‘New’ investigation against Russell Brand is deeply suspicious
Russell Brand: for those who might be wondering, yes – I do use this because it resembles a police mug shot.
One aspect of the Russell Brand affair that This Writer finds strange is the ease with which some people are saying they’ll unfollow commentators like This Site when we point out the very very obvious.
So after I pointed out that the government was using mere allegations against Brand as a reason to demand that his social media income be removed, some people turned up to tell me they were unfollowing Vox Political because of it.
Note that they weren’t unfollowing because I had voiced support for Brand – I haven’t; the allegations are under investigation and my position with regard to that is the same as any other serious news reporter – I must be impartial and allow justice to be done.
Well, I’m about to point out the very very obvious again. I wonder how many unfollowers will suddenly turn up?
The BBC is reporting that a second police force is investigating allegations of “harassment” and “stalking” against Brand, dating back to 2018 – following “new information” was brought forward two weeks ago (after the allegations in The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches became public knowledge).
The woman making the complaint was accused by Brand of harassing him in 2017.
It seems she then made multiple complaints about him to Thames Valley Police, over a period running from 2018 to 2022.
And now this.
What is being said by Thames Valley Police, here?
That officers who investigated the allegations between 2018 and 2022 failed to take those claims seriously or do their job properly? That the complainant did not think to reveal the current allegations to investigators – over a five-year period? That they were not skilled enough to gather all the evidence that was available to them at the time?
That Brand was considered to be a VIP who was not to be touched by the police, in the same way senior politicians seem to get away with all manner of offences?
That this is nothing more than opportunism by a person with an axe to grind against Brand, motivated by the Sunday Times/Dispatches allegations?
Whatever happens, it seems clear that wrongdoing has been perpetrated – either by the police or the complainant.
Determination of whether Brand is innocent or guilty will tell us which it is.
For now, all this new claim has done is strengthen concerns that Brand is being witch-hunted.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Using his own words he has admitted sexually abusing women you can listen to them on the BBC sounds unless they have been removed. So how can you still play the unproven card any more? Yes, okay in a court of law yes it’s unproven.
But when the defendant has admitted to committing the crime in his own words multiple times I am sorry my allowance for any impartially is stretched beyond where I will give Creedence. So why should lets not forget a multi millionaire keep on earning money all the time the victims have to hear his denials and sneers and he is getting paid for his right wing BS. Why should brand get money online and say Dan Wooten loose his newspaper money. Both accused but not charged.
People forget one simple rule you play on there platform you may be a creator but that does NOT guarantee they have to pay you. You want to spout thoughts that a company does not approve and they will take away monetization. I really don’t get what the difference is between people do bad things and they lose there money from say writing for a newspaper. Why is it different online? Yes the government sent a letter via a minister but it was the company that made the decision. This happens every day creators are demonetized for a variety of reasons are we really saying it’s a difference because who he is.
If I want to follow this story, I have to follow the rules. No ifs, ands or buts. And by the rules, Russell Brand is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Where has Brand admitted committing the crimes of which he has been accused? My understanding is that he is vociferous in proclaiming his innocence.
Following on from this, why are you keen for an innocent (until proven guilty) man to lose his income? How do you know that Dan Wootton isn’t being paid?
As for the monetisation – there is a major issue here. If a platform is making money because of a creator’s work and fails to pay that creator their fair share of that money, then the creator will have a right to seek recompense, in accordance with the contract between them.
And no, I wasn’t saying there’s a difference because of who Brand is – quite the opposite. I was asking how many others have been treated the same way without even knowing about it. There is evidence suggesting that I have and I want to know how many others may have been mistreated in the same way.
Are you seriously telling me I should not bother trying to find out if I have been mistreated and whether I deserve compensation?
By saying that ‘this is opportunism…’ you appear to be taking a side. I see that you did present the alternatives to that pov but you didn’t say ‘or that COULD be opportunism’
I am splitting hairs but this is actually important. For justice to be done and to be seen to be done is it not best to simply say that we don’t know what the evidence is, cannot therefore make an assessment and form an opinion and simply say ‘innocent until proven guilty’
I take your point that this seems like it’s the ideal opportunity to shut down Brand (not that I think he’s saying much that’s useful these days) and people have been waiting on it. In fact you COULD wonder why those who did this investigation decided to choose him. Of course it could well be that he is well known for this behaviour and that’s why – I simply don’t know.
But just as no one should be presumed guilty, those who make complaints to the police (especially of this nature) should not be presumed liars either. We must keep an open mind and await the result of the justice system. Neither preventing Brand from making his living (although I wouldn’t want to hire someone in the middle of this he shouldn’t be prevented from monetising his content) But neither can we defend his character by assuming bad faith motives on the part of a complainant. It’s just as possible he made complaints against her in bad faith in order to ameliorate future accusations. But again, I have no idea what actually happened.
Certainly the whole story is being used to ‘shake loose’ commenters who would defend him in order that they can be villified.
Personally I would never have thought anyone would go to the trouble of manufacturing allegations in order to ruin someone. But being a reader of Craig Murray’s blog I read, in real time, the defence case of Alex Salmond which (because it was removed from the internet) can no longer be seen but actually PROVED that not only was the verdict of Not Guilty correct but that no offences were committed and in many cases defendant, complainers, witnesses were not where the complainants said they were and nor could they have been. So I am willing to believe but I am also willing to believe that the police wilfully ignored someone and that Brand could, just as easily, have committed these offences and more..
By saying that ‘this is opportunism…’ you appear to be taking a side. I see that you did present the alternatives to that pov but you didn’t say ‘or that COULD be opportunism’
I am splitting hairs but this is actually important. For justice to be done and to be seen to be done is it not best to simply say that we don’t know what the evidence is, cannot therefore make an assessment and form an opinion and simply say ‘innocent until proven guilty’
I take your point that this seems like it’s the ideal opportunity to shut down Brand (not that I think he’s saying much that’s useful these days) and people have been waiting on it. In fact you COULD wonder why those who did this investigation decided to choose him. Of course it could well be that he is well known for this behaviour and that’s why – I simply don’t know.
But just as no one should be presumed guilty, those who make complaints to the police (especially of this nature) should not be presumed liars either. We must keep an open mind and await the result of the justice system. Neither preventing Brand from making his living (although I wouldn’t want to hire someone in the middle of this he shouldn’t be prevented from monetising his content) But neither can we defend his character by assuming bad faith motives on the part of a complainant. It’s just as possible he made complaints against her in bad faith in order to ameliorate future accusations. But again, I have no idea what actually happened.
Certainly the whole story is being used to ‘shake loose’ commenters who would defend him in order that they can be villified.
Personally I would never have thought anyone would go to the trouble of manufacturing allegations in order to ruin someone. But being a reader of Craig Murray’s blog I read, in real time, the defence case of Alex Salmond which (because it was removed from the internet) can no longer be seen but actually PROVED that not only was the verdict of Not Guilty correct but that no offences were committed and in many cases defendant, complainers, witnesses were not where the complainants said they were and nor could they have been. So I am willing to believe but I am also willing to believe that the police wilfully ignored someone and that Brand could, just as easily, have committed these offences and more..