Explain how the MSM has been taken over by the left.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Russell Brand - Legend or Bellend ?.
- Thread starter Uncle Spielberg
- Start date
Explain how the MSM has been taken over by the left.
16 is legal isn't it? Coercive control probably impossible to prove with brands expensive lawyer.
Agree. The programme started with its biggest accusation, that of rape. I won't go into details but as the woman concerned gave her account - via an actress who spoke her words - I thought 'really'? After that it was all downhill with carefully selected clips from his shows, where he recounted various of his dodgy sex encounters (the audience laughing without restraint) which were juxtaposed with further accusations (of extremely questionable behaviour in the context of relationships).
At one point the programme made a deal about 'countless' women who he invited for a shag after a show, who were upset when he didn't get in touch with them again like he promised. Seriously? Do elements in the groupie community (as we must call them) these days now have a sense of entitlement?
I mentioned some time ago that I know someone who has worked extensively with him professionally, and some of the things he has done are staggering (and I won't recount them on here). But not illegal.
With the 'evidence' available, there was a difference of opinion in the Tackle household about whether it is understandable that someone would wait 11 years to disclose that the second time she had sex with Brand it wasn't consensual, and disclose it not to the police but to a TV company. Without this allegation of rape (perhaps even with it) the way the programme carried a sort of horror soundtrack without the narrative struck me as exploitative. They even managed to squeeze in the time when Brand and Jonathan Ross 'pranked' Manuel off Fawlty Towers. "See what a **** he is, so what we are, er, alleging must be true".
Time will tell whether the current hoo-ha has any substance. Before I'm accused of defending Brand, if he's guilty of rape and/or sexual assault, he should go to jail. As others have suggested, this programme may serve to smoke out dozens of women he's raped who have felt insufficiently empowered to step forward. Let's see what unfolds. My opinion, like that of everyone else's is valueless.
You're dismissing coercive control/grooming of a 16-year-old as "heat of the moment"?!
He was in a 'relationship' with the 16 year old, according to herself, that went on for months. Her complaint was that his sexual preferences were not always delightful.
The programme was very pejorative at that point. Lest we forget the age of consent is not 16* in America, so the American audience (if the show is shown there - it seemed to have been put together with an American audience in mind) will have automatically clocked that this is statutory rape by definition, consent or no consent. Even worse than Prince Andrew.
*age of consent is either 17 or 18 years old (6 and 11 states, respectively) and 16 in the rest
I think the problem here is that take away the fact that we think we 'know' the bloke in question, it boils down to whether the 'relationship' he had when 31 with a 16 year old constituted grooming. There was no question that he had any contact with the woman/girl when she was 15 or younger. It can be argued that when there is a power imbalance the when the stronger of the pair seduces the weaker then this equals coercive control. However I think this needs to be proven not assumed. The woman/girl in question at no point stated that she was gulled into bed against her will owing to her age and naivety. That wasn't what came across at all. The complain was about his behaviour in the relationship.
Weststander
Well-known member
11 in the southern Appalachians.
Neither of these cases amounted to coercive control. As noted above the first case was a complaint about how Brand behaved in a relationship. In the second, the employee appeared to think that it was in her contract to do whatever Brand wanted. I must admit one of my eyebrows raised itself a millimeter when I heard her account. It would be hard to convince a jury this amounted to coercive control.
I'd like to think that cases like this may help the laws to be changed even further. Every employee who deals with other employees or the public/customers should have it drilled into them that there are lines that cannot be crossed and that they are required to be safe by laws. This requires a complaints procedure that is fit for purpose. My understanding is that in some places (I don't know where but parts of America may fit this bill) if a someone asks someone to come on a date with them, and there is a work-related connection, this constitutes an offence. This may seem a bit harsh but I rather like it. Unfortunately it would mean that I would never have got together with Mrs T (we met through work) and our age difference (bigger than Brand and the 16 year old) would have meant I would be open to a coercive control charge. But so be it. If laws are needed to keep the vulnerable safe from predators then let's have some laws.
