The London Times has published a lengthy article ahead of the accompanying Channel 4 Dispatches programme.
VST can now compare its expectations against the Times’ article
.
There is an obvious dichotomy between the politics, the format and the content.
VST’s hypothesis had three aspects:
Political objective and possible context i.e. what Brand as a media figure today may represent, why he may be subject to an attack that took the following form and content, and the anticipated potential sociopolitical outcomes in the near term;
The format of multiple sexual assault and rape accusations from more than one accuser in more than one location, so long ago that little to no physical evidence will exist.
The content overlaps with the format - alleged sex offences - but there was little point in trying to guess at specific sex acts/offences, so the hypothesis was thin on content specifics.
Many possible perspectives
There are many ways to look at the allegations. I know next to nothing about Brand’s reputation. Over the years, I’ve seen snippets of his comedy and found degrees of amusement around his delivery and style as well as some of his jokes but also found his puerility, crassness and lack of social consideration to be off-putting. Two key examples of this include: Sachsgate, which struck me as shamefully cruel, unusual, unnecessary and indicative of someone with a degree of social dysfunction; and a stand up sequence concerning the coloration of one’s penis and how it changes with age, which culminated in Brand supposedly calling his father on speakerphone while on stage and questioning him about his own genital coloration. I’ve ignored the shows that he was involved with and the next time I was aware of him was when he was touting the idea of not voting in protest, which is actually anything but a protest if one vaguely understands the British parliamentary system. During that campaign, I observed a politically naïve man be too keen to sate his desire to have his opinion heard without realising that he was betraying his naivety with a largely shit idea that he hadn’t thought through. That man humiliated himself by first falling for The Green Party’s spiel and then unwittingly allowing Ed Milliband to use very basic forms of NLP (mirroring and anchoring) to convert him on-the-spot from a non voter into a Milliband Labour supporter.
Fast forward more than ten years and the next time I encountered his output was when he was just setting off down the road he’s presently on, realising that the news is full of lies. Suffice to say, I consider Brand to be behind the curve of obvious realpolitik in some respects but superficially he would appear to have many marketable qualities and so does his considerable audience and fan base. However, I am not a Brand fan, even if nowadays I would probably largely nod along with his wittering, such as this:
There are almost endless ways one could cut up this story, but the simple perspectives are those of the accusers, the media, Brand, the periphery actors cited in the story and the police.
We will avoid speculating about the accusers but we will say this: they are not technically victims until proven to be; they are accusers. There is serious meaning to the use of the term victim at this stage in the game, so beware. The periphery actors i.e. those who have interacted with Brand throughout his career, all need to be considered carefully and, should any of them come forwards, be subjected to serious questioning about what they are saying, proof, why and why now and not then? The objectivity of the police in today’s climate must also be questioned. There are many reasons to simply never trust the objectivity or competence of police as a victim or suspect. Brand will be able to afford the best of legal representation to give him the maximum chance in this respect.
Let’s evaluate VST’s hypothesis because this gets to the question of format, which we consider to be fundamental in the evaluation of the big picture. The first three paragraphs of the hypothesis are speculative political objective(s) and possible context, which we can’t really evaluate at this early stage. One thing to state though is this: our political hypothesis is not what we actually believe. We can’t know if Brand is considered a threat to the establishment to such a degree that the state itself would come after him using its organs. It’s possible at the extreme and it’s the most likely thing his fan base and supporters/audience will say/are actually saying, hence why we led with it. Also, we referenced Assange and also DSK and how false rape charges were used against both of them. In no way do we think that there’s equivalency between Brand and either Assange or DSK as political or public figures. Brand is a British Jimmy Dore with more hair and less self-control and wisdom. He’s not in Assange’s league and never will be. He’ll also never represent the pointed threat to the global financial system that DSK did when he said the 2008 bail out plan was wrong. Brand will not be tortured to death by anyone other than his own ego combined with lack of public attention.
All that said, let’s break down the hypothesis, setting the politics speculation aside.
VST expects Brand to now be attacked mainly on the grounds of sexual offences, which are likely to include sexual assault and rape.
Correct, but this was obvious from Brand’s own statement and denial.
For these attacks to be viable, there must be a plaintiff/victim. These are likely to be located in at least Britain and America.
Correct. Nadia & Phoebe are US citizens and others are in the UK.
…which will enable two different versions of attacks and protections for victims to be exploited. Britain has now established a media presentation of “victims should be believed from the get go” and all media reporting against Brand will be heavily biased in this way. From the American side, exposure to serious civil charges are as damaging as criminal charges (see Carroll vs. Trump and Sandy Hook families vs. Alex Jones).
This is yet to be seen but there is obvious potential for all of this in due course. There are different burdens/standards of proof in the UK and USA, which gives greater scope for any successful prosecution. The accuser who visited a rape trauma centre is in the USA, where the burden of proof may be higher than the UK.
It is our understanding that US and UK statute of limitations and options for civil recourse are also different, possibly near reversed, which presents opportunities to pursue Brand in either territory.
#metoo could be pseudo-resurrected against Brand.
Regardless of what is or isn’t true, and how much is yet to be said, the article is presented in a way that is effectively opening the door for more people to come forward in the same way as seen in the Weinstein and UK historic abuse cases.
At the end of the Dispatches 02:50 trailer, it says “If you have a story, contact dispatches@channel4.co.uk”, which could be interpreted as a victim trawl.
If this attack takes this form, there will be little to no physical evidence.
Fairly correct. The article references one accuser’s resultant treatment in a rape crisis centre, and their and others counselling, which will create records of some kind and possibly a DNA trail and trauma record. Within these kinds of evidence lies the ability to deny and explain via “context”, especially if there is no obvious sign of physical trauma consistent with force and violation as both rape and sexual assault are acts that do not necessarily leave signs of physical trauma.
Brand claims there are multiple witnesses who directly refute the allegations.
To be seen.
The attack will largely play out in the public arena and media to spin a false “public opinion” narrative to wrap up the direct media messaging that tells people Brand is guilty of whatever he is accused of before any charges are brought or trial occurs.
Regardless of truth, this has now begun with this article and the order of events (see below).
This will provide YouTube with a pretext to erase Brand’s channel by Sunday to cut off his income. All payment processors will cancel him and likely some of his other banking facilities. This will leave him with Rumble and perhaps one form of payment collection system. He will likely have to go maximally to crypto (this is a potential weakness of the attack).
To be seen. What will be telling here is what is needed in order for YouTube et al to commence cancellation. The Times article contains accusations that only it says it has verified and no legal proceedings or police involvement have been undertaken to date.
VST is not aware of precedents set by others in similar circumstances who have been cancelled. Kevin Spacey was still putting up an occasional (and somewhat disturbingly enigmatic) YouTube video after he was accused of sex offences, although he was not running a channel and generating significant income from it. Spacey was recently acquitted.
It’s possible that the British media will actually make tacit call back references to Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville in order to evoke those crimes and the sense of injustice that Saville “got away with it”. Weinstein will be referenced in the USA.
Correct. Worse still, a direct Saville connection is brought up:
“In May 2007, Brand called Jimmy Savile, who suggested the pair could meet if Brand brought along a sister. Brand doesn’t have a sister, so instead offered to bring a female employee — agreeing, on Savile’s request, that she should be naked.
“I’ve got a personal assistant,” he said. “And part of her job description is that anyone I demand she greet, meet, massages, she has to do it. She’s very attractive, Jimmy.” This was four years before Savile’s death and five years before details of the Jim’ll Fix It presenter’s crimes were exposed.”
Brand’s phone call to Saville was aired by Dispatches and it doesn’t play that well as bizarre comedy, or as a more straightforward engagement. I struggle to think about a way I could justify speaking about a colleague or employee in such a denigrating manner, irrespective of who I was speaking to or why. It was very “1960’s male chauvinistic” at best. However, this was in 2007 and if one said, “Brand, like others, knew Saville was a predator and he decided to one day spoof call him to see what he could reveal about Saville’s proclivities. By going along with ridiculous and absurd things, Brand managed to get Saville to express his wish for Brand to send a naked woman over to entertain him.” Such a thing would essentially rank alongside Brand’s absolutely crass and tasteless Sachsgate moment. That phonecall to Saville doesn’t appear to have significantly tainted Brand’s rise until now.
The big problem with this hypothesis is the victims/accusers of assault or rape allegations. By default, this hypothesis would rely on those victims being fake. Well, we refer you back to Julian Assange. In his case, there were never any allegations of rape made by the “victims” and no charges of rape were ever brought. The state literally invented allegations and pressured the “victims” to go along to a certain extent. This was then totally misrepresented by the press to justify a manhunt.
The authenticity of the accusations based on the Times article are impossible to determine. Level of detail is not evidence of truthfulness.
The very nature of the allegations and time since the alleged offences mean that “truth” is less about evidence and more about believability.
