Russell Brand Just Got Railroaded By The Courts

The following piece contains explicit and graphic descriptions of sexual content. 

The conviction of Russell Brand — for one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault — is a difficult topic to discuss for a few reasons. 

For one thing, as is often true of these alleged rape cases, it involves graphic details that are uncomfortable to read. I’d rather not discuss these kinds of stories at all. Much less do I want to recount, with specificity, the kinds of gross sexual behavior. 

After sentencing on Monday, Russell Brand is now going to spend the better part of 10 years in prison. It’s an important story though, so it’s worth discussing. It’s also a grotesque travesty of justice for reasons I will explain. That’s the real reason why we need to discuss it, above all else. 

To be clear, there’s no question that Brand is — or at least was — a degenerate sex fiend who bears a large degree of responsibility for his fate. Brand appears to have exercised essentially no restraint at all for at least 10 to 15 years of his life. Had he been even moderately civilized in his behavior, he’d probably be a free man right now. So this is not a Brett Kavanaugh situation, where the narrative is a ludicrous fabrication at every level.

At the same time — and we need to be able to hold these two realities in our heads simultaneously — it’s also obvious that the prosecution was a mockery and a sham, and Brand did not receive anything resembling a fair trial. He may have put himself in a position to be railroaded by a kangaroo court, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was, indeed, railroaded by a kangaroo court. 

Brand may have been a sexual degenerate with the discipline and self-control of a chimpanzee, but that’s not illegal in this country or the UK. If it were, a huge number of people would be sitting in a cell right next to him, including many of his accusers. 

The fact is that there was more than enough reasonable doubt to acquit him of all the charges. And we all know why this case was brought in the first place: Brand publicly broke away from the Left during the COVID hysteria and became a conservative commentator. So they came up with allegations from nearly two decades ago and destroyed his career and his life. This is what the sentencing looked like to give you an idea of how absurd these proceedings were. It’s graphic and disgusting, but here it is:

Sentencing Remarks On The Russel Brand Trial

“You then flipped her over, removed the condom and without asking forced your penis into her anus causing her great pain”

“She asked you to stop, then asked you again loudly, you replied and I quote, “I want you to feel my cum” https://t.co/Zaa9jRR96f

— James Goddard (@JamesPGoddard90) November 9, 2026

Source: @JamesPGoddard90/X.com

We’re talking about claims from the first year of the Obama presidency. There’s no independent evidence for any of this. But because the jury reached a guilty verdict, the woman’s version of events is now sacrosanct. The judge will pretend (as the jury did) that everything the accuser said is completely truthful.

Therefore, we’re all supposed to act as though guilt has been established beyond any reasonable doubt — which is why reporters in the UK are now hounding Russell Brand’s father, and reacting with stunned amazement when he suggests that the verdict could possibly be wrong:

The absolute state of Russell Brand’s dad. https://t.co/wFdZMaGhf3

— Brendan May (@bmay) November 9, 2026

Source: @bmay/X.com

By the way, that clip is circulating all over social media among leftists and journalists who are horrified that Russell Brand’s father didn’t immediately throw him under the bus on camera and declare that his son is a rapist. Note the question from one of the insufferable reporters on the scene: “Is this the type of man that you raised?” 

You’ll never hear that question posed to the parent of any violent, murderous thug in that country or this one. Karmelo Anthony’s parents spent a lot of time on camera in front of reporters over the course of many months, and nobody ever asked them, “Is this the type of man that you raised?” Quite the opposite. They were allowed to play the victim, basically unchallenged. 

In the case of Russell Brand, though, once the jury reaches a guilty verdict, the allegations must be true. And that’s actually how a lot of people think. The system couldn’t possibly produce an unjust result. Therefore, once the jury convicts, you can hound the man’s father like a snippy HR lady. 

Of course, the truth is that all of these people decided Russell Brand was guilty the moment the charges were brought. Really, they made up their minds as soon as the British media establishment, led by Channel 4 and the Times, decided to target Brand for destruction because of his political and religious beliefs. This case was tried in the media long before it went to court. There is no universe in which Russell Brand received the impartial jury he was entitled to.

The whole episode is reminiscent, in certain key ways, of the bogus Cornell 7 case — where the accuser allegedly sent numerous text messages about how much she enjoyed herself in the frat house, before getting disinvited from a Halloween party and then retroactively deciding she had been raped. Cornell is still in the process of tearing itself apart over those ridiculous allegations, despite the presence of what’s called “affirmative consent,” many times over. 

The Cornell scandal is obviously a political football, which is why New York Democrats (and the media establishment) have spent so much time on it. They see the allegations as a way to mobilize female voters and strike back at the “patriarchy,” and they simply don’t care how flimsy the allegations are. Of course, in the case of the Cornell 7, it’s not just that there’s no evidence that they committed a crime. It’s that there is actually direct evidence that actively exonerates them. That’s what makes that case so particularly egregious. 

As for Russell Brand, there isn’t the same kind of exonerating evidence. But in a court of law — even in the UK, in theory — that’s not the standard. Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard, at least on paper. So the onus falls on the prosecution to produce evidence proving its case. That’s where the burden of proof lies, and must lie. And no matter what the obviously tainted jury said, that burden was not even close to met.

So how flimsy is the case against Russell Brand? We’re going to go point-by-point through all of them — in detail that, as established, will be uncomfortable to hear. But I want to start with a quick primer on how all cases involving rape and sexual assault, in both the U.S. and the UK, are stacked against the defendant. 

Think of it this way. If you are brutally assaulted in the UK (or the U.S.), you’re not entitled to anonymity if and when the suspect goes to trial. Your identity, as a victim, is a matter of public record. Along the same lines, if you’re defrauded, blackmailed, robbed, burned in an arson attack, carjacked, injured in a DUI wreck, or nearly murdered, your identity is not hidden. Everyone will know who you are. The media can report on your name and your background. You get no privacy whatsoever. That’s not because you did anything wrong. You are, in fact, the victim of a horrible crime. But in a functioning country with a worthwhile legal system and basic protections for freedom of speech, there’s simply no getting around it: The victims of crimes — even really bad crimes — are a matter of public record. That’s just the way things are, in a transparent, open society.

There’s one major exception to this rule. Starting around the 1970s, in both the UK and the US, it became fashionable to hide the names of alleged rape victims (and sexual assault victims) from the public. In the UK, it’s a crime to reveal the names of these alleged victims. In the US, thanks to the First Amendment, it’s easier for journalists to publish the names, but courts still try to hide them. 

The theory is that, without this anonymity, accusers would be uncomfortable coming forward. So to accommodate these accusers and their desire for privacy, as a practical matter, it becomes impossible for journalists (and independent investigators) to look into the accusers’ history to see if they have a history of lying, criminal activity, or anything like that. It would also be impossible to find out if, say, they were tied to any specific political movement or activist group — which is not a small thing when you’re making an accusation against a major political figure.

This is a tradeoff you might be inclined to accept since defense attorneys are still entitled to know the name of the accuser and can conduct their own investigation. But there’s yet another way that the deck is stacked against defendants. In both the US and the UK, it’s extremely hard (if not impossible) for defense attorneys to introduce any evidence in court about the accuser’s history of prior sexual activity. 

The idea is that feminists want to prevent jurors from thinking along the lines of, “Well, she was a slut, so she was probably asking for it.” The problem — as uncomfortable as it may be for feminists — is that a woman with a pattern of acting whorishly and engaging in rampant sexually degenerate behavior is, in fact, a less credible accuser. That doesn’t mean that she wasn’t raped, or can’t be. It just means that her testimony is less credible. 

Her behavior patterns are relevant when trying to ascertain what actually happened. They aren’t decisive. They aren’t the only detail that matters. But they are relevant. So why can we talk about Russell Brand’s pattern of behavior, and no one else’s? Women can lie. That does happen. And a woman with a history of behaving in immoral and uncivilized ways may be even more likely to lie. 

So are the women in this case lying? 

To answer that question, let’s start with the accusations. First, it’s important to point out that Brand was actually acquitted of several of the charges against him. In particular, a woman claimed that Brand raped her in a hotel room during a Labour Party conference in 1999 after meeting at a cabaret show. This woman’s identity remains hidden from the public. There’s no evidence to substantiate her claim whatsoever, aside from a photograph that proves they met. 

