>>40933
His entire right-wing schtick the past few years has been preparation for this moment. The only reason he shifted so right and "adopted" by that community is because he knew they would come flocking to his rescue when the time came.

This shit has been all over the interwebs for years and well-known about in media circles. He is our modern day Jimmy.

(also this headline is hilarious)

How many women would you need to shag before it can be statistically assumed that you definitely raped at least one of them? There is a common type of victim testimony where the victim says she was too afraid to resist so she just went along with it and got raped that way. If that's one in 500 women, Russell Brand has still shagged thousands of women so he's absolutely raped a good handful.

He reminded me of Justin Lee Collins but less funny.
Then I wondered why i hadn't seen anything of him in ages.

>>40935
∞

>>40935

> There is a common type of victim testimony where the victim says she was too afraid to resist so she just went along with it and got raped that way.

Tough one. It's not always going to be obvious that that's the case. No matter how much other- and fishpersonlad are going to theorise. Yes, no means no, we all know that. And many lasses will make it pretty unequivocally clear to you to leave them alone. But it is possible that, while in the act and before and after it, you get no reasonable verbal or nonverbal signs from a lass that she doesn't want to be sleeping with you. "Reasonable" is key. The law doesn't expect you to be able to read minds, but the question is whether or not you were in a situation where you couldn't reasonably have expected the lass to want to sleep with you.

It's really unfortunate and ideally this shouldn't happen, but it does. And it has implications for mens rea, which in turn is a prerequisite for the offence of rape and thus decides if there's in the end grounds for a conviction or not. Absent that, e.g. if she's not saying anything or isn't otherwise rejecting you in a manner that would be clear and recognisable to a normal person, it's quite difficult to make the case that you've raped somebody at all.

Naturally, this is a big problem, but how are you going to fix it without putting every lad who ever sleeps with a lass constantly with one foot in jail. Because that's the thing. If a sex act that you had no reasonable clue was unconsensual at the time can retroactively be classed as rape, then I'm not sure I'd even want to have sex with somebody.

>>40938

I've got a pet theory that the mens rea aspect is a big reason rape convictions remain so low.

As little as the fisher-adjacent lobby want to engage with the idea, the reality is that a lot of sexual counters occur in moments where judgement is impaired, there's a less than rational reaction in the heat of the moment for either party, and at the end of the day it works out that a lot of people end up in sexual encounters that are not fully consensual, without actually meaning to have done so at all. So you can't convict them of rape. Sadly, the fisher-lobby apparently thinks it's a reasonable solution to just do exactly as you say and make the act of intercourse itself into a kind of self-incrimination and act of faith.

Their reasons for this are the part I fail to understand- I think some of them genuinely, in earnest, believe it will help. On the other hand I think some of them are just sort of at the other end of the horseshoe, and it's an expression of severe sexual puritanism- In their view sex should be fear and guilt manifest, in the most Catholic of ways. Meanwhile I think there are others who view it as redressing the balance, an eye for an eye for the years men have "gotten away with it"; although they would never publicly state as such, that's how they feel inside.

Either way I don't think they are helping and it's all just a bit unfortunate.

>>40939

> there are others who view it as redressing the balance, an eye for an eye for the years men have "gotten away with it"; although they would never publicly state as such, that's how they feel inside.

It would not make everything less unjust. The fact that the scales were much more tipped against women in the past means nothing to
some poor younglad who'll go to prison on a rape conviction without mens rea, possibly after a lass simply changed her mind long after the fact.

You can't just say that men should bear collective guilt for what happened in the past. It wasn't mine or your fault. Many men who are sexually active weren't even born back them. So why should they be held accountable.

I know in Sweden, they actually went to pretty remarkable extremes with it. Their consent statutes these days are pretty alarming on a good day from a lad's perspective, but for a time (don't know if they still do it), if you were accused of a sexual offence, the complaint would be sent to you by your local court in a mandatory red envelope which was only used for this purpose. Which meant that everybody in your block of flats or on your street knew that something was up with you. Even in Sweden, this drew criticism, but their justice minister, a woman, said that it was a necessary step in making men as a gender realise their collective guilt towards rape victims.

You wouldn't get away with saying immigrants need to recognise their collective guilt because a few of them break the law and do illegal things. In fact, I don't think you'd do that with any other group of a country's population.

>>40938
>If a sex act that you had no reasonable clue was unconsensual at the time
Having to rely on "no reasonable verbal or nonverbal signs" sounds like it might be a pretty big clue that she hasn't said yes.

>>40941

You're having the world's most boring sex if it actually involves stopping to literally say "Do you consent?" "Yes". Most of the women I have 100% consensually slept with would actively take the piss out of me if I did. And even if you do, and she DOES say "yes", the whole caveat of "I was too scared to say no!" can still apply.

You can try and respond to this with a disingenuous smart-arse "hurr durr you know when its rape stop and its easy not to rape stop being a rapist you rapist" jibe if you want but the fact is it's just not how real life works.

That's the problem arguing this debate with your lot, the goalposts don't just move backwards and forwards, they modulate up and down and side to side on every axis as you need them to, it's like trying to chase around the last bit of noodle at the bottom of a greasy chow mein tub.

>>40942
>You're having the world's most boring sex if it actually involves stopping to literally say "Do you consent?" "Yes".
Thankfully, nobody said you have to do that. Any "reasonable verbal or nonverbal sign" that she consents will do. If you have to resort to "well, she didn't say no" then that is a Morgan defence, and that was abolished in 2003.

Seems like the OP didn't get their way in the weekday thread, and so posted a new thread that begins by calling the accused a rapist and anyone with any other point of view the "shite community".

You get the quality of discussion you deserve if you start off like that.

>>40944
Let's be realistic, this discussion was always going to be a shitshow regardless.

>>40944
The thing about the "shite community" was an imagined community made of literal shit, like the ones in Conkur's Bad Fur Day. Apologies if you are literally made of shite, I didn't mean to cause offense.

An annotated collection of my posts will be available in hardback from the middle of October.

Oh, and I made this thread because no other lazy bastard had bothered to and the weekday thread is the weekday thread, not the Russell Brand discussion that's going to go on for months and months and months thread. Don't get arsey about my OP, you had plenty of time to make your own.

>>40944

My issue with OP hasn't been whether Russell Brand is a rapist or not. Unfortunately for Brand, there are now mounting indications that he is. I'll concede that much. But I've not been defending him because I think he isn't guilty or shouldn't face punishment if he is. To me, it's all about how you arrive at a conclusion about his guilt. And on the way there, due process and the presumption of innocence must prevail until the day he's either found guilty or acquitted.

This whole media circus we've seen since Saturday isn't just jumping the gun, it is violating Russell Brand's constitutional rights. It may seem counterintuitive to people who favour angry mobs with pitchforks over a fair trial, but a defendant doesn't forfeit all their rights as soon as allegations are brought against them. And even when they're convicted, maybe even sent to prison, they actually retain a good number of those rights.

This isn't being soft on criminals. It is the result of centuries of legal tradition, which gradually moved away from arbitrariness at the whim of rulers, governments and the Church to recognise that all men, in our time of course meaning all men and women, enjoy the same rights and liberties that may only be questioned or infringed on by a court of law based on evidence that satisfies the standard of reasonable doubt.

And I'm sorry, but "ten women have said he raped them" isn't the same as evidence presented to a court after a thorough police investigation, and that evidence then being deemed credible by that court. Yes, you should believe victims, but on the other hand, as with any crime at all, anyone, and I mean literally anyone can say they were raped by somebody. You hear fishpersons say that no woman who was raped would ever lie about it. Fair enough, but the problem aren't women who were actually raped. They have every right to be believed and receive justice. No, the problem is women who lie about a rape that objectively never took place. And unfortunately for some, that includes cases where a lad was given no reasonable indication that things were happening against the lass's will. The crux is then of course how you tell raped victims from women who lie about it. That is a very considerable problem. But as I've said in this thread, you cannot solve that problem and achieve a higher level of justice for all involved parties by lowering the bar for the conviction of a possible rapist.

All of this isn't just semantics. And I think that's the main thing that OP doesn't seem to get.

>>40948
Harry Potter keeps stealing people’s wands. He puts on his invisibility cloak, and he just walks around stealing wands whenever he wants. There are no witnesses because he’s invisible. There’s no CCTV in Hogwarts. There are plenty of people without wands, but maybe they all just lost them. And wizards don’t use DNA testing. So really, there is no evidence whatsoever that Harry Potter is stealing wands, despite My Booky Wook of Secrets being full of stories about how many wands Harry Potter keeps acquiring.

At what point would you suggest that the traditional “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” approach might not be fit for purpose when discussing wand theft, and what would it take for you to acknowledge the reliance on external witnesses in inappropriate at Hogwarts?

>>40949

>At what point would you suggest that the traditional “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” approach might not be fit for purpose when discussing wand theft, and what would it take for you to acknowledge the reliance on external witnesses in inappropriate at Hogwarts?

Of course Russell Brand's book is going to be introduced as evidence. But even then, it must be taken with a grain of salt, because it's not a defendant's testimony under oath, and may have been embellished in places for shock value or artistic merit.

Lad, seriously, get with the programme. Even in a case where there might be insurmountable incriminating evidence, it's not up to you and me to say if somebody's guilty. That verdict must be the result of a fair court trial, and nothing else. And in that sense, the presumption of innocence can only be absolute. UK law allows for a reversal of the burden of proof under very narrowly defined circumstances, but serious crimes against a person, like rape, don't fall under those circumstances. And with good reason, because nothing is gained by turning a case with a crime that's impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt into a case where it's impossible for the defendant to positively prove their innocence.

>>40949

We change the process of criminal investigation solely to prosecute Harry Potter for his spate of wand thefts. There are very many critics on both sides of the political spectrum, from lawyers to historians to ethicists and philosophers, who claim that this change represents a fundamental erosion of civil rights for the entire wizarding community. Even Hermione Grainger tells everyone "it might be a bit of a slippery slope actually" but nobody listens to her, because she's a loony house-elf rights radical anyway, and the Daily Prophet runs a series of smears against her and Ron because they were known associates of the filthy wand thief Potter (who they are calling Sneaky Peeky Potter) in the past. It's a controversial ruling but eventually the Ministry of Magic passes this law that people can be convicted in absence of concrete proof "because they obviously done it". Harry Potter is sent down. Gets what he deserves, 50 long years getting his bumhole reamed by ex-Death Eaters and dementors in Azkaban. The wizarding community rejoices, and they know it's fine because obviously the law won't be abused. Only bad people would do that, and nobody bad would be a lawyer or a politician. Stands to reason doesn't it. Plus, the Minister of Magic himself explicitly said in a press release, "I promise we won't never do nothing funny with that law, honest."

That is, of course, until new evidence comes to light. The case is re-opened. Memories from Ginny Weasley's pensive show that she was the wand thief all along, and that her motivations were to frame Potter, for that one time he snuck a sneaky snog with Hermione, while she was confiding in him about Ron's more and more sexually inattentive behaviour. There's an uproar. Innocent Potter wrongly convicted. Who could have ever seen that coming! It's such a dramatic twist.

(In this analogy Harry Potter is more of a Johnny Depp than a Russell Brand. Russell Brand was played by Dean Thomas, who got sent down years ago for putting Weasley's Wheeze Love Potions in the butterbeer at Hogsmeade and trying to get with third year Hogwarts students.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pZKWhOisnw

TalkTV are going with "Stalinesque unpersoning", which is a bit strong in the typical way that TalkTV tends to be right-wing populist, but they aren't fundamentally wrong. Can you remember another case where somebody was stripped of their entire personhood, and if some had their way his very right to exist and draw breath, within less than 96 hours?

It's a bit unsettling that that is possible in our modern culture. Not surprising at all, given all the social and social media movements of the last few years. But somewhere deep down, it's something that should be deeply worrying. Guilty or not.

>>40952

Brand's YouTube account is still active and he can still post new videos. YouTube (rightly) anticipates that most advertisers won't want their adverts put next to his content, so they've put his channel on the (very long) list of stuff they're willing to keep on the platform but won't monetise.

I fail to see how someone with an audience of 6.5 million subscribers can be described as having been "stripped of their entire personhood".

>>40953
Does that mean YouTube will keep all of the advertising revenue for themselves?

>>40954
Your reading comprehension could use some work, otherlad was very clear. YouTube aren't monetising his videos because advertisers don't to be the opener for a bloke facing sexual assault allegations. I just clicked on a bunch of his videos with uBlock disabled and not one had an ad running on it, you're welcome to try it youself.

>>40948
>To me, it's all about how you arrive at a conclusion about his guilt.
Well that part's easy. See, you may know he wrote a book a few years ago. I can understand if you might have missed it, it's not like he did the usual media rounds and shifted a load of copies or anything. Anyway, in that book, he wrote a lot about his sexual history. You know, tying in with the whole addiction thing. A couple of journos, very much not out of the blue, contacted a couple of them and asked for their side of the story, only to be told that that's not how they remember it happening. And then they contacted a some more, and got the same story again, and again, and again.

So I find myself thinking, who was right about this? Was it the well-known narcissist, the washed-up former comedian, who claims he was taking artistic licence to exaggerate for effect? Or was it the dozen or so people independently claiming that actually he was sexually abusive? It's his word against the words of a non-trivial number of independent witnesses, so I guess we'll never know.

>it is violating Russell Brand's constitutional rights
Private actors cannot violate constitutional rights.

>And unfortunately for some, that includes cases where a lad was given no reasonable indication that things were happening against the lass's will.
As pointed earlier, this is actually rape. If you go in and have "no reasonable indication" that she objected, then that's probably rape, because you very likely also had "no reasonable indication" that she consented either, and the CPS guidance is explicit both that it's your responsibility to establish consent and (this bit's in bold) that she has no obligation to object.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-6-consent#a04

He is entitled to the presumption of innocence within the justice system, once he has been charged. Until then, the rest of us have freedom of thought and expression, which means we're allowed to put 2 + 2 together and get "this lad's a massive wrong'un", and we're allowed to call a rapist a rapist.

>>40952
>TalkTV are going with "Stalinesque unpersoning" [...] but they aren't fundamentally wrong.
Ah, yes, remember that time Stalin just turned off monetisation on Trotsky's pamphlets? Terrible state of affairs.

