Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 33 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Hrolf The Ganger 17 Sep 23 11.27am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am watching the programme now and am only 5 mins in and already can see that isn’t true. That there was consensual sex doesn’t mean that all the sex was consensual. That any woman didn’t 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 doesn’t 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. It’s pretty much what I would have expected from him. Nor is it any surprise that in today’s 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 Brand’s 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. When you believe that you have been assaulted, you go to the police immediately. Even if you only pluck up courage years later, you go to the police. Trying to blacken someone's reputation via a TV show is unacceptable unless you have substantial evidence that is prosecutable. It seems to me that a lot of jealousy and bitterness kicks in when someone is sexually attractive to women and very sexually active, especially when you were yesterday's girl. We also have a society where a new kind of pervasive puritanism has crept in when it suits. Let's have a trial by jury and not this TV witch hunt.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

17 Sep 23 11.27am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am watching the programme now and am only 5 mins in and already can see that isn’t true. That there was consensual sex doesn’t mean that all the sex was consensual. That any woman didn’t 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 doesn’t 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. It’s pretty much what I would have expected from him.

Nor is it any surprise that in today’s 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 Brand’s 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.

When you believe that you have been assaulted, you go to the police immediately. Even if you only pluck up courage years later, you go to the police.

Trying to blacken someone's reputation via a TV show is unacceptable unless you have substantial evidence that is prosecutable.

It seems to me that a lot of jealousy and bitterness kicks in when someone is sexually attractive to women and very sexually active, especially when you were yesterday's girl. We also have a society where a new kind of pervasive puritanism has crept in when it suits.

Let's have a trial by jury and not this TV witch hunt.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 17 Sep 23 11.30am
Originally posted by Badger11 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) The adage "follow the money" applies as it so often does. Hollywood, the music business, professional sport, etc have all spent the last hundred years protecting and enabling those who made the most money. Maybe what's changed, as well as societal attitudes, is that these organisations are often owned by huge conglomerates whose income isn't dependent on a few major contributors. Also the fact that "celebrity" has expanded to include YouTubers, TikTokers, reality stars, WAGs, etc, who are all easily expendable.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

17 Sep 23 11.30am

Originally posted by Badger11

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)

The adage "follow the money" applies as it so often does. Hollywood, the music business, professional sport, etc have all spent the last hundred years protecting and enabling those who made the most money. Maybe what's changed, as well as societal attitudes, is that these organisations are often owned by huge conglomerates whose income isn't dependent on a few major contributors.
Also the fact that "celebrity" has expanded to include YouTubers, TikTokers, reality stars, WAGs, etc, who are all easily expendable.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 11.57am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger When you believe that you have been assaulted, you go to the police immediately. Even if you only pluck up courage years later, you go to the police. Trying to blacken someone's reputation via a TV show is unacceptable unless you have substantial evidence that is prosecutable. It seems to me that a lot of jealousy and bitterness kicks in when someone is sexually attractive to women and very sexually active, especially when you were yesterday's girl. We also have a society where a new kind of pervasive puritanism has crept in when it suits. Let's have a trial by jury and not this TV witch hunt. Obviously untrue. Especially when an investigation is being carried out by the media who may get you to make statements on the basis of complete confidentiality and you still feel embarrassed or unsure of how the police would receive you. Once they realise they aren't alone, they, and others, may come forward and make statements to the police or the police may themselves seek them. This isn't puritanism in any sense. It's the recognition of the abuse of power and the arming of the weak and oppressed to fight back. This story has a long way to run. It does nothing to blacken Brand's reputation. It merely confirms what ought to be obvious. The current trial by public opinion is likely to only be the start. 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 a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 11.57am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

When you believe that you have been assaulted, you go to the police immediately. Even if you only pluck up courage years later, you go to the police.

Trying to blacken someone's reputation via a TV show is unacceptable unless you have substantial evidence that is prosecutable.

Let's have a trial by jury and not this TV witch hunt.

Obviously untrue. Especially when an investigation is being carried out by the media who may get you to make statements on the basis of complete confidentiality and you still feel embarrassed or unsure of how the police would receive you. Once they realise they aren't alone, they, and others, may come forward and make statements to the police or the police may themselves seek them.

This isn't puritanism in any sense. It's the recognition of the abuse of power and the arming of the weak and oppressed to fight back.

This story has a long way to run. It does nothing to blacken Brand's reputation. It merely confirms what ought to be obvious.

The current trial by public opinion is likely to only be the start.

