Russell Brand.

I mean the sexual harassment, being a philanderer, liking teenagers/massive age gaps and generally treating women like objects/**** is in no way some new revelation or surprise. It should have been obvious to anyone and everyone that he is exactly that sort of person.

The deeply troubling allegations are those of actual rape/ignoring the women saying no/explicitly ignoring consent etc.
 
Last edited:
plasmahal said:
If they come forward straight away that evidence/proof can be collected at that time and be more successful for conviction. Don't wait 5, 10 15 or 20 years later.
Click to expand...

I half agree. At least get the evidence collected, but some may need the time to process and heal before embarking on the process of prosecution.
 
Jono8 said:
I mean the sexual harassment, being a philanderer, liking teenagers/massive age gaps and generally treating women like objects/**** is in no way some new revelation or surprise. It should have been obvious to anyone and everyone that he is exactly that sort of person.

The deeply troubling allegations are those of actual rape/ignoring the women saying no/explicitly ignoring consent etc.
Click to expand...

Bold bit - No **** Sherlock.

Of course the allegations are troubling. Time, evidence and court judgment will tell whether he's gone that far, and to echo what others have said in the thread, at that point I hope he goes away and rots.
 
I don't think he is inherently a dishonest or intending to hurt people kind of guy. I used to enjoy watching his trews stuff sometimes and respect his abstainance and support to others in that regard.

If he ever did get with the underage 16 year old I hope she has evidence or goes all the way to trial to give her side of the argument. I think that girls employed around him who were 18 must have known his type of behavior and could well of been gagging for him in any case, hence why he used them by the sounds of it.

His behavior is one thing, and his videos and conspiracy theories are another. But I don't think they have anything to do with each other because he doesn't post pictures or videos of his wild behavior towards girls. So it seems clear that the media doesn't like him or the style of groups that get involved with such theories he stirs. People having a go at his theories now, as some dude on the radio just said, its like hey thats his income/unemployed hobby if you will its unrelated.
 
Fubsy said:
I half agree. At least get the evidence collected, but some may need the time to process and heal before embarking on the process of prosecution.
Click to expand...
In the case of Brand one of his accusers did go to a rape crisis centre. So there is a strong chance that evidence, including DNA samples, exist unless it is destroyed after a certain time. I don't believe she has made a report to the police yet but if what happened to her is true then I hope she does. If she has evidence then it does need to be taken to the police.
 
Fubsy said:
No, I wouldn't be ok with it, it's still sexual assault - but I'd certainly find societies reaction more understanding as there would be tangible evidence of wrongdoing rather than 20 year old memory to rely on.

You guys wanting punishment to be dished out on mere suspicion or initial allegation is something I cannot accept unless it was to be coming from a malicious viewpoint. I understand it, but I don't accept it.
Click to expand...

Some people on here have basically looked at the low rate of conviction for rape and determined most everyone must be guilty simply on the basis that not enough people are convicted for that crime. There's an astounding lack of empathy for people who may be wrongly accused.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
well there is hard evidence that he bought the company into disrepute as he clearly committed a crime despite the victim choosing not to prosecute ..... i find it hard to see that you cannot see the difference between a person throwing an accusation of something vs hard evidence that something occurred.

i said i am uncomfortable with the name and shame without evidence but admit it is a difficult one.

the fact that you find it amusing in any way i think is pretty horrible to be honest.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a person, it was a whole bunch of people.
 
Fubsy said:
You guys wanting punishment to be dished out on mere suspicion or initial allegation is something I cannot accept unless it was to be coming from a malicious viewpoint. I understand it, but I don't accept it.
Click to expand...
Punishment? Who said that?
 
C Kent said:
What exactly is your point? If there's recorded evidence (proof) of a crime being committed of course people are far more likely to belive that over some "he said/she said" nonsense from over a decade ago..
Click to expand...
Ah nonsense, got it.
 
dlockers said:
Punishment? Who said that?
Click to expand...


