Russell Brand: Raper

[PornDog]

"They" "Pushed the button" 9/11

Fucking doolally

[David in Gwent]

Wait, so in the last few weeks RB has given critiques on Moderna, Pfizer, Bill Gates, Biden etc etc and all of a sudden he's being taken down.

I am the very personification of being shocked.

Let’s get this straight - you believe that all the allegations are made up and the women/girls are lying as a conspiracy to silence him?

Let me get this straight - you don't believe the MSM and whomever is behind it don't control narratives and opinions?

[Slick]

Wait, so in the last few weeks RB has given critiques on Moderna, Pfizer, Bill Gates, Biden etc etc and all of a sudden he's being taken down.

I am the very personification of being shocked.

Let’s get this straight - you believe that all the allegations are made up and the women/girls are lying as a conspiracy to silence him?

Let me get this straight - you don't believe the MSM and whomever is behind it don't control narratives and opinions?

Who are whomever?

[Torquemada 1420]

me saying that a) people shouldn't gleefully speculate over who a mystery rapist might be and b) speculation when we're not going to get any more details is not worth it, vs actual details being published as part of a years-long investigation featuring multiple allegations. Reading what I wrote and coming to the conclusion that I would not want an actual investigation to be published is bonkers. In your haste to find any kind of gotcha all you've done is once again prove that basic comprehension fails you on a regular basis.

Speculating over who a mystery rapist might be is both ghoulish and pretty fucking terrible for everyone whose names get linked with something heinous for absolutely no reason.

Just got to this part of the thread and was about to post something along the lines of needing to be careful about speculation (a bit surprised MODs haven't jumped on the DW bit at least): but you have done the job.

Personally I think Brand is an uber c**t and sure, I'd love to see him go down for this because I dislike him. But only if it's true. I'm not comfortable with mob trials. It's the kind of behaviour that results in stuff like this
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug ... on.society

[ASMO]

me saying that a) people shouldn't gleefully speculate over who a mystery rapist might be and b) speculation when we're not going to get any more details is not worth it, vs actual details being published as part of a years-long investigation featuring multiple allegations. Reading what I wrote and coming to the conclusion that I would not want an actual investigation to be published is bonkers. In your haste to find any kind of gotcha all you've done is once again prove that basic comprehension fails you on a regular basis.

Speculating over who a mystery rapist might be is both ghoulish and pretty fucking terrible for everyone whose names get linked with something heinous for absolutely no reason.

Just got to this part of the thread and was about to post something along the lines of needing to be careful about speculation (a bit surprised MODs haven't jumped on the DW bit at least): but you have done the job.

Personally I think Brand is an uber c**t and sure, I'd love to see him go down for this because I dislike him. But only if it's true. I'm not comfortable with mob trials. It's the kind of behaviour that results in stuff like this
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug ... on.society

Nothing for the Mods to do, it was speculation about rumours that there might be something, not flat outright accusing someone of it. Someone's opinion is not an allegation of fact.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I'm not comfortable with mob trials.

Like having a personal/work email address bombarded with abuse? Or would that fall below the level of a trial and thus not count?

[Margin__Walker]

I'm not comfortable with mob trials.

Like having a personal/work email address bombarded with abuse? Or would that fall below the level of a trial and thus not count?

An interesting question tbf.

Guessing not THOSE mob trials

[Big D]

It hasn't been mentioned here but I have seen the motives of Daniel Sloss being the only comedian to speak on the programme questioned.

This might explain his motives rather than advancing his career:

I appreciate what he's saying, but I can't help but wonder if that will actually achieve anything. You can't take "I think this guy's a bit dodge, said some iffy things" to the police. You can tell the speaker what they're saying isn't ok, but all that really teaches them is to moderate their speech in front of you, it doesn't disabuse them of the notion that sexual assault or worse is ok. Dropping them from your circle probably isn't going to be a road to Damascus moment either. The vast majority of men know that it's illegal and that society at large is completely behind it being illegal because it's also considered immoral. They know and don't care and/or transgressing against social mores is part of the point.

No but if you notice a part f your friendship group is showing behaviours and using language that is concerning, letting them know 999/1000 may not make a difference but 1/1000 it might. And i might save a woman being raped.

I imagine having that happen in his friendship group would make him review every little thing that he could have spotted but at least trying to change someone's views/behaviours is better than not trying at all surely.