Pic very much related.

Also we don't really have constitutional rights.

>>40957
Not to start an internecine conflict within the "Anti-Rape Coaltion" on here, but that comic doesn't even really apply to Brand. Brand's not being targeted for being a classic "just asking questions" style bullshit merchant, he's been subject to a four year investigation into behavior that was an open secret to some and highly plausable given his public statements and actions to many others.

I'd also like to address the grumbling I've seen elsewhere about how this is the mainstream media taking down their competition. Because as best as I can tell this all reflects very badly on Channel 4 and the BBC, who both tolerated and enabled Brand for years. Apart from the assaults themselves, the most shocking thing I heard in the Dispatches episode was the bit about a discussion to sex segregate the workforce just to keep Russell Brand away from any women working on a production, and supply any of them that had to be around him with a walkie-talkie. It's like something you'd expect to hear about a prince in a far-away kingdom that's only still going because the CIA helped put down the socialists there back in the 1970s, not the talent on some bloody telly show in the noughties/twenty-tens.

>>40958

Statutory rights backed by the EHCR are enough. The US constitution is regularly tested by modern things which make people argue with themself for 18 hours at a a time regarding laws made when Natives and Folk of African Descent and had no say, and it makes our House of Commons look like a fucking chaotic Alehouse (which it is). But still, neither of us manage to get anything useful done, as long as some cunt can roll up within 4-5 years and unravel it.

I showed one of my lassm8s some of fisher-lad's posts here and she said, in exact words, "Wow, he sounds like a right simp."

>>40962
Has she shagged Russell Brand? Statistically, if you live in London, you might well know someone who has.

>>40956

> Until then, the rest of us have freedom of thought and expression, which means we're allowed to put 2 + 2 together and get "this lad's a massive wrong'un", and we're allowed to call a rapist a rapist.

I guess from a certain IQ downward, that's considered reasonable thinking, but hey. You do you. I'm done arguing with you about those things. Because it's like talking to a fucking infant.


>As pointed earlier, this is actually rape.

Fuckssake, lad.

>because you very likely also had "no reasonable indication" that she consented either

You're twisting my words. I never said or implied anything like that.


All this bootlicking and pandering to fishpersonry will not get you one single shag in your life, lad. Not consensually, anyway.

>>40962
You wally. You know that means I win, yeah? You went and got your mum on me, because of an argument on the internet? Thanks, it's rare that an open goal like this presents itself. And anyway, I hate women, so who cares what she says?

I'm assuming I'm Fisher Price lad anyway, but you've probably been arguing with three or four people over the past few days, because they definitely weren't all me.

>>40963

In London, you're never more than six metres away from one of Russell Brand's victims.

>>40965

>they definitely weren't all me

That's what Russel Brand says too, funnily enough.

Anyway the novelty has worn off with this one now, who do you reckon the next big celebrity sex scandal will be?

My money is on Danish Pete from the Andertons TV videos.

>>40970

It's obviously Chappers, assuming he hasn't already been cancelled.

>>40964
>I never said or implied anything like that.
Apart from the bit where you said
>a lad was given no reasonable indication that things were happening against the lass's will
You know, the thing the courts have decided that a rape victim doesn't have to give you, because you're supposed to have gotten the opposite?

>>40962
Is this "lassm8" in the room with us right now?

Interesting discussion going on in here other than Russell Brand who I don't give two shits about. I would like to contribute to this thread as a lass who has been in a similarly ambiguous situation to the kind of thing you're all debating.

In uni, I had a friend we shall call Jim, who I low key fancied but had never really been alone with much, and I was casually involved with someone I liked a lot more anyway. I had a house party, the bloke I liked was a knob, so I retired up to my room for a spliff and a sulk and probably bed. Jim came up to see if I was alright, we ended up kissing, he started trying to take my clothes off and I said no I'm not feeling it. He was absolutely off his tits and kept going, eventually I decided I might as well let him have his way as it was less effort than throwing him out of the house. We had ten minutes of very shit sex, he passed out during, I didn't even notice because it was very shit.

I woke up the next day and realised I wasn't too chuffed about what had happened, but all the same, I wasn't traumatised. Primarily I was annoyed. He asked to hook up a few days later apparently under the impression that we'd had a passionate tryst, I said no, didn't talk to him again until a few years later when he made a joke about me being a slag and my response was to inform him that he didn't get to say shit about me of that nature after what he had done a few years ago, as clearly his sexual morals were in a worse state than mine.

He had a massive fucking teary, asked if he was a rapist now, tried to use me as his therapist, got very dramatic, so I called him a bumder and blocked him.

So why am I sharing all this? Well, because I don't actually think that Jim is a bad person. He clearly was under the impression that I was up for it because he was shitfaced enough that 2+2 was making 57, and I think that's probably pretty common in uni. The point where I got annoyed was him acting like a mega stud for having sex with a girl who wasn't actually up for it, and then trying to put the emotional labour of his own guilt and fuckup on me.

I wasn't traumatised, I wasn't violently forced, and I genuinely believe that this bloke had the wrong idea about whether I was up for it. I don't think he's a danger to women, I do think he's a massive assclown. I think there are probably many Jims out there who aren't really wronguns by nature but make an error of judgement when both parties are very pissed as we all have.

This has very little to do with Russell Brand, but a lot to do with the lad saying that if you don't get a written consent form before dipping a finger in you're a rapist. Life is messy, misunderstandings happen, and there's always options that aren't ruining someone's life over a mistake.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128

>Video site Rumble has hit out at a UK Parliamentary committee that asked if it would cut Russell Brand's income in the wake of sexual assault allegations.

>Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the House of Commons media committee, wrote to Rumble to say she was "concerned" that he could profit from his content.

>But Rumble said that was "an extremely disturbing letter" and that the company would not "join a cancel culture mob".

>"While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform," it said.


I have to say I agree with Rumble in principle on this one. Rumble is otherwise a cesspool of right-wing populist idiocy, but it changes things when the government thinks it needs to get involved to cut Russell Brand off from his revenue. When so far, all that exists are allegations. Even if simplad thinks he can already call him a rapist.

>>40974
>He was absolutely off his tits

Watch out, lads. Russell-lass has been on the spliffs again which she believes gives her SEXUAL powers.

>>40977
I wish more people would tell politicians to jog on. I bet the world would be a better place and it seemed to work when tech companies turned around to government encryption cracking plans and said 'right well we'll just pull out the market then'.

90% of what they do is impotent stunts for twitter anyway. Fuck 'em.

>>40978
Bang on. The government already control the police and the prisons, but instead they want to control Russell Brand via a website I had never even heard of until a couple of days ago. I must say, this does imply the police and the prisons can’t do much to our brave oppressed flamboyant dandy. Either he’s innocent or the law is an ass, and I know which side I come down on.

>>40974
Thank you for your input. Do you post here regularly, or did someone have to go and ask you to intervene?

>>40970
https://bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66875133
Dan Wootton of GB News. So much for the right-wing conspiracy against Russell Brand.

>>40974

That's right, sex can be messy, and there can be grey areas where you can interpret something one way or the other.

And somebody not being enthusiastic about the sex they're having with you isn't necessarily the same as you raping them against their will.

