Russell Brand.

[Ayahuasca]

Woop woop, good morning incel crew!

Tbf, that sort of thing, I've noticed hurfdurf likes to throw that insult in too, doesn't do the discussion any favours.

There are very few posters here who give off incel vibes, only really the ones who think women have given consent to anything if they willingly enter a man's house etc.

 

[plasmahal]

Woop woop, good morning incel crew!

Sort your young boys out:

Many teenage girls say they experience sexual harassment in their day-to-day lives and do not feel safe on the street alone.

The above article that I happened to read through before coming here this morning made we think about the influence Brand had on me and my peers when I was late teens/early twenties.

I couldn't stand him and his div mate Noel. Didn't see the big deal that some of my peers saw. When I was out and about though, you'd see guys like part goth, part Jack Sparrow, part Brand/Fielding-esque image. If they were aspiring to 'look' like them, I wonder what his behaviour was insipring them to do. Similar now to Tate and his direct messaging, this is a problematic message that cuts through to young boys.

My point, if I even have one, is: Where are the realistic role models for young boys and men to provide inspiration and a way of being to aspire to? There's a lot of influence out there, and many tools in order to do it, but who exactly are providing the good lessons these kids need to learn, to not do the things that make the teenage girls (and boys) in that BBC poll feel that way about there lives and personal safety?

It doesn't bode well for the next generation, and what revelations will be uncovered over the next 20 years.

OK, Bruv......

 

[Fubsy]

Tbf, this sort of thing (I've noticed hurfdurf) likes to throw in that insult as well, doesn't do the discussion any favours.

There are very few posters here who give off incel vibes, only really the ones who think women have given consent to anything if they willingly enter a man's house etc.

And I'm openly taking the **** of of the idiots that keep labelling all in this thread as such.

 

[Ayahuasca]

And I'm openly taking the **** of of the idiots that keep labelling all in this thread as such.

Ah fair enough then, yeah, hurf is a bit special.

 

[Efour]

Some 44% also said they do not feel safe while walking alone on the street

40 Something yeah old man and i dont feel safe on the street In London.....

 

[hurfdurf]

Then our system needs to be reviewed and changed so that victims can come forward. But what we can't have is the media destroying lives on the basis of accusation.

Brand has lost his job and his income. All because of what? Someone says he committed a crime? That just isn't fair.

Sure, if he is taken to trial and found guilty, then hang him up by his *********. But until then, he shouldn't be named. And if the police aren't doing their job then they need to be on the front page of The Sun, not Brand.

Has someone just said he committed a crime?

No. There’s been a 4 year investigation, by qualified journalists, with text messages, medical reports, witnesses and confessions in the man’s own book and stand up.

Don’t be so disrespectful and disingenuous. The Police are doing their jobs. They have asked victims to come forward. The discussion on why people wouldn’t go to the Police is indeed one to have and has been had for years (sorry you’ve been too out of touch to realise this basic fact), but that doesn’t in the mean time mean because we have a terrible Police force that women don’t touch with a barge pole, that we shouldn’t ever talk about crimes that have been committed.

 

[hurfdurf]

If you are not prosecuted you are not guilty. We need this for society to be able to function.

It is not a difficult concept mate. If you think what is happening is a good thing, you need your head read quite frankly.

Saville is innocent declares kitch9, every single one of his victims is a liar.

 

[hurfdurf]

It's a shame there's not enough investigative journalism being used to expose corruption, mishandling of public funds, government contracts, actions of politicians, etc etc.

It doesn't exactly take Columbo to investigate a bloke who's promiscuous life was in the public eye for years.

Maybe I'm a pessimist but I question why and when they choose to target people.

None of these media corps were investigating him when his lifestyle was in full swing. He was getting them ratings. Now he's online only he's fair game.

What about Jimmy Saville, totally horrific guy who didn't come to light until he was dead. They happily sweep stuff under the rug until it suits them. Yet we are expected to trust their judgement on everything.

Why would you trust their judgement on everything?! What is it with some of the worst rape apologists and incels on this board openly admitting they cannot think for themselves.

Here we have a bunch of grown men that utterly beg to be told what to think, be it everyone is innocent and didn’t do a crime until a court says they did, because perish the idea that the police and the courts get something wrong or not do their job, and now we have this guy claiming that he can’t have an opinion on anything newspapers report on because they to are made up of human employees and also get things wrong.

 

[plasmahal]

No. There’s been a 4 year investigation, by qualified journalists, with text messages, medical reports, witnesses and confessions in the man’s own book and stand up.

So with no arrests, these 4 years of investigation means he is still innocent?

 

[C Kent]

It's funny how one bloke that just shouts incels and rape apologists as loud as he can and yet he's the only one on this board to have had SA allegations, guess by his own standards he's as guilty as sin.