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 a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 12.04pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC He's bound to be guilty and the BBC employees aren't. Wrong views, wrong 'un. He has been a BBC employee! Any charges would relate to the behaviour of the individual. I can imagine Brand facing criminal charges and other BBC employees facing internal disciplinary action for failing to act on suspicions. Not comparable! 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 a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 12.04pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

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

He has been a BBC employee! Any charges would relate to the behaviour of the individual. I can imagine Brand facing criminal charges and other BBC employees facing internal disciplinary action for failing to act on suspicions. Not comparable!

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 a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 17 Sep 23 12.23pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle He has been a BBC employee! Any charges would relate to the behaviour of the individual. I can imagine Brand facing criminal charges and other BBC employees facing internal disciplinary action for failing to act on suspicions. Not comparable! The BBC doesn't seem a natural fit for a dodgy sexual predator. He must be the exception that proves the rule.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

17 Sep 23 12.23pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The BBC doesn't seem a natural fit for a dodgy sexual predator. He must be the exception that proves the rule.

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 17 Sep 23 12.56pm
Originally posted by georgenorman 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.) Stopped clock right twice a day etc Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 17 Sep 23 12.56pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

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.)

Stopped clock right twice a day etc

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 17 Sep 23 1.31pm
Originally posted by Badger11 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) But his 'bad behaviour' was never ignored. It was celebrated. The likes of the BBC and C4 actually encouraged him. Promoted him. Gave him prime spots. That for me is why I am puzzling my crust over this now. Brand never pretended to be anything else other than a t*. Entire stand up routines around his depravity. All out in the open. And millions of people, especially women, lapped it up. This is like 'exposing' Carry on Films for being sexist. That was the point of them. Brand was/is merely a sympton of our society. Not a driving factor. Lets look at the 16 year old girl he was dating. Yes, pretty stomach turning but not illegal but her parents knew and did nothing to stop it. For me as guility as anybody in this. This was the s*tiest piece of so called 'investigative' journalism I have seen in a long time. Literally nothing other than second hand tittle tattle from almost decades ago. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

17 Sep 23 1.31pm

Originally posted by Badger11

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)

But his 'bad behaviour' was never ignored. It was celebrated. The likes of the BBC and C4 actually encouraged him. Promoted him. Gave him prime spots. That for me is why I am puzzling my crust over this now.

Brand never pretended to be anything else other than a t***. Entire stand up routines around his depravity. All out in the open. And millions of people, especially women, lapped it up.

This is like 'exposing' Carry on Films for being sexist. That was the point of them.

Brand was/is merely a sympton of our society. Not a driving factor. Lets look at the 16 year old girl he was dating. Yes, pretty stomach turning but not illegal but her parents knew and did nothing to stop it. For me as guility as anybody in this.

This was the s***tiest piece of so called 'investigative' journalism I have seen in a long time. Literally nothing other than second hand tittle tattle from almost decades ago.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 17 Sep 23 1.32pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Obviously untrue. Especially when an investigation is being carried out by the media who may get you to make statements on the basis of complete confidentiality and you still feel embarrassed or unsure of how the police would receive you. Once they realise they aren't alone, they, and others, may come forward and make statements to the police or the police may themselves seek them. This isn't puritanism in any sense. It's the recognition of the abuse of power and the arming of the weak and oppressed to fight back. This story has a long way to run. It does nothing to blacken Brand's reputation. It merely confirms what ought to be obvious. The current trial by public opinion is likely to only be the start. If it can be proved that the law has been broken, then I'm all for taking the necessary action. If not, then this is just a witch hunt. If women have been assaulted, then they have to dig deep and go to the police. If they don't then, there will be no justice. We cannot have this kind of trial by TV.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

17 Sep 23 1.32pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

This isn't puritanism in any sense. It's the recognition of the abuse of power and the arming of the weak and oppressed to fight back.

This story has a long way to run. It does nothing to blacken Brand's reputation. It merely confirms what ought to be obvious.

The current trial by public opinion is likely to only be the start.

If it can be proved that the law has been broken, then I'm all for taking the necessary action. If not, then this is just a witch hunt.

If women have been assaulted, then they have to dig deep and go to the police. If they don't then, there will be no justice.

