You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)
November 8 2026 5.24pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)


Page 196 of 261 < 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 >
Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 16 Sep 23 5.48pm

And so the C4 preparing to air an 'investigation' into a celebrity over alleged criminal activity.
I think investigative journalism (if that is what it is) in cases like this, should be passed to the CPS before they air it in public.
Also think it is wrong of media outlets (like the BBC) to report on alleged cases and (maybe) suspects. Look what happened with Sir Cliff.
The meeja have learned nothing, as 'historic' cases with no evidence are regurgitated as unsupported fact/allegation.

 


I disengage, I turn the page.

Stirlingsays Flag 16 Sep 23 11.25pm

The second of these videos is highly likely the real reason that someone like Brand is suddenly attacked now....Ten years later.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Sep 2023 11.26pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 10.07am

After previous scandals involving TV “stars” resulted in the TV companies introducing tighter regulations and reporting requirements why should we be surprised to see those being applied?

Brand’s behaviour was always questionable and often completely unacceptable, at least to the majority.

Him being the focus of attention in the context of these revised expectations is only to be expected. Perhaps he has been expecting it and his attacks on the MSM are connected to preparing a defence whilst also providing a new source of income as the old ones had dried up because his behaviour had become recognised as unacceptable.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 17 Sep 23 1.51pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

After previous scandals involving TV “stars” resulted in the TV companies introducing tighter regulations and reporting requirements why should we be surprised to see those being applied?

Brand’s behaviour was always questionable and often completely unacceptable, at least to the majority.

Him being the focus of attention in the context of these revised expectations is only to be expected. Perhaps he has been expecting it and his attacks on the MSM are connected to preparing a defence whilst also providing a new source of income as the old ones had dried up because his behaviour had become recognised as unacceptable.

There are laws that protect people from criminal behaviour.

There are no laws about sleeping with lots of women or who they are, as long as they are over 16. There are no laws about being disliked by a percentage of people.
Behaviour in the work place is guided by the organisation concerned, and they can discipline 'bad behaviour' rightly or wrongly as they see fit.

There is absolutely no room for trial by TV.

 

Stirlingsays Flag 17 Sep 23 2.50pm

I think it's fair to criticise Brand's highly promiscuous past as with the drug stuff, he has himself but it's fair....we are all entitled to that opinion but it's only that.

However, we are living in the 'OnlyFans' era and highly promiscuous people are usually not being shamed in the mainstream (perhaps they should be).

For me what happened with that phone call about Andrew Sachs's granddaughter was the worst and bad taste thing he did.....but he appeared genuinely remorseful for it as did Ross.....both are on the left so I can hardly be accused of batting for them.

But in regards to what has happened here it is of no surprise to me that if you run through that number of women that there is going to be some with an axe to grind for whatever reason.

Some might question that if Brand had been guilty of something that why we are hearing about it on a TV programme rather than from the Police.

Brand is a multi millionaire and can defend himself so I imagine that lawyers will be all over this.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Sep 2023 2.53pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 5.15pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

There are laws that protect people from criminal behaviour.

There are no laws about sleeping with lots of women or who they are, as long as they are over 16. There are no laws about being disliked by a percentage of people.
Behaviour in the work place is guided by the organisation concerned, and they can discipline 'bad behaviour' rightly or wrongly as they see fit.

There is absolutely no room for trial by TV.

Once again no-one is questioning anything done legally, even if it is widely condemned as irresponsible and distasteful.

What is at issue here is unlawful behaviour. Rape amongst others. The accounts of the women sound authentic, whilst Brand's defence does not.

For sure a trial in a court is where such things need to be resolved but bringing this to that stage may not happen without this exposure being aired first. I expect it to come to court but should it not then will be the time to review any trial by TV.

Any women, who feels alone and isolated in her abuse is going to feel empowered and reassured by the knowledge that others share her situation. I will not be surprised if others now come forward.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 17 Sep 23 5.45pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I think it's fair to criticise Brand's highly promiscuous past as with the drug stuff, he has himself but it's fair....

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Sep 2023 2.53pm)

in the case of Elvis Presley....all those women threw themselves at him.

There are shocking stories about some of the Beatles, in their early days.....again, seemingly consensual.

are women attracted to wealthy/famous blokes like flies to a UV light ?

no smoke without fire......i reckon Brand is not somebody i could warm to. Is he a Psychopath ?

 


Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Stirlingsays Flag 17 Sep 23 5.51pm

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

in the case of Elvis Presley....all those women threw themselves at him.

There are shocking stories about some of the Beatles, in their early days.....again, seemingly consensual.

are women attracted to wealthy/famous blokes like flies to a UV light ?

no smoke without fire......i reckon Brand is not somebody i could warm to. Is he a Psychopath ?

