This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
The second of these videos is highly likely the real reason that someone like Brand is suddenly attacked now....Ten years later. [Tweet Link]
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) |
|
|
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. There is absolutely no room for trial by TV.
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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) |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
best not mention all the pakistani rape-gangs then ? Lest you get accused of being a racist ?
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
Edited by Spiderman (17 Sep 2023 7.47pm)
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
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. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.