The following is the thread from investigative journalist Sulaiman Ahmed’s analysis of mainstream media’s attack on popular independent journalist Russel Brand:

Russel Brand is a well known ALTERNATIVE media personality. He doesn’t follow or propagate the mainstream narrative. An Axis of MSM has colluded to DESTROY @rustyrockets reputation because he poses an existential threat to them.

When he led a hedonistic lifestyle, mainstream media promoted and broadcast his stereotypically liberal behaviour. At that time they had no issue.

But decades later, after he left that lifestyle, and agitated MSM – both the Right and Left wing branches, they have manufactured weak allegations out of his past to take him out.

They did the same with @Cobratate and they will do the same again.

The irony is that liberal leftist society promotes hedonism and then when the time is right use that very behaviour to cancel the person.

Welcome to 2023.

The media has assumed upon itself the role of prosecutor, judge and jury with no regard for justice and due process.

Let’s do a FORENSIC analysis into The Times and Channel 4 Hit Piece to see the strength of these claims.

Let’s look at the ‘evidence’.

They contacted 100s of people in order to find dirt on Russell Brand.

Simply put the article and Dispatches documentary were the result of years of digging up any woman that would give the MSM the story they wanted.

They frankly admit they “scrutinised Brand’s books and interviews, and watched and listened to hundreds of hours of his shows on the BBC, Channel 4 and YouTube to corroborate allegations.”

Imagine speaking to so many people: during the height of his fame. Brand claims to have slept with 80 women a month. And yet they manage to find only 4 women, all of whom were actually in relationship with Brand. How convenient…

So this is the game; you can have a relationship with someone & decades later a woman can claim one of the encounters during the middle of it was not consensual.

Here is a video featuring a woman confirming that Brand was indeed kind to her and everything between them was consensual.

However, her account didn’t align with the mainstream media narrative, so it was excluded from the documentary.

This is one of the many individuals who were contacted among the hundreds.

So for some reason, according to their argument, Brand exhibits a pattern where all the ‘raped’ women admit they were ALREADY in sexual relationships with him.

Why this bizzare pattern of exclusively raping women he’s already having non- rape sexual relationships with?

That’s the game. With this methodology you can take any man out.

The first woman who claimed he raped her presented the following as evidence.

She asserts he apologized, but the nature of the apology isn’t what is claimed by The Times i.e. rape. It’s evident that the apology was related to not using a condom during their encounter. She also mentioned getting tested for any potential consequences due to not using protection.

In this scenario, not using a condom is equated to rape. Its not clear whether they used condoms every time or not in their seemingly numerous sexual encounters but whether ‘stealthing’ is the same as rape is extremely contentious…but of course feminists seek to weaponise any heterosexual encounter.

Recall that ‘stealthing’ was the EXACT SAME ACCUSATION USED AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE BY ACCUSERS.

Coincidence I’m sure.

This case highlights a consequence of the MeToo movement:

The redefinition of rape to include any and everything and trivialising actual rape.

Also if you download the image and blow it to full size you notice that the text looks different and there is a faint line below the words “when a woman say NO..” The left side of the blue comment appears to be smudged and not a clearly defined line. It appears the message has been tampered with. We shall see. In any case, it’s not a proof of rape even if genuine.

Initially the article claims that “Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day”

Then later in the article it is clear she was in a CONSENSUAL relationship with Brand. A screenshot of messages after the alleged encounter suggests that she was upset that Brand did not use a condom. “When a girl say[s] NO it means no….Last time U asked me condom or no condom. When I say condom that doesn’t mean it [is] optional.”

This is not a new phenomenon where women decide AFTER THE FACT that consensual sex with a celebrity is rape. Not wearing a condom does NOT equate to rape. In the message she does not claim rape. And Brand is still in communication with her by the 5th of August. We do not know if all messages were preserved since why is there a random message 1 month and 5 days later?

What we know is that when she came to Brand’s home that day, she was in a sexual relationship with him and allegedly he asked for a threesome. Did the ‘journalists’ try to track this other individual to corroborate events? It appears not.

Also of note is the duplicitous prudery in the article since the media are complicit in encouraging promiscuity such as open relationships and orgies, here is a recent example from the Times.

At the same time as celebrating orgies, lesbianism, open relationships & threesomes as being empowering and liberating for women, they now criticise Brand for empowering women and himself to engage in these same sexual practices.