Has Russell Brand been punished in light of these allegations? In law, he has not (yet). Socially and commercially, he has. (YouTube, the charity he worked with, cancelled gigs etc are the choices* people have made based off allegations.)

I've pointed this out and was strongly disagreed with (as is their right) by yourself, mid_gen and the credit card.

So it wasn't said, but it was implied.

*I understand the reasons they do this, I feel they should be able to do it, but it's so instinctive these days and there still isn't much to go on. They already knew what type of guy this is, see Jono8's post further up. When they cut ties to distance themselves, it just looks 'worse' in a way as they already gave him the platform knowing what type of guy he was. If it transpires he's stepped over the fine line he was on, then they've played a blinder, if he hasn't, well, I'd like to see some compulsion to apologise or compensate him imo.
 
Last edited:
video evidence would self-evidently avoid the burden of proof that also had to be provided by bunch of accusers, in the similar Weinstein case ?

Since several accusation relate to the States maybe they will (have to?) start criminal investigation there, too - extradition.
 
jakedude182 said:
I don't think he is inherently a dishonest or intending to hurt people kind of guy. I used to enjoy watching his trews stuff sometimes and respect his abstainance and support to others in that regard.

If he ever did get with the underage 16 year old I hope she has evidence or goes all the way to trial to give her side of the argument. I think that girls employed around him who were 18 must have known his type of behavior and could well of been gagging for him in any case, hence why he used them by the sounds of it.

His behavior is one thing, and his videos and conspiracy theories are another. But I don't think they have anything to do with each other because he doesn't post pictures or videos of his wild behavior towards girls. So it seems clear that the media doesn't like him or the style of groups that get involved with such theories he stirs. People having a go at his theories now, as some dude on the radio just said, its like hey thats his income/unemployed hobby if you will its unrelated.
Click to expand...
16 isn't underage.
 
Fubsy said:
It's faux freedom if you can't be protected from false, unproven or pending judgment from allegations based on evidence.

Edit: to add, in the recent Marcus Greenwood case however, I'd argue that level of evidence is good enough for the 'punishment' he was dished out. There was video and audio evidence there and he got of lightly in comparison to a lot of others mentioned.
Click to expand...
What if Greenwood was in a toxic relationship of tit for tat and they routinely spoke to each other like that?

It happens?
 
mid_gen said:
So what, some kind of rota system? One month a year every company is forced to sign an alleged sex offender as a brand ambassador?
Click to expand...

I like your tactic of painting me as a defender of sexual criminals. It's not true though.

How do you know someone is a sex offender?*

How do we know you aren't one? Does OcUK screen sign ups for them?

Drunk drivers, lets give them a little badge too. I hate them, I don't want to talk or listen to them.
Are drug dealers OK with you?
How about disgraced politicians, or ones that have a mild case of antisemitism?

*you know because it's either been PROVEN or you have first hand experience. Until it's proven you don't 'other' people and destroy their lives out of malice or cowardice. That damage is hard/impossible to undo. Look at the recent case of the guy that was wrongfully imprisoned for well over a decade.
 
kitch9 said:
Taking away someones career on the back of an accusation shouldn't happen. For anyone. It's happening too often now and these cases keep getting thrown out of court.
Click to expand...
No authoritative source has taken that away. People have just reported the allegations, which are unlikely to ever get criminally endorsed due to the burden of proof the legal system requires. People have just decided they don't want to associate with him, and understandably so unless you're a lemming.
 
Fubsy said:
*I understand the reasons they do this, I feel they should be able to do it, but it's so instinctive these days and there still isn't much to go on. They already knew what type of guy this is, see Jono8's post further up. When they cut ties to distance themselves, it just looks 'worse' in a way as they already gave him the platform knowing what type of guy he was. If it transpires he's stepped over the fine line he was on, then they've played a blinder, if he hasn't, well, I'd like to see some compulsion to apologise or compensate him imo.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I guess they waited for the tipping point and milked him until that point. I don't think YT would claim any moral high ground though, they're just a business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom