Paramount+ Removes Russell Brand Comedy Special Following Rape and Sexual Assault Allegations
In light of the recent rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse allegations made against British comedian Russell Brand, Paramount+ has removed his 2009 comedy special Russell Brand in New York from its platform.
The move follows Channel 4 and BBC, who earlier this week removed TV and audio shows featuring Brand. In addition, his live tour has been put on hold and YouTube has suspended his videos’ monetization ability, as new investigations surrounding his behavior take place. (His Re:Birth Netflix special from 2018, however, is still available to stream for the time being.)
On Saturday, Sept. 16, the UK’s Channel 4 Dispatches aired a news special titled Russell Brand: In Plain Sight, in which five women accused Brand of sexual misconduct across a seven-year period. (Warning: The paragraphs below contain graphic descriptions of sexual assault.)
One alleged victim said Brand assaulted her in 2006 when she was 16 years old and Brand was 30. She said the relationship began consensually, but looking back, Brand “engaged in the behaviors of a groomer.” At one point, he “forced his penis down her throat.”
Another woman alleged that Brand raped her in July 2012.
On Friday, Brand released a statement on X (fka Twitter) denying the “very serious allegations” after UK media outlets had already begun to release reports ahead of the TV special.
“The relationships that I had were absolutely always consensual,” Brand said. “I was always transparent about that then, almost too transparent. And I’m being transparent about it now, as well.”
ACCUSATION = CONVICTION.
DON’T GO TO THE MEDIA, GO TO THE POLICE. ONCE HE’S FOUND GUILTY THEN GO TO THE MEDIA.
You really think the media would not find out immediately?
Besides the whole point of #MeToo is that most of the abusers suffer zero consequences and often the victim’s life gets further destroyed by character assassinations to excuse or absolve the sexual predator.
Exactly. If you take action against somebody based solely on a charge and the person is later found to be not guilty, wouldn’t that leave you wide open to a lawsuit?
Yes it should, not only to anyone making a false accusations but, now this is just my opinion as not sure how the law applies on this. If he were to be found innocent he should also be allowed to sue paramount as well. As they have deemed him guilty before conviction.
Anyway no trial has taken place yet, as the investigation is still ongoing. So found guilty or innocent is still to come.
I never found him likeable at all, but not actually seen him for well quite a long time in the media. Forgetting Sarah Marcell was the last time I saw him on T.V. Not sure how long ago that was. Not likening someone does not quell guilt any more than your favourite celeb equals innocent. As such I am willing to wait for the outcome. Unforuntetlly we all know the media across all it’s forms will fall on one side or the other. Very few will remain neutral in the way they report.
I love how you act as if we have this perfect justice system where all guilty people are certainly found guilty.
If they ever reach a trial at all.
If they ever get arrested at all.
If the incident ever gets investigated at all.
Not to mention the mental state victims are in when this stuff is going on. They could be scared to death, emotionally manipulated into believing it wasn’t assault, worried that the cops will either not believe them or even blame them. And then, if you can get through all that and press charges, you have to relive the trauma over and over again in a trial, possibly even being attacked by the defense with crap like insinuating you really wanted it, or you lead on the person, or you were otherwise somehow at fault because of what you were wearing, how you said something or even if you had been drinking.
That’s if you manage to work through all the mental and emotional trauma to press charges before the statute of limitations is up. If you don’t, then your only option to get retribution is going to the media. Which is what happened here considering this happened in 2006.
All irrelevant.
We have a justice system in place and from a legal point that is what we have to except.
Yes it’s not perfect, yes wrong convictions happen. Just as guilty people go free.
Yes innocent people including people accused of rape happen as well.
In which case they are the victim. who also go though the emotional trauma you mention.
It’s not just one way.
Let me guess… you are a white het cis male Republican. Possibly MAGA as well.
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO REACT TO THINGS AND SHARE THEIR NEWS IN THE WAY THAT THEY CHOOSE. NOBODY HAS TO SHIELD CRIMINALS TO SPARE THEIR FEELINGS.
Here’s the problem is Russel brand is no longer part of the establishment as he’s started to talk against the goverment and it makes them mad and anyone who does that needs to be silenced
I read this great article, which had an excerpt from a book that I’m determined to post anytime I see comments like this. Please read and take minute to think about it:
Indeed, the one-size-fits-all approach to victims’ rights on which both prosecutors and victims’ rights advocates rely, fails to account for a victim’s multiplicity of needs while subjecting them to what Bazelon and Green (2020) outline as five fundamental harms:
1. the denial of choice in pursuing an avenue other than retributive justice or the criminal adjudicatory process, which “encourages the offender to deny or minimize responsibility thus thwarting the needs of some victims for accountability and repair”;
2. the denial of agency or autonomy in dropping charges as a prosecutor makes the call on pressing charges if sufficient evidence justifies it and can hold the victim in civil and criminal contempt for failing to follow court-mandated procedure when they do not agree with the prosecutor;
3. the denial of voice in telling their own story as victims have no control over their narrative in the course of testimony and cross-examinations;
4. the denial of the right to protection from self-harm as victims are required to submit to public interrogation;
5. the invasion of their privacy as victims are subject to intrusion by both the prosecution and defense. (p. 23–25)
To pour salt on a wound, victims are meanwhile left to retain counsel themselves, unlike criminal defendants who are provided legal protection through court-mandated attorneys.
The article for anyone curious (if posting the link is allowed), is on restorative justice:
https://aninjusticemag.com/give-restorative-justice-a-chance-696592a035ba