 

[Zefan]

Is everything classed as right wing now? Wtf is going on with the world.

Yes, the overton window has shifted left, popular/establishment pushed values are less conservative (little c...) and more progressive than ever. Worth noting that I see this as completely disconnected from the actual government and their behaviour, it's the messaging/overall discourse I'm talking about.

Of course anyone that was left prior to this shift understandably finds this impossible to view objectively, insisting that it's moved right, meaning anyone just center (or even just left of center) is now right wing and anyone previously right wing is nasty moustache man.

 

[hurfdurf]

Because they get shut up or demonised. Look at things like vaccines and international trade deals, the B word and food quality etc... lots of nefarious stuff going on but they're swept under the carpet but a lot of it turns to conspiracy theories and apparently lunatics for even considering alternative things.

That’s basic end stage capitalism, newspapers are owned by billionaires, they are loss leaders, a lot of the time they are propaganda arms. The stories are there, and published, but what the public pick up on is the publics choice, and the British public love being told the economy is someone else’s fault (immigrants/Europe) and that they deserve more but those pesky poor people deserve less.

 

[hurfdurf]

Yes they are calling him guilty by assuming the allegations are true.

The foundation of the cases against Brand and Tate are similar, yet you're not believing the women with Tate but are with Brand.

You have an inconsistent position.

I think Tate is guilty of various things and so is Brand based on the evidence presented.

 

[plasmahal]

I think Tate is guilty of various things and so is Brand based on the evidence presented.

What evidence have you had access to from the court cases?

 

[hurfdurf]

So with no arrests, these 4 years of investigation means he is still innocent?

Do you think journalists have powers of arrest now?!?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Yes they are calling him guilty by assuming the allegations are true.

The foundation of the cases against Brand and Tate are similar, yet you're not believing the women with Tate but are with Brand.

You have an inconsistent position.

Not really.

Your applying the incorrect rule that it should be black or white.
Either we believe all or none.

The real world is somewhat more nuanced than that.

There is a big difference between Brand and Tate in effect.
Tate is accused of attracting women with intent to move them into a tightly controlled relationship which he benefits from financially, and imposes excessive control over.
Brand is accused of rape. Brand wasn't interested in making money off them, controlling them (maybe a tiny smidge by one account), he just wanted to get his jiggly going and have as much good time as possible.
If he was a genuine sex addict its completely understandable that hes likely performed rape. Addicts have a practically perfect inability to avoid the thing they are addicted to if it is presented to them. Its literally what it means.

As such the right way to take a view on each of these, with the limited information available, is to look at them individually and take your own view, based on available info, and whats most likely to be the case.
You have to accept you only have limited information and you will individually apply a different weight to parts of that information and come to differing decisions based on that.
Just like with Huw, Philip, Ralf etc

Its like the Nicola Bulley all over again. Those people most expert in this (the police) had taken the view that the most likely result was she had fallen into the river. They focussed their main efforts in that regards and not lots of unlikely conclusions.
Shock horror when they were found to have been correct after all the oddballs and nutjobs had come up with loads of crackpot conclusions.

 

[hurfdurf]

It's funny how one bloke that just shouts incels and rape apologists as loud as he can and yet he's the only one on this board to have had SA allegations, guess by his own standards he's as guilty as sin.

I have more sex with more women than most people in the country percentile wise, and I sincerely doubt I’m the only one to ever have a woman say to someone else that I’ve done something wrong to them, and in both cases I was exonerated as their were clear lies from both women. How does that make me guilty by my own standards? Did they have text messages, witnesses and medical reports showing I did it? No they did not. In fact, I had evidence to show they were lying both times.

If Brand can produce some that disputes the evidence against him, I’m open to it.

 

[Zefan]

I have more sex with more women than most people in the country percentile wise, and I sincerely doubt I’m the only one to ever have a woman say to someone else that I’ve done something wrong to them.

Alright Russell put your **** away ffs!

:edit: post cheeky edit from hurfdurf: lol removed as it's hard to even work out what's being proposed.

How is Russell supposed to present this evidence?

 

[plasmahal]

Do you think journalists have powers of arrest now?!?

Well, I'd assume you would understand the concept of handing over incriminating evidence collected over 4 years to the authorities...

It clearly has not been handed over as there is nothing incriminating, I guess...

 

[C Kent]

If Brand can produce some that disputes the evidence against him, I’m open to it.

It doesn't matter if he's cleared of any charges (should they ever materialise, which is massively debatable) you've made your mind up, the same as many other people. Just like the Kevin Spacey incident, its utterly irrelevant to you he was found not guilty by the law of the land he's forever tainted. That's the issue people have with anonymous allegations of this nature, they are, and can be life destroying.