Teenage sexuality itself is celebrated voyeuristically in shows like ‘The White Lotus’, ‘Sex Education’, ‘Euphoria’ and Channel 4’s own ‘Skins’ which gleefully depicted teenage sexuality. Yet the same people now suddenly find themselves in the position of puritans disapproving of even sexual activity at legal age.

‘Heartstopper’ celebrates teenage homosexual activity & is a massive hit. & where were ‘The Times’ and Channel 4 when age gap gay sex was glamorised – between teachers and pupils no less – in the Oscar winning movie ‘Call Me By Your Name?’ and many others?

The second woman claims that the relationship was non-consensual because she was 16. So despite this being the legal age of consent, this is now considered ‘sort of’ rape. In a society that encourages sexual activity at a young age and where minors engage in relationships, it’s paradoxical that they label legal sex as rape based solely on age. The implied accusation of pedophilia doesn’t align with the actual circumstances, showing an attempt to redefine the age of consent to misconstrue Brand’s actions.

Yet, these are the EXACT SAME organisations (The Times, Channel 4) who demanded and lobbied for the age of consent be constantly lowered until it was 16 and to include homosexual activity including anal penetrative intercourse.

The Times now make a laughable attempt to belay the age of consent. Note the law in the UK allows a 16 year old to have a consensual relation and Alice admits that Brand checked to ensure she was 16 at the time of their consensual relationship. Hardly behaviour of a predatory nature right?

The reader is told that Alice “has decided to speak out because she now believes that she was too young to be able to consent to a relationship with an adult man, and that the law should be changed to protect those under 18.”

Well let’s delve into the media’s acceptance, condoning and even promoting large age differences and literal paedophilia.

This appears to be a consistent pattern observed in their approach to undermine or remove men they harbor animosity towards or perceive as standing in the way of their objectives. A comparable strategy was employed against @cobratate, where they made allegations of involvement with a 16-year-old. I had to debunk all the unsubstantiated claims and weaknesses in their argument.

Here is an example of Stephen Fry marrying Elliot Spencer, who is 30 years younger than him. There is no issue here, as Fry is praised by the establishment.

Here is another example of Sarah Paulson marrying Holland Taylor, who is 32 years older than her. However, when women do it, there is no issue or problem. This age gap concern is only brought up to criticize men.

But let us be clear their issue is only when they want to take a MAN out and it’s exclusive to only men. They promote and overlook immoral behaviour.

Here for example is Cher with a boyfriend who is 40 years younger than her.

Here is another example: Aaron Taylor-Johnson was 18 when he dated Sam Taylor-Wood, who was 42.

In this case, despite him being a teenager and the significant age difference, it seems not to matter.

Similarly, Emmanuel Macron met his teacher when he was 15 years old, while she was 39. His parents attempted to intervene, worried that he might be vulnerable to exploitation.

This situation could be viewed as clear pedophilia, yet it went unquestioned when a boy was involved.

Now, he’s the president, and she’s accepted as his wife. Read the attached image, they are actually crediting her raping him for his success.

So for them, it was only because she molested him did he become a good public speaker. I guess, according to them, you can teach acting and other skills through rape too.

I mean this is not surprising because liberals in particular love paedophilia:

De Beauvoir was a pedophile who groomed minors. She also wanted to legalise Pedophilia. Like Ghislaine Maxwell & Jeffrey Epstein, both De Beauvoir & Jean-Paul Sartre developed a pattern, which they called the “trio”, in which Beauvoir seduced his students and then passed them on to Sartre.”

But The Times gives her repeated hagiographies…

Here is The Times giving a free ride to an actual advocate of pedophilia. Peter Tatchell is quoted as suggesting that a 9-year-old was capable of consenting to and deriving pleasure from engaging in sexual activities with an adult man.

And here is where the Times platform Tatchell. There is no mention at all about his comments that 9 year olds can consent to sex. Now compare with massive attack they published about Brand…who had sex with a 16yr old, who is of legal age.

Let’s consider the case of Coco Chanel.

Recent revelations about her involvement in espionage for the Nazis were met with…an exhibition funded by taxpayers, portraying her in a favorable light. It seems some individuals are perceived as beyond reproach.

The Times praises an anti-Semite who collaborated with the Nazis, yet in the days later, they orchestrated a major attack on Russell Brand.

It’s evident that these actions are contradictory, but the liberal press seems inclined to excuse such behavior for their favorites. Meanwhile, Brand is hanged.

