You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?
September 21 2023 2.18pm

Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 19 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

 

View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 17 Sep 23 7.28am Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

Time taken to bring accusations.
Co-ordinated release of details and accusations to the meeja by "five victims".
And yet nothing sent to the police or CPS.

I am no fan of Brand. but this is absolutely disgraceful that people can publicly air such accusations with not a sniff of court proceedings.

 


,,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 17 Sep 23 7.55am Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Another " celeb " unmasked.....' by becky

I had no interest in watching the programme, so excuse any naivety on my part, but if Brand raped or sexually assaulted someone, why didn't they go to the police at the time rather than waiting years to talk to Channel 4? Was that covered?

Also, is Mason Greenwood's lawyer free?

 


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
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 17 Sep 23 8.15am Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

Time taken to bring accusations.
Co-ordinated release of details and accusations to the meeja by "five victims".
And yet nothing sent to the police or CPS.

I am no fan of Brand. but this is absolutely disgraceful that people can publicly air such accusations with not a sniff of court proceedings.

Totally agree. I spent the whole 90 minutes waiting for the bombshell!
Celeb asks women fir their number, which they gave willing and then had s3x with them. Wow how unusual

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 17 Sep 23 8.20am Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by YT

I had no interest in watching the programme, so excuse any naivety on my part, but if Brand raped or sexually assaulted someone, why didn't they go to the police at the time rather than waiting years to talk to Channel 4? Was that covered?

Also, is Mason Greenwood's lawyer free?

The alleged rape victim was in the US. She had been seeing Brand for a while. She did mit report it as she was ďscaredĒ but admitted he had never acted badly previously. Only evidence was a message apologising for his behaviour ( could have been anything).
Programme claimed to have seen messages on other occasions but didnít show them. The only thing proven was Brand was an absolute t** but no evidence of criminality only he s***ged a lot of willing women

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 17 Sep 23 8.39am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Spiderman

The alleged rape victim was in the US. She had been seeing Brand for a while. She did mit report it as she was ďscaredĒ but admitted he had never acted badly previously. Only evidence was a message apologising for his behaviour ( could have been anything).
Programme claimed to have seen messages on other occasions but didnít show them. The only thing proven was Brand was an absolute t** but no evidence of criminality only he s***ged a lot of willing women

She received help at a rape crisis centre on the same day as the incident.

I won't be losing too much sleep over the coverage of degenerates like Brand.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 17 Sep 23 9.00am Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

She received help at a rape crisis centre on the same day as the incident.

I won't be losing too much sleep over the coverage of degenerates like Brand.

The TV license fee is the Rape that gets us all.

 


inŠr n-aonar i Anerley,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 17 Sep 23 9.18am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

I didn't watch the programme but I've seen enough of the papers to get the gist of the allegations. At the moment a number of unnamed women have made serious allegations but not to the police err that's it.

One thing that is bugging me is how the media is reporting Brand's career as though he was a major star. I'll admit I never liked him so maybe my prejudice is showing through but I think they are totally over hyping it.

He is a comedian famous for being famous. Most successful comedians e.g. Peter Kaye can point to sitcoms as well as stand up in which they have starred. As far as I can tell Brand has done stand up, TV and radio spots but nothing that warranted being called a major star.

He went to Hollywood and bombed after a number of supporting roles and had to come back to England tail between his legs.

He then moved from comedy to conspiracy and here I will defer to Stirlingsays expertise but frankly I don't care what he thinks about the Deep State, does anyone else?

Anyway C4 has opened a can of worms which they need to back up with facts. I am not convinced that the deep state is trying to shut him up "cos he tells it like it is". He is not a threat just a man howling at the moon who others listen to. And he maybe right on a lot of what he says but then so is the man down the pub.

I think the most likely explanation as to why C4 have gone after him is that he is an easy target due to his previous sleazy lifestyle.

Edited by Badger11 (17 Sep 2023 10.04am)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 9.50am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Spiderman

The alleged rape victim was in the US. She had been seeing Brand for a while. She did mit report it as she was ďscaredĒ but admitted he had never acted badly previously. Only evidence was a message apologising for his behaviour ( could have been anything).
Programme claimed to have seen messages on other occasions but didnít show them. The only thing proven was Brand was an absolute t** but no evidence of criminality only he s***ged a lot of willing women

I am watching the programme now and am only 5 mins in and already can see that isnít true. That there was consensual sex doesnít mean that all the sex was consensual. That any woman didnít pursue charges at the time but might now is only down to the way these things were regarded then and that the women have matured and acquired confidence. That some women were willing to participate with a self confessed sex addict doesnít mean all were or that any were all of the time.

I have always regarded Brand as a piece of s***e and nothing I have read about this story or seen surprises me. Itís pretty much what I would have expected from him.

Nor is it any surprise that in todayís world these accusations are surfacing. They have against others and will for more.

Accusations may ruin reputations but unless and until charges are made and convictions secured they remain just accusations. We will have to see whether charges follow.

For me this changes nothing. Yet! Powerful people have exploited the impressionable and vulnerable since time began. Brand is just a particularly extreme and unpleasant example. The chickens may not be yet back in the roost but they are in the air and if this type of attitude is to be eradicated it must be exposed and condemned. Hopefully in a court.

The supervision by the TV channels and the production companies is an entirely separate matter. Important nonetheless but unrelated directly to the accusations.

I watched until the end, which included Brandís denials. I found the statements by the various women much more compelling and convincing than those denials. Denials which appeared to me to suggest that Brand believes that if he believed consent was given then consent existed.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 17 Sep 23 10.11am Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I didn't watch the programme but I've seen enough of the papers to get the gist of the allegations. At the moment a number of unnamed women have made serious allegations but not to the police err that's it.

One thing that is bugging me is how the media is reporting Brand's career as though he was a major star. I'll admit I never liked him so maybe my prejudice is showing through but I think they are totally over hyping it.

He is a comedian famous for being famous. Most successful comedians e.g. Peter Kaye can point to sitcoms as well as stand up in which they have starred. As far as I can tell Brand has done stand up, TV and radio spots but nothing that warranted being called a major star.

He went to Hollywood and bombed after a number of supporting roles and had to come back to England tail between his legs.

He then moved from comedy to conspiracy and here I will defer to Stirlingsays expertise but frankly I don't care what he thinks about the Deep State, does anyone else?

Anyway C4 has opened a can of worms which they need to back up with facts. I am not convinced that the deep state is trying to shut him up "cos he tells it like it is". He is not a threat just a man howling at the moon who others listen to. At he maybe right on a lot of what he says but then so is the man down the pub.

I think the most likely explanation as to why C4 have gone after him is that he is an easy target due to his previous sleazy lifestyle.

Good point, Badger.

Apart from having delivered his groceries and been on the receiving end of his politeness (see above), I've only ever directly seen him in ONE thing, and that was by accident! I have, of course, been aware of all the 'stuff' surrounding him - his sacking by the BBC, his relationship with Katy Perry, his love of Jeremy Corbyn etc - but I couldn't have told you, until reading it today, anything that he's 'done' in his media career. Having said that, he lives in a bloody nice house that must be worth a few million, do he's obviously made some Dosh.

The one thing I did see him in, I was 'channel hopping' and briefly encountered him doing something to do with 'Big Brother'. He was doing some kind of 'stand-up comedy summary' of the day's events, and in the 30 seconds or so I saw him, he managed to make a lewd comment about masturbation and another one about male ejaculate (aka 'spunk' in old money). I remember turning to Mrs YT and saying "television isn't what it used to be, dear".

 


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
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 17 Sep 23 10.12am Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am watching the programme now and am only 5 mins in and already can see that isnít true. That there was consensual sex doesnít mean that all the sex was consensual. That any woman didnít pursue charges at the time but might now is only down to the way these things were regarded then and that the women have matured and acquired confidence. That some women were willing to participate with a self confessed sex addict doesnít mean all were or that any were all of the time.

I have always regarded Brand as a piece of s***e and nothing I have read about this story or seen surprises me. Itís pretty much what I would have expected from him.

Nor is it any surprise that in todayís world these accusations are surfacing. They have against others and will for more.

Accusations may ruin reputations but unless and until charges are made and convictions secured they remain just accusations. We will have to see whether charges follow.

For me this changes nothing. Yet! Powerful people have exploited the impressionable and vulnerable since time began. Brand is just a particularly extreme and unpleasant example. The chickens may not be yet back in the roost but they are in the air and if this type of attitude is to be eradicated it must be exposed and condemned. Hopefully in a court.

The supervision by the TV channels and the production companies is an entirely separate matter. Important nonetheless but unrelated directly to the accusations.

I watched until the end, which included Brandís denials. I found the statements by the various women much more compelling and convincing than those denials. Denials which appeared to me to suggest that Brand believes that if he believed consent was given then consent existed.

He's bound to be guilty and the BBC employees aren't. Wrong views, wrong 'un.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 17 Sep 23 10.23am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am watching the programme now and am only 5 mins in and already can see that isnít true. That there was consensual sex doesnít mean that all the sex was consensual. That any woman didnít pursue charges at the time but might now is only down to the way these things were regarded then and that the women have matured and acquired confidence. That some women were willing to participate with a self confessed sex addict doesnít mean all were or that any were all of the time.

I have always regarded Brand as a piece of s***e and nothing I have read about this story or seen surprises me. Itís pretty much what I would have expected from him.

Nor is it any surprise that in todayís world these accusations are surfacing. They have against others and will for more.

Accusations may ruin reputations but unless and until charges are made and convictions secured they remain just accusations. We will have to see whether charges follow.

For me this changes nothing. Yet! Powerful people have exploited the impressionable and vulnerable since time began. Brand is just a particularly extreme and unpleasant example. The chickens may not be yet back in the roost but they are in the air and if this type of attitude is to be eradicated it must be exposed and condemned. Hopefully in a court.

The supervision by the TV channels and the production companies is an entirely separate matter. Important nonetheless but unrelated directly to the accusations.

I watched until the end, which included Brandís denials. I found the statements by the various women much more compelling and convincing than those denials. Denials which appeared to me to suggest that Brand believes that if he believed consent was given then consent existed.

To my great surprise, I find that I agree with practically everything you have said here.

(However, this does against my dictum that if you are in doubt over an issue, see what Wisbech says and take the opposite view.)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 17 Sep 23 10.33am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

He's bound to be guilty and the BBC employees aren't. Wrong views, wrong 'un.

For a very long time some people have got away with appalling bad behaviour whether it is at the BBC or other forms of show business. It seems to have been the norm for certain untouchable people.

However I think the oil tanker is slowly turning around and companies are now realising that the reputational damage for turning a blind eye is far more serious than losing a toxic star to another company because they are told their behaviour is unacceptable.

BBC and now ITV have both been in the dock lately however this is actually a good sign as in the past it would have been covered up.

I think that in the future it is far less likely that this bad behaviour will be ignored.

Edited by Badger11 (17 Sep 2023 10.34am)

 


One more point

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

 

Page 3 of 19 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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