The screen shots of alleged texts from Brand etc from the C4 "documentary" all doctored and cut and shut. People just accept they are legit...:skull:

I'm not watching nearly an hour of that, what's the evidence the texts were doctored?

they cover that in first 5 mins

Can I have a tl;dr ?

The good new is if this goes to the Police (which I think it has?) they will discount any doctored messages

missing time stamps, text size discrepancies within single text, some words groups fuzzy when you blow it up, some text blocks full of noise (not bleed over) all consistent with cutting and pasting partial messages to make a single

Messages date stamped 2012 with sharing app icons at bottom with apps not launched till 2014 (Apple pay for eg)

Use of USA spellings in the messages used when he never ever uses them in any other platform like Twitter


that type of thing

Hmm.

With some of that I could assume that maybe the contents of the texts were copied over for consistency or visibility, or something like that.

But your description of it does sound a bit suss.

(Not seen the show or the video)

Its the type of stuff a decent Lawyer would pick apart in court

Like C4 have said they have asked the production company who C4 bought the Brand shows from to investigate him - now if they have been working on this for 4 years (highly unlikely) surely that would have been the first thing to do, not the last etc

GOOD LORD not LT and the other conspiracy nuts thinking that when documentaries show emails and text messages, they show screenshots of the ACTUAL emails and text messages! :facepalm: :facepalm: you couldn't make it up. Someone made an hour long video about this? An hour long deconstructing video about "fake texts with discrepancies" because a TV documentary took the content of the texts and made visual representations of the content. And you've got flatskulls sat at home going "Oi that doesn't look like a real message :oh:"

It would be so funny if it wasn't becoming so rapidly depressing.

Don't worry LT the lawyers and courts will have access to the original text messages and not the graphics made for TV. I swear you actually used to be smarter than this, are these tinfoil hat videos rotting your brain?

If they have cut and pasted different messages together and presented them as a real exchange then that should be stated. Timestamps should not be omitted and apps that did not exist in timestamped messaged should not appear or an explanation should be given

Its at the very best incredibly shoddy

Perhaps it could be that, like in the standard practice in every other documentary ever made. Maybe there is a small possibility.

Maybe :joker: possibly!!

It sounds like they just did a crappy of it tbh.

one of the comments:


@tanyaroberson9629
7 hours ago

I used to be a graphic designer. If that image came out of a news paper— it
really may have been that the graphic designer had to fit it onto one page, in a
single column, so edited it so it would fit the layout better. So they may have
been given that phone message in three separate screen captures and then
edited it together to look like one screen capture to fit into the layout better. (if
that's the case, bad call on the graphic designers and editors since its evidence
in a criminal case- if it was Hollywood gossip wouldn't matter so much)

They'd have been better off just putting the text in generic boxes tbh

It's not "evidence in a criminal case" because the investigators and courts will use the actual original messages, and not the graphics made for a Channel 4 documentary? This wasn't a criminal investigation because - as far as I know, at least (I know times move fast and it can be hard to keep up so I might be wrong) - Channel 4 journalists are not actually law enforcement officers or prosecutors.

The documentary about Russell Brand is not going to be in itself used in court against Russell Brand. Surely, quite obviously.

Here's not thing that gets me LT, and really maybe you can explain if you think it seems like a reasonably co-existing belief:

1) You believe that Brand, a noted sex addict, substance abuser, and person who has clearly in his past led a quite manic and out of control lifestyle is being falsely accused of sexual misdeeds by a large conspiracy of global elites and mega-corporations worth billions of dollars, who covertly pay people off to lie and scheme in order to take down youtubers who say things they don't like, BUT AT THE SAME TIME...

2) They're incompetent and can't research/consult counterfeiting experts to make convincing fake text messages that most 16 year olds could make with a dodgy downloaded copy of Photoshop 7 from 2002.


... ... you are arguing that both of the things above are true. I can only say again - the mental gymnastics required to believe that shadowy secret organisations are out to get people and successfully bribe/silence hundreds of individuals to get their way, but can't match up the fonts on a text message, is one of the most bizarre fantasies yet.

That's so true :laugh:

Lawyers will be all over the metadata

One would hope that C4 had all this checked prior but then all they are is a outdated sh1t tv channel...

Only if they can get around the net 6.0 encrypted traps and 3rd generation firewalls by brute forcing the randomly generated key generator on the subnet, which I HIGHLY doubt.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...hCvK/giphy.gif

Ha ha ha Russell Brand will be spitting feathers at the idea of being associated with Thatcher. Love it.

That American lady went to rape crisis centre …they will have some evidence in their archives?

If he just wants to speak his truth then he is able to do that…let’s see how much impact not being paid has in how much content he puts out…pun intended

Thatcher
no you tube then
can not be compared stinking Brand

:nono:

he is now right-wing, keep up SB

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img...=1694877465507

He's a populist, a narcissist and an attention seeker so he'll go wherever that lies ... ... but at his core, he's a Marxist ex-junkie who will find the association with the alt-right quite hard to swallow. He'll still do it for the ££ and for eyes on himself, of course.