I'm sure most of you otherlads have had sexual encounters where looking back, the boundaries of consent were perhaps stretched a bit. Which was obviously far less than ideal. But does or did that make you a rapist? Do you feel like you should be treated as a rapist or sexual abuser as a result of that encounter? In all likelihood, it's a misstep that you now regret, and it didn't make you think that that sort of thing is ok, just because you apparently got away with it that time.

>>40981
Why the hell do you keep bringing this up? Nothing levelled at Brand is remotely like what you described. He orally assualted a 16 year old girl who had to beat him in the stomach to stop him, he pinned a woman against a wall and raped her and he pinned down another woman, almost raped her and then got furiously angry with her. None of these are remotely like your stupid bloody hypothetical. And what about the newsreader he kept making sexual remarks towrads even after she'd complained to the management at the radio station? What about the fact productions he was working on didn't consider him safe to be alone with women? What about all the women on the comedy circuit who had to warn one another of his behavior? None of it has anything to do with this idea that "oh, well, anyone can say they didn't like the sex after the fact, can't they?" Which is basically the undisputed chart topper of all rape myths anyway. I fail to see why you keep harping on about this, as if it's the slam dunk that could exonerate Russell Brand and return him to the status of the country's least cherished tedious oaf.

>>40982

Because the topic of conversation is no longer, and has not been almost since the very start of the debate, about Russel Brand's guilt or innocence.

It is about the harms done to society, and the concept of justice and fairness, if we water down the criteria for the investigation and prosecution of rapes and sexual assaults, and the many pitfalls brought about if you apply the suggested principles with any kind of logical consistency.

Why do you find that so hard to grasp?

>>40983

>Why do you find that so hard to grasp?


Don't bother. You're not getting anywhere with him.

Sometimes it's better to just leave people in the bliss of their own ignorance. That's what they want, and they'll fight like their fucking life depends on it to preserve it.

>>40983

As far as I can tell, we weren't actually debating anything about the investigation and prosecution of rapes, but whether we should apply the criminal standard of proof to our own judgements. The suggested principles seem to be "whether or not there's sufficient evidence to charge and convict Brand with the crime of rape, there is more than enough evidence for me to think that he's a wrong'un". That seems entirely reasonable to me. The law deals in absolutes, but society deals in shades of grey; there is a useful and valuable middle ground between "Brand definitely did it and we should lock him up" and "we can't prove that Brand did it, so all of us have to treat him like there is no hint of impropriety".

>>40983
>the concept of justice and fairness
Okay. Where do we draw the line then? Lawmaking is all about drawing lines, so if you care about the letter rather than the spirit of the law, how can we still catch rapists? Any rapist could claim they just weren’t paying attention to a woman’s protestations while she was being raped. It seems like every grey area that comes up, you come down on the side of the accused, to make it harder to secure a conviction. But less than 2% of accusations lead to a conviction with rape cases, so in the eyes of the law, over 98% of alleged rapists didn’t do it. That sounds like a lot more innocence than I was expecting to see. Even 80% would be a lot of acquittals compared to, say, robbery. And here you are repeatedly saying the laws are too strict, that we need to be protecting more alleged rapists than we currently do. Right now, if someone is 97% likely to be a rapist, they’ll get off. When you leap to these people’s defence, you aren’t defending someone who’s only 20% rapey, or 30%. Jim in the above story is maybe 30% rapey. Describe for me, if you will, the absolute rapiest rape that still isn’t a rape. Remember that you are saying that I could do that to your mother, your sister, every single day from now on, and it won’t be a crime if it upsets someone. Let’s get to work. Let’s decide on the difference between crime and not a crime.

>>40986

For a start, you are making an assumption in the first instance, and then seeking to make the results fit your hypothesis. If you say that 3% is too low of a a conviction rate for rapes/sexual assaults (and for what it's worth, I tend to agree, but let's keep things rational and not emotionally based here), what is the evidence that backs up our assertion?

Because even if we know it's definitely not right, we can't just change the law based on gut feeling; even if it seems like there must be loads of rapists getting away with it, we are essentially just pulling that conclusion out of our arse. It remains entirely possible that only 3% of rape charges lead to a conviction because only 3% of rape charges were actually rape.

But this is where we get into the substance of what's actually being debated. Because as we all appear to be in agreement over, the entire problem with cases of rape and sexual assault is that there really is no evidence. You have the word of one person against another's, and that's basically it. Sometimes there's supporting evidence like text messages or what have you, but there's even pushback against allowing police to access that evidence in the cases where it is available. There are many reasonable suggestions to be made about how to go about making the procedure to deal with sexual assault more robust, but when the only suggestion being pushed for is "just believe the accuser, easy", that doesn't hold up.

When the only focus is on increasing the number of convictions, we know for certain that police will tend to respond by resorting to underhanded methods and attempting to secure a conviction by any means necessary, and that in turn puts innocent people at risk of being convicted for something they very genuinely didn't do. It's like in any other area of management- You set people targets, and they do whatever it takes to meet those targets.

Your assertion is that the law doesn't do enough but you repeatedly fall back on insubstantial appeals to emotion and predictable motte and bailey arguments, before returning to argue for things that will without a doubt lead to a higher risk of wrongful convictions.

>>40986

>Any rapist could claim they just weren’t paying attention to a woman’s protestations while she was being raped.

No, that's near enough the now banned Morgan defence, where you unreasonably wrongly assumed that somebody was consenting. But either way, somebody kicking and screaming while you're trying to put your knob inside her isn't something that anybody will believe you simply missed or overlooked. No court in this country will say, right, no problem, the lad was simply somewhere else with his thoughts.

>>40970
Timmy Mallet

>>40989

Well, he looks like a carpet-bagger, he sounds like a carpet-bagger, he dresses like a carpet-bagger, he's some kind of evangelical Christian (as you'd expect of a carpet-bagger), but on the other hand:

>>40983
>if we water down the criteria for the investigation and prosecution of rapes and sexual assaults
Nobody's suggesting any such thing. The argument is that the state can do what is needs as it sees fit, and the rest of us can do what we like as we see fit.

Within the justice system we rightly insist on rigorous standards of proof. What you and your fellow rape apologists are doing is telling the rest of us that we have to adopt the same line of thinking, and insisting that we aren't allowed to do any of the thinking for ourselves and reach our own conclusions.

Russell Brand is an admitted serial sexual abuser and rapist. That much is true; he simply doesn't like it when it's expressed in those terms. He's expressed it in different terms and through a different framing, but it doesn't change the underlying things he describes. And now we're hearing that it carried on long after going through rehab for drug and sex addiction. And you are telling people they aren't allowed to form their own opinion on that.

>>40991

>Nobody's suggesting any such thing

There's that motte and bailey, see. Retreat to a more defensible position because you know your actual argument is breached. If you're not suggesting any such thing, then what on earth are you crying about? Why are you still going on about it, if you basically agree with that point? Why are you still dragging it back to Brand when it's been agreed time and again nobody is defending him?

Because you've got fuck all else, that's why.

Shu up and fuck off you tedious cretin, no woman is going to be fooled into touching your vestigial penis just because you project so hard about disliking rapists on the internet.

>>40991

>you and your fellow rape apologists


Argh. Again with this. Not him, but lad. Seriously. Come off it already. It's done.

Russell Brand: Woman says star exposed himself to her then laughed about it on Radio 2 show

The woman says it happened in 2008 when she was working in the same building as the BBC in Los Angeles. The encounter left her stunned, she says.

Minutes later, he was recorded laughing with his co-presenter who said Brand "showed his willy to a lady".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66882644

>>40994

Pretty risky. Indecent exposure can get you jail time in the U.S. on the first offence, after which you could end up getting deported as a non-citizen. Not something he should have done lightly while he was working on his career in America.

>>40992
>If you're not suggesting any such thing, then what on earth are you crying about?
Mostly cunts like you telling people what they are and aren't allowed to think. Such as spewing bollocks about how people somehow aren't allowed to look at someone admitting to a shitload of sexual misconduct up to and including rape, and multiple victims confirming that it did indeed happen, and conclude that they're at least a little bit rapey.

>Why are you still dragging it back to Brand when it's been agreed time and again nobody is defending him?
Now this is the real motte and bailey here. "We're not defending Brand, we're just saying you aren't allowed to think he's a wrong'un."

"I raped someone once" - Russell Brand

>>40997


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdSWaIvyQ3o

>>40996

>Now this is the real motte and bailey here. "We're not defending Brand, we're just saying you aren't allowed to think he's a wrong'un."

It's not though, because you're mis-characterising the argument, which has actually quite consistently been something more like:

"Regardless of Brand's guilt or innocence, it's still not a great precedent to set that someone can have their livelihood torn apart on accusation alone, and there's lots of concerning implications in the wider fisherperson approach to this problem."

It's not the first time this discussion has happened. Brand is just a catalyst to bring the subject back up. The same thing happened with Johnny Depp. I bet you were mewling and bleating the same things then too, but you'd rather not talk about that one because all us crypto-rapist rape apologists were pretty much entirely vindicated in that case.

>>41000
>"Regardless of Brand's guilt or innocence, it's still not a great precedent to set that someone can have their livelihood torn apart on accusation alone"
He's not "having his livelihood torn apart". Organisations that have a right to determine who they want to associate with and who they want to give money to have decided they don't want to be associated with him and don't want to give him money. If you're saying that this is wrong of them, then just like you're telling everyone they're not allowed to decide he's a bit rapey, you're saying these organisations should be forced to continue supporting him against their will.

There's no civil rights issue here. All that's happened is that a person has done some shitty things and now those things are coming back to bite them. By saying that it's somehow not right for that to happen, you're effectively trying to take the notion of presumption of innocence by the state and trying to spin it into some kind of immunity of consequences of any sort from non-state actors. Maybe you don't realise that's what you're doing, or maybe you don't like it when it's expressed in those terms, but that is, in fact, what you're doing, and no amount of trying to deny it would be anything other than semantics.

>>40960
>Statutory rights backed by the EHCR are enough.
Yes, my point was more that the lad complaining about Brand's constitutional rights being breached not only doesn't know what he's on about but is talking out of someone else's arse entirely. More specifically the arse of an American, transposing their culture wars here further.

It’s also worth remembering that if you can’t call someone a rapist until they have been found guilty of rape, how would anyone ever get tried when you can’t accuse them of being a rapist? It’s like not getting in the water till you know how to swim. I didn’t point that out before because it’s obviously a moronic loophole, but it feels like that’s the level we are reaching now. And Russellposter has made this argument enough times that I think we can infer that we shouldn’t be listening to his words (since his words say you can’t accuse anyone of any crime until they have already been convicted of that crime), but we should instead be focusing on his intent behind the words. When we misinterpret what he wrote, there’s a good chance he didn’t really mean things that way and it’s our fault for misinterpreting. There’s a name for that sort of argument: motte and bailey. Sorry, bruv, but the simp has you there.

>>41001

The fact that you so consistently and repeatedly fail to engage with the actual point being made is all I need to feel victorious in this debate to be honest mate.

There is a civil rights issue here. What's happened is a person has allegedy done some shitty things, and the entire machinery of neoliberal capitalism has circled the wagons to effectively exile him. You're trying to take the notion of freedom of personal thought, opinion and speech to gossip about people, and trying to spin it into some kind of moral justification of life-wrecking witch hunts, denying that there's any possibility of this ever happening to somebody who DOESN'T deserve it, purely because in this case it's happening to somebody who might deserve it. You absolutely know that that's what you're doing, you are engaging in 100% bad faith, you don't like when it's expressed in those terms but that is, in fact, what you're doing, and no amount of trying to deny it would be anything other than semantics.

I told you before, words are meaningless and you're better off just insulting each other.

>>41005
I’ll be diplomatic: you’re absolutely right that it’s sinister how everyone has teamed up to cancel Russell Brand. And if he’s innocent, then he has every right to clear his name and move on with his life. If that’s what you’re talking about, then I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with you there. But I am willing to believe that these women have suffered a traumatic experience, and in a thread about the alleged traumatic experiences, you seem much more interested in the vanishingly small possibility that Russell Brand didn’t do it. You aren’t even that interested in the allegations themselves; repeatedly, several people have tried to discuss them and you have interrupted to say, “But what if he’s innocent?” If he’s innocent then he will clear his name. You’re very passionate about him needing to be criminally convicted, so you must have faith that the legal system will get it right, therefore you must really also have faith that innocent men have nothing to fear. And if innocent men have nothing to fear, why does our idle speculation upset you so much?

>>41007

Ultimately, saying he's innocent until proven guilty probably looks like fence sitting to some of you otherlads here. But that's not really what it is. It's just that you expect evidence, not allegations off a TV programme, to be able to pass judgement.

That said, it's increasingly looking grim for Brand. I'm still not going to say he's guilty to me, but you can't ignore the fact that the noose is tightening around his neck as we speak.

So far, we've got him admitting on a live radio show that he exposed himsel to a woman, which that woman corroborated. And that's different. Admission of guilt effectively refutes a presumption of innocence, at least unless a court of law ends up concluding that the person admitting guilt can't possibly have been the perpetrator. If you admit to killing somebody with an axe but there's very strong evidence that you were lying in bed at that time, then a court will dismiss your admission of guilt and consider you innocent again.

So yeah, he's very probably guilty of showing his bits to a woman. Although that's an understatement. If you read the details of the incident, he was pretty much waving his cock right in her face and expecting to get an impromptu blowie. Go on, call him a flasher for it. You get this one.

>>41007

>you must have faith that the legal system will get it right, therefore you must really also have faith that innocent men have nothing to fear.

I believe that's really the exact opposite of the case being argued. Innocent men should have nothing to fear, but as we've sen repeatedly demonstrated in a number of these high profile cases, the accusation in the mainstream media alone is enough to basically condemn them immediately. If that weren't already enough you still have a vocal group of people pushing to say we collectively need to be even more merciless about it.

Once again, as if I can't labour this point hard enough, I don't give a fuck about Brand and I'm about 90% certain he's guilty myself. But that's not the point. The point is we have seen yet another demonstration about how this kind of scandal can be used to tear someone down overnight, and it is purely and thoroughly naive to think it doesn't get used maliciously against undeserving innocent people. It's just another example of how much power our media has, the influence they wield over society, a level of influence and power that is almost certainly detrimental to our democracy and freedoms.

It's one thing when it's a b-list celebrity kook like Brand. But it's another thing when the sights are turned on someone where it might matter. The character assassinations on politicians and activists who dare to go against the establishment. The power it gives people with connections and authority to keep average plebs like us in our place.

Fundamentally, all of that is toxic and cancerous and incompatible with a healthy and free society. It's not about Brand. It's about the wider trend we have seen around all of these sorts of cases.

>>41005
>There is a civil rights issue here.
That's not what those words mean. "People are being mean to me" is not even remotely "a civil rights issue".

>What's happened is a person has allegedy done some shitty things
No need for "allegedly" here. For most of the incidents, both parties have admitted that they happened. Him in his book and in various radio and TV interviews, and the victims in their contributions to the documentary - which I'll remind you for many of them were instigated by journalists contacting them after taking the incredibly sophisticated journalistic step of just reading his book.

>You're trying to take the notion of freedom of personal thought, opinion and speech to gossip about people, and trying to spin it into some kind of moral justification of life-wrecking witch hunts
Oh no, the sex pest with an audience of millions is being mildly inconvenienced by people critically examining his past history of being a sex pest. Oh, the absolute horror! Who will save this sex pest from the baying mob of [checks notes] people saying they think he's a rapey bastard and not wanting to be associated with him?

A guy who did some shit is facing what are on the whole some fairly mild consequences (oh no, not YouTube demonetisation!), and you're acting like this is somehow beyond the pale. That's why you're being called a rape apologist. Your appeals to notions of civil rights and natural justice are pretty transparent. You're not advocating for natural justice. You're advocating for the right to engage in acts of dubious consent without consequence, and the right to not have to bear a social cost for their actions. When you say things along the lines of "this could happen to any of us", what you're really doing is telling on yourself that you consider "well she didn't put up any resistance" to be fine and dandy.

When he enters the justice system, he will, of course, be entitled to be presumed innocent by the court, unless and until the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Which, in the case of sexual offences, is something we have a lot of trouble with. Some will talk about how the innocent have nothing to fear. I don't think this is a particularly useful starting point in most cases, but I do think it's fair to make an exception for rape, where all too often the guilty have nothing to fear either.

>>41009
>The point is we have seen yet another demonstration about how this kind of scandal can be used to tear someone down overnight people who do really shitty things can be held to account for those things, after a few years of making sure they really did those things
Fixed that for you.

>>41010
>>41011

Look, if you just actually come out and say that you don't care if it puts innocent at risk, and that you're happy to put innocents at risk, we can stop even having the debate.

We are fundamentally opposed on the point that you think only people who deserve it ever come under fire for these things, despite a large number of cases proving to the contrary. To me that's not acceptable. To you, that's not only acceptable but you seem to relish it.

Gaslighting by rad-lib ghouls doesn't work on me. I hope it sticks up your arse knowing that no matter how much you try and canvass the world in your retarded Twitter politics, plenty of people can see through it.

>>41012
Yeah, you can just stop posting already. It's already abundantly transparent that you don't actually care about "putting innocents at risk". What you care about is that you might one day be held to account for shitty things you did that either didn't understand or didn't accept to be shitty things. Things like having sex with a lass who doesn't openly resist you and thinking that's consensual.

The media isn't destroying Russell Brand. Russell Brand is destroying Russell Brand. While we're at it, you can stop pretending it's not about Russell Brand while banging on and on about how Russell Brand is being treated in the Maybe Russell Brand Is A Bit Rapey thread.

>>41012
>We are fundamentally opposed on the point that you think only people who deserve it ever come under fire for these things, despite a large number of cases proving to the contrary.
Innocent people do sometimes come under fire for these things. Cliff Richard did. And he cleared his name. And to the best of my knowledge, obvious baby-eater Noel Edmonds has somehow never even been accused, even though he'd be the first person I'd ask if I ever wanted to learn more about that adrenochrome conspiracy theory. Those men, just like countless everyday date-rapists who walk the streets, are free men. I personally know someone who was falsely accused of rape, and he too suffered a lot because everyone assumed he did it because that's the sort of guy he is, and yes I do believe it's okay to hate someone if they're abusive and manipulative and worryingly disrespectful towards women. He's not in prison because he's not a rapist, but he has a lot of enemies because he is fucking rapey.

Can you name anyone who has gone to prison for rape and then turned out to be innocent? The only one I can think of is that guy who got released a couple of months ago, and I'm pretty sure he was in for actual murder rather than rape.

>>41015

>And he cleared his name.

You never fully clear your name after something like that. There'll be loads of people who'll think you simply got away with it. Especially if you're a public figure. People simply won't look at you the same way again, even if you're declared innocent beyond reasonable doubt.


Semper aliquid haeret.

>>41015

So your goalpost is "it's fine as long as you don't go to prison"?

I've had a mate take their own life over bullshit like this (not rape, but a false accusation at any length). You are probably cold enough to tell me that person I knew to be a gentle and decent soul actually topped themselves because of guilt, but that's how I know people on your side are just wholly lacking empathy.

>>41017
I've not posted itt for a couple of days now, but just for the record I don't think you had a mate.

Brand has popped out of his hole with a video.
Of course it's all deep state corporate collusion to prevent the message.

>>41019

That's not what he says in the video.

>>41020

Hard to tell, because that video is just all over the place.

Excessive drug abuse can lead to chronic paranoid delusions that persist for many years. And they can be quite elaborate. I've often wondered if that also applies to him.

One of my mum's friends took LSD and cocaine for a few years, and following that, he had lifelong delusions that the government was tracking his movements and looking for any chance to get him.

>>41021
I think he's just a grifter who's become confused between the man named Russell and the character Russell.

At least Clarkson admits that he plays himself up on TV.

>>41021

No, he pretty cogently mentions that it's been a distressing week, then introduces the topics that he's going to discuss on his regular livestream, one of which is the online safety bill. That's a topic we're also discussing here on .gs (>>/shed/16013). He mentions similar criticisms and dangers of overreach that you can find by posters here, too.

He then goes on to talk about the Trusted News Initiative, giving a direct quote from one of their staff. All of this is more or less in line with what you'd expect to be in the interests of someone with a huge online following.

The video is right here:

I genuinely don't know what your game is.

>>41023

It still feels like somebody is talking your ears off with the same old drivel.

Maybe I'm just too apathetic, but I just can't bring myself to care with any kind of passion about those things.

The rape charges are one thing, but I find all of his youtube channels pretty irritating. He just keeps yammering about Big Government conspiracies, the military industrial complex and Big Pharma. It's always the same with him.

I mean, really, just look at the titles of his videos. The guy's a fucking nutcase. No wonder the alt-right are falling over themselves to defend him at the moment. His content is every bit as batshit crazy as Fox News, and then some.

https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand/videos

>>41018
I'm willing to believe he did. I'm more confident of that than I am that the female poster who talked about Jim wasn't just someone pretending.

In other news, Private Eye, which is always right about everything, seems to agree that Russell Brand is not getting a fair hearing right now. I haven't read it all the way through so I don't know how much they actually address the allegations yet, but I also saw an interview with Georgina Bailie (Andrew Sachs's granddaughter) on Sky News just now and she said that Russell Brand has apologised to her for Sachsgate and that she has forgiven him because she knows what it's like to have addiction problems.

>>41025

>I'm more confident of that than I am that the female poster who talked about Jim wasn't just someone pretending.

https://app.readable.com/text/gender/

Putting that text from the "female" poster through the Gender Analyzer points to slightly more masculine characteristics. But not by much.

>>41024
Why do you think he went from being friends with Ed Milliband to courting nutcases?

>>41026
I'm going to spend the rest of the day now putting my own posts in there.

>>41026
Easiest way to tell whether you're communicating with a lass or not is how frequently they use emojis 😂😂🤣🤣.

>>41029

Or just ask when they last had a wank.

Anything longer than 48 hours ago, I'd call suspicious.

>>41030

What qualifies as a wank? Like, does it count if you just edge or is that not a full wank? On a technicality that would mean you could spend all night wanking without having a wank.

There's always technicalities.

>>41031

>What qualifies as a wank?


Why don't you ask ARE Russell.

https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/10/russell-brand-describes-giving-man-hand-relief-in-graphic-detail/

>you didn't have a mate
>lasslad isn't really a lass

I wondered how long that would take. Weak, honestly. We're on an anonymous website, nobody has anything to gain from lying. But more than that it just exposes your fragility if you have to immediately jump to an accusation somebody is plain making things up.

I mean personally I don't even think simplad is real, I know in my gut he's obviously just one of you playing up a comically exaggerated white knight stereotype. But again, what on earth would you possibly gain from lying on a three person shed enthusiast forum? So sadly I have to conclude he is.

>>41036

>three person shed enthusiast forum

It sounds even more bleak when you say it like that.

>>41036
If you will insist on projecting, can you at least make it something watchable?

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/23/firms-pull-ads-from-rumble-platform-over-russell-brand-videos

>Firms pull ads from Rumble platform over Russell Brand videos

>Burger King, Asos and HelloFresh remove ads from site in wake of allegations about comedian


So... they were content paying out their advertising money to all the right-wing fuckwits and hate speech peddlers who populate Rumble, but Russell Brand's alleged sex crimes were the step too far?

Hypocrites.

>>41039

Imagine you work in the advertising department at Hello Fresh. You get an email from a journalist asking "do you advertise with Rumble?". You've never heard of Rumble, so you give it a quick Google. There are news articles about it being bad, so what do you do? If you'd like to still have a job next week, you send a memo to whoever manages your digital spend to add an "exclude:rumble.com" to your ad management policy and send a stock e-mail back to the journalist saying something to the effect of "Our adverts may have been placed on [insert site here] by a third party without our knowledge. As soon as this was brought to our attention, we removed all advertising from their site."

Of course, there's not much of a news story in "people whose job is to avoid bad publicity react cautiously when a journalist tacitly threatens to implicate them in a scandal", so it gets spun into some kind of ideological statement. The centre-right papers pitch it as "brands uniting against hate speech", the far-right papers react with "woke brands stifle free speech", but none of them actually talk about the deeper implications of ad-supported media, because they're ad-supported media.

It's all a game, nothing more. It means nothing. Everyone involved knows that it means nothing. It's just a petty power struggle between two sets of rich people, mediated by their overeducated lackeys. If it meant anything, they wouldn't print it, because it'd piss off someone who actually mattered.

>>41040

Marketing departments of large companies normally know full well which media they are advertising their product in at a given point in time. I used to work in advertising, for a pretty small agency, but from what I learned in the business, I can tell you that somebody who oversees a million-quid ad budget isn't going to leave to chance how and where their products are advertised.

So far it probably hasn't mattered much that Rumble is an obscure soap box for fringe opinions that Youtube won't stand for. Because it's been obscure. But now suddenly Russell Brand has drawn much more mainstream attention to Rumble, and especially with Youtube now having demonetised Brand and all his other sources of revenue being cut off, some SJW busybodies will have complained to those companies that they're not toeing the line and breaking his cancellation. And you know how their lot get sand in their vaginas if you ignore them. The last thing any of those companies want right now is to be associated with Russell Brand in any way, especially by allowing him to keep getting ad revenue.

Which says loads about everybody involved, all in all.

>>41039
Perhaps they watched the video in >>41003 where he interviews Jimmy Savile and were as aghast and revolted as I was at how offensively he pronounces Pinocchio.

>>41042
I know people keep bringing up that video to make a point, but it's important to remember that presumption of innocence is a thing, and no charges have been brought against Jimmy Savile.

>>41043

Those hundreds of children, severely disabled people, corpses, severely disabled children and child corpses might have just regretted it afterwards and changed their minds. We can't go about dragging people's names through the dirt just because of the overwhelming evidence against them.

>>41044
Nah, they didn't change their minds, the whole thing was just a concerted campaign by the MSM to cancel Savile.

>>41043

>it's important to remember that presumption of innocence is a thing, and no charges have been brought against Jimmy Savile.

Lad. You can't charge a dead person.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/deceased-suspects-cps-policy-charging-decisions

>>41047

You never really know that on here.

>Leigh Francis, known for his outrageous alter ego Keith Lemon, is accused of making 'humiliating jokes' at Melanie Sykes ' expense while shooting ITV's Through The Keyhole. Speaking two years ago, Melanie alleged her complaints to telly bosses were 'ignored'.

>Melanie claimed Leigh made explicit sexual gags about her for three hours in front of a live audience in 2018. Including: "I bet your arsehole smells of flowers." The TV presenter says her concerns weren't acknowledged by production bosses at Talkback, founded by comedy duo Mel Smith and Griff Rhys Jones.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/keith-lemon-complaints-ignored-tv-31014679

Tryna bloody cancel Keith Lemon now.

>>41049

>lowbrow comedian makes lowbrow jokes

What is it classlad always says about political correctness basically being the chattering classes using their cultural clout to ensure the proles mind their manners.

>>41049

I guess the entire industry is now going to lose its collective shit about even the tamest incidents. I don't see that as out of character for Keith Lemon. He can say much worse things.

Are we now going to cancel every comedian?

>>41049
I hope so, the character has never been funny.

>>41052
I think he's doing online bingo ads now anyway, I don't believe he's on TV anymore.

https://news.sky.com/story/russell-brand-met-police-receives-number-of-sexual-offence-allegations-against-comedian-in-london-and-elsewhere-in-the-uk-12969926

>>41054
Presumption of innocence, lad. We can't be making such serious allegations against the Met without evidence.

https://www.nme.com/news/tv/russell-brand-asks-fans-financial-support-after-youtube-revenue-suspension-3504351

>Russell Brand asks fans for financial support after YouTube revenue suspension

Isn't he supposed to be worth millions? Or has he spent it all on prozzies and cocaine?

>>41064
How much did Donald Trump raise when he was charged? Grifters won't pass up an opportunity.

>>41064
Ah there we go, he is a comedian afterall.

>>41064

It's as much about ego as money, strange as it might seem. Putting out the begging bowl gives your adoring fans the opportunity to prove how much they really love you.

He was on about NATO and Russia and Ukraine in today's video.

Just the same kind of nonsense as always. Lofty conspiracy theories, formulaic accusations against Big Government and the military industrial complex, and almost tourette-like exclamations of "Why is nobody else reporting this".