[Big D]

me saying that a) people shouldn't gleefully speculate over who a mystery rapist might be and b) speculation when we're not going to get any more details is not worth it, vs actual details being published as part of a years-long investigation featuring multiple allegations. Reading what I wrote and coming to the conclusion that I would not want an actual investigation to be published is bonkers. In your haste to find any kind of gotcha all you've done is once again prove that basic comprehension fails you on a regular basis.

Speculating over who a mystery rapist might be is both ghoulish and pretty fucking terrible for everyone whose names get linked with something heinous for absolutely no reason.

Just got to this part of the thread and was about to post something along the lines of needing to be careful about speculation (a bit surprised MODs haven't jumped on the DW bit at least): but you have done the job.

Personally I think Brand is an uber c**t and sure, I'd love to see him go down for this because I dislike him. But only if it's true. I'm not comfortable with mob trials. It's the kind of behaviour that results in stuff like this
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug ... on.society

Nothing for the Mods to do, it was speculation about rumours that there might be something, not flat outright accusing someone of it. Someone's opinion is not an allegation of fact.

Apologies, should have thought before typing.

[Big D]

Not that anyone cares, I think he's a brilliant stand up. Haven't seen the special this is a part of, though, as it's not on Netflix like others.

He is good live. Unusually for us Fifers, he has a sense of humour.

[Biffer]

A google on communication gave this as top result

You know that is *literally* referred to as the Mehrabian Myth?

I was trusting google, it presented it so conclusively at the top.

However, there is obviously substantial communication from more than the written words.

I think we may have identified the root of so many of your desperately bad takes.

[Biffer]

I think it’s a trust thing. Dramatic delivery by a good actor feels misleading to me.

They're not fucking getting Kiera Knightly and Emily Blunt to do this. Between the extremely common use of voice actors whenever there's a good reason for the victims to not be public, and the even more common links to the rape crisis helplines in the article, you are either extremely confused by something that is utterly commonplace or trying to muddy the waters for some reason. What are you doing? It's weird.

Any use of actors is entirely inappropriate for presenting this to the public where opinions form rapidly. People read in to facial expressions, intonations, tone of voice. Actors kind of specialise in doing this !!

I’m pretty sure this was not your stance when it came to Marlin Yarde, even being named, let alone someone performing on a camera pretending to be the victim.

Absolute unmitigated bollocks. If you they speak their own words, you risk them being identified which could compromise any criminal action or potentially be contempt.

Fuck me, how do you wander around with these absolutely fucking awful takes and manage not to walk into traffic?

[Biffer]

It hasn't been mentioned here but I have seen the motives of Daniel Sloss being the only comedian to speak on the programme questioned.

This might explain his motives rather than advancing his career:

I appreciate what he's saying, but I can't help but wonder if that will actually achieve anything. You can't take "I think this guy's a bit dodge, said some iffy things" to the police. You can tell the speaker what they're saying isn't ok, but all that really teaches them is to moderate their speech in front of you, it doesn't disabuse them of the notion that sexual assault or worse is ok. Dropping them from your circle probably isn't going to be a road to Damascus moment either. The vast majority of men know that it's illegal and that society at large is completely behind it being illegal because it's also considered immoral. They know and don't care and/or transgressing against social mores is part of the point.

In that very specific case, for Daniel Sloss, it would likely have meant that his friend wouldn’t have been raped by his other friend. If the guy had been excluded from the group, told to fuck the fuck off, he wouldn’t have had the access to be trusted, friend of a friend thing, so wouldn’t have been able to get into the position to do it.

Now, you can say, ‘well he’d have just raped someone else’ but if everyone did the same he wouldn’t have access to anyone to perform the trust me, trust me, nah you can’t trust me routine.

[ASMO]

Just got to this part of the thread and was about to post something along the lines of needing to be careful about speculation (a bit surprised MODs haven't jumped on the DW bit at least): but you have done the job.

Personally I think Brand is an uber c**t and sure, I'd love to see him go down for this because I dislike him. But only if it's true. I'm not comfortable with mob trials. It's the kind of behaviour that results in stuff like this
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug ... on.society

Nothing for the Mods to do, it was speculation about rumours that there might be something, not flat outright accusing someone of it. Someone's opinion is not an allegation of fact.

Apologies, should have thought before typing.

I just replaced the names with initials out of courtesy

[Blackmac]

If someone had asked you ten years ago, who after Huw Edwards would be the biggest celebrity sex scandal of 2023, you would have bet your house on it being this twat, however that doesn't make me any less enamoured about how these TV journos go about their business. They follow no due process, are not ultimately interested in justice and don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of any of those involved, whether it be the accusers or the accused. All they want is sensationalism to sell their programme.

