‘Wrong’: Pearl Davis compares Russell Brand allegations to Tate brothers

Influencer Pearl Davis has compared the recent sexual assault allegations against Russell Brand to the controversial Tate brothers.

It comes amid claims the British actor is being deliberately “targeted” by the media over his “conspiracy theories”.

“You just start to see the same thing over and over again,” Ms Davis told Sky News Australia host Piers Morgan.

“Where prominent figures like the Tate brothers come out and then all of a sudden, they have all these allegations from ten years ago and there’s no evidence – they don’t go to the police.

“All of a sudden it’s believe women with no evidence, and it becomes like trial by the media which I just think is wrong.”

[JeffreyFay]

Where's the Epstein client list? Where's the media on this issue?

[awc]

Russell Brand alt right? 🤣🤣🤣 You'd have to be extreme left to think such a thing.

[liviakelly]

As an American, I wasn't born yesterday....Mr Brand has been transparent throughout his journey in life

[meemz]

Total hit job on Russell Brand because he’s outing the elites. This is despicable and frankly, expected.

[forever_censored]

Why? Just listen to him, They need to stop him from telling truth bombs.

[Cluedin]

We knew they would be targeting Russell at some point.

[spikeprotein]

Murdoch is running this smear campaign, something he’s very good at. It could backfire this time though.

[danieldionne]

She says she’s heard their evidence and it’s credible. Then refuses to provide any.

[Falconlibrary]

BRAND'S ACCUSERS
2007: Silence
2008: Silence
2009: Silence
2010: Silence
2011: Silence
2012: Silence
2013: Silence
2014: Silence
2015: Silence
2016: Silence
2017: Silence
2018: Silence
2019: Silence
2020: Silence
2021: Silence
2022: Silence
2023: Hey, let's all accuse Russell Brand at the exact same time!
Not suspicious, not at all.

[GairikGhosh]

Pearl: Why are these women credible? Piers: we have run out of time.

[Pheenilo]

No that 16 year old, now 36, was of legal age at 16 where consent in England is... wait for it...SIXTEEN!

[SvendBosanvovski]

Anyone can check this. Russell started his YouTube channel in 2 January 2007. That was 16 years ago, and long before this three year investigation got underway. It has had 1.2 billion views. He features an extraordinary variety of high profile guests and never shrinks from asking tough questions that run against the grain of dominant media narratives.

[rosielahrman]

Judge Kavanaugh is a prime example of Trial by the Media

[lyndenxo]

Innocent Tate's now Russell Brand.... These guys are putting in the work and gathering too many pieces for the masses... Someone isn't happy

[kerravon]

"Why are they credible?" Great question from pearl. Why indeed.

[Deljron]

I'm sick of historic rape claims, if you don't deal with it with in one year you should have no right to complain.

[rp-f]

"Why are they credible?"

Exactly the right question. Oh how I wish she would have answered that question...

[stuartvale]

The big question that everyone seems to be avoiding is: why didn't the MEDIA go to the police? If they had been gathering evidence for four years, why was their focus on making a one-sided documentary first and foremost? If they truly believed that crimes had been committed, then they were duty-bound to report those crimes to the police. However, they didn't. THEY approached the women, not the other way around. It is absolutely clear what their intentions were - they set out to get Russel Brand and to conspire and plot in order to get content for their little news article and TV program.

Any reasonable person upon hearing of potential serious crimes as are being alleged here would have gone to the police. They certainly would not have waited for FOUR YEARS, planned and created their TV program and then let the die fall where they may. If they did, indeed, do that, then they are utterly rephehensible. However, what is far more likely, their behaviour indicating such, is that they decided from the start that they were going after Russell. Why? Again, if it was about alleged crimes then they would have gone to the police first. They didn't. Why not? Why did they set out on their journey in the first place? Why did they keep all this hidden for four years? Why is the entire thing completely one-sided? Why did they not include testimony from other women they approached who spoke positively of Russell?

It is abundantly clear what the intention was here - it was to bring Russell Brand down. Again, the question is WHY? And, once again, to really emphasise the question that everyone should be asking, why did no-one from Channel 4 or The Times see fit to go to the police if, as they claim, they were made aware of crimes? Why did they feel that it was more important to craft a news article and TV show than to report alleged crimes? If nothing else does, that one detail about all of this should highlight all we need to know - it is a carefully co-ordinated stitch-up. Again, ask yourself: WHY?

[Roughneckjarhead]

Thank you Pearl, "why are they credible" indeed.

[LouisePhillips-blgg]

It’s not just Brand, Trump, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Tucker Carlson. Irrespective of how you feel about any of them you can’t fail to see what is happening to people who speak up.