[News] The Historical Sex Allegations Thread

[portlock seagull]

I don’t tend to get roped into gender battle debates. I’ve known two stranger rape victims, so my heart leans towards the vulnerable gender, but against that imho 90% of males in this country treat females with respect (‘have their back’).

Regarding the comedy, perhaps that era of 2000 to 2015 was the end in the UK of a passing fad? Brand able to push his sexual thoughts and actions as wit, a herd instinct from folk snapping up the tickets.

This is what stands out for me. Everyone lampoons the 70s as the age of predatory celebs. Yet these accusations are all much more recent, and his very explict humour was lapped by millions of both genders and shows the power of celebrity worship. The same conversations will be occurring in a 100 years, I guarantee.

 

[Acker79]

These stories of the (ugh, and I hate to use this term) #metoo variety only gain veracity because of the strength in numbers.

This may seem slightly off topic, but I don't think it is...

I think we have lost sight of what the #metoo was about and why it was so influential. There is a mythical idea of a perfect victim. Someone who does everything she should, wears the right clothes, never drinks, clearly says no, fights him off, reports it right away and never wavers in a fight for immediate justice.

When there were high profile claims of rape, when they weren't that perfect vicitm people would sympathise with the accused. Questioning the victim on where she fell short, etc.

#MeToo saw woman across the spectrums -from sober to alcoholics, conservative to liberal, rich to poor, independent and vocial to meak and quiet, and in so many other ways, strangers to their attackers or married to them, all showing that it doesn't matter. There is no perfect victim and we need to stop doubting people for failing to live up to a supposed idea of how they 'should' act.

And for that brief moment in time I think we did, the # worked. For a while. But it feels like it was only a moment. Seeing responses to the tv programme/article it feels like we're falling back to that old way - why didn't they report it sooner... well, she was in a relationship with him... they're just upset groupies... and so on.

 

[Pavilionaire]

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.

Why? The whole point of that segment wss to demonstrate that Brand was willing to prostitute his own assistant to men like Savile. He should have been sacked for gross misconduct on the spot for undermining her in that way.

Moreover, inclusion of real interaction with Savile and even the title of the programme " In Plain Sight" are dog whistle for victims to come forward like they did with Savile which- ultimately - was decisive.

 

[The Fits]

Why? The whole point of that segment wss to demonstrate that Brand was willing to prostitute his own assistant to men like Savile. He should have been sacked for gross misconduct on the spot for undermining her in that way.

Moreover, inclusion of real interaction with Savile and even the title of the programme " In Plain Sight" are dog whistle for victims to come forward like they did with Savile which- ultimately - was decisive.

I'm saying the call should have been cut on Radio 2 (as it was happening), not that it shouldn't have featured in the documentary.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I'm saying the call should have been cut on Radio 2 (as it was happening), not that it shouldn't have featured in the documentary.

Agreed. But the executives and bosses come out of this extremely badly, just as they did with Savile.

This morning I see on the news Brand did a show last night, and there are plenty still supporting him and telling him he is innocent, others content to say innocent until proven guilty.

I wonder why his followers feel the need to have Brand in tbeir lives, telling them how they should think and act vs The Establishment when he has failed to control all aspects of his life in the past and exercised poor judgement. Even if you don't see him as a rapist then see him for what he definitely is, which a narcissist, a sort of warped cult guru bending his sect to his will.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Agreed. But the executives and bosses come out of this extremely badly, just as they did with Savile.

This morning I see on the news Brand did a show last night, and there are plenty still supporting him and telling him he is innocent, others content to say innocent until proven guilty.

I wonder why his followers feel the need to have Brand in tbeir lives, telling them how they should think and act vs The Establishment when he has failed to control all aspects of his life in the past and exercised poor judgement. Even if you don't see him as a rapist then see him for what he definitely is, which a narcissist, a sort of warped cult guru bending his sect to his will.

They remind me of the scene in Life of Brian where the crowd all repeat ‘we are all individuals.’

 

[nickjhs]

Well, he is still innocent until proven guilty. But the guilty are often protected by a culture of fear and a system that deters victims from speaking out. Investigative journalism in some cases may be the only way of empowering people who are failed by the adversarial legal system and cosy boys clubs within organisations and companies. At the end of it the newly empowered may appear in court with the accused but on a more level power playing field.

