. I’m a long time strong supporter of WUWT,. Regardless of what you claim, Brand is extremely likely to be another Harvey Weinstein. I’ve always thought so and am a good judge of character if I do say so myself. I have no doubt you have a good case regarding the hypocrisy of the left, but that is ongoing and never hard to find…… Appearing to defend Brand, I suspect, is doomed to be on the wrong side of history, even if the establishment is putting the boot in early and for the reasons you suggest.
Personally, I don’t want him as a supporter for the “Denialist” cause and I don’t see that this article does anything for WUWT’s standing.
Further, arguing against Trump being accused of sexual misconduct seems unwise… again I’m a big supporter of Trump, but not blind to his seemingly unlimited imperfections.
Well Stevo, it’s up to 71 now hahaha.
I didn’t see this as a defense of anyone.
I saw it as calling attention to the disparate treatment of Anyone that calls attention to themselves by not adhering to the lefts’ continuously wavering ideology.
Biden, who showers with his adolescent daughter and continuously lies throughout his entire life is believed, while his sexual assault accuser is defined as a liar by the same people that are going after Brand.
Yes, averaging out his entire life, Brand appears as a piece of crap. But if it weren’t for his recent change & notoriety, he could have (and likely would have) faded into obscurity … it would not have been important enough for those harmed to go after him.
Everyone deserves due process, including scum like Harvey Weinstein. If scum cannot be certain of receiving due process, then neither can anyone else.
I think the message of the big -numbers is that lots of people want you to think about it.
Here in the UK, we have a long standing legal principle, of being innocent until proven guilty by a court of your peers. This ancient human right was clearly set out in Magna Carta :
Maybe the Sunak administration sees the Magna Carta as more of a guideline than a constitutional guarantee.
I don’t recall reading that Sunak wanted to de-platform Brand on WUWT. Since you advocate that, I thought that the long standing legal principle of being innocent until proven guilty, might influence your decision to jump on the cancel bandwagon …
As Caroline Dinenage is chair of a parliamentary committee, she could reasonably be described as a representative of the Sunak administration. If Rishi Sunak publishes a strong condemnation and disavowal, I’ll certainly add that to the article.
As usual Eric, you are completely ignorant.
Parliamentary Committees are independent of the Government. They are the scrutineers of the Government.
I’m no supporter of Sunak or the Conservative Party but this slander is unacceptable.
It should be unacceptable to anyone with integrity. Guilt by association, when there is no accountability. Disgraceful.
And the real question about Brand is how he avoided scrutiny for so long. The allegations have been common knowledge for twenty years.
Nonsense. If Sunak wants a committee chair gone, they are gone. And I’m still waiting for Sunak’s strong disavowal and condemnation of the failure of due process, and re-affirmation that the Magna Carta still means something in today’s Britain.
Wrong.
You have confused the PM with the Speaker of the House of Commons.
This is not a matter of opinion. You are just wrong.
Quite right. In all Westminster parliaments, all House Committee chairs serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. They are direcly dependent for their authority by the governing party via the Prime Minister. This has been the case for centuries.
In Canada, it’s not just House Committee chairs. All heads of Crown Corporations and any agencies which answer to Parliament through any Minister of the Crown are all “At Pleasure” appointments. This means they can all be dismissed summarily by the Prime Minister. There is no appeal, judicial or otherwise, from such a dismissal.
That is untrue. I do not know about Canada but in the UK the PM does not appoint those who have the role of holding him to account.
Here is the actual process.
Election of House of Commons Select Committee Chairs – UK Parliament
You and Eric Worrall are wrong. It’s just a fact.
MCourtney,
You have established your case beyond contradiction but there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear.
I wonder if Eric Worrall can give any examples of Chairs of Parliamentary Committees being disnmissed at the say-so of a Prime Minister.
Eric Worrall,
Just admit that in this case you are in the wrong.
I taught the British Political System for 39 years in secondary schools. I would have ben very disappointed if any of my pupils had written what Eric has asserted on this issue.
and NOTHING was ever proven or gone ahead with BY the authorities
oddly she claims/ doesnt work without PROOF and there seems to be none of worth
she claims/ doesnt work without PROOF
Apparently that depends on the alleged perpetrator’s positions on certain topics.
“I don’t recall reading that Sunak wanted to de-platform Brand on WUWT.”