Again, this was more than 25 years ago. Brand says it was consensual. She says it wasn’t. And that was it. The jury found that there wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so he was acquitted. It’s absurd that the prosecution even attempted to charge this case. And the fact that they did bring the case, by itself, should make you wonder about the strength of the other charges. They’re really just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Next, the jury acquitted Brand of attempted indecent assault in 2001, when he allegedly dragged a woman towards the bathroom at MTV’s London office and attempted to sexually assault her. The woman testified that Brand wanted to use the bathroom, and when she showed him where it was, he turned aggressive. The whole incident allegedly lasted just 20 seconds:

This person went from someone jovial and friendly to suddenly turning into this wild-eyed maniac trying to pull me into the toilet. … His demeanour changed. He grabbed my forearm and he was leaning into the door. It was quite forceful, the grip. It took me unawares, I wasn’t expecting that.

The problem is that the woman didn’t report this incident at the time. There’s no evidence to support her claim. He didn’t actually do anything sexual (aside from supposedly grabbing her arm), and she only made the accusation after watching a 2023 documentary accusing Brand of sexual misconduct.

So with the benefit of about 22 years of hindsight, and a documentary, she finally understood what had happened. After watching that documentary, she testified:

It brought everything back. … I thought I’d managed to get away. It could’ve been very different … I thought it was the right thing to come forward.

Again, this is total nonsense that shouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place. Then there was an allegation from the summer of 2004, which is more serious and also more bizarre. As the story goes, Brand was at a party at a bar in Soho and was introduced to a young woman (who had been drinking heavily) who worked at MTV. Without warning, he allegedly lunged forward and squeezed her breasts. As the woman put it, Brand “literally just grabbed my boobs” with a “weird maniacal grin” on his face. Then — maybe you’re noticing a pattern in these accusations — Brand allegedly pulled her towards the toilets. All of this happened in a crowded bar, and somehow no one noticed or cared. Then, in the privacy of the bathroom, Brand (supposedly) attempted to get her to perform oral sex on him, using force. She then left the bar in Brand’s car, where he supposedly pressed her to engage in more sexual activity.

Within hours, the woman tells a friend and a producer that Brand had attempted to sexually assault her — not that he raped her. Over the years, her story changed in conversations with various acquaintances. And she began to become more certain that he had actually raped her. After the documentary aired in 2023, she finally filed a police report, nearly two decades after the fact.  

What’s amazing about this allegation is that the jury rejected the rape allegation because, according to her own contemporaneous statements, she wasn’t raped. She never even mentioned it for years. On top of that, there was no physical evidence whatsoever. Nevertheless, the jury still convicted Brand for sexual assault, for supposedly grabbing the woman’s breasts in the bar without her consent.  

They rejected her claims that he raped her in the bathroom, but they believed her claim that he grabbed her breasts without consent. This is totally incoherent — either you believe her claims, or you don’t — but that’s what they settled on.

Never mind the fact that the prosecution had precisely zero eyewitnesses to this alleged sexual assault, which is pretty odd, since they’re claiming it happened in the middle of a packed bar in Soho. Instead, to the extent the prosecution had corroborating witnesses at all, it was people the woman contacted after she left the bar. 

Maybe you’re seeing the problem here. If I claim something bad happened to me, and then I call 10 people and say something bad happened to me, those 10 calls are not additional evidence to support my claim. The fact that I made a call at all, right after it allegedly happened, may amount to weak circumstantial evidence of some kind. It proves that I didn’t make it up years after the fact. But it doesn’t prove that I didn’t make it up immediately after the fact. At any rate, if the fact that I made a call amounts to, arguably, weak circumstantial evidence, I cannot strengthen the evidence by making 20 additional calls. It really doesn’t matter how many calls I make. Twenty witnesses may amount to 20 times the evidence of one witness. But 20 people who heard me recount my version of events do not amount to 20 times the evidence of one person hearing me recount it.

