Russell Brand.

[melmac]

Going back to the Katherine McPhee video with Russell Brand that was posted earlier in the thread where some of posted some, well, amazingly stupid things.
Like this:-

I see someone on a flimsy talk show who's supposed to be having a great time so tries to play along but is visibly uncomfortable with the situation. He grabs her by both wrists, forcing one behind her back meaning her only way out is to move closer to him. She sits on his knee to play along; he forces her on to his lap and grabs her hips. She gets up and literally keeps him at arm's length.

there was no forcing and she wasn't uncomfortable with the situation at all.

and this

She is literally keeping him at arms length. He has her arm behind her back. You want her to cause a scene in front of an audience? Like many women she takes the passive way out and goes along with it. The host can see what is happening.

No she isn't.

and another example.

I'm not suggesting its sexual assault or anything like that. You are right, she played along when he had her arm behind her back, realised she'd made a mistake and got herself out of it. Its just amazing how Roar sees it as her being bang up for it. The guy just can't read human reactions at all. Its actually quite concerning.

The final phrase giving out about Roar not been able to read human reactions is ironic as you plainly can't read human reactions at all. In this case Roar called it correctly and you are way off base, just seeing what you want to see, not what is actually there.

The only person that got it right was Chuk_Chuk.

I thought these shows are scripted, however regarding the bit in bold. You're either a liar, delusional or both, if that is what you think happened in first part of the clip.

These shows are planned, what's going to happen is decided beforehand. They are also recorded, if anything was out of line it wouldn't have been shown.

But that doesn't even matter. I showed the video to some female friends and colleagues to see what they thought. They all said it was nothing, just playing around and the only time she looked concerned was when the thought her skirt was rising up too much.

You don't have to believe me. Katherine McPhee came out herself and said the same thing in response to the Daily Mail posting that video.

Daily Mail – I know nothing what you are trying to claim here but this specific incident was over 10 years ago and it was harmless. Please don’t try and use me for whatever purpose you are trying to serve

 

[Roar87]

Oh look, Katherine McPhee agrees with me and the speakers corner crew are way off the mark

The guy just can't read human reactions at all.

xD

 

[C Kent]

Oh look, Katherine McPhee agrees with me and the speakers corner crew are way off the mark



xD

Brilliant.

This is what happens when you see women and others as perpetual victims, lessons to be learnt but as usual those that need to won't.

 

[GGizmo]

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

Ok well at least you're now consistent between the two cases.

 

[Roar87]

Ok well at least you're now consistent between the two cases.

What is fascinating to me, and I don't like speaking about people who can't reply, but hurf was himself accused of SA while being innocent, yet seemingly has no qualms about assuming Russell Brand is guilty based on really very little evidence

 

[Fubsy]

What is fascinating to me, and I don't like speaking about people who can't reply, but hurf was himself accused of SA while being innocent, yet seemingly has no qualms about assuming Russell Brand is guilty based on really very little evidence

I asked him multiple times across threads what he would do without the evidence to clear his name. I'm either on his ignore list, or just couldn't provide an answer that wouldn't undermine his hard-line stance.

 

[GGizmo]

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

I accept what you say. We all have limited information about the situation. But we only have one system ie open a case against the person and let the court decide.

I've not listened to Brand in years. Maybe that's why I'm more interested in the integrity of the system rather than people either playing things down or hyping them up.

I know this is a simple position but as a society we either believe in innocent until proven guilty or not. I would have thought all the people against the death penalty would agree with that.

The system as to have a balance of justice at the centre. There is a lot of American influence on the subject with a hang 'em high mentally (I'm not saying that is your way of thinking).

What is fascinating to me, and I don't like speaking about people who can't reply, but hurf was himself accused of SA while being innocent, yet seemingly has no qualms about assuming Russell Brand is guilty based on really very little evidence

A lot of people try to prove themselves as moral people when an opportunity appears by going over the top.

Yesterday Vanessa Feltz, today Lorraine was apparently traumatised by a sexual joke Brand made to her. There seems to be a lot of Mary Whitehouse people around these days (while having a number of sexualised opinions on other subjects).

Channel 4, BBC, and MTV encouraged his lewd behaviour. Everyone knew what he was like.

 

[Xelene]

He's always been creepy as ****. A lot of men do magic wordsmith **** to get sex, roll 16 or 18 on Charisma to do it. He talks a lot of ******** for the million dollars a year he earns and if he is a rapist then should go to jail for a long time.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

It should be Journalists investigate, provide evidence to the police, see if they charge and bingo, there's a news story if they do.

Not, investigate, splash your "findings," all over the telly which is based on nothing but hearsay from hacked off ex girlfriends, start a social media hell storm then watch the case get thrown out of court from a half assed case thrown together with no evidence as is what happens more often than not.

Hopefully the subject of the case doesn't top themselves in the process, tends to kill the story.

How would that work for stories like Catholic Church cover up of child abuse? Was it the police that bought this to public knowledge? I think everyone had heard it was going on. Apparently people in the industry knew Brand was like this. But it was investigative journalism like the Spotlight team at The Boston Globe that finally kicked it into gear. They named priests, they named higher ups in the church. If the police did nothing should they have buried that story? I believe just 5 priests were charged after that story was published. Does that mean all the others shouldn't have had their names published or the Archbishop that covered for them shouldn't have been named as he was never charged?

