Russell Brand.

MoNkeE said:
imagine being a woman who went through something awful 10 - 15 years ago and then having to think “should I go to the police about this now, by myself?”.

The upheaval in their current life’s they have to go through just to talk about these things is significant, yet alone if they revoked their anonymity.
Click to expand...

And then thinking, no, I’ll skip the police bit and just go on TV. Hopefully, if what they are saying is true they do go to the police. It sounds like they haven’t yet.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
I mean you say vigilantes, I read it as morons!

Twitter is an absolute crapfest over this. I cannot stand Brand, he's an odious worm of a man and about as funny as receiving a kick in the nads but when these accusations can ruin someone's life they should be dealt with correctly.
Click to expand...

And I don't disagree with that, what I disagreed with is the principle of Innocent until proven guilty being the main driver of public opinion as esmozz stated, its not and unfortunately that's the way the world has always been.

To elaborate on your accusation earlier. If it was just you standing up saying Freakbro is a kiddie fiddler, then no, maybe apart from some people who don't like me, I would say most people wouldn't assume my guilt. But if you also produced testamony from 4 children backing up your accusation then I would say a lot more people would speculate on my guilt, before it had been proved or not in court.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
And I don't disagree with that, what I disagreed with is the principle of Innocent until proven guilty being the main driver of public opinion as esmozz stated, its not and unfortunately that's the way the world has always been.

To elaborate on your accusation earlier. If it was just you standing up saying Freakbro is a kiddie fiddler, then no, maybe apart from some people who don't like me, I would say most people wouldn't assume my guilt. But if you also produced testamony from 4 children backing up your accusation then I would say a lot more people would speculate on my guilt, before it had been proved in court.
Click to expand...

Well, since I'm known as the local Fagan I could rustle up some scrawny waifs to join the accusations!

I think a more realistic counter though are probably the Marilyn Manson accusations where it certainly looks like some of his accusers are just flat out liars.
There are a lot of people with a motive to dislike Brand. Like I said, he's just awful. The evidence needs to be properly evaluated and acted upon before someone has their life ruined again.
 
Freakbro said:
And I don't disagree with that, what I disagreed with is the principle of Innocent until proven guilty being the main driver of public opinion as esmozz stated, its not and unfortunately that's the way the world has always been.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps we should try to change that. Social consciousness (call it what you will) has changed massively over the past 20 years on a number of issues, maybe this should be added to the list.
 
esmozz said:
Well, perhaps we should try to change that.
Click to expand...

Good luck **** :p

esmozz said:
Social consciousness (call it what you will) has changed massively over the past 20 years on a number of issues, maybe this should be added to the list.
Click to expand...

You can't stop people gossipping, where the principle is obviously sacrosanct is in the judical system since they are the ones actually holding the person to account.

edit : Lol, the swear filter has starred out the proper spelling of Canute, thinking it is trying to circumvent it with transposing the spelling!
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
you haven't heard of Ronaldo.
Click to expand...

For context, the reply chain goes back to a specific comment about "the people being accused were speaking out against those with power" etc, rather than just a list of famous people accused. So in that context Ronaldo wouldn't really be part of that list despite being yet another famous person accused of things, suffering a trial by Social Media, and never being found guilty in a court.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Why are you and other assuming it has anything to do with politics? Is the Times suddenly a lefty newspaper going after right wing thinkers? Though of course that is now the narrative on social media, they are all victims for telling the "truth"
Click to expand...
The establishment isn't left, right or centre. But if someone challenges their control then they better watch out.

Everyone knows this. Have you ever wondered why the SNP don't attack the British Monarchy? If they do, or any serious political activist does, then don't be surprised if their front door gets smashed as the police want a chat with you ie no charges, just a chat. I've seen this done to a friend years ago.

If you take the position it's nothing to do with the establishment, then why after all these years, around a decade, are Channel 4 going after him, compromising their own history too, Channel 4 enabled him, and the likes of Paula Yates (and at least one other) to go on camera drunk or on drugs. They knew Brand was doing that kinda thing back them. But to them he was just a naughty boy.

Now suddenly they are acting like they have been a tower of moral virtue attacking him. Why now?
 
Well, looking back on the history of this thread, I feel ******* vindicated. Always knew he was a brain-dead narcissistic pseudo intellectual.

I'm stunned that any woman would want to touch that filthy homeless looking ******.

And those who were backing him years back, those comments aged like milk :cry:
 
robgmun said:
Well, looking back on the history of this thread, I feel ******* vindicated. Always knew he was a brain-dead narcissistic pseudo intellectual.

I'm stunned that any woman would want to touch that filthy homeless looking ******.

And those who were backing him years back, those comments aged like milk :cry:
Click to expand...
But they did,

Lots of women......
 
Diddums said:
Thing is he's not an unintelligent man. In fact I reckon he's quite smart, he just has opinions and views that make him an idiot, and he tries to make himself sound smarter with his vocabulary. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see through this articifial facade he puts up to attempt to convince others that he is intelligent meaning that most of his followers leave much to be desired in the mental capabilities department.
Click to expand...

Yes, he's clearly not a drooling idiot, but he tries to pass himself off as an intellectual by using big words when he's just merely average intelligence at best. What he is through is a narcissistic egoist moron with a Jesus complex. The moment I saw him on that C4 program that came after Big Brother decades ago I knew he was an annoying little ****

EDIT - Big Brother's Big Mouth back in 2004, that's the first time I knew of him, instant dislike, hated him the moment I saw him, my instincts were right all along
 
Last edited:
MoNkeE said:
imagine being a woman who went through something awful 10 - 15 years ago and then having to think “should I go to the police about this now, by myself?”.

The upheaval in their current life’s they have to go through just to talk about these things is significant, yet alone if they revoked their anonymity.
Click to expand...
So going to the police is hard but a TV show or posting on twitter is easy? :confused:

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
 
The BBC had him front page all day yesterday, pushing notifications to people's phones, he's now front page based on an interview question they asked James Cleverly, the man has merely been accused of something anonymously with no proof. It's a complete disgrace. So glad yet again I don't pay the BBC a penny.
 
Roar87 said:
The BBC had him front page all day yesterday, pushing notifications to people's phones, he's now front page based on an interview question they asked James Cleverly, the man has merely been accused of something anonymously with no proof. It's a complete disgrace. So glad yet again I don't pay the BBC a penny.
Click to expand...
Yes it’s shocking tbh, what if there are never any charges brought or it eventually goes to court and he is found innocent? The coverage of this is disrespectful and doesn’t help the alleged victims apart from financially.
 
silvagti said:
Perhaps you could make an argument that anonymity could be offered when people go to the police to report historical sex crimes. However I think it should still be anonymity for both parties until a verdict is reached.

However that shouldn’t extend to anonymously making allegations to a TV /newspaper/etc who are then allowed to publish/broadcast those unproven allegations in a documentary as though they were fact.
Click to expand...
I do agree somewhat there, not sure how I feel about outing him on a tv show.
 
How does anyone know that these alledged victims are being paid? I've not seen that. I googled but nothing.

I did find this:

Last night, the Metropolitan Police said it had been made 'aware' of media reports about 'a series of allegations of sexual assault' and urged any alleged victims to come forward.
Click to expand...

I also find it slightly incredulous that the Sunday Times, Dispatches and C4 with all their lawyers would have proceeded just on a hunch, but then I guess we all have our biases to deal with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom