Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 33 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Teddy Eagle 17 Sep 23 5.13pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Brand worked for several TV companies and their content suppliers. He was sacked by the BBC for improper behaviour, which was actually the exception. Yes, that was my point.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

17 Sep 23 5.13pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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

Yes, that was my point.

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 17 Sep 23 6.41pm
Russell Brand bullying Andrew Sachs. i bet Brand now regrets that one ? [Link] Eze Peasy at Anfield....
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 17 Sep 23 6.41pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Russell Brand bullying Andrew Sachs.

i bet Brand now regrets that one ?

[Link]

Eze Peasy at Anfield....

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 18 Sep 23 7.03am
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. What was the actual EVIDENCE seen 5 minutes in?
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 18 Sep 23 7.03am

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.

What was the actual EVIDENCE seen 5 minutes in?

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 18 Sep 23 10.13am
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. You have obviously bought into trial-by-media. And again another statement about what should be 'obvious' , such as when someone is lying for good , or bad reasons. My own opinion of Brand is less than complimentary, but my opinion is only formed by his behaviour reported/seen in the media spotlight. Thankfully, we have due legal process to ensure "being a nob" isn't enough to secure a criminal conviction. "The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 18 Sep 23 10.13am

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

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.

You have obviously bought into trial-by-media.
And again another statement about what should be 'obvious' , such as when someone is lying for good , or bad reasons.
My own opinion of Brand is less than complimentary, but my opinion is only formed by his behaviour reported/seen in the media spotlight.
Thankfully, we have due legal process to ensure "being a nob" isn't enough to secure a criminal conviction.

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 18 Sep 23 11.13am
Some people are speculating as to why this has been highlighted now. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories what I hadn't realised is just how far C4 were involved in employing this scrot during the period the allegations relate to. I wonder if this is a damage limitation exercise by their management. Regardless of criminality Brand's behaviour is sleazy and C4 and the BBC knew this. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 18 Sep 23 11.13am

Some people are speculating as to why this has been highlighted now. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories what I hadn't realised is just how far C4 were involved in employing this scrot during the period the allegations relate to.

I wonder if this is a damage limitation exercise by their management. Regardless of criminality Brand's behaviour is sleazy and C4 and the BBC knew this.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Wilesy01 Bristol 18 Sep 23 11.20am
Can't help but feel this is another 'hiding in plain sight' case, wherein the antics and personality of the individual in question should have been questioned a long time ago Looks like there's been lots said about RB and very little done about it. The expectation is the BBC and C4 look into this right away and actually do some proper introspection.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wilesy01

Bristol 18 Sep 23 11.20am

Can't help but feel this is another 'hiding in plain sight' case, wherein the antics and personality of the individual in question should have been questioned a long time ago

Looks like there's been lots said about RB and very little done about it. The expectation is the BBC and C4 look into this right away and actually do some proper introspection.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 18 Sep 23 11.55am
What utter cobblers. The United Nations is of course suspending sittings pending further Russell Brand revelations.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 18 Sep 23 11.55am

What utter cobblers.

The United Nations is of course suspending sittings pending further Russell Brand revelations.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 18 Sep 23 12.03pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 What utter cobblers. The United Nations is of course suspending sittings pending further Russell Brand revelations. That other bloated, useless and ineffective organisation. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 18 Sep 23 12.03pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

What utter cobblers.

The United Nations is of course suspending sittings pending further Russell Brand revelations.

That other bloated, useless and ineffective organisation.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger Ware 18 Sep 23 12.15pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle 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. Agree with all you've said, but I have to take umbrage with this. Investigative journalism, maybe so, responsible it is not. If you think that it was any more than another Media outlets attempt at getting a scoop before anyone else to get more hits and sell more papers under the guise of morality then you are a fool. All these things do nowadays is begin a trial my media, and those who report it go around gesticulating about what a monster they've uncovered reaping the plaudits. The responsible thing would be to keep the accused's name out of the paper, and pass the case to the authorities. Brand is a product of the sexual revolution prevalent in the 90s/00s, and one that was lapped up by late night shows by production companies that ignored obvious bad behavior in the hunt for ratings. Brand epitomized this. If he's guilty of any actual crime - other than being a famous prick taking advantage of the many wiling fame stricken groupies that fell at his feet - then let him pay the penalty. And let the people enabling him to do this also pay the penalty (like the people gathering the numbers 'knowing' what he was like and what was likely to happen. I'm fed up with this media fueled society that simply hops from one Outrage to the next. I'm starting to believe Brand's Conspiracy theories... now I know there's a problem! "It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"
Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger

Ware 18 Sep 23 12.15pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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.