Things get worse when you look at what this accuser actually told her friends after leaving the bar. Again, she later changed her story about being raped — first she said Brand had merely groped her before changing her story to rape. But even the groping allegation is suspect, because she wasn’t very specific when she talked to her friends. This is from Sky News, recapping “witness statements” (or alleged witness statements):

A man who also went to the 2004 party at the Soho bar says he recalled Brand exiting the toilet followed by a woman, but could not remember her demeanour. He said hello to Brand, who looked “straight through” him “with a blank expression”, the witness said in a statement; The second statement came from a witness who said the third accuser called him “distressed” on the night of the alleged rape. He recalled “seeing red” and telling the accuser to go to the police, but she didn’t want to at the time; In a third statement, the man who held the 2004 Soho bar party described a conversation he had with the complainant in the week after the alleged rape, during which she told him Brand had got “pushy” and “aggressive” towards her; The last statement of the day was from another friend of the alleged victim who had called her on the phone saying Brand had “attacked” her.

So we have claims that Brand was pushy and aggressive — and even an “attacker” — but nothing specific about what he actually did. That didn’t come until nearly two decades later, after a documentary (a collaboration between Channel 4 and the Times) aired on television.

This is another theme of these allegations. They all came out after this 2023 Channel 4 documentary, which set the narrative. That includes the most serious charge Brand was convicted of, which allegedly took place in 2009 at Brand’s house.

Before we go into that allegation, here’s a clip of this 2023 documentary — I’ve referenced it a few times, so I wanted to give you a sense of what it looks like:

This is an anonymous woman, using the name “Alice,” who claims that Brand groomed her and sexually assaulted her when she was a minor. It’s obviously a very serious allegation. But Russell Brand was not charged for any of this. There’s no evidence to support it, so the prosecutors couldn’t bring it to trial at all (And given the quality of the cases they did bring to trial, that’s saying something).

Nevertheless, inspired by this ridiculous documentary, a flood of additional accusers surfaced. Here’s how The New York Times describes the most serious case, where Brand was convicted of rape.

The rape charge he was convicted of concerned an encounter in 2009. The woman in question told the jury that she had gone to Mr. Brand’s house for consensual vaginal sex, but that Mr. Brand had at one point removed his condom and had anal sex with her without her consent, ignoring her pleas to stop and leaving her bleeding.

So now we’re relitigating the precise sex acts that this woman consented to 17 years after the fact. We’re trying to determine exactly how these two people were communicating in this particular moment. This was a consensual sexual encounter that, according to the woman, led to a specific sexual act that she did not consent to, even though she consented to the overall encounter. Again, here we are nearly two decades after the fact. 

There just is no possible way to litigate this. There is no way, at all, to prove in a manner even approaching beyond a reasonable doubt that one particular sex act between two people who consented to engaging in sex to begin with was non-consensual. That’s not to say that what she’s describing couldn’t have happened. It’s to say that you need to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. And there’s no way you could do that. And they didn’t in this case. Not even close.

Once again, shockingly enough, there are many reasons to believe she’s not telling the truth. Every detail that’s been omitted by The New York Times is highly relevant. First of all, this woman first met Brand at a comedy show. And even though she had a boyfriend at the time, she voluntarily went backstage with him and engaged in a threesome — which, by her own admission, involved oral contact with Brand’s backside. 

So within minutes of meeting this comedian, her face is in an unspeakable place. As I warned you, this case would require us to discuss some gross things. Now the fact that she would do this with a man she doesn’t know and had only just met doesn’t in itself prove that her later accusations are false. But they do mean that she is every bit the sexual degenerate that Brand is. And that fact simply makes her a less reliable narrator. 

She enjoyed this experience so much that she later went to Brand’s house for the express purpose of engaging in consensual sex. She said she was “excited and flattered” by his messages to her, and clearly she wanted to keep the relationship going. But we have no idea what happened once she got to Brand’s house. This happened so long ago that text messages and phone calls aren’t available anymore. The only “evidence” is that, after the fact, she supposedly told several people — including her parents — that she had been assaulted. 

For example, her father says that she told him that “They were having sex, she asked him to stop, she kept saying she had been assaulted.” The father told the court in a statement: “I turned to her in the car and asked if she asked him to stop, and she said ‘no’ several times. I said, ‘You have been raped, that’s rape.’”

