You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?
April 13 2024 9.04pm

Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 15 of 33 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

 

View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 20 Sep 23 3.32pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

I completely agree that questions should be asked of the broadcasters, although I think ‘equally culpable’ is probably a stretch.

Having said that, if C4 were purely in the business of trying to deflect attention away, they wouldn’t have put out the program at all - of course they’re going to try and put their own spin on it and paint themselves as positively as they can, but ultimately they have published something which they know also opens themselves up to massive criticism - that just makes the story more credible, to me.

Perhaps but the investigation was done jointly with the Times. I guess the question is who kicked it off? Did the Times approach C4 or the other way around.

Either way C4 realised that if they didn't get in front of this story sooner or later another media company would. Sorry that is just my cynical opinion of the media.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 20 Sep 23 5.01pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

On the allegations themselves; I just never really understand why people work so hard to disbelieve this stuff (well I think I do, but it’s a fairly depressing reality to confront) - there’s hardly a huge list of examples of these type of stories being completely made up, and based on everything we know of Brand, and the small amounts of evidence shown, I’m quite happy to say on the balance of probability I think it’s much more likely true than not.

I think at best he’s a creep and an abuser, at worst he’s an outright rapist - regardless of where he ends up in that range, that’s not someone I will rush to defend.

Legally, absolutely he is entitled to due process and presumption of innocence, but the burden of proof to just form an opinion as an ordinary person does not need be anywhere near as high - this is a multi year investigation conducted by big organisations who would be very aware of the risks of a defamation case if their story was not solid.

I’ve also said before that I don’t have anywhere near as much faith as many seem to in a legal system which convicts at a rate lower than 1% for this particular allegation - there are far more blokes who have never been convicted but very clearly done wrong than there are blokes who’ve been falsely accused, and yet everyone seems convinced the latter is a more likely outcome.

Spot on

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 20 Sep 23 6.09pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

It’s hilarious to me that anyone thinks Russel Brand is important or influential enough that the ‘establishment’ would need or want to take him down.

He’s a relative nobody in recent years, and unless you actively seek out the sort of content he produces (anti-establishment, conspiratorial type stuff), I’d imagine the vast majority of people have absolutely no exposure to it.

His YouTube videos average about half a million views, which is a global audience - the idea that those type of numbers are so worrying to the powers that be that they’d coordinate a campaign against him is beyond childish.

Whatever you think about the allegations, that theory is a nonsense.

If it's hilarious to you then at least you're laughing so there's some positive to come from it.

I've already answered this point you make here, which SW19 previously made but you probably didn't read it so I'll repeat that here....Like him you may not accept it but I feel it's valid as you're implying that to suggest conspiracy for anything other than organic reasons is paranoid.

Your first point is that he's not important enough to take down.

Ok, here is my response to that. Brand has a larger Youtube viewing audience than many official media outlets. Name me an anti establishment figure of a similar size to Russell Brand that hasn't been taken down? Why on earth wouldn't they look to take them down?

Your second point is that not many people are anti establishment and 'conspiratorial type stuff'. Really? Trump is supported by roughly half of America and people aren't into anti establishment 'conspiratorial type stuff'? In reality trust in institutions and government is declining and efforts to restrict 'misinformation' by the establishment is all happening in plain sight.

Yet you seem to think that the establishment are just sitting on their hands doing nothing about it.....When all the evidence goes against that. You obviously have never read the many memoirs from former intelligence who also talk about the many underhands activities that go on.

I'll also make the obvious and strongest point against your claims here is that the investigation against Brand is four years old. Well, Brand has been a celebrity for decades. Brand had been a shagging machine for most of that...maybe all.

Brand's promiscuous behaviour had been commented about pretty much from the start....but while he was in the mainstream nothing.

However, it's only been since he's become political against the mainstream that there's an interest in investigating him. It's nearly always the anti establishment figures that you get to hear about.

But you think noticing that is childish....well ok, I guess I'll have to buy myself an action man.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Sep 2023 6.16pm)

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 20 Sep 23 6.19pm Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

You can be very patronising. Your first line is not a requirement to make your point. If an opinion is different to yours it could well be you who are confused !

And you can be a master of understatement!

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 20 Sep 23 8.40pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

The playing down and mitigation by the likes of you, of the scandal of pakistani-heritage paedophile gangs carrying out mass sexual abuse on children in several towns while the police were fully informed of what was going on, is truly sickening.