The accusers are all anonymous (although they would be circumstantially identifiable to those relatively close to them from the details in the accounts) and up to this point haven’t filed criminal or civil complaints despite the severity of their accusations. Also, the article states that they had to be directly approached by journalists first. This is not explained in depth.
In the case of Russell Brand, it should come as no surprise if at least one of the women he has been publicly connected with features somehow in the story.
Correct. VST worded this a little vaguely. What we were expecting was the possibility that Brand’s ex-wife would be making the accusations. In fact, his ex-girlfriend, Jordan Martin, is a named source who had apparently documented aspects of their relationship in a book (previously unknown to VST).
This attack literally does not have to get to charges or court. It is likely not designed to at all, as far as Brand is concerned. For him, the process is the punishment. The main bulk of the attack will be his deplatforming, loss of income, smearing, loss of audience, and the destruction of his time and resources in dealing with the fallout while prepping a defence. There may be one or two core, specific allegations around which many nebulous and “unconfirmed” circumstantial rumours of his behaviour and character can be attached without any specific or credible source.
This all depends upon how things progress. The way this is presented, there is massive potential for this to be the UK Weinstein moment and for it to turn into a massive pile on, resurrection of the #metoo movement and revenge by proxy against Saville.
If this was about an actual, serious crime, there should be no publicity preceding his arrest and charge. This is US lawfare imported by the Brits and evolved beyond Assange to shut down the alt media sphere.
Based purely on format, not content, the red flags in this article are around how, for such an allegedly known flawed and seemingly corrupted character who made repeated infractions as egregious as those centred around a 16-year-old girl, no one went to the police in the post Saville/Hall/Harris/BBC/Cyril Smith era.
Why didn’t this come out when Weinstein was on the block? That was a time of extreme sympathy for victims around the globe and the support in the media was unparalleled.
Dispatches, Times and Sunday Times state that they have spent the last year investigating Brand, whose cited reputation goes back 15+ years. Obvious questions include:
Why now?
What was the trigger that initiated a journalistic investigation?
Why are circumstances around Brand different today that people have decided to speak out (mostly anonymously), compared to any time in the last 15+ years?
Is Brand more or less powerful/untouchable now than at any time in the past? He’s no longer mainstream and hasn’t been for years.
If you were a journo who’d uncovered all of this to the point that you’d gotten previously silent victims to provide proof of rape, sexual assault and potential grooming, would you break the story or would you first determine whether the victims - now knowing that there was supportive interest - would be validated by going to the police?
That question is likely key to the story’s progression and could form a critical aspect of Brand’s defence. Obviously journos are bothered about breaking the story, not justice for either party. If that motivation has skewed the behaviour of the accusers, that could create serious problems for them down the line. The obvious counter accusation Brand and his supporters are making is that this is a trial by media from the get go when things of such gravity should follow as objective a criminal process as possible. This doesn’t matter if the process is intended to be the punishment.
From the above, we’d say that VST did a reasonable job on minimum info about Brand in guessing the format. Doing so doesn’t guarantee or prove that this is a malicious attack, but it’s a potential indicator. The predictability is a little telling but this is offset by Brand’s almost ridiculous reputation.
Does VST have a position?
In short, no.
If you look at his back catalogue of supposedly long standing reputation and admitted behaviour, as we said originally, Brand is vulnerable to attack irrespective of a big political objective. He is a prime media sensation target for column inches. He may actually also have crossed the line more than once and there is a possibility that he has transgressed and committed offences.
First, if it’s true that as a 31-year-old man he had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old (irrespective of other details), VST would consider that repugnant in itself. Although not a crime, it would speak to his nature and proclivities in extremely unflattering ways. If that set of allegations were completely true, he’d be an abuser of sorts.
Second, Brand’s general public persona and his admitted history of addiction and excess show traits of narcissism, possible sociopathy and perhaps degrees of psychopathy. With respect to the last two, Brand is on camera crossing many verbal and physical boundaries, in ways that are somewhere in the range of awkward through exploitative to peculiar. Take away the cameras and publicity, place some of that behaviour in a dinner party, gathering of friends and acquaintances in a bar or similar and there would be plenty of people who would be thinking he was anything from far up his own arse to a creep or worse. VST does see echoes of Saville-esque behaviour in some public clips but my internal personal bias is hard to overcome. Brand is also magnetic in charm, eloquent, intelligent and able to manipulate people as a result. Look at sociopathy and you’ll see all of these traits on that scale. What a sociopath does is pursue their own self interests at the expense of those around them. What narcissists do is deny anything is their fault and blame others (amongst other things including exerting controlling isolation over partners and friends). What psychopaths do is take pleasure from their use and harming of others. Brand may not be a sharp spike on any or all of these traits to the point that he’s a dark triad personality, but he could well be sufficiently on all three spectra at various points and in various environments to have crossed lines that others wouldn’t.
Third, the reality of sexual offences should not be forgotten. It is hard for a victim to face their abuser and file charges. Many factors come into play. Charge rates and conviction rates for sex offences are notoriously low and many women can recount stories of unacceptable to possibly criminally behaviour that they have experienced in life without formally reporting it.
Fourth, the cited text message exchange that ties to the rape accusation is tricky to explain. That’s probably one of the worst aspects for Brand, given the scenario and the “…no means no…” and “…very sorry…” response.
However, there are some things worth considering about what The Times admits about the report. It took a year of intense investigation to publish the story in its present form. That investigation involved clearly invasive degrees of scrutiny and included hunting down potential victims from a list of sexual partners that could number into the high hundreds and might have included many sex workers. From such intensive investigation, only four anonymous accusers and one publicly known accuser - Jordan Martin - are cited. The only other named source, Daniel Sloss, is not a victim but speaks to his knowledge of Brand’s purported reputation amongst the comedy scene at certain times. Depending on the full content of Sloss’ claims, he could actually be citing elements of hearsay. Defamation could come into play here for Sloss and that could be a defence angle Brand plays at some point.
The immediate pushback to the above is “it doesn’t matter how few people he assaulted or raped” and that’s true if he assaulted or raped anyone.
It’s pure coincidence that this story has broken while VST is into its Trafficking series that has already covered the 20th century BBC environment, which applies to Brand today as much as it did to Saville et al back then. This raises massive questions about the UK’s historic abuse inquiry and the inquiry into the BBC. In effect, this Brand story upends both of those inquiries because it shows - if the allegations are true - that literally nothing changed post-Saville. A capable defence team would be able to exploit that to a degree and the media could dine out on that for months. The political establishment could even go after not just the BBC but other media entities that employed Brand. This story is still employing the same “this offender was enabled by the industry” narrative despite the industry claiming to have fixed itself well before Saville died. Despite Dispatches being a Channel 4 connected production, Channel 4 has practically denied prior knowledge of any wrongdoing by or complaints about Brand while he was employed by the channel.
Then there’s the obvious question of timing. Why now, after all this time? That should be answered given that we are in the post-Saville era.
The Times article is a compelling read and on that basis alone it could easily convince readers that Brand is guilty without charges. But it would never have been published without having been written in such a way. There is a simplistic way to view the article. As it stands, the articles says, “Brand was a serial womaniser par excellence who admitted it. He developed a reputation as not just a womaniser, but also a predator and abuser who, in the cases we’ve found, committed sex crimes. We also imply that he did more and worse, although no one’s had the guts to formally go up against someone as powerful in the media world as Brand. In terms of sexual predation and abuse, Brand has been an open secret for the best part of seventeen years in the comedy, media and Hollywood spheres, and he even called up Jimmy Saville.”
The article could also have been withheld from publication until the police had been notified and determined whether to file charges. Then, it might have read, “after an extremely exhaustive journalistic investigation into Brand’s entire life, we have confirmed Brand’s admitted promiscuity that could run into the mid to high hundreds of partners. Varied perceptions included him being predatory to some to the extent that he may have attracted the disdain of many in his professional circles. We also found four women who wish to remain anonymous who claim to have been victims of assault or, in one case, of rape that is partially substantiated by strong circumstantial evidence. One of the women says she was just sixteen when Brand approached her, initiated a relationship and eventually subjected her to abuse. Another, Jordan Martin, says her written account is a documentary record of her time with Brand. None of the women have ever pursued criminal or civil charges against Brand.” Being charged totally changes any story that follows.
It is unlikely the truth of the reasons for the investigation and its timing will be known. We also won’t know the real truth of the accusations. We will only know the narratives that each of the parties put out because of the time passed and the nature of the circumstances. Any trials around this will be based on perhaps 85% narrative and circumstantial evidence.
It is a dead cert that his supporters will attach even more strongly to the “Brand is being targeted because he’s a thorn in the media’s side re truth” and it is highly likely that major elements of the media will treat this like a UK Weinstein equivalent.
If, however, no serious attempt is made to progress the story to an objective and serious criminal investigation, the likelihood that this is a politically motivated hitjob escalates into a chase down for cash where possible.
This is the problem with and power of the sex crime narrative. It’s one of the most powerful weapons in the establishment’s arsenal and it does permanent damage the moment it is unleashed, irrespective of the truth and final outcome. Brand is right on the cusp of paedophilia as well, which is on the one hand a red flag to those who would say this is a hitjob, and on the other a reason to hang him for those in the “guilty as accused”/no smoke without fire camp. But Brand can survive and even benefit from greater polarisation because his schtick now actively seeks it out. It's him and his audience against the fucking system, so “fuck the system and let’s all wear our “System Target” badges with pride.”
Predictions
Brand will take on the accusations directly, largely in the public sphere while the police are not involved. However, he will not attack his accusers openly. He has to stick to his latter day sensitivity persona and tread a fine line between robust denial that indirectly but “respectfully” calls all of them liars. At the same time, he will try to keep convincing the public ahead of a trial that all encounters were consensual and that the descriptions of the encounters are inaccurate, not reflective of the true feelings and passion in the moments of these relationships, with some other circumstantial and state of mind/sensitivity/context statements thrown in that pitch him as a rabid but, critically, “harmless” shagger of Ironman standards.
If Brand can stave off actual charges, he is unlikely to lose his fan base because of how much he already polarises audiences. Those who love him are likely to stick with him through a trial by media, akin to the Depp vs. Heard trial but without the trial.
If Brand is formally charged, VST would see this, paradoxically, as the most likely indication of a full on, serious and backed from the shadows attack, as well as possibly completely legitimate prosecution. Why? Look at Kevin Spacey. He’s had a conventionally successful career that featured an undertone of bisexual/gay salaciousness at best placed on ice for years, and at worst largely decimated by charges that he’s been acquitted of. But now, Spacey’s been associated for a time with dodgy encounters, cottaging, having run ins with possible rent boys or chance encounters and being an industry abuser. The process has been his punishment.
It’s possible that Brand will be drawn to make denial statements so specific and strong that another accuser is then brought in from the wings with accusations and a key piece of evidence so solid that his denials are destroyed and perception swings to him being guilty of every infraction. This could be a very effective technique to employ in a real hitjob.
Significance
The superficial significance of this is, as per the political objectives of our hypothesis, that Brand is a media/awareness threat to the system and he’s being taken out. VST actually thinks that's not really worth losing sleep over.
It is much more likely that attacking Brand is valuable media theatre sideshow that can be amped up and down to distract from serious issues around finance and legislation to do with the Great Reset and UN Agendas. In this way, Brand is not really a big thing, he’s just a pawn in a media circus propaganda game whose background, weakness, lack of self-control and judgement, character flaws and big mouth make him stand out as a prime target to be massively fucked with by the establishment’s media lackeys when the timing gets good. Tomorrow, it’ll be someone else.
Brand fanatics will make much more of him as a saviour figure while they miss the most important thing: they are too unawake to realise that they should be looking at Assange and fighting for him, and leaving Brand to clean up his own mess.
It’s Assange that published the most valuable, powerful and damaging original, genuine materials that have true benefit for the consciousness of mankind. Brand, in comparison, has never done anything of the sort. He just Jimmy Dores it up about news stories from the mainstream press in an Essex accent. The world will miss Assange when he’s gone.
What Russell Brand does can be and is done by many.
I wonder if the US establishment felt it needed to act fast as Brand has been openly advocating for RFK Jr, ramping up his overt backing to the point of planning a pull-up challenge as a big publicity and fund raising event...
Brand is a dilletante compared to Assange but the DC liberal establishment won't see him as an insignificant force when it comes to votes and election campaigns.
Just a thought.
Who else has 6 million followers and appeals to both youth and women? Come on? Give me some names? Of course he is the best person in the 5 Eyes nations to take out currently . His past and his academic credibility are of no consequence. He IS clever, and 6 million people like what he is saying. What matters now is his potential future, not his past. He is far more intelligent that most of you realise, even if he is not that well educated, and he is poised to make a serious nuisance of himself if he ever decides to do so.
There a few others lining up behind him, but they are not in his league. Neil Oliver is preaching revolution at the moment, and he also has a good following - but only in the hundreds of thousands, not in the millions. And he is far too well educated to appeal to the youth or to Americans. And maybe Lawrence Fox? He is very clever, but also far too well educated and arrogant to boot. So he will never be that charismatic leader that Russell Brand can be. His followers LOVE him for his imperfections, not despite them.
Nop. Russell Brand it is. Cut him out and you cut loose 6 million people who need a new figurehead to lead them, and who are very unlikely to be able to find a replacement for him. And whatever some of us might like to think, the human race is rudderless without leaders.