Agree with all you've said, but I have to take umbrage with this.
Investigative journalism, maybe so, responsible it is not.

If you think that it was any more than another Media outlets attempt at getting a scoop before anyone else to get more hits and sell more papers under the guise of morality then you are a fool. All these things do nowadays is begin a trial my media, and those who report it go around gesticulating about what a monster they've uncovered reaping the plaudits.
The responsible thing would be to keep the accused's name out of the paper, and pass the case to the authorities.

Brand is a product of the sexual revolution prevalent in the 90s/00s, and one that was lapped up by late night shows by production companies that ignored obvious bad behavior in the hunt for ratings. Brand epitomized this. If he's guilty of any actual crime - other than being a famous prick taking advantage of the many wiling fame stricken groupies that fell at his feet - then let him pay the penalty. And let the people enabling him to do this also pay the penalty (like the people gathering the numbers 'knowing' what he was like and what was likely to happen.

I'm fed up with this media fueled society that simply hops from one Outrage to the next. I'm starting to believe Brand's Conspiracy theories... now I know there's a problem!

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 18 Sep 23 12.24pm
Originally posted by CrazyBadger Agree with all you've said, but I have to take umbrage with this. Investigative journalism, maybe so, responsible it is not. If you think that it was any more than another Media outlets attempt at getting a scoop before anyone else to get more hits and sell more papers under the guise of morality then you are a fool. All these things do nowadays is begin a trial my media, and those who report it go around gesticulating about what a monster they've uncovered reaping the plaudits. The responsible thing would be to keep the accused's name out of the paper, and pass the case to the authorities. Brand is a product of the sexual revolution prevalent in the 90s/00s, and one that was lapped up by late night shows by production companies that ignored obvious bad behavior in the hunt for ratings. Brand epitomized this. If he's guilty of any actual crime - other than being a famous prick taking advantage of the many wiling fame stricken groupies that fell at his feet - then let him pay the penalty. And let the people enabling him to do this also pay the penalty (like the people gathering the numbers 'knowing' what he was like and what was likely to happen. I'm fed up with this media fueled society that simply hops from one Outrage to the next. I'm starting to believe Brand's Conspiracy theories... now I know there's a problem! Exactly C4 playing the "gosh look what we uncovered" card when they enabled him in the first place. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 18 Sep 23 12.24pm

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

Agree with all you've said, but I have to take umbrage with this.
Investigative journalism, maybe so, responsible it is not.

If you think that it was any more than another Media outlets attempt at getting a scoop before anyone else to get more hits and sell more papers under the guise of morality then you are a fool. All these things do nowadays is begin a trial my media, and those who report it go around gesticulating about what a monster they've uncovered reaping the plaudits.
The responsible thing would be to keep the accused's name out of the paper, and pass the case to the authorities.

I'm fed up with this media fueled society that simply hops from one Outrage to the next. I'm starting to believe Brand's Conspiracy theories... now I know there's a problem!

Exactly C4 playing the "gosh look what we uncovered" card when they enabled him in the first place.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 18 Sep 23 12.56pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Exactly C4 playing the "gosh look what we uncovered" card when they enabled him in the first place. I'm no fan of Brand, he did 'Ponderland' which I actually thought was brilliant but as far as his stand up, films and books go, I'm yet to be even slightly impressed. Beyond that, I know he was a fat kid, with no siblings, no good at sport (his words) then a Heroin addict/alcoholic so strikes me as somebody who upon reaching a sober adulthood, tried to make up for lost time and ended up becoming a man child, quite isolated and fked up individual who's only means to get by in life was to attract attention for ludicrous behaviour, like a 5 year old. Part of this was also of course trying to fk everybody he possibly could potentially as a sort of revenge or even redemption for himself. In any instance it strikes me as a particularly sad life. I have met him a few times, and he was very polite to me, but long long before this I would often describe him as a 'weirdo' very different from his onstage persona. Funnily enough, I often referenced him doing a '1000-yard stare' off to the side when in conversation, something alluded to by accusers. Was also very hard to hold conversation with him, as though it was something he was not familiar or comfortable with at all, talking to another human being. I both experienced and witnessed this. I therefore don't find it hard to believe the possibility of truth in some of the accusations albeit they are somewhat tame considering what does happen in the world. I equally however do find it far too in sync with what would be an easy narrative for a conspiracist to propose, and far beyond unbelievable. He might be a weirdo, but not completely stupid, and has been questioning many iffy things, if not pointing fingers, at the most influential in society for some time now. The orchestration and dramatisation of this from the media, who fuelled and enabled his career, is very very suspicious. I thought we were all supposed to pity Philip Schofield and let him slip away for trying to f**k underage boys not so long ago, as one example. The whole Ch4 thing strikes me as 'we are at the heart of this, so if we get in first it will mitigate any consequences we might face and must be seen as completely opposed to everything alleged'. I think it possible to believe both the truth in the accusations and the media's assassination, possibly ordered from elsewhere. Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!
Alert a moderator to this post

Nicholas91

The Democratic Republic of Kent 18 Sep 23 12.56pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Exactly C4 playing the "gosh look what we uncovered" card when they enabled him in the first place.

I'm no fan of Brand, he did 'Ponderland' which I actually thought was brilliant but as far as his stand up, films and books go, I'm yet to be even slightly impressed.

Beyond that, I know he was a fat kid, with no siblings, no good at sport (his words) then a Heroin addict/alcoholic so strikes me as somebody who upon reaching a sober adulthood, tried to make up for lost time and ended up becoming a man child, quite isolated and f**ked up individual who's only means to get by in life was to attract attention for ludicrous behaviour, like a 5 year old. Part of this was also of course trying to f**k everybody he possibly could potentially as a sort of revenge or even redemption for himself.

In any instance it strikes me as a particularly sad life. I have met him a few times, and he was very polite to me, but long long before this I would often describe him as a 'weirdo' very different from his onstage persona. Funnily enough, I often referenced him doing a '1000-yard stare' off to the side when in conversation, something alluded to by accusers. Was also very hard to hold conversation with him, as though it was something he was not familiar or comfortable with at all, talking to another human being. I both experienced and witnessed this.

I therefore don't find it hard to believe the possibility of truth in some of the accusations albeit they are somewhat tame considering what does happen in the world. I equally however do find it far too in sync with what would be an easy narrative for a conspiracist to propose, and far beyond unbelievable. He might be a weirdo, but not completely stupid, and has been questioning many iffy things, if not pointing fingers, at the most influential in society for some time now. The orchestration and dramatisation of this from the media, who fuelled and enabled his career, is very very suspicious. I thought we were all supposed to pity Philip Schofield and let him slip away for trying to f**k underage boys not so long ago, as one example.

The whole Ch4 thing strikes me as 'we are at the heart of this, so if we get in first it will mitigate any consequences we might face and must be seen as completely opposed to everything alleged'. I think it possible to believe both the truth in the accusations and the media's assassination, possibly ordered from elsewhere.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 18 Sep 23 2.44pm
What's curious is that everyone is all over this except, oddly, the police. Have any offences been committed and is he being investigated by them? Personally, I can't stand him and always remember how Charlie Brooker described him as 'a long haired Dickensian dicking machine' Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 18 Sep 23 2.44pm

What's curious is that everyone is all over this except, oddly, the police. Have any offences been committed and is he being investigated by them?

Personally, I can't stand him and always remember how Charlie Brooker described him as 'a long haired Dickensian dicking machine'

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 33 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Another one bites the dust?

Site Map

Sponsors