The Stones as well....Also famously Kennedy and MLKJ.....it's all out there.

The mainstream though won't attack them and didn't attack them at the time because these were regime approved....Same as with Savile.

Attack the mainstream though and the dirt they collect on you is going to come out.

None of this is organic, it's all related to power.

Seen the mainstream media demanding the Epstein client list yet?

Seen them talk about the people it's known are on it?

Nope....it's not an accident.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Sep 2023 5.51pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

eagleman13 Flag On The Road To Hell & Alicante 17 Sep 23 5.52pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Once again no-one is questioning anything done legally, even if it is widely condemned as irresponsible and distasteful.

What is at issue here is unlawful behaviour. Rape amongst others. The accounts of the women sound authentic, whilst Brand's defence does not.

For sure a trial in a court is where such things need to be resolved but bringing this to that stage may not happen without this exposure being aired first. I expect it to come to court but should it not then will be the time to review any trial by TV.

Any women, who feels alone and isolated in her abuse is going to feel empowered and reassured by the knowledge that others share her situation. I will not be surprised if others now come forward.

Well, thank god for UK courts & not someone who is, so out of touch, it beggar's belief. In the highlighted bit, you have Brand guilty of Rape. You yourself have said you believe the 'unknown' women & that Brand's does not stand up. How many more bbc employee's are you going to stand up for when the overwhelming evidence says otherwise, Brand was an employee & before you start, yes i know he was sack/let go. Whoopy fcukin doo.

Brand, whether you like him or not, has been tried by TV, that is not legally binding. Too many people, incl you, jump on the 'snowflake' band wagon. Nothing has been 'proved' apart from the unknown women spouting off what ever they were paid to say.

 


This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise.

PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 17 Sep 23 5.57pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle


For sure a trial in a court is where such things need to be resolved

best not mention all the pakistani rape-gangs then ? Lest you get accused of being a racist ?

 


Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 7.37pm

Originally posted by eagleman13

Well, thank god for UK courts & not someone who is, so out of touch, it beggar's belief. In the highlighted bit, you have Brand guilty of Rape. You yourself have said you believe the 'unknown' women & that Brand's does not stand up. How many more bbc employee's are you going to stand up for when the overwhelming evidence says otherwise, Brand was an employee & before you start, yes i know he was sack/let go. Whoopy fcukin doo.

Brand, whether you like him or not, has been tried by TV, that is not legally binding. Too many people, incl you, jump on the 'snowflake' band wagon. Nothing has been 'proved' apart from the unknown women spouting off what ever they were paid to say.

What I said was the truth, and nothing but the truth. The issue is accusations of unlawful behaviour, including rape and not anything distasteful but legal. No-one has yet been tried, let alone convicted. That I found the statements by the women more believable than that of Brand does not mean a Court will. Due process is the only way to determine probable truth, which I also acknowledged.

Nothing in the way the women described their experiences gave any indication they were being paid, indeed one specifically rejected any such suggestion as a motivation. For sure if and when a Court hears their claims the defence will probe hard to find that out, examine bank accounts and lifestyles and during the exchanges of document disclosures. They would be extremely foolish to accept payment and the TV and Newspaper carrying out the investigation plain stupid to offer it.

Brand has not been tried by TV. An investigation has thrown up some allegations which could, in due time and following due process, result in a trial.

Deciding to make that investigation public, rather than take it directly to the police, can be questioned. No doubt that C4 and The Times would claim it's in the public interest but I would suggest it's more in the interest of the alleged victims to know they are not alone and that any case would be prosecuted jointly.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Spiderman Flag Horsham 17 Sep 23 7.46pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

What I said was the truth, and nothing but the truth. The issue is accusations of unlawful behaviour, including rape and not anything distasteful but legal. No-one has yet been tried, let alone convicted. That I found the statements by the women more believable than that of Brand does not mean a Court will. Due process is the only way to determine probable truth, which I also acknowledged.

Nothing in the way the women described their experiences gave any indication they were being paid, indeed one specifically rejected any such suggestion as a motivation. For sure if and when a Court hears their claims the defence will probe hard to find that out, examine bank accounts and lifestyles and during the exchanges of document disclosures. They would be extremely foolish to accept payment and the TV and Newspaper carrying out the investigation plain stupid to offer it.

Brand has not been tried by TV. An investigation has thrown up some allegations which could, in due time and following due process, result in a trial.

Deciding to make that investigation public, rather than take it directly to the police, can be questioned. No doubt that C4 and The Times would claim it's in the public interest but I would suggest it's more in the interest of the alleged victims to know they are not alone and that any case would be prosecuted jointly.


Of course he has been tried by TV
The alleged victim was in a relationship with Brand and admitted he had never done anything previously to worry her. She did not go to the police, why not? This was in the land of the law suit, the US.
Whether you like Brand or not, the evidence is suspect to say the least. Perhaps he just needs help and loving like Hunter

Edited by Spiderman (17 Sep 2023 7.47pm)

 

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 7.50pm

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

in the case of Elvis Presley....all those women threw themselves at him.

There are shocking stories about some of the Beatles, in their early days.....again, seemingly consensual.

are women attracted to wealthy/famous blokes like flies to a UV light ?

no smoke without fire......i reckon Brand is not somebody i could warm to. Is he a Psychopath ?

Let's be clear. No stories have ever surfaced about Elvis, The Beatles or indeed the Stones of the kind now being suggested about Brand.

I am quite sure other mega stars have indulged in a wild hedonistic life styles, often involving consensual sex with many women. If though that ever went beyond that to the non consensual behaviour being suggested that Brand was responsible for I am sure it would have also been investigated by someone and exposed.

Bringing down the rich and famous is something that the media enjoy. Especially those with previously lilly white reputations.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 7.57pm

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

best not mention all the pakistani rape-gangs then ? Lest you get accused of being a racist ?

I don't follow your logic!

The law doesn't care about the ethnicity or religion of any rape gang member?

The only thing that matters is what they have done.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 17 Sep 23 8.03pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Once again no-one is questioning anything done legally, even if it is widely condemned as irresponsible and distasteful.

What is at issue here is unlawful behaviour. Rape amongst others. The accounts of the women sound authentic, whilst Brand's defence does not.

For sure a trial in a court is where such things need to be resolved but bringing this to that stage may not happen without this exposure being aired first. I expect it to come to court but should it not then will be the time to review any trial by TV.

Any women, who feels alone and isolated in her abuse is going to feel empowered and reassured by the knowledge that others share her situation. I will not be surprised if others now come forward.

But by doing so, it ensures that any future trial that might take place could be compromised. Brand could quite reasonably claim that it would not be fair, given the prejudice created by the programme.

 

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 8.45pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

But by doing so, it ensures that any future trial that might take place could be compromised. Brand could quite reasonably claim that it would not be fair, given the prejudice created by the programme.

It might make jury selection lengthy and tedious but not impossible. The Courts are well used to this kind of difficulty but always find a way around it. Jurors are put to strict test to ensure objectivity and that they disregard any previous assumptions.

Brand's lawyers would doubtless question and object to many but eventually it would go ahead.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 17 Sep 23 8.52pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It might make jury selection lengthy and tedious but not impossible. The Courts are well used to this kind of difficulty but always find a way around it. Jurors are put to strict test to ensure objectivity and that they disregard any previous assumptions.

Brand's lawyers would doubtless question and object to many but eventually it would go ahead.

Let's wait and see if any of this stuff is prosecutable before you get all Witch Finder General on it.

 

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards georgenorman Flag 17 Sep 23 10.07pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Let's be clear. No stories have ever surfaced about Elvis, The Beatles or indeed the Stones of the kind now being suggested about Brand.

I am quite sure other mega stars have indulged in a wild hedonistic life styles, often involving consensual sex with many women. If though that ever went beyond that to the non consensual behaviour being suggested that Brand was responsible for I am sure it would have also been investigated by someone and exposed.

Bringing down the rich and famous is something that the media enjoy. Especially those with previously lilly white reputations.

What apart from Elvis and Bill Wyman having 'close relationships' with under-age girls?

 

Stirlingsays Flag 17 Sep 23 11.21pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

What apart from Elvis and Bill Wyman having 'close relationships' with under-age girls?

Yep, and having been a Beatles nut it's common knowledge by anyone interested in their history that hookers and the many groupies were provided for them and their entourage during all their tours....Ringo wasn't only banging his drums....Girls of all ages threw themselves at them.

It was the done thing with all major acts of the day.

Until Lennon started to get political intelligence services didn't give a damn.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Sep 2023 11.26pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 11.53pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

What apart from Elvis and Bill Wyman having 'close relationships' with under-age girls?

Not that I heard or that ever produced the kind of accusations now being made about Brand. Consensual sex with an underage girl is still a criminal act but one that is probably easier to defend if their age is borderline and they lied about it.

Perhaps they happened but didn’t reach widespread attention. I don’t discount that possibility anymore than they were just tittle tattle. Here we have very specific allegations from several sources.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (17 Sep 2023 11.58pm)

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Page 196 of 261 < 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)