We cannot have this kind of trial by TV.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 17 Sep 23 1.32pm
Originally posted by Badger11 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) But his 'bad behaviour' was never ignored. It was celebrated. The likes of the BBC and C4 actually encouraged him. Promoted him. Gave him prime spots. That for me is why I am puzzling my crust over this now. Brand never pretended to be anything else other than a t*. Entire stand up routines around his depravity. All out in the open. And millions of people, especially women, lapped it up. This is like 'exposing' Carry on Films for being sexist. That was the point of them. Brand was/is merely a sympton of our society. Not a driving factor. Lets look at the 16 year old girl he was dating. Yes, pretty stomach turning but not illegal but her parents knew and did nothing to stop it. For me as guility as anybody in this. This was the s*tiest piece of so called 'investigative' journalism I have seen in a long time. Literally nothing other than second hand tittle tattle from almost decades ago. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

17 Sep 23 1.32pm

Originally posted by Badger11

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)

Brand never pretended to be anything else other than a t***. Entire stand up routines around his depravity. All out in the open. And millions of people, especially women, lapped it up.

This is like 'exposing' Carry on Films for being sexist. That was the point of them.

This was the s***tiest piece of so called 'investigative' journalism I have seen in a long time. Literally nothing other than second hand tittle tattle from almost decades ago.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 2.58pm
Originally posted by Matov But his 'bad behaviour' was never ignored. It was celebrated. The likes of the BBC and C4 actually encouraged him. Promoted him. Gave him prime spots. That for me is why I am puzzling my crust over this now. Brand never pretended to be anything else other than a t*. Entire stand up routines around his depravity. All out in the open. And millions of people, especially women, lapped it up. This is like 'exposing' Carry on Films for being sexist. That was the point of them. Brand was/is merely a sympton of our society. Not a driving factor. Lets look at the 16 year old girl he was dating. Yes, pretty stomach turning but not illegal but her parents knew and did nothing to stop it. For me as guility as anybody in this. This was the s*tiest piece of so called 'investigative' journalism I have seen in a long time. Literally nothing other than second hand tittle tattle from almost decades ago. This misses the point. No one suggests Brand wasn’t open about either his drug abuse or his sexual behaviour. Indeed he built his early career on it. Nor is it suggested that others either ignored it or willingly cooperated. It isn’t though like trying to now suggest that the Carry On films are sexist. They were, but were just fun. No one got hurt or abused. It matters not that some were the willing partners of a perverted prat. What matters is that others are saying that they weren’t willing. Their statements have the ring of truth but need to be tested in court to be firmly established as factual. Until then there is suspicion. This is responsible investigative journalism. Exposing those who abuse their position of power and giving the abused the opportunity to tell their stories and the confidence they may need to be taken seriously by the police is what the media does best. This is another example of speaking truth to power. 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 a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 2.58pm

Originally posted by Matov

Brand never pretended to be anything else other than a t***. Entire stand up routines around his depravity. All out in the open. And millions of people, especially women, lapped it up.

This is like 'exposing' Carry on Films for being sexist. That was the point of them.

This was the s***tiest piece of so called 'investigative' journalism I have seen in a long time. Literally nothing other than second hand tittle tattle from almost decades ago.

This misses the point. No one suggests Brand wasn’t open about either his drug abuse or his sexual behaviour. Indeed he built his early career on it. Nor is it suggested that others either ignored it or willingly cooperated.

It isn’t though like trying to now suggest that the Carry On films are sexist. They were, but were just fun. No one got hurt or abused.

It matters not that some were the willing partners of a perverted prat. What matters is that others are saying that they weren’t willing. Their statements have the ring of truth but need to be tested in court to be firmly established as factual. Until then there is suspicion.

This is responsible investigative journalism. Exposing those who abuse their position of power and giving the abused the opportunity to tell their stories and the confidence they may need to be taken seriously by the police is what the media does best. This is another example of speaking truth to power.

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 a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 4.55pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle The BBC doesn't seem a natural fit for a dodgy sexual predator. He must be the exception that proves the rule. Brand worked for several TV companies and their content suppliers. He was sacked by the BBC for improper behaviour, which was actually the exception. 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 a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 17 Sep 23 4.55pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The BBC doesn't seem a natural fit for a dodgy sexual predator. He must be the exception that proves the rule.

Brand worked for several TV companies and their content suppliers. He was sacked by the BBC for improper behaviour, which was actually the exception.

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 a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 17 Sep 23 5.12pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle He was sacked by the BBC for improper behaviour.... how would the BBC define 'improper behaviour' ? you would wonder after Savile et al. improper behaviour - Brand said there are two genders ? - Brand said Anne Boleyn was white ? - Brand said the nuclear family gets better outcomes, for kids, than anything else ? - Brand disagreed today's man-hating radical feminist ? improper behaviour ? Eze Peasy at Anfield....
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio