Also in the News - Part 2

[Asha]

6 hours ago, m4DD0gg said:

5 hours ago, Lionator said:

One of these on here is not the same as the other two. A nasty bugger yes but not what you’re accusing him of. Especially as Katherine Ryan disclosed this stuff to him.

There are other names too that will come to light. Noel Fielding, Jimmy Carr and David Williams.

I must have missed this.

 

What have those three been accused of doing? You guys seem to know a lot about it. 

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Asha said:

I must have missed this.

 

What have those three been accused of doing? You guys seem to know a lot about it. 

Noel Fielding was in a relationship with one of the Geldof’s when she was very young but there’s nothing to suggest anymore than that. Walliams is a creep. Jimmy Carr I’m pretty sure is actually well respected in the industry so I’m not sure where that came from. 

[Leicesterpool]

Knowing some of stupid fans even if hes found guilty and gets sent down for what 8 to 10 years. His idiotic fans will still be backing him. He'd still go back on tour after his release. His film and tv career would be over of course which is a blessing as he terrible unfunny so called comedian.

Edited 17 September 2023 by Leicesterpool

[Dunge]

Innocent until proven guilty is the least worst option we have.

 

But it’s a legal concept rather than a thought concept.

[leicsmac]

36 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Innocent until proven guilty is the least worst option we have.

 

But it’s a legal concept rather than a thought concept.

Yeah, this.

 

The idea of someone being innocent until proven guilty is an important one in law and long should it remain, however that doesn't mean it should also apply to societal judgement all the time, especially in cases like sexual assault where the conviction rate is so low and therefore some people are pretty likely getting away with horrible crimes.

 

Someone shouldn't be punished by the law unless a very high burden of proof is met - but what other people think about it all, they should be free to think, and judge, themselves. Rightly or wrongly.

Edited 17 September 2023 by leicsmac

[Tuna]

#

2 hours ago, Leicesterpool said:

Knowing some of stupid fans even if hes found guilty and gets sent down for what 8 to 10 years. His idiotic fans will still be backing him. He'd still go back on tour after his release. His film and tv career would be over of course which is a blessing as he terrible unfunny so called comedian.

Don't think he's had much of a film or tv career for years.

 

Seems to have reinvented himself as a conspiracy theory youtuber.

[ozleicester]

hmmm ok then

[String fellow]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

Noel Fielding was in a relationship with one of the Geldof’s when she was very young but there’s nothing to suggest anymore than that. Walliams is a creep. Jimmy Carr I’m pretty sure is actually well respected in the industry so I’m not sure where that came from. 

Carr's 'jokes' about paedophilia made some of us think that he was maybe seeming to legitimise the practice, or subconciously admitting to it. And by shocking his audiences with other 'jokes' about the holocaust, perhaps that was a way of Carr disguising the truth behind the other stuff. Many a true word hath been spoken jest, according the Bard in King Lear. 

Edited 17 September 2023 by String fellow

[StanSP]

It's amazing the lengths some people will go to to defend someone. 

[Guesty]

I do think it's important to consider stuff like this. I don't think they spend 4 years on this without being sure and having other stuff. They must have more evidence.

 

It will just be stuff that they weren't 100% sure would be okay in court. It might be stuff they couldn't use because it would reveal the identity of victims. Or it could be stuff involving victims/people who didn't want to participate. Maybe this is just the first part and they're hoping more will now go on the record. Only one male comedian was prepared to participate despite there being WhatsApp groups with them all in.

 

There was more stuff in The Times about the 16 year olds mother: apparently Brand kissed her when she confronted him. I also thought it was strange how they glossed over the text message conversation where one of the victims said no means no as part of the message and he apologised. The Times' lawyers seemed to let a little more in.

 

I don't think Katy Perry was mentioned once. Not even the fact they were married - it's like she never existed. Which showed how much lawyers had been involved.

 

If none of this is true then Brand can sue them. All the journalists will lose their jobs and never be trusted to investigate again  - and he could possibly bankrupt The Times and Channel 4. Brand had 8 days warning about this; it would appear he didn't legally challenge it.

[Daggers]

8 hours ago, ozleicester said:

well... its a bit about brand, the raping, grooming and abuse parts mostly

Fixating on the one predator doesn’t help anyone. Without further evidence, unlikely this will ever see the inside of a courtroom. So, with him going unpunished, the only thing to be done is to press organisations into adopting stricter safeguarding controls. 

[Daggers]

I will never understand men who defend sex cases like Brand.

 

Always makes me wonder what kind of sex case things they get up to. 

[ozleicester]

33 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Fixating on the one predator doesn’t help anyone. Without further evidence, unlikely this will ever see the inside of a courtroom. So, with him going unpunished, the only thing to be done is to press organisations into adopting stricter safeguarding controls. 

Might help the women

[Wymsey]

Am sure Greta will be pleased..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66820972

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Am sure Greta will be pleased..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66820972

 

Or perhaps she isn't a neo-Luddite, but rather wants solutions that don't condemn us all while maintaining our current quality of life.

[Tuna]

 

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

I will never understand men who defend sex cases like Brand.

 

Always makes me wonder what kind of sex case things they get up to. 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "sex case"...

 

If you mean that he's in general a fairly disgusting human, especially in regards to sex and his relationship with it and women whilst staying within legality and consensual activity then yeah, it's hard to imagine not being fairly repulsed by him.

 

If you mean "sex case" in terms of defending him for being a rapist and sex offender, it's important to note that it's not been proven that he's either and defending him before a conviction isn't really any different from siding with the alleged victims as at this point it's he said/she said. It really depends on who you believe. 

[String fellow]

34 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Am sure Greta will be pleased..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66820972

 

According to the website below, Sadiq Khan's return flight, business class, from LHR to JFK will produce nearly 6 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

https://www.clevel.co.uk/flight-carbon-calculator/

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, String fellow said:

According to the website below, Sadiq Khan's return flight, business class, from LHR to JFK will produce nearly 6 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

https://www.clevel.co.uk/flight-carbon-calculator/

... and the aviation and other transport industries need to clean up more.

 

But, again, the biggest elephant in the room is power generation and that's the priority issue.

[Daggers]

23 minutes ago, Scotch said:

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "sex case"...

 

If you mean that he's in general a fairly disgusting human, especially in regards to sex and his relationship with it and women whilst staying within legality and consensual activity then yeah, it's hard to imagine not being fairly repulsed by him.

 

If you mean "sex case" in terms of defending him for being a rapist and sex offender, it's important to note that it's not been proven that he's either and defending him before a conviction isn't really any different from siding with the alleged victims as at this point it's he said/she said. It really depends on who you believe. 

Multiple accounts lend weight to a balance of probability. Defence of Brand because he's not been convicted is weak - especially given the atrocious conviction rates for sex offences. We know he's guilty AF...at least anyone who has read the reports and watched Dispatches does.

[Lionator]

I do wonder what some people on here would say if their wife/daughter came up to them and said they’d been raped. 
 

“Sorry duck but innocent until proven guilty”. 

[Guesty]

46 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Multiple accounts lend weight to a balance of probability. Defence of Brand because he's not been convicted is weak - especially given the atrocious conviction rates for sex offences. We know he's guilty AF...at least anyone who has read the reports and watched Dispatches does.

When I see the discourse over Brand and rape in general. And look at the charging and conviction rates I start to realise:

 

If a rapist is happy to rape people they already know or vulnerable people: be that friends, acquaintances, family, ex or current partners.

 

They basically get 2 to 4 free rapes.

 

Once they start getting to the 5 or 6th (or more importantly, the victim is someone they know). Then the: 'where's the evidence' people finally start to come around. And even then it wouldn't be enough for some.

 

We'll all know women who've been raped (maybe they haven't told you, but worth remembering when discussing this in front of women). I know at least two.

 

I also know of someone who was falsely accused when he was younger so I understand being sceptical. But the way some of this is discussed (more on twitter than here) is so weird to me.

Edited 17 September 2023 by Guesty

[Scotch]

29 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Multiple accounts lend weight to a balance of probability. Defence of Brand because he's not been convicted is weak - especially given the atrocious conviction rates for sex offences. We know he's guilty AF...at least anyone who has read the reports and watched Dispatches does.

I watched Dispatches and the only actual evidence that made me question it was the text from the first woman and even that had no context to it. Now that's not to say that it didn't happen but I don't think there's anything to say definitively to the contrary. 

 

End of the day, regardless of whether you think it happened or not, you don't know and I don't see what's wrong with saying that until you're better informed. 

 

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I do wonder what some people on here would say if their wife/daughter came up to them and said they’d been raped. 
 

“Sorry duck but innocent until proven guilty”. 

You can twist that... what would you say if your best friend or brother etc was accused? 

 

Blindly believing a friend or relative isn't the same as blindly believing a stranger who's name you don't even know... 

[st albans fox]

Not sure how anyone should be surprised that a self confessed celebrity sex addict has people accusing him of rape, it would be astonishing if there weren’t a fair number of ladies who have been abused by him.  I would assume that the same is true of a certain famous golfer.  The combination of sex addiction, fame and money are bound to lead to a number of non consensual events taking place (in addition to coercion and a level of grooming) 

 

whether the CPS feels that there is any likelihood of a conviction is entirely another matter. Unless there is some cast iron evidence out there then I doubt we’ll see charges brought,

the problem with the advent of social media means that whereas in the past that would mean he loses his ability to make money because he’ll be shunned by tv and film industry and disappear  - he can have many millions of followers on spaces like YouTube which will earn him a very tidy living indeed. 

[String fellow]

36 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Not sure how anyone should be surprised that a self confessed celebrity sex addict has people accusing him of rape, it would be astonishing if there weren’t a fair number of ladies who have been abused by him.  I would assume that the same is true of a certain famous golfer.  The combination of sex addiction, fame and money are bound to lead to a number of non consensual events taking place (in addition to coercion and a level of grooming) 

 

whether the CPS feels that there is any likelihood of a conviction is entirely another matter. Unless there is some cast iron evidence out there then I doubt we’ll see charges brought,

the problem with the advent of social media means that whereas in the past that would mean he loses his ability to make money because he’ll be shunned by tv and film industry and disappear  - he can have many millions of followers on spaces like YouTube which will earn him a very tidy living indeed. 

There's also the issue of some of the alleged incidents having happened in LA to complicate things. Having watched last night's programme, I got the impression that only civil proceedings would be possible against him, as the burden of proof of criminality would be difficult, especially as he himself had already given the alleged victims some of the ammunition, based on what he'd said publicly and joked about regarding running mascara. But anyone who tells the world about being nice for the first few minutes of an 'encounter' does suggest that he has (or had) a very nasty side. Whether or not that lead to criminal behaviour is something we may never know for sure.