[Ymx]

Honestly, you are absolutely fucking brain dead. Pretty big difference between me saying that a) people shouldn't gleefully speculate over who a mystery rapist might be and b) speculation when we're not going to get any more details is not worth it, vs actual details being published as part of a years-long investigation featuring multiple allegations. Reading what I wrote and coming to the conclusion that I would not want an actual investigation to be published is bonkers. In your haste to find any kind of gotcha all you've done is once again prove that basic comprehension fails you on a regular basis.

Speculating over who a mystery rapist might be is both ghoulish and pretty fucking terrible for everyone whose names get linked with something heinous for absolutely no reason.

Speculating over the identity of a suspect vs speculating from an actor portraying a victim against a named person n. The former is not fine, the latter is hunky dory. Got it.

I’m not surprised you don’t see your inconsistency.

"speculating from an actor portraying a victim against a named person" is not what is happening, you genuine imbecile.

Are you honestly saying as a result of this programme and articles, people are not speculating at his presumed guilt?

Many here are, right before our eyes on this thread.

You’re just a bloody hypocrite.

[Ymx]

They're not fucking getting Kiera Knightly and Emily Blunt to do this. Between the extremely common use of voice actors whenever there's a good reason for the victims to not be public, and the even more common links to the rape crisis helplines in the article, you are either extremely confused by something that is utterly commonplace or trying to muddy the waters for some reason. What are you doing? It's weird.

Any use of actors is entirely inappropriate for presenting this to the public where opinions form rapidly. People read in to facial expressions, intonations, tone of voice. Actors kind of specialise in doing this !!

I’m pretty sure this was not your stance when it came to Marlin Yarde, even being named, let alone someone performing on a camera pretending to be the victim.

Absolute unmitigated bollocks. If you they speak their own words, you risk them being identified which could compromise any criminal action or potentially be contempt.

Fuck me, how do you wander around with these absolutely fucking awful takes and manage not to walk into traffic?

You do realise the alternative was not that they go on themselves, but they don’t release the programme.

Releasing the programme with their acted out words is the main part which compromises criminal action, ffs.

[David in Gwent]

Asking as I genuinely don't know the answer but have there been any other similar dramatical re-enactments of alleged crimes carried out by an individual before that person has appeared in a court of law?

I haven't had a TV since 2019 so there may have been swathes of similar programs that I'm not aware of. I know they didn't did one on Huw Edwards as the media said we had to care about his mental health.

[ASMO]

If someone had asked you ten years ago, who after Huw Edwards would be the biggest celebrity sex scandal of 2023, you would have bet your house on it being this twat, however that doesn't make me any less enamoured about how these TV journos go about their business. They follow no due process, are not ultimately interested in justice and don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of any of those involved, whether it be the accusers or the accused. All they want is sensationalism to sell their programme.

No different to the Paedo vigilantes, think they are doing society a service, but a lot of the time fucking up investigations meaning genuine offenders escape prosecution due to contaminated evidence, or enticement.

[JM2K6]

Speculating over the identity of a suspect vs speculating from an actor portraying a victim against a named person n. The former is not fine, the latter is hunky dory. Got it.

I’m not surprised you don’t see your inconsistency.

"speculating from an actor portraying a victim against a named person" is not what is happening, you genuine imbecile.

Are you honestly saying as a result of this programme and articles, people are not speculating at his presumed guilt?

Many here are, right before our eyes on this thread.

You’re just a bloody hypocrite.

You utter moron. The programme and articles are accusations of rape, made by real people as part of a years-long investigation, aimed at Brand. That is the discussion. It is entirely normal and fair for people to give their opinion on whether they think he is guilty or not.

The comments I made on the Yarde thread (a player I genuinely dislike) are that a) when you don't know who the accused is, eagerly speculating on a public forum regarding the identity of the accused is both ghoulish & incredibly damaging to people whose names are linked to it for no reason other than to satisfy some forum go'ers fantasy, and b) once it was essentially confirmed who it was, there were no actual details of the accusation to discuss and maybe it was better to wait.

Zero hypocrisy, because they are wildly different scenarios. If we were speculating on the identity of the women, then maybe there might be some cross-over, but we're not, so there isn't.

I know you are probably beginning to realise you've made a complete arse of yourself on this thread, and you're itching to call these women liars and state that it's a stitchup, but you're too fucking stupid to know when you should stop digging. Time and time again you've shown you haven't a clue about any of this and people keep having to point that out to you, but you're so incurably smooth-brained that the nonsense just doesn't stop. I've got more likelihood of persuading a dog not to lick its own bollocks than getting any sense out of you.

[Ymx]

Asking as I genuinely don't know the answer but have there been any other similar dramatical re-enactments of alleged crimes carried out by an individual before that person has appeared in a court of law?

I haven't had a TV since 2019 so there may have been swathes of similar programs that I'm not aware of. I know they didn't did one on Huw Edwards as the media said we had to care about his mental health.

Exactly, this is crazy. There’s no way this should have ever been published (and even worse with actors), ahead of him even being charged and gone on trial.

It completely ballses up any hope of a fair trial, for both him and the alleged victims.

[Simian]

YMX on ‘dinghy people’ (his term) = we need to keep these rapists out our country because they are so rapey

YMX on RB = well, you know… it’s just a bunch of women saying he raped (or tried to rape) them. Let’s not jump the gun on this.

But. Oh. Google said it. Ffs.

[Ymx]

Word for word, you got me

[Conor]

YMX on ‘dinghy people’ (his term) = we need to keep these rapists out our country because they are so rapey

YMX on RB = well, you know… it’s just a bunch of women saying he raped (or tried to rape) them. Let’s not jump the gun on this.

But. Oh. Google said it. Ffs.

The absolute hack of you.

[robmatic]

Asking as I genuinely don't know the answer but have there been any other similar dramatical re-enactments of alleged crimes carried out by an individual before that person has appeared in a court of law?

I haven't had a TV since 2019 so there may have been swathes of similar programs that I'm not aware of. I know they didn't did one on Huw Edwards as the media said we had to care about his mental health.

Exactly, this is crazy. There’s no way this should have ever been published (and even worse with actors), ahead of him even being charged and gone on trial.

It completely ballses up any hope of a fair trial, for both him and the alleged victims.

Programme or not, realistically these types of cases don't go to trial. Prosecution rates for rape and sexual assault are extremely low.

[David in Gwent]

Asking as I genuinely don't know the answer but have there been any other similar dramatical re-enactments of alleged crimes carried out by an individual before that person has appeared in a court of law?

I haven't had a TV since 2019 so there may have been swathes of similar programs that I'm not aware of. I know they didn't did one on Huw Edwards as the media said we had to care about his mental health.

Exactly, this is crazy. There’s no way this should have ever been published (and even worse with actors), ahead of him even being charged and gone on trial.

It completely ballses up any hope of a fair trial, for both him and the alleged victims.

Programme or not, realistically these types of cases don't go to trial. Prosecution rates for rape and sexual assault are extremely low.

So let's ruin a guy we don't know is innocent or guilty?

We live in interesting times.

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm not comfortable with mob trials.

Like having a personal/work email address bombarded with abuse? Or would that fall below the level of a trial and thus not count?

There was nothing speculative there.

[robmatic]

Exactly, this is crazy. There’s no way this should have ever been published (and even worse with actors), ahead of him even being charged and gone on trial.

It completely ballses up any hope of a fair trial, for both him and the alleged victims.

Programme or not, realistically these types of cases don't go to trial. Prosecution rates for rape and sexual assault are extremely low.

So let's ruin a guy we don't know is innocent or guilty?

We live in interesting times.

I think it's reasonable to be able to form an opinion about someone without having to rely on the judgement of a court of law. Or for somebody's actions to have a reputational consequence.

[David in Gwent]

Programme or not, realistically these types of cases don't go to trial. Prosecution rates for rape and sexual assault are extremely low.

So let's ruin a guy we don't know is innocent or guilty?

We live in interesting times.

I think it's reasonable to be able to form an opinion about someone without having to rely on the judgement of a court of law. Or for somebody's actions to have a reputational consequence.

RIght, I don't think it's reasonable to portray someone as a rapist without having convicted them first, in a court of law, but that's just me.

[Simian]

So let's ruin a guy we don't know is innocent or guilty?

We live in interesting times.

I think it's reasonable to be able to form an opinion about someone without having to rely on the judgement of a court of law. Or for somebody's actions to have a reputational consequence.

RIght, I don't think it's reasonable to portray someone as a rapist without having convicted them first, in a court of law, but that's just me.

Agreed. However, I think it’s entirely reasonable to conclude that they might be a really shitty person you wouldn’t want around you or anyone you cared about. So, someone like paddy Jackson is not a convicted sex offender. He’s demonstrably (ie evidenced in court) a risk fucking cunt.