To recap, she tells her father what allegedly happened, and he then informs her that she was raped. Another friend gave similar testimony. He said, “I told her it wasn’t right and it was rape.” In other words, all these people — who were not at Russell Brand’s house — are now telling this woman that she was raped, based on her description of events after the fact. She didn’t use that word, but other people did.

One friend testified, according to Deadline:

Things took a sudden turn when he turned her over. … She said that she thought [or] assumed they would go into doggy style … He then proceeded to enter her anally from behind.

This was how the whole trial was conducted. Witnesses constantly delivered hearsay testimony about what this woman allegedly told them 17 years ago. Again, all of this allegedly happened in 2009. But she never went to the police. Instead, she went to a clinic, mainly to get checked for STDs (so there was no rape kit or allegation of rape), per Deadline:

The court heard that [the accuser] was concerned that she could have contracted a blood-borne virus from Brand and that she attended a sexual health clinic to have tests. A nurse at the clinic gave a written statement, which was read out in court by a prosecution lawyer. This witness said [the accuser] had told her that Brand “had anal sex without a condom and she didn’t want that and didn’t consent to that.”

If this is true, you have to wonder why the police weren’t informed right away. It sounds a lot like the nurse at the time was under the impression no crime had occurred. Why might that be? Is it possible she was under the impression that the victim had consented to this whole encounter and was more upset about the condom issue? Is it possible the nurse believed that the accuser may have regretted a consensual encounter? These are not rhetorical questions. Why did everyone stay quiet about this until 2023, when the police report was finally filed? 

This is very similar not only to the Cornell 7 case, but also to the case out of Canada, where those hockey players had their lives destroyed. Just like in those cases — as uncomfortable as it may be to admit — it’s entirely possible, based on the evidence we have, that this woman felt disgusted by her own behavior and how Russell Brand was discarding her (or treating her like an “animal,” as she put it). To cope with these feelings, it’s possible she told her friends that she was a victim, as a way of getting sympathy after an uncomfortable (but not illegal) sexual encounter. 

This would also be consistent with the fact that she didn’t go to the police. She recognized, at some level, that she voluntarily went to his house (even though she had a boyfriend). She voluntarily engaged in degenerate, repulsive sexual conduct. And she suspected that, based on her pattern of behavior, no one would believe her story. That is a totally plausible version of events. She could also be telling the truth. We can’t rule that out. 

But again, in a court of law, “she could be telling the truth” is not even close to enough to convict. If there is a totally plausible alternative scenario that the prosecution was not able to rule out with any degree of certainty, then you can’t convict. And if a jury does convict anyway, the judge should throw it out. 

The closest that the prosecution got to forensic evidence with respect to this charge was the fact that Brand had apparently labelled this woman in his phone contacts with a code indicating that she was a “memorable experience,” a woman who was open to “anal play,” and also a “casual sexual contact.” That doesn’t really tell us anything, one way or the other. If anything, it suggests she was receptive to all this. 

It gets even worse. As the Irish News reports, when the accuser was thinking about telling her story to a journalist, she wrote in an exchange on Facebook the following: “I’m not sure my story has much in it. I feel I was an idiot. I was young and stupid.” She went on to say that she is “probably as much to blame.” 

That was what this accuser was saying about her own story as recently as a few years ago. By her own version of events — until it changed — there was no crime committed, and she was as much to blame. If that doesn’t at least amount to reasonable doubt, then the term reasonable doubt has no meaning. 

By the way, in case you’re confused, there is another allegation — which was not charged as a crime — involving a woman who says Brand raped her in Los Angeles in 2012. This allegation also didn’t come out until the 2023 documentary. But this allegation does have some actual evidence. For one thing, the accuser did go to a rape treatment center shortly afterwards. And secondly, we have these texts:

Brand says, “I’m sorry. That was crazy and selfish. I hope that you can forgive me, I know that you’re a lovely person. X.” Later that morning, the woman writes back, saying Brand is “scary” and “dangerous” and adds, “When a girl says NO it means no. Do I have to go and get myself tested? Last time you asked me condom or no condom. When I say condom that doesn’t mean it optional.” Brand then replies, “I’m very sorry. You don’t need to get tested. .. Not my original idea which was more sex. I’m embarrassed by my behavior.”