I thought twice before making the comparisons for exactly this kind of response. Which can be read in these pages countless times. Everyone of them misrepresenting or misunderstanding my position. One poster here is particularly guilty of this.

For the avoidance of any doubt I am not offering any mitigation or playing down the evil men who groom and abuse children. They are criminals of the worst kind who deserve to be identified, prosecuted and punished.

My objections were always to the way that certain sections of the media, and the self opinionated attention seeking Yaxley-Lennon, tried to turn this into an anti-Islam anti-pakistan campaign. Neither Islam nor pakistan are responsible for the evil and the way this campaign was waged made things more difficult for the police, rather than help them bring criminals to justice.

The police were on the cases but with over stretched resources handled them in ways that were subsequently found to be inadequate. I continue to have sympathy for them as they were between a rock and a hard place. One in which whatever they did they would have been criticised. Especially as there is strong evidence they were following a strategy handed down from the centre. Criticism is cheap and easy when what you are criticising hasn’t been given the tools to do the job.

 


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.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 20 Sep 23 8.50pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

People who read those original posts will reject the revisionism on display.....the excuses have zero evidence to actually back them. Huge amounts of money are spent on Policing.

Rape is not murder (though murders also happened) but it's rightly seen as a terrible crime and finding excuses for inaction and leaving of mass rape for decades deserves all the criticism this particular poster receives for it.

Really quite awful....and the hypocrisy is frightening.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Sep 2023 8.53pm)

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Online Flag 20 Sep 23 8.52pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I thought twice before making the comparisons for exactly this kind of response. Which can be read in these pages countless times. Everyone of them misrepresenting or misunderstanding my position. One poster here is particularly guilty of this.

For the avoidance of any doubt I am not offering any mitigation or playing down the evil men who groom and abuse children. They are criminals of the worst kind who deserve to be identified, prosecuted and punished.

My objections were always to the way that certain sections of the media, and the self opinionated attention seeking Yaxley-Lennon, tried to turn this into an anti-Islam anti-pakistan campaign. Neither Islam nor pakistan are responsible for the evil and the way this campaign was waged made things more difficult for the police, rather than help them bring criminals to justice.

The police were on the cases but with over stretched resources handled them in ways that were subsequently found to be inadequate. I continue to have sympathy for them as they were between a rock and a hard place. One in which whatever they did they would have been criticised. Especially as there is strong evidence they were following a strategy handed down from the centre. Criticism is cheap and easy when what you are criticising hasn’t been given the tools to do the job.

Limited resources not given much prominence here.

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 20 Sep 23 8.54pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Perhaps but the investigation was done jointly with the Times. I guess the question is who kicked it off? Did the Times approach C4 or the other way around.

Either way C4 realised that if they didn't get in front of this story sooner or later another media company would. Sorry that is just my cynical opinion of the media.


Might I suggest you listen to the BBC Sounds podcast in which both the investigative journalist from Dispatches and that from The Times were interviewed on how their cooperation started. It seems both had been running low key investigations for some time, independent and unaware of each other. When they realised this they decided to share information and pool resources. When it seemed the story was revealing important matters they were then given additional support and assurances that whatever was found, even if it opened C4 to criticism, would be published.

It is a revealing and reassuring piece which indicates just how seriously these things are handled and the separation between the editorial departments and the corporate oversight. This is no hatchet job.

 


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.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 20 Sep 23 8.58pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Limited resources not given much prominence here.

[Link]

So what? One person’s view is only that. They are entitled to hold it, but it doesn’t make it right. Mine is different. I am also entitled to hold it. That others don’t agree doesn’t make it wrong.

 


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.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 20 Sep 23 9.05pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

That anyone thinks I have revised my views only goes to prove how they were misunderstood and misrepresented at the time.

As I said I hesitated before making the comparison as I anticipated another diversionary personal hate fest of the type seen here so often, rather than the subject under review.

Which are the accusations made about Brand.

 


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.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Online Flag 20 Sep 23 9.05pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

So what? One person’s view is only that. They are entitled to hold it, but it doesn’t make it right. Mine is different. I am also entitled to hold it. That others don’t agree doesn’t make it wrong.

Of course. Mind you it was the Rotherham police chief who said it and he might have had a clue.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 20 Sep 23 9.13pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Some people obviously have a rather limited understanding of what the word revisionism means.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 15 of 33 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?