[Simian]

Word for word, you got me

I mean, you repeatedly said that it was an issue to house immigrant men in areas because people in those areas were concerned about the safety of women.

Now, you’re saying ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Can you tell me what the difference is? Because I’m fairly confident I can see what the ‘difference’ is



I am going to pursue you a lot in this point. Why is it ok to (for you) to say ‘dinghy people’ are predatory and we should listen peoples’ concerns on this point bit not ok to say Russel brand is predatory?

[robmatic]

So let's ruin a guy we don't know is innocent or guilty?

We live in interesting times.

I think it's reasonable to be able to form an opinion about someone without having to rely on the judgement of a court of law. Or for somebody's actions to have a reputational consequence.

RIght, I don't think it's reasonable to portray someone as a rapist without having convicted them first, in a court of law, but that's just me.

Yes, libel is bad. Do you think that these claims are libellous?

[David in Gwent]

I think it's reasonable to be able to form an opinion about someone without having to rely on the judgement of a court of law. Or for somebody's actions to have a reputational consequence.

RIght, I don't think it's reasonable to portray someone as a rapist without having convicted them first, in a court of law, but that's just me.

Yes, libel is bad. Do you think that these claims are libellous?

I think we live in interesting times and that RB could be guilty, he could also be innocent.

[JM2K6]

Innocent until proven guilty is there to ensure the government treats people fairly, not to police how individuals view other individuals and not as some sort of moral code.

When the justice system is such an overwhelming failure, it's bizarre that people abdicate all moral judgment to the courts.

Jimmy Savile never faced justice when he was alive. It took decades and public pressure for Epstein to begin to account for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein was only brought down due to the public pressure of overwhelming accusations, rather than any police work prior to that point.

Powerful men, protected by those around them, with access to huge legal resources, are extremely difficult to bring to justice.

[David in Gwent]

Innocent until proven guilty is there to ensure the government treats people fairly, not to police how individuals view other individuals and not as some sort of moral code.

When the justice system is such an overwhelming failure, it's bizarre that people abdicate all moral judgment to the courts.

Jimmy Savile never faced justice when he was alive. It took decades and public pressure for Epstein to begin to account for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein was only brought down due to the public pressure of overwhelming accusations, rather than any police work prior to that point.

Powerful men, protected by those around them, with access to huge legal resources, are extremely difficult to bring to justice.

That's all very jolly, until it happens to someone you know or care about. I guess, hypothetically, they'll just have to suck it up, I mean, it's up to anyone how they view anyone else, especially if they've had MSM tell them unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources and present it as fact.

Epstein was found guilty of procuring a child as a prostitute in 2008 and only served 13 months or so, the fact that he entertained and befriended many popular figures such as Bill Gates after that conviction is beyond shocking. In my opinion people have to factor in the chance that RB is being "silenced" as a valid standpoint.

As for Gates and Epstein, Gates gave an "apology" about fraternising with Epstein and the MSN forgave him, as did we, and we got on with things.

He was the opposite of silenced.

[Hal Jordan]

Considering that when a woman was kidnapped, raped and killed by a police officer, the police's immediate reaction was to kick the shit out of women holding a silent vigil, you can see why women just feel that it is massively painful with a tiny chance of success.

[Ymx]

Word for word, you got me

I mean, you repeatedly said that it was an issue to house immigrant men in areas because people in those areas were concerned about the safety of women.

Now, you’re saying ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Can you tell me what the difference is? Because I’m fairly confident I can see what the ‘difference’ is



I am going to pursue you a lot in this point. Why is it ok to (for you) to say ‘dinghy people’ are predatory and we should listen peoples’ concerns on this point bit not ok to say Russel brand is predatory?

Because Russell Brand doesn’t live in my village. There’s just one of him.

[David in Gwent]

Word for word, you got me

I mean, you repeatedly said that it was an issue to house immigrant men in areas because people in those areas were concerned about the safety of women.

Now, you’re saying ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Can you tell me what the difference is? Because I’m fairly confident I can see what the ‘difference’ is



I am going to pursue you a lot in this point. Why is it ok to (for you) to say ‘dinghy people’ are predatory and we should listen peoples’ concerns on this point bit not ok to say Russel brand is predatory?

I'm curious by your logic the dingy people are definitely innocent but RB is definitely guilty?

[Uncle fester]

Thread took a very weird turn.

[Sandstorm]

Thread took a very weird turn.

Usual suspects…..