Good thing you can't be a youtuber (or rumbler) from prison.

>>41069
>Good thing you can't be a youtuber (or rumbler) from prison.
Not with that attitude, anyway. Drop the soap on the right place and you'll find plenty of rumblers, IYKWIM.

>>41069

This is about as insightful as saying you don't like his face. You hate him, lad, we get it. Whether he's correct about anything is immaterial to you, because he shouts sometimes and it sounds a bit like something else you've been told not to like.

Who do you reckon is going to be the next naughty boy then? Apparently the betting odds are on David Williams.

>>41115

>Apparently the betting odds are on David Williams

Not sure how I feel about him. You shouldn't suspect somebody of being a wrongun just because he's a bit poofy and camp, but I wouldn't put it past him.

>>41116

Hiding in plain sight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walliams#Controversies

>>41115
Russell Howard

>>41118

He always struck me as a bit of a Wife Guy.

>>41118
Please no. He's just a bit of a popular LADZ comic but his heart's always been in the right place and he doesn't strike me as sinister in the least.

>>41117
>In regards to Harry Styles, Walliams said, "I'd like to suck his cock. "Styles was 17 years old at the time.

What did he mean by this?

>>41120
When he was on Taskmaster he did a grand job of coming across as completely up himself.

>>41121
That he'd like to suck his cock.

>The ex-CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch and his British partner face allegations of exploitation from men recruited for sex events they hosted around the world.

>A BBC investigation found a highly organised network used a middleman to find young men for the events with Mike Jeffries and Matthew Smith.
>Mr Jeffries and Mr Smith did not respond to requests for comment. But the couple's middleman denied any wrongdoing and said men went into these events "with their eyes wide open". Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) - which also owns the Hollister brand - said it was "appalled and disgusted" by the alleged behaviour. The BBC has now uncovered allegations that the fashion mogul exploited young adult men for sex at events he hosted in his New York residences and luxurious hotels around the world, including in London, Paris, Venice, and Marrakesh.

>As part of a two-year investigation, the BBC has spoken to 12 men who described attending or organising events involving sex acts run for Mr Jeffries, 79, and his British partner Mr Smith, 60, between 2009 and 2015. The eight men who attended the events said they were recruited by a middleman, who they described as having a missing nose covered with a snakeskin patch. The BBC has identified him as James Jacobson.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66889779

Imagine getting bummed by a discount Gary Busey.

>>41124

Who cares, he's not a celebrity and the victims were men. That means two things- There's no money to be made pushing it all over the front pages, and simplad doesn't have any motivation to demand he be immediately jailed without trial.

>>41125
I have heard of the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch because he got in trouble a few years ago for saying ugly people shouldn't buy his clothes. This from a man who looks like Stevie Wonder's attempt at an Easter Island head. I would happily bite his cock off. He's a tit.

>>41125
Simplad here! I think, I dunno', I believe there are about three of us, but, regardless, I'll don this brilliant white suit of armour for moment to tell you this: all you've fucking done since the four years of investigations into Russell Brand were first revealed to the public is cry, moan and try to play the bloody martyr and I think it's very telling that within seven minutes of otherlad posting a story from an episode of Panorama I'm certain you haven't watched, you're bitching about the imagined opinions of others. As opposed, of course, to discussing anything to do with the story at hand. I intend to watch the Panorama episode before I go to bed tonight, and, if you like, I can berate you for minimising sexual abuse all over again tomorrow evening, because apparently that's how you get your jollies, you tedious prick.

It's ironic that someone who couldn't give less of a shit about victims of sexual abuse and exploitation has such a chip on his shoulder over getting, metaphorcally speaking, pansted on an anonymous imageboard, of all places.

>>41124

>Gary Busey

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/20/entertainment/gary-busey-sex-offense-charge/index.html

>>41127

Stop biting mate.

true

>>41132

Some men have all the luck.

>>41132

That's my wank fantasy for the night sorted.

>>41128
More like Gary Abusey

I know this may sound weird, but can we realistically assume that there is a majority of celebrities who have never overstepped sexual boundaries as part of their existence as a celebrity? Somebody like David Mitchell is probably fine, I imagine he's far too uptight to even give a woman a lewd look. But it seems like every other month there's another celebrity sex scandal, and it's always along the same lines. Does being a celeb make you a latent wrongun, or do they get carried away with their celebrity status to such and extent that they just assume sexual entitlement? Does being a celebrity make you a wrongun, or is it just wronguns who always were wronguns abusing their status to facilitate their transgressions.

>>41115
I think there's a chance it's Noel Fielding

>>41138

What about Stephen Fry.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/stephen-fry-girls-who-had-sex-with-rock-stars-at-14-wouldnt-call-themselves-victims/30632426.html

>>41136
One of the things I like about Rush is that for all the stories of similar bands and artists at the time of their peak, diddling and smashing things up on tour they were apparently good boys who stayed in with pizza and DnD. They get that reputation though because they were exceptionally unique in what was otherwise a stinking pit of shitbaggery from all our favourite musicians from the 70s and 80s.

I reckon things are slowly getting better but that a lot of celebrities get caught up in the ego-trip, the culture and just generally do enough drugs that they lose touch with reality. Think David Bowie doing so much cocaine he convinces himself he's a Nazi aristocrat. This was especially true in the past when everything was generally more carpet-baggery and we expected certain celebrities to behave a certain way - 'it was a different time' really being true to an extent.

>>41136

I think it's a very philosophical thing to discuss really. There's no black and white line between what counts as just somebody "validly" using their status or their wealth or whatever to impress someone, versus what is somebody exploiting their position of power to coerce someone.

As much as we might not want to acknowledge it, I think there are a lot of cases of lasses shagging celebrities and then just feeling short-changed after when they realise they weren't actually special; but what if it had been any normal bloke who charmed them with his sharp suit, rolex, and smooth talk, and then ghosted them the next day? Did that bloke do anything wrong? It's debatable, but at that point we have to start thinking about the very concept of seduction itself.

This is something that came up when I was talking to my lassm8 about all this palarver. Essentially, nobody gets into somebody's pants without trying. As a lad, you can't just sit around and wait for sex to happen. And you're certainly not going to get it just by asking "excuse me ma'am, but may I have sex with you?" You have to impress them, you have to charm them. Nobody is showing their true, honest self at a date. So at what point does seduction cross the line into coercion? Isn't all seduction essentially slow-burn coercion if you think about it?

So what I am ultimately coming around to is that I don't think many celebrities start out as mega rapists as soon as they get a bit of fuck you money. I think the problem is that really, how would you even date and go about courting people normally when you are in that position? They're going to have a certain type of girl throwing themselves at them, and they're going to eventually become desensitised to it, and even when they do have a "normal" lass they are going to have gotten used to flashing a bit of cash and getting the girl in a limo with a load of cocaine, and before they know it they've lost sight of when that kind of behaviour becomes predatory. This is not to excuse any of it, merely that we should seek to understand how boundaries become blurred and slippery.

TL;DR Wealth and opulence in itself is immoral and leads to problems like this. Implement radical socialism and it would be solved. It's always about class, fuck you

>>41138
I think there's a chance you're the daftest man alive.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001r3ns/panorama-the-abercrombie-guys-the-dark-side-of-cool