Russell Brand - In Plain Sight?

@wfcmoog gets it all.

 

There's clearly trends here with the accusations and some of those are quite horrific to those women involved. Saying that Brand was/is a sex addict is inexcusable. We all know that Brand has influence, power and money from his fame and it appears he has abused his position, then hides behind a posse of lawyers to scare the victims and uses the old line of "They were all consensual," whilst silencing them. Or "poor me I am a sex addict I can't help myself". I sincerely hope he gets what's coming to him.

 

This post reads like it was written by a bot.

Who has said it’s excusable because he was a sex addict?

He’s certainly abused his position in the past and the allegations, if true are definitely horrific.

But I don’t think “they were all consensual” is an ‘old line’, it’s obviously his only possible line of defence for such accusations, he certainly didn’t pair it with “poor me I’m a sex addict I can’t help myself”, that would be a somewhat daft thing to try and excuse rape allegations with, wouldn’t it? He’s also never sued any individuals, just two newspapers for libel.

 

01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01110100 00101100 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01100010 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100110 01101111 01101001 01101100 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100001

Sorry, that was the bot part.

I've watched his YT videos where he proudly boasts he has had sex with literally 1000s of women. He recently said they were all consensual.

I don't think I said that he has sued any individuals.

 

I know people who used to work closely with him and I can say for certain that he’s a horrible bloke.

 

I'd be surprised if Alex Salmond has had 1000 sexual partners

 

Yeah I don’t doubt that for a second, just saw him as an example of someone who had been accused then found not guilty.

 

If so I’d think an urgent meeting would be required with the heterosexual women of the UK to ask them what exactly they are looking for in a fella.

 

And why their fees are so low

 

Some sort of jowl fetish?

 

Disagree. I once held a door open for him, and he thanked me.

 

But not entirely exonerated of poor behaviour by the public.

 

Did he thank you by exposing himself?

 

The Moog method is to bot farming as the Chorleywood method is to bread

 

People should be assumed in the eyes of the law as innocent until proven guilty. We’ve collectively agreed that it’s far more immoral to punish an innocent man than not punish one who’s guilty.

The justice system is set up to ensure laws are followed and that evidence used in court is of sufficient quality.

I’ve done jury duty twice, and you appreciate the vast swathes of evidence presented by both sides and the importance of hearing both sides of the story.

This makes me incredibly sceptical of trial by social media/ Netflix, which can represent mob juries at times. It’s also a very weak and dangerous argument to argue that that you need to instinctively see someone as guilty, due “x% of rapes/ SA/ DV not leading to a guilty outcome”.

When someone is not even being charged by a crime, my view is that they should not be able to be punished in a way that inflicts upon their freedoms, including their ability to earn money.

That made me very hesitant to say for example that Mason Greenwood was definitely guilty of the crimes he was being accused of and should be sacked, despite the audio.

I see key differences in the robustness of the sources in this situation however.

1. It was discovered through proper investigative media, which is a fundamental pillar of a functioning democracy, as it holds things which are corrupt or broken to account through transparency. The steps they took were significant and therefore evidence triangulation would have to meet adequate thresholds.

2. The number of people making similar claims adds weight to the prosecution argument

3. He has long illustrated behaviour that at the very least shows he cares little about women’s boundaries, including some which he has publicly admitted such as exposing himself to colleagues

4. The visit to the rape clinic and the apology with the message that no means no feels fairly damning

5. He was treated for sex addiction which gives a pretty concrete motive for pushing boundaries to get a fix.

I won’t see him as 100% guilty, nor do I think he should lose his income when he hasn’t even been charged of a crime. But given the evidence is substantial, I think it’s absolutely fair for people to assume he is very likely guilty of the crimes people are accusing him of.

Or if not, a rather repulsive person regardless.

 

I totally agree.

I would say that there is more than just criminal behaviour to consider though.

I have never been a fan of Brand so I wasn't aware of his behaviour (except for the calls to Sachs). He should never have been given a platform to spout such misogynistic and sexist rubbish.

The interview with Savile should have been enough to ensure he never worked in the MSM again.

I agree that there needs to be sufficient and robust evidence before criminal charges should be considered.

But his own words damn him as a horrible human being and I support any company that (belatedly) break their association with him.

 

Nothing escapes the computer scientist! I should try hexadecimal next time.

 

Mason Greenwood is definitely guilty tho

 

Of course everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but Brand is such a narcissistic sleazeball in his case most people are more than happy to skip the trial and go straight from accusation to punishment

 

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Public opinion is a whole different game.

 

Where did he touch you?

 

Mods?

 

The Who ? The Jam ? Small faces ? The Kinks ?
You can't make accusations like that without being more specific.

 

Were The Kinks mods?

 

"Allegedly"...yes.
https://www.ranker.com/list/mod-bands-and-artists/music-lover

 

Mmm, that list also includes Manfred Mann.

 

Yes, that well-known mod band.
And the Specials ?
They have always been talked about as a mod band and happened to be on the first list I googled after you'd asked the question.
(The)Who knows ? (The)Who cares ? It was just a joke.

 

Sadly, I think there are probably about 1000 more likely candidates for the yewtree treatment than the now celibate Gary Lineker:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/celebs-tv/gary-lineker-admits-sex-now-6170314.amp

 

Are you accusing the mods of wrongdoing? Brave move if so.

Reckon the secret Panorama episode that's coming soon will tell all?

 

"Allegedly".

 

A " most unsightly man".

 

Whatever happened to your username change, IBB?

 

Grass