Apparently you also didn’t recall the phrase was “Sunak administration.”
in trial by media and certain leanings of govts all around the world being innocent seems not to be important anymore..if enough wanna be claims are made regardless of only a few even being reported to police and ZERO charges laid..he must be guilty
its the me too blm trans whatever madness in spades
same sh!t different day
That certainly is how the left swings here in the states.
Is the MC considered in the UK to be comparable, legally, to the American constitution? Aside from historical precedence which may carry more weight than in American jurisprudence. I ask only because I have no clue and I’m curious.
The UK has no written constitution. It has case law and precedent.
This allows flexibility and tradition.
The Magna Carta is the oldest extant precedent.
It forbids torture, bills of attainder and secures property rights (without a specific law to take them, e.g. taxation). Most of it concerns the rights of the Monarch to hunt deer in forests and the rights of aristocrats to be consulted by the government. It’s archaic.
But with the centuries of case law our rights are secured. And adaptable too.
We now let women vote, let blacks own property instead of being property (first country to actively deploy the military to stop slavery) and even allow Jews to practise their faith.
This is implied from the Magna Carta but certainly not defined there.
Your US constitution is rooted in it too.
But its free speech rights and right to bear arms are sadly lacking, despite the 1688 Bill of Rights..
The Magna Carta is not the oldest extant precedent as we have Roman Laws and Anglo-Saxon Laws that have been passed down into English Law. The Magna Carta is, however, a good record of the first limitations placed on an absolute monarch by the English nobility, in order for them to increase their own power.
It is earlier than that – it comes from Roman Law which we still have a few remnants of in British Law.
Innocent until proven guilty does not come from Roman law. Countries under Roman law and its derivative, the Code Napoleon, have adversarial systems of criminal law.
English common law is rare, if not unique, in the world to feature presumption of innocence.
Nonetheless, the first recorded instance of that comes from Roman Law. Why many other countries disregarded it and went with an adversarial system and we didn’t I have no idea but, even in Anglo-Saxon Law the principle is retained. Btw – the Magna Carta is not a bill of rights and never even mentioned “Innocent until proven guilty” anywhere in it – I used to have a reproduction of it and a full translation and yes, I have read the whole thing.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I don’t recall hearing from you about Brand before this scandal broke.
And so far it remains a scandal until he appears in a court of law.
No one is defending Russell Brand, it’s our justice system that requires defending here. Ch4 and the Times have evidence implicating Brand in sexual violence, why didn’t they take it directly to the police?
They have now poisoned the well. Brand can’t get a fair trial because he’s pre-judged in the media. Indeed, a conviction might be considered unsafe because of the media, public and now government attention a scandal has attracted.
Brand isn’t on trial. Our justice system is on trial.
And so far it remains a scandal until he appears in a court of law.
My information may be out of date, but so far I have only heard of public accusations, but no criminal complaints. I find that rather suspicious. (not only in this case, but in any similar case)
Your information is out of date. The victims have passed the allegations onto the police who have begun an investigation. When they have concluded their investigation, they will determine what, if any, charges are relevant.
Then perhaps we should wait on the outcome of the investigation. But I remain suspicious that they come out after so much time. We’ve seen that play repeatedly in the political arena.
Yes. This stinks of the sort of op our CIA and FBI seem to like here in the states.
Remember when Assange was accused of sex crimes shortly after the Wikileaks scandal broke? I think most people understood that was damage control by the agencies of the US government.
” I don’t recall hearing from you about Brand before this scandal broke.”
Do you expect me to run around the world publicly calling out every bit of misbehaviour from celebrities? 24 hrs per day wouldn’t be enough, even if I was interested in doing so.
I’m 66 years old and newspapers and media have been breaking stories for as long as I can remember. Are you seriously suggesting the media no longer does that????
Often the court of public opinion influences, indeed compels police to investigate and not sweep things under the rug. Other complainants are also encouraged to come forth. Many accused are guilty of what they are accused of and unfortunately, a few are not.
I am reminded of something my mate, a solicitor (attorney) told me once.
Here in Australia, if you are charged by police, then there is a 99% chance you are guilty, such is the burden of proof to bring charges.
The justice system In the UK is not on trial here at all, not for a moment.
I don’t see anyone defending Brand.
What I do see is people pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, who found Brand’s behavior perfectly acceptable so long as he was a member of the team. But now that he has questioned dogma, is found to be not only unacceptable, but criminal.
I doubt very much that Brand is someone I would like to have a beer with, but that doesn’t make him a criminal.
Agree.
The Left, and that includes closet Leftists and Greens nominally in the “Conservative” Party, are ruthless. Here in America, too.
It’s more about defending his right to free speech and his right to interview reputable persons like Lomborg.
…or even the right to interview disreputable persons… TV shows like 60 Minutes make a living off that, even if they have to spend the first 55 minutes tarring and feathering the victim to turn him into their desired “disreputable” person, before they present carefully selected and edited “excerpts” from the otherwise unremarkable interview.
The article is not about Brand. It is about political persecution by a conservative party member. Rape is a threat to individuals, and credible charges should prosecuted. But selective political persecution is a threat to the freedom of the people of the UK.
If a government official engages in political persecution, that official should be shamed and forced to resign, at a minimum.
Russel Brand is surprisingly sharp and clear thinking, although somewhat frenetic in his delivery.
But he does see the bigger picture and calls out ‘the elites’ and their policies and apparent plans for the rest of us.
He is a very articulate and informative voice, with some 6.5 million followers on Youtube.
I see his sexual history and activities as a seperate issue, but I am astonished at how quickly and effectivley some are sentenced, cancelled, and defunded without trial. It seems to be the non-conformers trying to call out an increasingly oppresive system who suffer this fate.
And their communications are all suddenly and conveniently removed from view.
Wow I don’t know if I’ve seen a “-78” before.
That’s a bit strong. Brand clearly repented, which doesn’t mean to say he is or is not guilty. The Ross/Brand grandaughter humiliation was broadcast after BBC ‘checking’, indicating yet more left wing collusion in evil following the Savile revelations. Ross has contiued his loathsome career unmarked by any taint; and indeed may still have the blessing of the Great and the Good. We live in sick times.
How else could a so-called ‘progressive’ defend the rich and the powerful (Fauci, Pfizer, Schwab, Pelosi etc.) like poor deluded George Moonbat above? He is a toady.The old Communists would have ripped him to shreds.
Yes. He is of no interest, isn’t even funny, just thoroughly nasty.
And he is not being targeted for his political views either. All that has happened is that what has been common knowledge in the industry for many years (and what he has regularly boasted about publicly) has now become common knowledge.
Defending this stuff is a real low for Watts. You, we, are better than this.
when UK govt ministers lobby social media specifically as they have with Brand then you KNOW somethings rotten, the shiela doing it is a gung ho censorship czar with an obvious agenda of her own.
like him or not whats happening is so similar to the faked rape claims on Assange used to contain him its not funny and IS glaringly obvious as a ploy to remove his views
News tip …
energy “news” … but not to WUWT ..
https://www.realclearwire.com/articles/2023/09/21/us_offshore_wind_plans_are_utterly_collapsing_980864.html
2024 effect… 🙂
My view of Brand is on a par with what I feel about plutonium.
Can be very useful and very powerful but you don’t want to touch it or have any of it too close.
I don’t know what to make of him. I certainly thought he was a jerk after the Georgina Baillie incident, but she said nice things about him, so maybe he has another side that we don’t always see.
I don’t see Brand as another Jimmy Savile, but there are parallels in the attempts by the BBC and Channel 4 to excuse and ignore his behaviour. Again, not as much of a cover up as with Savile, but certainly turning a blind eye to allegations which have been made for some years against Brand but, up until now, have never been allowed to be aired. In my opinion the argument shouldn’t be whether he has now been targeted but what has changed that these long-term allegations are now getting media coverage?
What changed was Brand strayed off the thought plantation. Either way, if the establishment was protecting Brand and now they aren’t, or if they are amplifying any whisper to try to destroy him, IMO it smacks of double standards.
If you move right, expect a fight!
I used to have a cube of plutonium about 1cm on the side to scare people easily scared by propaganda, when they should fight against it.
Some concho bureaucrats took it away with jail threats.
Now we’ll into my 80s without glowing green in the dark or mutating into a Hollywood caricature. Geoff S
A few inches of air is sufficient to block most of the radiation from plutonium.
Plutonium is really bad if ingested.
Not particularly. It’s chemical toxicity is rather high. But it’s radio-toxicity is not significantly different from uranium.
Ingested, no. Inhaled, it’s the deadliest poison on Earth. In your lings, you will get cancer. Eaten, it passes right through you. But if you sprinkle it on ice cream, it melts your desert.
Dame Caroline Dinenage is facing calls to quit as Chair of the Culture, Media & Sport Committee after asking video-streaming platform Rumble to demonetise Russell Brand.
Dinenage, 51, wrote to Rumble yesterday after Brand, 48, was accused of rape and sexual assault.
The Gosport MP penned a number of letters to multiple organisations, including GB News.
My crystal ball tells me Rishi or another senior figure will disavow, and Dame Dinenage will receive a censure or demotion, a slap on the wrist. But she’ll keep her seat, or be promoted sideways, and in a few years she’ll be recycled to some new committee, if she’s still interested in politics. Life goes on.
Under UK law I don’t think that Dame D can be removed from her seat.
No but she can be deselected, have the whip removed.
Quite right. No MP in a Westminster parliament can be simply removed from a seat. They occupy a seat as determined by the voters, and no Prime Minister can overrule that. Canada once had a convict elected to Parliament at a time of open miltary rebellion – Louis Riel. But he could not be removed from his election to the House. Instead he was in political exile in the United States.
But a Prime Minister can indeed remove any person from an Appointed post like this one.
On a final note I just want to point out that Dame Caroline Dinenage’s husband is Major General John Mark Lancaster, Baron Lancaster of Kimbolton, former deputy commander of the British Army’s 77th Brigade, responsible for “non-lethal warfare and behavioural influence”.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/09/21/british-mps-are-trying-to-cancel-russell-brand-but-why/
Context : The British Army’s 77th Brigade was used as the UK Gov’s arbiter of the online covid world during the, ahem, “plandemic” …
The British Military Information War Waged On Their Own Populationhttps://www.ukcolumn.org/article/british-military-information-war-waged-their-own-population
The British Military Information War Waged On Their Own Population
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/british-military-information-war-waged-their-own-population
Yuck.
Wow, if something like that happened in the US, it would have resulted in riots. Or, maybe I just haven’t paid attention to all the Covid news- mostly ignoring it.
Biden’s DGB, Disinformation Board head “Scary Poppins” Jankowicz was forcd to resign, registered as a foreign agent, went to UK and it looks like back to 77th brigade. There is a money trail. Zinc it is called now.
DGB simply renamed under her boss, continues in the US.
you reckon how the media controlled commentary and opinion wasnt controlling pop?
govt DID supress what it didnt want heard IVM etc
yes like the female judge damning Assange her marriage ties and mates are a serious “conflict of interest” that they manage to ignore
Russell Brand exemplifies Charles Mackay’s observation that during times of collective madness people regain their sanity one at a time.
George Monbiot, on the other hand, demonstrates that some people are never able to get back.
Brand is certainly asking some interesting questions. The Lomborg interview is quite watchable, I winced a bit when Brand made references a few times to needing a new economic system, but some of his other points and questions were pretty spot on.
Brand has always been a bit of a self-created anarchist rather than anything else – an anti-establishment demagogue without much focus or ideas of his own, he’s been very good at getting in with the latest ideas of ‘new age counter culture’ then touting them as his own.
Let me ask you a question, Eric, if Brand hadn’t done that Bjorn Lomborg interview, would we be even mentioning him on WUWT?
“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin The misinformation/disinformation propaganda ministers should be challenged by groups representing all the technocrats Trojan horses everywhere all at once. I unabashedly support Russel Brand, Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Julian Assange… the government is rigged, the courts are rigged, the elections are rigged, the legislature is rigged, the executive is rigged, the system is rigged… George Carlin’s Rant Is More Relevant Than Ever — “It’s A Big Club, And You Ain’t In It.”
We are only a couple hundred years from indiscriminate hangings in the civilized west.
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and not the government out to get you. Brand is not in the same category as Trump and Assange.
Self centred serial shagger and an obnoxius individual. I’m in the Sean Lock camp, I’d hate one of my granddaughters to bring someone like him home. He claims to have changed but does a leopard change its spots?
Apparently he had been working for a wellness charity for the last few years – a charity helping vulnerable women; parallels with J.Saville’s charity work with children perhaps?
“… if Brand hadn’t done that Bjorn Lomborg interview, would we be even mentioning him on WUWT?”
That’s the second question. The first question is:
If Brand hadn’t acted as a climate/energy information conduit to 5 million viewers (that ordinarily don’t care about such things), would he have been censured/condemned by the left, & those managing the left?
I bet Lomborg couldn’t be dragged into a left/right political discussion- sticking to science with serious consideration of economics.
___________________________________________________________
Is the Pope Catholic? Can a fat baby fart? Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back?
Is the Pope Catholic, I have serious doubts 😉
Good one!
Doesn’t Dolly Parton have to sleep standing up?
Do bears defecate in regions excessive with excessive foliage?
He’s autistic.
ADHD and Bipolar disorder, apparently, as well as a wide range of drug use.
Trial by media is a travesty of justice: innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent but the public will not even believe if a real court finds otherwise and there is no front page retraction of slander. I have never been a Brand fan but he has tackled a number of important subjects and given voice to important dissenting views.
Accusations without charges and evidence should be viewed as slander and false witness and the media punished for publishing these as if fact. This includes branding someone a climate denialist who actually believes in the various climate zones and that any changes are natural and can be adequately dealt with by adapting as people have done for millennia.
Is supression of allegations by the media considered a travesty of justice as well? Brand has been protected by the media from allegations for some time – now they are being allowed to come out.
There is a distinction between an accusation and allegation. The latter is likely slander or gossip of someone was was not even present to witness the assault or crime. Perhaps the haste to publish and lazy journalists who do not thorougly investigate massively contribute to their shoddy and sensational reports.
9 years ago Brand was investigated by LA police after an alleged sexual assault on a masseuse, 11 years ago Brand was investigated by US police after 2 women alleged sexual assaults. All investigations were called off either through lack of evidence or other reasons. Now Dispatches have uncovered further accusations which have been passed to the police – at this point they are now allegations and will be investigated. Treating these serious allegations as ‘slander’, ‘gossip’ or ‘false witness’ before an investigation has occurred is likely one of the reasons that many women don’t come forward immediately – there remains an assumption of being dismissed or ignored and there is often a huge burden of proof on the victims.
Also, women making accusations that are eventually found out to be false doesn’t help to encourage those with real assaults to report.
Sad but true. False accusations, made for totally political motivations, such as from Christine Blasey Ford and Anita Hill, make it all the harder for actual victims to get the justice, or even the help, they need. Even the fiasco from Rolling Stones that had to be retracted, numerous contemporaneous witnesses were certain something happened to the poor victim, but did she ever get the support she needed? Has she been to a rape crisis center? If not, she probably won’t go now, and she will be even more reluctant to open her mouth and talk to anyone about it than she was before the “interview”. In the end, she was just used, then tossed aside once again, just like she had been so many years before.
But what’s the way to fix it? Is there a way to fix it?
Anyone remember Duke LaCrosse?
Now there it was totally bogus. I’m worried about the victim of the frat-house rape on the University of Virginia campus. The story turned into a dumpster fire because the “reporter” named a frat house without proof, and frankly didn’t care if it happened there, she had an ax to grind. But the victim whom she interviewed had indeed undergone something traumatic, and getting her help could have begun without even naming the place it happened. I suspect she was both inebriated and traumatized to where she doesn’t recall where it happened, but she still needs some assistance.
“…and there is often a huge burden of proof on the victims.”
I would hope so.
Exactly. The standard is that he should be able to stand on a box in Hyde Park or any equivalent and spout truth or nonsense or whatever in between he chooses.
The government should and must butt out. This Dame Whatever should be taken to the tower for some serious thinking time about how “nobles” who tried to take freedom from the people have been dealt with in British history.
People have to be getting wise to the Marxist playbook. Anyone with an audience that dares to speak against the ‘narrative’ is attacked with innuendo, threats, cancellation (the modern day scarlet letter), financial ruin, and lawfare. And it’s so obvious it’s disgusting they are allowed to get away with it.
Unfortunately for your pet theory, the allegations against Brand started 11 years ago when he was still parroting ‘the narrative’. This is not an invented attack to punish him, this is down to Russell Brand being Russell Brand and it finally coming to light.
Not the point. The point made in the article was, and is, these allegations from 11 years ago had no legs UNTIL the subject (fill in name here, it doesn’t matter if it is Russell Brand or Bill Cosby or William Jefferson Clinton or…) strayed from the path of “orthodoxy” and began to air and/or support something not approved by the ruling junta.
Incorrect. Brand was reported to the US police 11 years ago for 2 sexual assaults on different women, then 9 years ago for sexual assault on a masseuse in LA. Those charges were eventually dropped after investigation. Whether or not his employers worked to ignore or supress other allegations in recent years, there remains the fact that Brand has been the subject of allegations long before he fell from grace. Russell Brand will always be Russell Brand.
And since thiose allegations were dealt with 11 years ago and nothing found, hence no charges, they have zero relevance today, other than as a way to slander him.
“Russel Brand will always be …”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you mean he should always be responsible for what he has done, O.K.
If you mean that he has a nature of continuing serial sexual assault throughout his entire life, you need to come up with something that is less than 8 years old.
Again, don’t get distracted with “Russel Brand”, this is about the double standard, or “convenient” accusations.
Actually, you help to prove the point of the O.P. Since he was the “exalted” Russell Brand, a hero of the left (that was in the headline, remember?) the charges against him were invariably dismissed, just like similar charges have always been “investigated” and found wanting against William Jefferson “Slick Willy” Clinton. But then Russell Brand strayed from the reservation and suddenly all these non-incidents (they must have been because they never resulted in charges against the Hero, right?) were suddenly resurrected and turned into cannon fodder, blasting away. So, pause for a second, here… So far no charge against WJC has been substantiated, but imagine if you will, that he commits a faux pas one day and lets slip that Climate Change isn’t real, it’s only a front to impose control over the people. How much you want to bet all those non-charge non-cases are suddenly resurrected, but they won’t be taken to the police, oh no, they’ll be turned into feature articles in Politico, Rolling Stones, The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the…
THAT is what the original post is about!
From the above article:
” ‘. . . and there seems to be significant evidence to suggest that man-made climate change is real,’ Brand said.”
Hey, Russell Brand, is any of that “significant evidence” scientific evidence supporting your assertion, and if so would you please share such with us poor, uneducated folk? Or is your claimed “evidence” unscientific and restricted to just supporting your own bias confirmation?
A fair trial is impossible- but then that was the idea.
It’s all about appearances anyway.
story tip
Lego’s Latest Effort to Avoid Oil-Based Plastic Hits Brick Wall – WSJ
I think it is reasonable to suspect there may be some serious journalistic and possibly even legal double standards at play.
What you mean to tell me artsy fartsy creative lefty types get a free pass with all sorts of sexual deviant behaviour sticking it up conservative values? Perish the thought there’s any oppressor/victimhood paradigm going on there unless they cross the line to the dark side. You always need to contextualise these sorts of activities and behaviour.
I never saw the appeal of Brand at any stage in his career. I am sure the BBC was fully aware of his antics when he worked for them, and they egged him on because he attracted a new audience. He has admitted to bad behaviour and to breaches of sexual ettiquette. Now that I hear he is a climate sceptic or a net zero sceptic or whatever and I cringe. “With friends like that” etc.
But he has not been subject to any legal process at all. He hasn’t been charged. He hasn’t been tried. He definitely hasn’t been convicted. Women can make complaints to the police and the police might yet act. Unless he comes out on the wrong side of due process the government politicians can back right off. (And by “back” I mean a similar word ending -ck.) In fact even if he gets hard time, the politicians should keep the heck out of it.
I wouldn’t call him a climate skeptic.
He still seems to be a believer in the myth that the climate is changing in a dangerous way and CO2 is the cause of it.
His apostasy comes from his exposing the true cost of the solutions that our self declared elite are pushing.
I was involved in a web based chat group somewhere around 1999 to 2000. The organizer of the group had been able to get in touch with Lomberg and Lomberg had agreed to take questions. So we all submitted questions, and he answered most of them.
He was asked why he was so accepting of the claims of the climate crew. His response was that he was an economist, not a scientist, so there was no basis for him to question the claims of the scientists. He was asked why he only accepted one group as being scientists. He chose not to answer that question.
News tip
Climate scientist: I designed my research to sound catastrophic
WUWT has had stories on this- but here’s Patrick Brown being interviewed on Unherd. He does believe in climate change and that we must stop all CO2 emissions. He just doesn’t care for climate papers all having to exaggerate the consequences.
If Russel Brand committed serious crimes, prosecute him—-so long as the government confirms by action that this is not a political persecution for wrongthink.
The allegations are about things that allegedly happened ten to twenty years ago. The me-too movement was six years ago. Yet nobody of the accusers did say a whisper about anything.
Therefore the interesting question really is: why now?
Yep
“Yet nobody of the accusers did say a whisper about anything.”
One of them went to a rape crisis centre the day of the attack. That’s pretty damming.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12532015/Woman-claims-raped-Russell-Brand-LA-home-tearful-overwhelmed-visited-rape-crisis-centre-said-star-told-Im-not-going-hurt-attacked-medical-notes-reveal.html
But no report to police? I can go to a crisis center and they will believe everything I say, but misleading the police is an entirely different matter. Anybody can say anything about other people but until the charges are laid and proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court they don’t amount to a pile of dog sh*t..
But the chances of a woman going to a crisis centre, being checked out, handing over her underwear, writing a text to Brand telling hime he took advantage of her then him replying aplogising…. pretty slim if he is innocent.
And, he was investigated. Nothing came of it.
Then there is the time he exposed himself to a woman then went into the recording studio and admitted it….
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/russell-brand-woman-says-star-exposed-himself-to-her-and-then-laughed-about-it-on-radio-2-show-3502747
Still not rape.
OK so this all adds up now. You think is is acceptable for a male to expose himself in public to a woman?
Apologizing for being a jerk, is not the same thing as admitting to rape.
?? I didn’t see Simion apologising for being a jerk . !
So you think she just trotted off to a rape crisis centre to get Russell Brand…. years before he became the pinup boy for antivaxers. She must have been one clever lady to know covid was coming.
No report to police, if so, no conviction.
You really don’t believe in the law, do you. !
“You really don’t believe in the law, do you. !”
I absolutely believe in the power and importance of justice. If someone is accused they deserve to be treated fairly until they are proved otherwise. Which is why the process for Trumps indictments needs to followed fairly and to the letter of the law irrespective of who he is. If anyone breaks the law they need to be held accountable.
You’re creating smoke and waving mirrors trying to distract from the point of the post… IF the charge(s) was(were) relevant, why weren’t they properly investigated and charges filed against the offender SHORTLY AFTER THE CRIME OCCURRED?!?!? But if indeed there was nothing to these charges, as apparently the “investigation” found contemporaneously, then why are these non-charges suddenly headlines now? Hmh?
Maybe Brand and Lomborg could point out the role of the climate crusades in diverting humanitarian aid efforts in Africa. Don’t forget to go after the UN Secretary General too.
story tip
Children Fed on Grass, No Medication for Rape Victims: Aid to African Crises Cut Back as Needs Soar – WSJ
Everyone knew that Russell Brand was extremely promiscuous. It wasn’t secret, and he talked about it in his stand-up (comedy) routine. None of the women complained at the time, and as far as I’ve read and heard he had women throwing themselves at him because they wanted that experience too. It’s thus reasonable that he’d have thought that the sex was consensual. Also, some of these women would likely have regretted it afterwards, after sufficient time to think about it. They might have recognised their experience in his stand-up routine, even if they weren’t actually named. Buyer’s regret?
Breaking news is that the police are starting an investigation, having received allegations of historical offences.
I’m not sure he could be found guilty of anything more than lack of respect, though, which he does seem to have grown out of. At the stage he was so promiscuous, I wasn’t interested in watching him, because he was just focussed on sexual exploits (but his audience laughed at his descriptions of his experiences). Seems it could be the way he was brought up, since I heard his dad got him a Thai prostitute for his 16th birthday.
People grow up, some later than others. Some regret what they did when younger. There is normally some time-limit on taking someone to court, unless there are special circumstances. Thus maybe no point in the investigation, being beyond the time-limit, but the police need to be seen to be doing something.
Here, it looks like C4 and The Times deliberately went searching for people who had a bad experience with Russell Brand, who hadn’t previously accused him of rape and weren’t intending to, but might be persuaded to accuse him if they remained anonymous (and maybe they got paid to tell their story). Basically, a character-assassination job.
Who, exactly, did Russell Brand annoy in order to kick that off?
“Who, exactly, did Russell Brand annoy in order to kick that off?” The AGW cabal would be first on my list but it’s obvious he took a red pill so it could be any/all Marxists. I’m amazed that people don’t see the obvious character assassination in progress as it keeps happening over and over with different people. Kangaroo courts anyone?
More likely his views and thoughts regarding certain vaccines of late, rather than AGW.
The sheer scale of the hatchet job, and especially now, is telling. This after Fox fired Tucker Carlson.
Look at the 6 million followers Brand has on YT, and look at the 100 million views Tucker gets now.
NATO is in panic mode – it has lost the war.
Someone like Brand and Tucker are going to have a field day, as the $140 billion Ukraine trainwreck runs out of road. Project CO2 was nuts enough, flopped without that $150 Trillion Carney demanded at COP26, now Project Ukraine – oh, dear, what is an Empire to do?
OMG – The BRICS11 group are sounding like Brand and Tucker! No media hatchet job can stop them.
Harvey Weinstein is a convicted sex offender. His productions haven’t been demonetized. Why? Doesn’t he get residuals? Weinstein was convicted of raping actress who appeared in his productions. Why are those films available online?
What does it matter to Weinstein if he gets residuals from his films? He is in jail and dying there. Hopefully his victims are getting a cut, with a little left over for his long-suffering wife.
I think the point is that Weinstein, who was tried and convicted, has not been demonetized, while Brand, who remains to be tried, is being demonetized. The same standards are not being applied.
Even when Brand wailed from the same skeptical minaret as I did I personally found him an unpleasant and disturbing character. However Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the mantra so his demonisation is premature and therefore must be seen as an attack on free speech,
Many skeptic voices have migrated to Rumble to avoid deplatforming by the other social media platforms. It is disturbing that UK censorship from Offcom looms so threateningly
I agree that the government letter attempting to ban Brand was stupid, unwise and incredibly premature, but Brand has always been a toxic idiot, no matter what the latest cause is that he claims to support. I’ve seen him jump on, then off, too many popular bandwagons to believe he’s suddenly against CAGW – somebody probably just showed him a picture of Linnaea Lueken!
But he’s not against it. He’s only skeptical of certain alarmist claims. But he still thinks climate change needs to be “stopped”.
Self righteous ignorance defines Left wing ideology. Brand is a thorn in their side because he exposes their logical flaws with humor that shows how idiotic they are.
LIBBY EMMONS: The cancelling of Russell Brand is a coordinated media attack | Human Events | humanevents.com
This link provides some additional context
This is the first time I have commented with out reading the other comments. I found Russel a little distasteful at first but I decided to listen instead of letting “ reputation” and past dictate entirely someone’s right to free speech. This is a no brainer if you believe in free speech and our legal system ( or atleast the one written in law specific ly and in concept of natural rights.
I will support him yes even if it turns out this goes to court and yes even if he is found guilty of( not wearing a condom when requested in conscentual sex) or may even a little worse.
He is not a government official. He admits he led a terrible life style in the past. But I do not believe we should be silencing people for life for every bad thing we may have done in the past. And it is obvious this has nothing to do with justice.
They are going to come for us too if we don’t stand up for people like Russel. You think your pure as the driven snow so your safe? Think again- they will just make something up about you if necessary. Or take something you said here on WUWT out of context and say you are a potential domestic terrorist. First they came for (them) …. Then they came for me.
Absolutely spot on. It’s the complete lack of due process and the blatant suggestion of double standards which is the main concern.
That’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one!
Watch out. They may come after people who don’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re”. 🙂
He always was a bounder.
Sure, but if bounders cannot be certain of receiving fair treatment and due process, neither can the rest of us.
He should have received fair treatment and due process after “Sachsgate.”
Yes… and a scallywag…
so what ???
Guy always struck me as a prat.
Yes – but if prats cannot be sure of receiving due process, neither can the rest of us.
“Guy always struck me as a prat.”
You saying that….. how ironic !!
His Netflix specials were funny. I’d assumed he was liberal.
Difficult to pin down what he is. He seems to have a problem with capitalism, Lomborg smiled and ignored his repeated suggestions “we need a new system” in the video. But on some issues such as supporting the trucker protest in Canada, I’m pleasantly surprised at his position.
Trial by public opinion via the internet of accusation and innuendo is a dreadful concept.
It completely puts the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on it’s head.
Yes – a return to dark ages tyranny.
ERIC:
But being rude to an ex girlfriend also does automatically make Russell Brand guilty of a..
you missed the NOT between does… automatically…
In other news of prosecution for a purpose:
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/team-bidens-political-warfare-trifecta/ “Whatever one makes of the evidence prosecutors have presented in their indictment of New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, simply bringing the case has been a trifecta windfall for Team Biden.
First, the administration has already neutralized the most powerful opponent of its appeasement of Iran.
Second, the Senator’s prosecution on charges he received large amounts of money from a foreign government makes it appear that a Justice Department and FBI that have worked overtime to ignore and conceal the same crimes apparently long perpetrated by the Bidens are actually doing their jobs.
Third, implicating the Egyptian government in Menendez’s alleged corruption further strains relations with a longtime regional ally – a key goal of the Muslim Brotherhood that has penetrated and deeply influences Biden’s regime.
We’ll see if justice is done in this case. But a political warfare triple-play has been accomplished.”
https://redstate.com/bradslager/2023/10/04/the-trevor-bauer-sex-assault-conclusion-parallels-russell-brand-allegations-lessons-need-to-be-learned-n2164651
Are they the same? The referenced article leaves out the part how Brand was protected until he strayed from the orthodoxy. But the main point is, the press won’t shut up and wait for facts to percolate to the surface.