(I do hope we don't get any old school types on this thread bemoaning lefty political correctness, hankering for the good old days when you could slap the secretary's arse, and declaring they could tell whether someone was 'up for it' or not ('frigid'), but I fear that someone of that brand is bound to be along in a minute).
Seriously?
Anyway, my point was clear - in parts of America because that woman/girl was 16, the TV audience will regard this as statutory rape. Brand is not contesting the relationship so his career is probably finished, not just in the relevant states but across the land. Pee Wee Herman died recently. Brand may need to bone up on his biography to see what life may have in store for him.
Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,533
Saddens me to see the amount of comments from women who have already decided he isn't that kind of bloke and the accusers are after money. You would think the natural reaction from a woman would be in favour of the accusers until proven otherwise. I am not saying they should pronounce guilt without trial but this is exactly the same - pronouncing guilt on the accusers with no proof. I would love to know if these type of people (see also Johnson, Trump, Farage etc) genuinely believe that there is a conspiracy, are trying to convince themselves that there is a conspiracy or are blustering theories they don't believe, simply because they do not want to be wrong.
I like someone saying controversial/bigoted things that I also think = that person has never done anything wrong and anyone who says otherwise is part of a conspiracy to hide the truth. Predominantly a right wing thing but see also supporters of Galloway/Corbyn etc.
I like someone saying controversial/bigoted things that I also think = that person has never done anything wrong and anyone who says otherwise is part of a conspiracy to hide the truth. Predominantly a right wing thing but see also supporters of Galloway/Corbyn etc.
Those famously “left wing” media outlets like *checks notes* The Times
Oh sorry didn't realise he had been tried in a court for this ! Were you the judge
Oh sorry didn't realise he had been tried in a court for this ! Were you the judge
Silly me, I thought you were making judgement.
"I don't see him being banged up for anything on that show."
I didn't watch the programme. I've read some of the Times article, and it seems judging by the comments on here to be massively different.
Comments on here talking about time between the alledged assault and reporting it, whether there was coercive control in the relationship with a 16 year old. In the article there are reports from someone who went to a rape crisis centre within a day of her alleged assault. The 16 year old talks about having to punch him in the stomach to stop him doing somthing she didn't consent to and physically forcing her to swallow his spit.
It's not behind a paywall at the moment https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...6?shareToken=ac98ebfb88e9ab22c8c390a6c745cd3f
Comments on here talking about time between the alledged assault and reporting it, whether there was coercive control in the relationship with a 16 year old. In the article there are reports from someone who went to a rape crisis centre within a day of her alleged assault. The 16 year old talks about having to punch him in the stomach to stop him doing somthing she didn't consent to and physically forcing her to swallow his spit.
It's not behind a paywall at the moment https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...6?shareToken=ac98ebfb88e9ab22c8c390a6c745cd3f
I don't see.....
Vs
You're dismissing coercive control/grooming of a 16-year-old as "heat of the moment"?!
You don't even say it's your opinion
You appear to know different women from me. Who are these people? In fact, do I even want to know?
As for conspiracy.....perhaps I don't read the necessary 'newspapers', blogs, YouTube channels or whatever. I presume this is the stuff of 'influencers'. Sorry but that world is the latter-day manifestation of village witch craft as far as I'm concerned. Incidentally, did you know that Joan of Arc was probably a bloke?
Funnily enough.....I have always enjoyed his performances, but consider that despite the substandard effort on channel 4 yesterday, it is perfectly reasonable for the police to explore the allegations. I suppose it is perfectly legitimate to rely entirely on one's gut instincts, albeit I have never ben a fan of trial by the court of public opinion. Especially in cases that matter (this could well be one).
nicko31
Well-known member
The idiots that idolise such people as Brand have to accept some responsibility in the creation of what he became.
I think that forensically examining what adults get up to behind closed doors is a very dangerous road to travel.
You may be able to form a clearer view after watching the programme.