Some of you see this as black or white. This story has apparently been 4 years in the making so its hardly "half arsed". The 4th estate is essential, though they will of course make mistakes.

Oh and hearsay is when someone tells you that someone told them what someone else said. Its when it isn't from the actual party that heard it. That isn't the case here is it. And nice assumption that they are "hacked off ex-girlfriends", you haven't predetermined the truth of this have you. Why not wait and see what comes to light? I've no idea what the truth of this is.

 

[GIBURROWS]

Let's start with everyone is a liar unless they have evidence....?

 

[tombrr]

I accept what you say. We all have limited information about the situation. But we only have one system ie open a case against the person and let the court decide.

I've not listened to Brand in years. Maybe that's why I'm more interested in the integrity of the system rather than people either playing things down or hyping them up.

I know this is a simple position but as a society we either believe in innocent until proven guilty or not. I would have thought all the people against the death penalty would agree with that.

The system as to have a balance of justice at the centre. There is a lot of American influence on the subject with a hang 'em high mentally (I'm not saying that is your way of thinking).



A lot of people try to prove themselves as moral people when an opportunity appears by going over the top.

Yesterday Vanessa Feltz, today Lorraine was apparently traumatised by a sexual joke Brand made to her. There seems to be a lot of Mary Whitehouse people around these days (while having a number of sexualised opinions on other subjects).

Channel 4, BBC, and MTV encouraged his lewd behaviour. Everyone knew what he was like.

I saw the Lorraine bit today and what a horrendous 'discussion' it was with the other presenters. She somehow could remember exactly how she felt and exactly what she was wearing in that exact clip from 2007... and supposedly she was now offended by what he did even though the clip was showing her and everyone else essentially in hysterical laughter.

 

[GIBURROWS]

Surprised the Spanish women's football team haven't come forward.....

 

[Fubsy]

I saw the Lorraine bit today and what a horrendous 'discussion' it was with the other presenters. She somehow could remember exactly how she felt and exactly what she was wearing in that exact clip from 2007... and supposedly she was now offended by what he did even though the clip was showing her and everyone else essentially in hysterical laughter.

That sort of behaviour, where something in the past is re-framed to suit a new narrative, is the sort of thing that reminds me on a daily basis that Orwell's vision is/was a warning that needs constant heed.

 

[kitch9]

How would that work for stories like Catholic Church cover up of child abuse? Was it the police that bought this to public knowledge? I think everyone had heard it was going on. Apparently people in the industry knew Brand was like this. But it was investigative journalism like the Spotlight team at The Boston Globe that finally kicked it into gear. They named priests, they named higher ups in the church. If the police did nothing should they have buried that story? I believe just 5 priests were charged after that story was published. Does that mean all the others shouldn't have had their names published or the Archbishop that covered for them shouldn't have been named as he was never charged?

Some of you see this as black or white. This story has apparently been 4 years in the making so its hardly "half arsed". The 4th estate is essential, though they will of course make mistakes.

Oh and hearsay is when someone tells you that someone told them what someone else said. Its when it isn't from the actual party that heard it. That isn't the case here is it. And nice assumption that they are "hacked off ex-girlfriends", you haven't predetermined the truth of this have you. Why not wait and see what comes to light? I've no idea what the truth of this is.

What do you mean how does it work?

Have evidence, present to the authorities, they'll decide if its up for investigation.

Anything else and it's all unproven hearsay and you're risking stoning an innocent person which keeps happening. It's a modern day witch hunt.

 

[Roar87]

I saw the Lorraine bit today and what a horrendous 'discussion' it was with the other presenters. She somehow could remember exactly how she felt and exactly what she was wearing in that exact clip from 2007... and supposedly she was now offended by what he did even though the clip was showing her and everyone else essentially in hysterical laughter.

Comedian makes joke, everyone laughs.

16 years later "I AM SO OFFENDED"

 

[Diddums]

Lorraine Kelly. Page 45 of the guilty pleasures book.

 

[Malevolence]

Lorraine Kelly. Page 45 of the guilty pleasures book.

 

[imtoooldforthis]

Let's start with everyone is a liar unless they have evidence....?

Do you have evidence of them being a liar ?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I saw the Lorraine bit today and what a horrendous 'discussion' it was with the other presenters. She somehow could remember exactly how she felt and exactly what she was wearing in that exact clip from 2007... and supposedly she was now offended by what he did even though the clip was showing her and everyone else essentially in hysterical laughter.

I saw it and all she said was "That looks uncomfortable to watch now" and that was it.
She never said she was offended and she said that was an entertainment show and he was encouraged to do it.
if you want proof I can link the video.

Actually it's here because you're talking absolute rubbish - https://www.dmpoole.co.uk/lorrainebrand.mp4

They were also sitting on the fence during the whole discussion.

 

[kitch9]

Comedian makes joke, everyone laughs.

16 years later "I AM SO OFFENDED"

Not a single person in that room was offended.

Puts the spotlight on the current situation and how things can get twisted through the prism of time.

IE, we should let the authorities and the justice system deal with it.