The irony is that this is the best evidence that’s ever been produced against Russell Brand. And it has nothing to do with the charges he was just convicted of. He hasn’t been charged in this case. You could make the argument that Brand is apologizing for violating the woman’s consent. He says “I’m sorry” and “that was crazy” and she replies by calling him scary and saying, “no means no.” 

On the other hand, in that exact same exchange, she is upset that he didn’t use a condom. So it’s also fair to read this text conversation as Brand apologizing for not respecting her wishes about the condom. That’s probably why, again, she didn’t go to the police, and this was never charged as a crime (And the statute of limitations has expired on this, so it can never be charged). At least under California law at the time, if two people are having consensual sex and one person disregards the “condom preference” of another person, it’s not necessarily rape, because rape requires using force, threats, duress, incapacitation, etc. None of that seems to apply here, based on the text messages. But this is all irrelevant to the alleged crimes that just sent him to prison for a decade.

There are two other convictions to discuss, one of which relates to an alleged episode where Brand “had put his head in [a woman’s] groin area” after insisting on a massage. This allegedly happened in 2009. And once again, the allegation only surfaced with the 2023 documentary, and there’s no forensic evidence to support it. But the jury may have found it more credible because the woman apparently made a formal report to her employer at the time about the incident with her version of events. 

Brand was also “found guilty of sexually assaulting a second woman at a radio station in 2004 or 2005,” after the woman said Brand “had kissed and groped her while people watched.” This allegation, like all the others, was only brought to police after the 2023 documentary. Once again, there’s no contemporaneous evidence, forensic, or otherwise. Even though this supposedly happened with other people watching, there was no publicly reported testimony I could find where they corroborated her account. 

Nevertheless, the jury apparently thought that Russell Brand had decided to sexually assault someone in full view of several witnesses. That’s how desperate he supposedly was, even though women were throwing themselves at him constantly. It makes perfect sense.

What’s obviously going on here is that the 2023 documentary was a political hit job that led swarms of women to invent memories that simply didn’t happen. This is a common phenomenon. It’s happened many times throughout history. 

There was something called the McMartin Preschool Panic in the 80s where a mother accused a California preschool employee of molestation. After the allegation, children came forward with insane claims about underground tunnels, hot air balloons, occult rituals, and so on. No one was ever convicted. The evidence was all compromised. 

Then there was the “satanic panic” on top of that. People are very impressionable even as adults. If you tell women that a famous man is a serial abuser who’s a danger to everyone he meets, inevitably, some of these women will come forward and claim that man abused them in some way. Some will do it for attention. Some will do it because their memory is genuinely capable of changing in order to fit a narrative. Seventeen years is a very long time. People can “fill in the blanks” with scandalous details that simply didn’t happen.

Make no mistake about it — that documentary was only released because Russell Brand betrayed the Left. The whole purpose of the documentary was to kickstart a moral panic. 

Brand was labeled a “hero” in 2014 by The Guardian: 

Brand’s openness about his flaws makes him a good leader, and allows those who admire him to be good followers. He’s the best thing that has happened to the left in years.

A year earlier, the New Statesman — another left-wing publication — named Brand as a guest editor. They were building him up as a serious revolutionary thinker on the Left. The issue of the magazine included contributions from Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, and other high-profile figures on the Left. But Russell Brand was leading the charge. He was the main event. Then he made the mistake of thinking for himself once the COVID lockdowns began.

These are lockdowns that everyone — even the “public health” establishment at places like Johns Hopkins — now admits were a complete waste of time. They destroyed lives and the economy for no reason. In 2020, Russell Brand was one of the few people who were saying this out loud. And he was also pointing out how COVID was being used to create a surveillance state. This is from 2020:

By 2021, Brand was routinely publishing videos about the worst abuses of power during the lockdowns. Keep in mind, for Europeans, this was stuff you were simply not supposed to say out loud. They don’t have a First Amendment over there. They throw people in prison for jokes. Criticizing the lockdowns was blasphemy. They simply could not let this stand. And Russell Brand knew it. But he recorded his show anyway. And an audience of millions of people watched every single episode. 

