Russell Brand.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
Why ? Because after Saville and all the rest that have followed, no Tv org wants to be seen as covering up historical abuse allegations.I agree. So why have channel 4 put themselves in the spotlight?
I'm sure I've seen a message from channel 4 that they are going to investigate these matters.. the people laughing it off "boys will be boys" (that phrase always annoyed me, especially when women said it) are going to be exposed, at least internally.
C4 brought Brand in to the industry. We know he was high on drugs presenting programmes for MTV. He's admitted that himself. I seem to remember he was taken off big brothers little brother, on channel 4 suddenly. But it was all quickly brushed over and moved on.
Russell Brand - Early Clips
http://www.puamethod.com/Copy%20of%20pua%20bootcamp.php learn how to pick up like Russell Brand here.Most of these clips were were from 2002 when Russell was...www.youtube.com
Brand high as a kite, and being inappropriate. Yet C4 and MTV had no idea.. allegedly.
They turned a blind eye because he didn't have any opinions of worth. He was a loud mouth druggie attacking the right wing. Anyone remember "Nazi Boy"? When he was giving the right wing "fash" a verbal beating nobody minded.
I suspect if he hadn't started doing his videos nobody would have brought anything up.
I mostly remember Brand interviewing pill'd up people at festivals on Mtv with his flowery language and it was very amusing , dont remember him being particularly drugged up and inappropriate but it was a while back, no suprise he got his mainstream break taking the pee out of not very self aware BB contestants.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
How is he that? I'm fairly sure 99% of people said if he had been grooming minors for photos then he should be prosecuted. The problem was the "victim" said it didn't happen. He has been cancelled though for his lack of judgement.
I think you are just creating something that isn't there due to your twisted views on politics.
Shagged anything that would move.
Only one of the claims I've read would be illegal and that's a woman claiming rape.
She was in an existing sexual relationship with him, went over to his for sex and claims he revealed there was someone else there.
She then claims she said no freaking way, tried to leave and he raped her against a wall.
There are messages of him apologising after this event but not clear what he was apologising for. He just basically said sorry and it wouldn't happen again (which could be him apologising for the attempted threesome for example). Seemingly there have been no reports to the police.
He hasn’t been cancelled yet - a lot of people were defending him on here, hence my comment about being the acceptable face of grooming..
And two police investigations, independent of each other also found no evidence.
No one has even complained to the police in Brand’s case so not sure what your point is?
Last edited:
Grooming is an offence, he's not been charged or convicted so he's not really the acceptable face of it.
I'm out of the loop. Please can you summarise what evidence there was that he was grooming someone.
But there's not been a police investigation on Brand - yet, but there has been in Huw's case, so it's not comparable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
So your point is whataboutism
I don't remember anyone saying grooming minors is ok (the alleged victim in the Huw case was 17) Though some in this thread have said sleeping with a 16 year old while in your 30s is fine. I don't think its fine, I think its creepy as ****
Last edited:
Because no one has made a complaint so why would the police investigate?
Picking and choosing which celebrities get the pitchfork treatment without a criminal trial is always going to lead to accusations of hypocrisy.
Also why is it seemingly ok for a 62 year old bloke to sleaze on a 17 year boy but not for a 30 year old bloke with a 16 year girl? Unwise but not illegal in both cases surely?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
If he did try and get naked photos from a 17 year old who he knew was 17 then yeah its creepy, he would have been a minor. Problem is the "victim" and the police says he didn't do that.
The victim was under age and being paid to feed a crack habit - hardly surprising they were unwilling to help the police.
But regardless in the Brand case the accusers haven’t helped the police either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,963
- Location
- The Cronx
Court of public opinion/trial by social media of course!
Plus he (Gland) has the backing of that bald cigar bloke, Musk and Tucker.
Last edited:
Why is it creepy for two people of legal age to consensually engage in some kind of relationship?
And really why should anyone give a flying toss about some random finding their actions "creepy". It's subjective and meaningless.
I could, I'm sure, find any number of people who thought a 40 year old dating a 23 year old was "creepy". People just want to impose their own ideas of social acceptability on others. Screw those people. If it's legal it's legal. If you think it shouldn't be, campaign to get the age of consent increased.