Decades later, she accused him of sexual assault.

Here is another woman who engaged in a consensual relationship with Brand. He pursued her and she willingly entered into a relationship with him.

In this case, once again, the woman engaged in consensual sexual activity with Brand. Her issue with him seemed to stem from his apparent disinterest, reflected in a glazed-over look during the act. It’s unclear how she could hold him accountable for that. This is the same instance mentioned the earlier tweet, the woman doesn’t mention being raped and instead discusses Brand having sex with her without protection.

She was having consensual sex with Brand, however it is claimed this ended and later he sexually assaulted her. She claims categorically that he did not rape her but he kissed her and wanted her to have sex with him.

She claims a decade or more later that “[she] thinks” he put his hands down her trousers. She isn’t sure of what happened, no court of law would accept such a testimony but it is easy to convince people with salacious accusations. Ask yourself, why is it that Brand has a propensity to conduct sexual impropriety ONLY with women with whom he has consensual sexual relations? And after this ‘ordeal’ she continued to work for Brand. Is that believable that she would return to Brand’s home REGULARLY out of her own free will if sexually assaulted by him?

It is unlikely that out of the many relationships Brand had in L.A, only two women have witnessed Brand demonstrating aggressive or forceful sexual conduct?

She found herself in his bedroom under unclear circumstances, describing it as if it were a magic trick that brought her to the bedroom. She insists she didn’t know how she ended up there and asks for trust in her account.

Importantly, she explicitly states that he didn’t rape her.

Initially, she claimed she was alone with him and ended up in the bedroom, but later she asserts that a third person heard her screaming.

The proof?

We’re asked to trust her word, as the third person didn’t respond when contacted by The Times.

The discussion then shifts to an ex-girlfriend and her allegations in a book. It’s worth noting that the ex-girlfriend uses pseudonyms, avoiding real names. This seems to suggest that if Brand were to sue for defamation, he’d have to prove that the book referred to him. Essentially, she didn’t provide concrete names in her story, which raises questions.

She clearly didn’t believe in the veracity of her own story.

One of the women allegedly attempted to extort money from him before approaching the press. Regarding her demands, she mentioned the lawyer’s response, stating, “I was after money and implied that it was almost blackmail that I was doing, I’ve never mentioned money. [The lawyer was] the only person that’s ever mentioned money.” This is ridiculous, suggesting the lawyer was not acting on her behalf in seeking money from Brand.

The discussion then shifts to an ex-girlfriend and her allegations in a book. It’s worth noting that the ex-girlfriend uses pseudonyms, avoiding real names. This seems to suggest that if Brand were to sue for defamation, he’d have to prove that the book referred to him. Essentially, she didn’t provide concrete names in her story, which raises questions.

She clearly didn’t believe in the veracity of her own story.

One of the women allegedly attempted to extort money from him before approaching the press. Regarding her demands, she mentioned the lawyer’s response, stating, “I was after money and implied that it was almost blackmail that I was doing, I’ve never mentioned money. [The lawyer was] the only person that’s ever mentioned money.”

This is ridiculous, suggesting the lawyer was not acting on her behalf in seeking money from Brand.

It’s evident that the media treated individuals like Epstein, Gates, Prince Andrew, and Soros with more leniency. Recently, the media seemed cautious not to damage the reputation of Philip Schofield and Hue Edwards, despite allegations of grooming minors. In contrast, they attempted to associate Brand with Jimmy Saville, employing guilt by association.

This showcases how mainstream media aggressively targeted Brand and Tate, while exercising restraint in covering allegations against their own establishment figures.

At the same time as celebrating orgies, lesbianism, open relationships & threesomes as being empowering and liberating for women, they now criticise Brand for empowering women and himself to engage in these same sexual practices. Teenage sexuality itself is celebrated voyeuristically in shows like ‘The White Lotus’, ‘Sex Education’, ‘Euphoria’ and Channel 4’s own ‘Skins’ which gleefully depicted teenage sexuality.

Yet the same people now suddenly find themselves in the position of puritans disapproving of even sexual activity at legal age. ‘Heartstopper’ celebrates teenage homosexual activity & is a massive hit & where were ‘The Times’ and Channel 4 when age gap gay sex was glamorised – between teachers and pupils no less – in the Oscar winning movie ‘Call Me By Your Name?’ and many others?