These videos drove the Left-wing establishment absolutely insane. In 2022, The Independent wrote:

How did Russell Brand go from stand-up stardom to peddling YouTube conspiracy theories? With a series of alarmist videos tackling issues like Covid and the Russian-Ukrainian war, the comedian has reinvented himself as a popular online current affairs guru. … When did Russell Brand decide comedy wasn’t enough for him?

They couldn’t believe he wasn’t staying in his lane. In fact, by 2022, he was starting to openly embrace Fox News and Right-wing populism. And the elites in Europe weren’t going to tolerate it. So in late 2023, The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 released that documentary based on anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations that had been circulating for years. 

Then the floodgates opened. To be clear about this, I’m not saying Russell Brand was a good guy. I’m not saying he never made mistakes. I am saying that this trial was a political hit and the sentencing is a travesty of justice on top of that. 

Here’s how bad this is. Even if they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt — which they certainly did not — the 10-year sentence would still be clearly politically motivated. And we know that just by looking at how other sexual assault cases have been charged and sentenced in the country. Muslims have been running rape houses and organized rape gangs throughout Britain for decades. Most of them haven’t received anywhere near 10 years in prison. 

For example, a Muslim named Mohammed Ali Sultain (26 years old) was convicted of “having sex with two teenage girls, one of whom was 13 years old.” His sentence? Just 7 years. Meanwhile, “Mohammed Younis,” age 61, “allowed his flat to be used as a brothel by allowing a man to have sex with a girl who was being controlled as a prostitute.” His sentence? Less than 3 years. Tanveer Ahmed, 40, was convicted of “controlling a child prostitute.” He also received less than 6 years in prison. Then there was “Mohammed Islam Choudhrey,” 54, who was convicted of “paying for sex with a Telford schoolgirl.” His sentence? Just 2 years and 6 months.

In fact, you can find killers — people who have intentionally murdered another person — who have received less than 10 years in prison. Consider the case of this 28-year-old individual, who goes by the name Katie Yeomans.

Yeomans (who claims to be a woman, although it’s impossible to tell, with how the media reports these stories now) admitted stabbing a man to death during a domestic disturbance. There was one stab wound in the upper chest. He was left to die in a hallway. Yeomans didn’t even call for help. The sentence? Just 5 years and 3 months. That’s it. The judge said Yeomans had “lost control” — so what are you going to do? Call it murder and let her out — or him, or whatever — in 5 years.

Meanwhile, of course, Russell Brand didn’t do anything remotely like this. He didn’t sexually abuse children. He didn’t murder anyone in cold blood. But he gets double the sentence because he made the mistake of challenging the communists who run the British government. That was his real crime, and every fair-minded person knows it. No one seriously believes that — even if Russell Brand is guilty of everything they accused him of — he somehow deserves double the punishment of a murderer. It’s completely insane. It’s indefensible.

This is what happens when you step out of line. They don’t want anyone questioning their authority to impose nationwide lockdowns and ban all civil liberties because they intend to do it again. Russell Brand is going to prison for a decade as a message to every other commentator in Britain. The point of this prosecution was to shut down dissent. It worked.

We can’t ignore the fact that Russell Brand did give these people more than enough ammunition to take him down. So for the men reading this, if nothing else, this case provides a really good practical reason — even beyond the moral reasons — to not be a sexual degenerate. You put yourself in a position to be destroyed even years down the line (This applies to the Cornell guys too, who I think are innocent. But they also had a gross orgy in a frat house which set them up for the inevitabilities that followed). 

You especially can’t live that way for years and then turn around and try to be a famous right-wing commentator. The system will not allow that. It will not let you leave behind a life of sexual and moral chaos and become a public critic of the very same godless, hedonistic culture you had spent years wallowing in. 

I am not saying that a man can’t repent and be redeemed. Of course he can. God, after all, is merciful. But this world — the one we’re all living in — is not. 

When you behave as Russell Brand did, for as long as he did, you’ve already written the check. And as his prosecution demonstrates, it could take months, years, or even decades — but it’s only a matter of time before they cash it.