I agree with most of this, the main issue for me is that the demand for proof has turned 180 degrees. An allegation or a series of allegations is now all it takes for a persons career to be cancelled. There is an attitude that unless you accept the allegations at face value you are somehow part of the problem. Innocent until proven guilty is such a necessary foundation, without it the numbers of incarcerated innocent people will skyrocket. Unfortunately this has been reversed when it comes to employment, and has led and will continue to lead to innocent people having their lives wrecked.

And for those who think I "am part of the problem" please note I have in no way given support for, or judgment against Brand. It's not about the people involved, rather the continued existence of a very necessary principle.

 

[nickjhs]

They remind me of the scene in Life of Brian where the crowd all repeat ‘we are all individuals.’

I was at a festival once, Ice T was on the stage talking about how we should all be "original gangsters" he got the crowd to chant this. When the noise had subsided I boomed out "yes, lord we are all individuals". I suspect there is a Python line for just about every event in life.

 

[clapham_gull]

I agree with most of this, the main issue for me is that the demand for proof has turned 180 degrees. An allegation or a series of allegations is now all it takes for a persons career to be cancelled. There is an attitude that unless you accept the allegations at face value you are somehow part of the problem. Innocent until proven guilty is such a necessary foundation, without it the numbers of incarcerated innocent people will skyrocket. Unfortunately this has been reversed when it comes to employment, and has led and will continue to lead to innocent people having their lives wrecked.

My issue with your hypothesis is my experience working in the media industry especially back around the 2000s. Even if the behaviour wasn't "illegal" (or wouldn't pass a threshold even now) it deserves to be exposed..

.. but to who ?

There weren't functioning HR departments as we know them today and the rich and famous have always have incredibly good lawyers. They have also have very good relationships with the press, quite happy to trade stories for other stories being buried. They are PR people out there making a very good living out of it.

However imperfect, we can't live in a society where bad behaviour can't be exposed if it isn't illegal.

If lies are told the balance of power is still very much in the hands of the "accused" in most cases, especially with our current libel laws.

 

[nickjhs]

My issue with your hypothesis is my experience working in the media industry especially back around the 2000s. Even if the behaviour wasn't "illegal" (or wouldn't pass a threshold even now) it deserves to be exposed..

.. but to who ?

There weren't functioning HR departments as we know them today and the rich and famous have always have incredibly good lawyers. They have also have very good relationships with the press, quite happy to trade stories for other stories being buried. They are PR people out there making a very good living out of it.

However imperfect, we can't live in a society where bad behaviour can't be exposed if it isn't illegal.

If lies are told the balance of power is still very much in the hands of the "accused" in most cases, especially with our current libel laws.

What so you have an issue with innocent until proven guilty? Guilt does not necessarily mean guilty of an illegal act, it just means guilty of the accused behaviour. Are you really saying we go with hearsay over guilty via thorough investigation?

Sure we have issues with the ability to report and be heard, but surely we can get a better method than public naming and shaming in the media, in what is often a very one sided reporting. I say this in light of some very high profile cases that when both sides are finally given equal voice a very different picture emerges. Geoffrey Rush comes immediately to mind, shame his career has been ruined even though he won his libel case. The whole notion that by default the accuser should be believed and the accused must prove a negative is fundamentally wrong.

 

[BadFish]

Who are DW and DJ?

I wish people would bother to type actual names. Aside from being an irritating middle management thing if takes me too long to figure out.

Anyway what have Des Walker and Dom Jolly done?

 

[BadFish]

So because some people thought he was funny this encouraged (allegedly) sexual predatory behaviour? Bit of a stretch!

Does this mean we are not allowed to enjoy anything for fear that someone involved is behaving badly behind the scenes.

Well all be stuck listening to Cliff Richard and reading Agatha Christie.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

whats sex?

regards

DF

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Agreed. But the executives and bosses come out of this extremely badly, just as they did with Savile.

This morning I see on the news Brand did a show last night, and there are plenty still supporting him and telling him he is innocent, others content to say innocent until proven guilty.

