[News] The Historical Sex Allegations Thread

[Pavilionaire]

I've read the Times article and I've watched the show. 4 things strike me:

1. The show has made a compelling case that Brand is a rapist.
2. He is also clearly a narcissist. So many similarities with Trump, Johnson and Savile.
3. Like those three, he has a seducfive personality that many - even now - will defend him and believe him.
4. Bob Geldof was right - he is a c**t.

 

[AmexRuislip]

I’m afraid I don’t, as I haven’t owned a VHS player since 19-dickity-six. We called it a “tape recorder” in those days, as was the style at the time.

I'm not familiar with that type of brand..........

 

[KZNSeagull]

If it were not for investigative journalism, scandals like phone hacking, MPs expenses and the Catholic priest sexual abuse coverup may have never been exposed. Properly done it is invaluable and there has not been enough of it in recent times.

 

[Berty23]

This is true. And as creditable as investigative journalism always sounds, it may not be. As you allude, best left to legal agencies.

What proportion of rape cases reported to police get investigated and then end up in court?

 

[Weststander]

More girls/women will come forward now.

 

[The Fits]

What proportion of rape cases reported to police get investigated and then end up in court?

Less than 1% end in conviction don't they? And something like 4 in 5 women and 3 in 4 men don't report the incident at all.
It's a mess.

 

[Weststander]

Real echoes of Saville isn't there? He's been so blatant about his behaviour and it's always been an open secret and nobody has done anything about it.
I can imagine many, many more women might come forwards now.
It's gross and tragic.

Notable the audio of Brand and Savile together, drooling, Savile giving his preference for a female. All meant in jest …. of course.

 

[The Fits]

Notable the audio of Brand and Savile together, drooling, Savile giving his preference for a female. All meant in jest …. of course.

That was particularly disgusting. Why the producer didn't pull that I have no idea. The minute it turned, basically the minute that Saville started speaking, it should have been cut short.

 

[Weststander]

That was particularly disgusting. Why the producer didn't pull that I have no idea. The minute it turned, basically the minute that Saville started speaking, it should have been cut short.

He was literally about 80 years old then. Yuk.

 

[Mustafa II]

Innocent until proven guilty chaps.

Why these serious criminal allegations are revealed in a ch4 programme is baffling to me. Should be in complete control of the police and courts, before any of us get to know anything about it.

Bizarre, concerning, dangerous precedent for legal justice.

 

[clapham_gull]

Innocent until proven guilty chaps.

Why these serious criminal allegations are revealed in a ch4 programme is baffling to me. Should be in complete control of the police and courts, before any of us get to know anything about it.

Bizarre, concerning, dangerous precedent for legal justice.

Like Savile never happened.

I have no idea whether he is guilty of anything that was said. What I do know of is that "new lad" era in media industry and the reluctance of anyone to make a complaint.

There is also a very high bar to getting any conviction in court.

In any case, the man has made a career of talking about his sex life in the media. Sometimes naming the individuals involved without their consent.

What's the issue with others using the same outlet to tell the other side of the story ?

 

[jcdenton08]

That was particularly disgusting. Why the producer didn't pull that I have no idea. The minute it turned, basically the minute that Saville started speaking, it should have been cut short.

Didn’t like that. It was a manipulative attempt to equate Brand with Savile in the public’s mind. I’d rather the facts spoke for themselves in each case, and only allude indirectly to others.

The danger is a “lesser” evil is compared directly to a more prolific and vile one and becomes de rigeur or more defensible. It would be like directly comparing one atrocity to another one with fewer casualties.

 

[Weststander]

I've read the Times article and I've watched the show. 4 things strike me:

1. The show has made a compelling case that Brand is a rapist.
2. He is also clearly a narcissist. So many similarities with Trump, Johnson and Savile.
3. Like those three, he has a seducfive personality that many - even now - will defend him and believe him.
4. Bob Geldof was right - he is a c**t.

Contrived all along I’m thinking, a Charles Manson/David Koresh image and persona. Setting out to maximise the number of females victims whilst he was riding high in show business.

Cynically, I wonder if he went down the conspiracy theory/“there are forces against me” route, as he and his lawyers felt the pressure mounting on his alleged dirty past. Setting up a viable future once black-balled. Like Trump, an unflushable turd.

 

[clapham_gull]

Didn’t like that. It was a manipulative attempt to equate Brand with Savile in the public’s mind.

It really really wasn't. What were the producers supposed to do, omit the section because it involved Savile ? Nonsense.

It was just another example of the creepy behaviour on screen and on air which the programme was full of.

What we found out about Savile later was irrelevant. Savile was asking for Brand to bring along his sister, Brand having no sister offers his personal assistant.

It's weird beyond belief and was weird even back then. Fully deserved to be included because it happened.

Remember, morality in the media and television industry went backwards around the millennium and after. That odd "new lad" culture that evolved excused all sort of behaviour (including racism) because it was deemed as "ironic". Drugs became fashionable again.

Go back and watch a lot of stand up at time, it was a toxic few years.

Personally I'd just come back from "Madchester", spending three years at Manchester University generally stoned for three years. But everyone was lovely.

Once I'd sorted my head out and returned to London the place was well, full of tossers.

I worked in Camden during the whole Brit Pop era, alongside "stars" both in the TV and Music Industry. Trust me the world went backwards, behaviour towards women went backwards. Racist jokes were ironically funny again.

The seeds were sown for the issues we are hearing about now.

I'm amazed it's taken so long.

 

[The Fits]

Didn’t like that. It was a manipulative attempt to equate Brand with Savile in the public’s mind. I’d rather the facts spoke for themselves in each case, and only allude indirectly to others.

The danger is a “lesser” evil is compared directly to a more prolific and vile one and becomes de rigeur or more defensible. It would be like directly comparing one atrocity to another one with fewer casualties.

I think it was fair game and usefully illustrative of both Brand's attitudes towards women and the industry's attitude to powerful men 'joking' about sex abuse.

 

[jcdenton08]

I think the above two posters have me confused with someone defending Brand.

Please read my previous posts on this matter and don’t confuse my distaste for an attempt at audience manipulation for a defence of the man.

 

[nickjhs]

Dispatches and the Times wouldn't be dare going to press if they felt they didn't have something.

How is this anything other than trial by Media? What you have essentially done is what is wrong with the whole MeToo movement. An allegation has been made, by what I believe to be reputable sources, therefore the allegations are proven.

 

[jcdenton08]

How is this anything other than trial by Media? What you have essentially done is what is wrong with the whole MeToo movement. An allegation has been made, by what I believe to be reputable sources, therefore the allegations are proven.

Well, actually four separate allegations have been made over a number of years by four different women - well, actually three women and one girl - who have no connection to one another. This was all detailed in the program and article.

 

[phoenix]

Still trying to get my Betamax to work

I'm Surprised the Phillips 2000 hasn;t been mentioned.

 

[BadFish]

It really really wasn't. What were the producers supposed to do, omit the section because it involved Savile ? Nonsense.

It was just another example of the creepy behaviour on screen and on air which the programme was full of.

What we found out about Savile later was irrelevant. Savile was asking for Brand to bring along his sister, Brand having no sister offers his personal assistant.

It's weird beyond belief and was weird even back then. Fully deserved to be included because it happened.

Remember, morality in the media and television industry went backwards around the millennium and after. That odd "new lad" culture that evolved excused all sort of behaviour (including racism) because it was deemed as "ironic". Drugs became fashionable again.

Go back and watch a lot of stand up at time, it was a toxic few years.

Personally I'd just come back from "Madchester", spending three years at Manchester University generally stoned for three years. But everyone was lovely.

Once I'd sorted my head out and returned to London the place was well, full of tossers.

I worked in Camden during the whole Brit Pop era, alongside "stars" both in the TV and Music Industry. Trust me the world went backwards, behaviour towards women went backwards. Racist jokes were ironically funny again.

The seeds were sown for the issues we are hearing about now.

I'm amazed it's taken so long.

Apparently the Camden thing is written about my Miki Berenyi (Lush) in her book. Not got to it yet but it would be interesting.