https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31iOFVuMwEg

Didn't this happen a year ago? What's changed?

They let him do it because he was on telly and now it's his fault that they let him. He is guilty, no doubt about that, 100% bang to rights- It's just that the law is daft and women are craven opportunists.

But I'm not interested in defending men like Brand. It's Are Gregg With Two Gs who did nowt wrong and deserves justice. All he wanted was a buttery biscuit base.

>>42263

It's gone from alleged allegations to official allegations.

Russell Brand going to prison might be the only good news we get this year. Make the most of it, lads. I might go and hang around outside the Old Bailey with a misspelled sign. I might even bang on the side of a prison van, yell "string 'im up!" and say something incomprehensible to a local journalist.

I hope Bear Grylls gets some blowback for immediately becoming bessie mates with this cunt after he started lying about finding God.

>>42262
That YouTube channel looks like one of the biggest piles of shit on Earth and you should feel bad for watching it.

>>42264
And you should probably just kill yourself.

Oh yeah and Marylin Manson, he didn't do nothing either. Women just cry rape when they think there's a bit of money in it don't they.

>>42265
Do you mean to say official allegations are not alleged? What would the verb be in that instance then?

>>42268
Is it worth the hollowing of your own soul by being so unpleasant just so I'll tell you to "fuck off"?

>>42267

>That YouTube channel looks like one of the biggest piles of shit on Earth and you should feel bad for watching it.

But you can't ignore the fact that Savile and Brand were birds of a feather. And just as Savile, Russell Brand was very blatant with his antics. Everybody knew he was a wrongun. His particular kind of flamboyant persona could not belie that, and if anything, all the more should have rung alarm bells. And behind the scenes at the BBC and elswehere, very probably everyone was aware just how bad he really was, just like Savile. But it was Russell Brand, so he was given a free pass. In the end, what does it matter if you target underage girls like Savile, or force yourself on adult women against their will. Both are very gravely wrong. And he is going to have to pay for his transgressions.

He had sex which was consensual at the time, with women who changed their mind several years later on.

>>42272

Unlike the underage girls that Savile molested, just because adult women have sexual agency, doesn't mean they are all up for it.

The evidence of Brand being a wrongun behind the scenes, with those women, is anecdotal so far. Granted. I guess we'll have to wait for court proceedings to reveal more salacious details. But there is a reason why there are no statutes of limitation for sexual abuse in the UK. It often takes victims years and decades of coming to terms with the abuse, and finding the courage to step up and confront their abuser. Should somebody who took ten years to find that courage have less of a right to justice than somebody who goes to the police right the next day?

Which also shoots holes in your argument that a woman could have changed her mind about the sexual act having been consensual with the passage of a few years. If you really want to argue that point, then there's no stopping a woman from doing that as little as half an hour later.

>>42273

So are you more or less of a rapist if she changes her mind a half an hour later, than if she changes her mind two years later? You are tacitly agreeing with retroactive withdrawal of consent as a valid concept, here.

You might as well just make all sex rape by default if that's the case. It implies that you cannot even have consensual sex with a woman, because they lack the capacity to consent. Ergo having sex with a woman is exactly the same as noncing a kid.

Kevin Spacey and John Christopher Depp II, that's another two who didn't do nothing. Who else? The youtuber exurb1a, he's still uploading videos. Didn't do nowt.

You have to wonder why so many women are obsessed with making false rape allegations. They really let the side down because then nobody believes them when there's a real rapist like Russell Brand.

>>42275

>You are tacitly agreeing with retroactive withdrawal of consent as a valid concept, here.

No, I'm not. Retroactive withdrawal of consent when an act was very much consensual is wrong. And the law even recognises that. If found out, you can be charged with perverting the course of justice and even false imprisonment, if somebody went to prison based on your testimony.

My point was just that technically, somebody can retroactively withdraw consent at any time from half an hour to half a century later. And I'm not sure that the veracity of somebody's rape claims diminishes over the years.


>You might as well just make all sex rape by default if that's the case. It implies that you cannot even have consensual sex with a woman, because they lack the capacity to consent. Ergo having sex with a woman is exactly the same as noncing a kid.

What the fuck are you on about there. Bit of personal advice, MRA isn't the road to happiness. It'll only make you bitter at the world, in a way that's not dissimilar to fisherperson extremism.

>>42277

You said it "shoots a hole in" my argument, so I was making an extreme example to demonstrate the point. It doesn't shoot a hole in the argument at all. The door is completely open to that, and the further something is in the past, the harder it is for either party to prove anything.

You had it right at the start of the second paragraph. The reality is a complex matter, but as long as some lads want to post about how someone is definitely guilty with only anecdotal evidence, I will be here to say they're definitely innocent without even bothering to look into it whatsoever, out of principle.

>>42278

> but as long as some lads want to post about how someone is definitely guilty with only anecdotal evidence

Nobody said that. Including myself. What I said was that so far we've only got anecdotal evidence, and that the truth is probably going to be for a court to find out and establish.


>I will be here to say they're definitely innocent without even bothering to look into it whatsoever, out of principle.

Ugh. Really, lad?

>>42279

Of course you didn't. The minute I go and make my lunch you'll be right back down there in the bailey instead of the safety of your motte, though.

Presumption of innocence is the most basic principle of a functioning justice system and I am tired of pretending otherwise just because salacious gossip about celebrity sex perversions are the only thing holding up the dinosaurs of the old media. I'm just fed up of hearing about it, for it to then (much more quietly) come out later on that the charges were dropped.

Why don't they keep their powder dry, and then if they catch one red handed, it can come out one day "[B-LIST CELEB] FOUND GUILTY OF SEX PERVERSION" and then there's no tedious debate.

>>42280
>Presumption of innocence is the most basic principle of a functioning justice system
Okay, Justice Lunchables, that's your prerogative. However, we laymen are allowed to hold whatever opinions we like, you pompous freak. Try not to choke as hard on your sarnie as you did making the twin non-arguments that all women are liars, and we must all withold judgement until you specifically agree we can have an opinion.

>>42278
>as long as some lads want to post about how someone is definitely guilty with only anecdotal evidence, I will be here to say they're definitely innocent
Yeah. I know. I've got various observations to make about this story but I made them all last time. I might just find the old thread and post a link to my old posts, so you can disagree with them again.

>>42281

Right, glad we're on the same page.

>>42281

> However, we laymen are allowed to hold whatever opinions we like, you pompous freak.

Exactly. I don't expect Brand to go to prison just because I've got a hunch that he's probably guilty. And despite your best efforts to convince us otherwise, that is not how the judiciary system works in this country. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I have nothing wrong with him and his lawyers getting to state his case, and argue his innocence. He is entitled to a fair trial just as any alleged murderer, arsonist, or car thief. That also means that if he is acquitted, I will shut up and strongly assume that the verdict is factual and reconcilable with the events that actually took place, or didn't. But before that, and legally speaking even afterwards, I still get to have my personal opinion, and blurt it out anonymously on an imageboard, as long as it's reasonably conveyed as just an opinion.

>>42286

I, for one, would like it to be known to the court that hencewith all posts made by myself on this imageboard are and were intended to feature the word "allegedly", and should be considered to have contained the word "allegedly" even if they do not.

Allegedly.

If they thought it was non-consensual back then, and they acquiesced out of fear, and didn't feel able to go to the authorities at the time, and now 20 years later they feel it is the time to speak out, fair enough.

"Retroactive withdrawal of consent" implies they were up for it, regretted it years later, and kicked up a stink. But how do they prove if they were or weren't up for it back then? There won't be text records going that far back. Will there be witnesses remembering seeing Russell act lewd and lasciviously with women in a bar in 2001, before he was a major celeb?

It seems very hard to prove he did the rapes, but I'm not a law man.

>>42288

>It seems very hard to prove he did the rapes

And in practice, it is. Especially when there were no witnesses. It makes a rape that happened ten years ago while no third person was watching and witnessing it almost impossible to prove.

Most rape cases that not only go to court but end in a conviction therefore rely on third-party evidence. Which can be anything from witness statements to CCTV footage.

Which means that in practice, MRAlad already doesn't have to worry about a person that he had sex with bringing false rape charges in ten years time. Everything else is more or less manosphere paranoia.

>>42289

Less than 4% of allegations actually result in a charge, because the CPS is only willing to pursue the strongest cases. About half of cases that actually make it to court result in a conviction.

That base rate suggests that Brand's odds of going to prison are basically 50/50. There's a chance that the CPS have been pressured into taking on a case that's much weaker than their usual standards because of the notoriety of the alleged perpetrator; conversely, they might also have made sure that they've got a really strong case before deciding to prosecute to avoid an international embarrassment. I'm not sure how to weight those probabilities, but in the absence of other evidence I'm going to guess that they mostly cancel out.

>>42290
>That base rate suggests that Brand's odds of going to prison are basically 50/50. There's a chance that the CPS have been pressured into taking on a case that's much weaker than their usual standards because of the notoriety of the alleged perpetrator

See also: Ched Evans.