I wonder why his followers feel the need to have Brand in tbeir lives, telling them how they should think and act vs The Establishment when he has failed to control all aspects of his life in the past and exercised poor judgement. Even if you don't see him as a rapist then see him for what he definitely is, which a narcissist, a sort of warped cult guru bending his sect to his will.

I thought he was just a comedian. Like some other comedians (Frankie Boyle, Jerry Sadowitz) he causes a certain sort of offense. For me it isn't about whether I choose to 'follow' him (I have occasionally seen a show of his on TV; I don't subscribe to any of his products; I wouldn't call myself even a 'fan', but I have found him entertaining). I would like to know whether he's a rapist or not. I was not aware we are expected to take sides, as if this is the final of 'the voice' or 'Britain's got talent'. .

 

[Garyoldfan]

I’m always suspect of people that go to the media before going to the police.

 

[Questions]

I thought he was just a comedian. Like some other comedians (Frankie Boyle, Jerry Sadowitz) he causes a certain sort of offense. For me it isn't about whether I choose to 'follow' him (I have occasionally see a show of his on TV; I don't subscribe to any of his products; I wouldn't call myself even a 'fan', but I have found him entertaining). I would like to know whether he's a rapist or not. I was not aware we are expected to take sides, as if this is the final of 'the voice' or 'Britain's got talent'. .

You know you may have hit on an idea for a show………

 

[Lenny Rider]

I’m always suspect of people that go to the media before going to the police.

In their defence, the Police are so undermanned and underfunded, there’s far more chance of them initially being heard in the media and then ‘hey presto’ the Police are now inviting alleged/potential victims to get in touch with them.

At the back of all this I do wonder if his anti establishment stance and his reported 28 million on line followers are also a factor, it does seem the ultimate way to shut down his emerging movement and silence his controversial views.

That said if he is found guilty in a court of law, fair enough, but it this all dies down yet he is eternally discredited as an individual, is it ‘job done’ by the establishment?

 

[Bakero]

I thought he was just a comedian. Like some other comedians (Frankie Boyle, Jerry Sadowitz) he causes a certain sort of offense. For me it isn't about whether I choose to 'follow' him (I have occasionally see a show of his on TV; I don't subscribe to any of his products; I wouldn't call myself even a 'fan', but I have found him entertaining). I would like to know whether he's a rapist or not. I was not aware we are expected to take sides, as if this is the final of 'the voice' or 'Britain's got talent'. .

In recent years he's pivoted away from comedy and become a purveyor of misinformation and conspiracy theories on topics such as vaccines and the war in Ukraine. His content across various platforms has a sizeable audience. These viewers and listeners are the followers @Pavilionaire refers to, not those that have seen his shows on TV.

He seems to position himself as just an open-minded truth seeker who's just asking questions and challenging mainstream thinker. Problem is he is responsible for radicalising many of his subscribers. A good friend of my partner is now a conspiracy nut and Brand is one individual who led her down that path.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In recent years he's pivoted away from comedy and become a purveyor of misinformation and conspiracy theories on topics such as vaccines and the war in Ukraine. His content across various platforms has a sizeable audience. These viewers and listeners are the followers @Pavilionaire refers to, not those that have seen his shows on TV.

He seems to position himself as just an open-minded truth seeker who's just asking questions and challenging mainstream thinker. Problem is he is responsible for radicalising many of his subscribers. A good friend of my partner is now a conspiracy nut and Brand is one individual who led her down that path.

I didn't know that. I prefer to keep my entertainers firmly in the entertainment box.

Perhaps there is a conspiracy, then. Or perhaps not. No doubt we shall find out in the fullness of time.

 

[Questions]

In recent years he's pivoted away from comedy and become a purveyor of misinformation and conspiracy theories on topics such as vaccines and the war in Ukraine. His content across various platforms has a sizeable audience. These viewers and listeners are the followers @Pavilionaire refers to, not those that have seen his shows on TV.

He seems to position himself as just an open-minded truth seeker who's just asking questions and challenging mainstream thinker. Problem is he is responsible for radicalising many of his subscribers. A good friend of my partner is now a conspiracy nut and Brand is one individual who led her down that path.

I have a theory on conspiracy theories but I’m always just called a nutter.