ChaoticMusings

This is a link to an archived Times article about the rape.

https://archive.ph/LCHqr

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

I think you are putting your own slant on what has been reported.

According to the woman, she was appalled when she realised he was suggesting a threesome, he blocked her way out, and forced himself into her.


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

---

 "Nadia, who was in her 30s at the time, claims she exchanged numbers with Brand at a party before being invited to his house in June 2012, where they went on to have consensual sex.

 

Brand later pleaded her to visit his house again early in the morning of July 1 after sending her a text during an earlier exchange suggesting her to 'bring a friend'. 

 

She then met up with Brand again at his house on the morning of July 1, during which she alleges that the comedian raped her against a wall after she told him multiple times to 'get off'. 

 

Upon arriving at his house, she said the door was unlocked and she walked straight in. She added: 'He comes running out of the bedroom naked. And I'm kind of taken aback. I've got a bag on my shoulder, a little dress and a coat on top.' "

 

^

Also from the mail. 🤷‍♂️

---

 So?

Maddog, read the full interview the woman gave to the times... Anon posted it above.. I will repost it here.

Russell Brand accuser: ‘He’s saying one thing and I know the demon underneath it’ (archive.ph)

Digger wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog, read the full interview the woman gave to the times... Anon posted it above.. I will repost it here.

 

Russell Brand accuser: ‘He’s saying one thing and I know the demon underneath it’ (archive.ph)

-- Edited by Syl on Tuesday 19th of September 2023 09:01:13 AM

---

 This statement....her most recent.   

 

She asks herself: “What do I want out of this? Just for him to stop . . . I’m just sick of seeing men get away with this.”

 

If that was the case  why didn't she report him and name him to the rape centre after the event thereby saving a lot more women from his potential rapey behaviour?   She's saying she wants him to stop, but he has stopped.  He stopped years ago.   It's too easy to say Oh, I wasn't strong enough back then.  She was strong enough to go to the rape centre and be examined and interviewed etc.   But she refused to name him?   She didn't want to ruin his career?    Doesn't make any sense to me.

It just seems odd that this has happened now, all of sudden, totally out of the blue when the whole world knew what an old libertine he was.   Someone has instigated this.  Someone has decided to dig the dirt and use it to ruin his life and shut him the fuck up. 

That's not to say he doesn't deserve to be dragged through the shit of his own making.   It's his own fault for playing to the sexual predator gallery for most of his career, like he was the best thing and biggest cock in shoe leather.    But something is slightly off kilter with all this.

---

 I dont know why she acted as she did. To be honest, her behaviour after the event isn't the issue.

It's his behaviour that's the issue.

Anonymous wrote:

---

Digger wrote:

---

The other thing is that the age of sexual consent in the UK is 16. So Brand hasn't actually broken any laws in this area.

---

 Bear in mind the definition of child sexual exploitation which is an offence and for which there's a higher cut off age and which might have applied in this case:

 

"The definition of child sexual exploitation is as follows: Child sexual exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse. It occurs where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18 into sexual activity (a) in exchange for something the victim needs or wants, and/or (b) for the financial advantage or increased status of the perpetrator or facilitator. The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual."

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591903/CSE_Guidance_Core_Document_13.02.2017.pdf

---

 If it was consensual it's within the law.   From the sounds of it her mother didn't object, and the girl was willing.   This probably accounts for the fact that, so far, he's not been arrested or charged.

Anonymous wrote:

---

Her mother objected a lot, the girl makes that quite plain.

---

 Yes, I just read that in another article.   Seems there are varying sources.   I'm sure the mother did object, as most parents would.  But legally there was nothing she could do.  Which brings me to the legal age of consent which I feel should be 18 and not 16.  But you can't have it both ways.   We've got factions lobbying for 16 year olds to get the vote.  15 year Greta Thunberg was feted as some kind of adult oracle on all matters environmental, preaching to the world and put on a pedestal as though she was some kind of guru - nobody said, "She's a bit of kid whose frontal lobe isn't fully developed yet, who's grooming her to spout all this adult stuff?"

Then we have kids being able to choose and make adult decisions regarding their gender.   Being able to choose to have their breasts removed when they really don't know what the hell they're doing because they don't have the mental and emotional maturity to make those adult decisions.  

So, what the law needs to be is black and white.   No, you can't vote, have sex, smoke, change your gender, drink or drive at 16.   You can't have a 16 year old being underage and a child in one part of society and then not in another.  

And I feel it should also be law that no child under 16 should be able to access and use social media and ghastly sites like TikTok where they have access to anything from the dark web to porn.   I'm of the old school that kids need to be kids for as long as they can.  Don't place adult emotions on their shoulders before they're ready for it.  

Anonymous wrote:

---

Digger wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Digger wrote:

---

The other thing is that the age of sexual consent in the UK is 16. So Brand hasn't actually broken any laws in this area.

---

 Bear in mind the definition of child sexual exploitation which is an offence and for which there's a higher cut off age and which might have applied in this case:

 

"The definition of child sexual exploitation is as follows: Child sexual exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse. It occurs where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18 into sexual activity (a) in exchange for something the victim needs or wants, and/or (b) for the financial advantage or increased status of the perpetrator or facilitator. The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual."

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591903/CSE_Guidance_Core_Document_13.02.2017.pdf

---

 If it was consensual it's within the law.   From the sounds of it her mother didn't object, and the girl was willing.   This probably accounts for the fact that, so far, he's not been arrested or charged.

---

 Sorry but it doesn't work that way. The position (in the UK at least) is that where sexual exploitation has taken place with a victim under 18 then consent cannot be legally given - even if the victim said yes to it. The fact that he hasn't been arrested is likely to be because she hasn't gone to the police (as far as I know anyway...) although it's possible she has and they decided no crime was committed (unlikely though as investigations take time before a charge can be made and this has only just kicked off)

---

 I guess we'll see whether he gets prosecuted for it by the power that be.   It's a bit of legal grey area that actually should be completely black and white as per my post above.

The law states that it is illegal to take part in sexual activity with someone under 18 if you are in a position of trust - for example, if you are their teacher, social worker, doctor or care worker.

As a man of 30 he shouldn't even have gone there.   But he's not unique.  

Syl wrote:

---

I don't think this is going to fade away, he is losing his career as we speak.

Investigations are going on at the BBC and Ch4, his tour has been 'postponed' YouTube has suspended his channels from making money from the ads, where he has made millions. They have said they have acted to 'protect their users'. His film career is finished...who wants to employ him now?

---

 Even if he's proved innocent, like Kevin Spacey, his career will never be the same.   Should be a lesson to all those narcissistic celebrity big I am's.