Russell Brand and people defending indefensible

[zugzwang]

Interesting, too, that Drainage was gifted two tickets with hospitality and accommodation to this year's Glastonbury Festival (declared value £3,302) by none other than Google.

Surely a potential conflict of interest, given that this woman is a key figure (improbably) behind the so-called Online Safety Bill, a raft of internet censorship and surveillance policies that's about to become UK law.

 

[jonb2]

56 minutes ago, athom said:

https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand/search?query=putin

https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand/search?query=Murdoch

https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand/search?query=brexit

https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand/search?query=trillions

https://www.youtube.com/@RussellBrand/search?query=elites

You get the idea. He covers a lot. People take their opinions from those they trust. The powers that be DO NOT want millions of people taking Brands view on these things. I'm not saying he's unique or utterly original. But he is one of the few voices a British audience could get these views from.  

That's interesting. Thanks Athom.

It reminds me I did see a great interview with him on coming off smack many years ago. And I love disruptors against 'the machine'. But, looking at his material over time, it seems something over the last couple of years has changed. He's now doing the standard Fox news narrative everybody else is doing. Even a bro-act with Tucker Carlson. Why?? My bet is money.

[athom]

29 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

That's interesting. Thanks Athom.

It reminds me I did see a great interview with him on coming off smack many years ago. And I love disruptors against 'the machine'. But, looking at his material over time, it seems something over the last couple of years has changed. He's now doing the standard Fox news narrative everybody else is doing. Even a bro-act with Tucker Carlson. Why?? My bet is money.

Like most people at least a part of his motivation is going to be money but I don't think the route he's taken is the natural one for a all out shill. He'd already done loads of TV and some films, most comedians settle into that life given the chance. Case in point Gus Khan. Early days he was getting lots of traction online, getting political and could have been an effective disruptor. He could have grown it. But for a steady pay check he let the MSM absorb him, and they neutered him. Next thing he's a baggage handler cliché asian character in the way non-asians like to think of them and doing the "comedy" chat shows on the beeb etc. Keep it safe bruv! This is how I prefer to remember him. 

 

[athom]

43 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

But, looking at his material over time, it seems something over the last couple of years has changed. He's now doing the standard Fox news narrative everybody else is doing. Even a bro-act with Tucker Carlson. Why?? My bet is money.

He did suddenly wake up to the fact that Trump isn't Hitler a while back and eased his audience into that realisation. My politics isn't polarized and don't think Brands is either. It won't do him justice to say he's one way or the other. Tucker is quite the rebel these days, why not have him on. Whether there is any sincerity from either of them is impossible to know as fact but they both seem like they are speaking freely at the moment. 

[Staffsknot]

4 hours ago, Quiet Guy said:

So it's OK for a member of the government to go about demonitising social media for people they don't like? I wonder who she will disapprove of next?

No it was in relation to him being able to make money off videos where he's basially using a platform to deny allegations and try and claim conspiacy BS against him.

Nobody else gets to do that with the exception of maybe Dan Wooton and some enabled right wing loons.

So no again you have completely gone off like you did with the claims about Youtube being told by an MP to do something they decided before she said anything.

It seems like you are hunting for anything but the story here like Zugs and the mugs

[Staffsknot]

10 hours ago, Drat said:

I was a bit surprised by the strong link between conspiracy theorists and supporters of Putin, but I am amazed there is such a strong link between those two and enthusiasts for a patriarchal society.  I have found reading some of the views expressed towards women in here quite depressing

Some will basically say anything to try and defend their boy Brand. In real life not the loud mouth arena of internet they may act very differently.

Maybe a window to the inside voice they have.

The desperate thread sliding and whatabouttery is telling as is who to stick on mute for being absolute woo woos

[Staffsknot]

4 hours ago, jonb2 said:

That's interesting. Thanks Athom.

It reminds me I did see a great interview with him on coming off smack many years ago. And I love disruptors against 'the machine'. But, looking at his material over time, it seems something over the last couple of years has changed. He's now doing the standard Fox news narrative everybody else is doing. Even a bro-act with Tucker Carlson. Why?? My bet is money.

You have to realise its all the evil mainstream media what made him get his todger out and flash people or alegedly sexually assault people years before he went alt right commentator... it was a conspiracy so they could err silence him when he spoke out on Covid and all those truths... err like he's been censored and can only announce it to 6mfollowers on YT and 200k on Rumble + people on TikTok.

What evil nefarious planning and censorship...

[Quiet Guy]

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

No it was in relation to him being able to make money off videos where he's basially using a platform to deny allegations and try and claim conspiacy BS against him.

Nobody else gets to do that with the exception of maybe Dan Wooton and some enabled right wing loons.

So no again you have completely gone off like you did with the claims about Youtube being told by an MP to do something they decided before she said anything.

It seems like you are hunting for anything but the story here like Zugs and the mugs

So when a media orgainsation that tries to make money by selling stories attacks somebody, the target must not respond using their established media presence because that might, ergh, make money.

Dame Dinenage should have stayed out of it and let the courts do their job. There are criminal and civil processes available but I suspect it will be difficult for allegations going back years.

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/russell-brand-questioned-over-alleged-rape-7196916.html

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/russell-brand-accepts-substantial-damages-from-daily-star-over-rape-claim/

 

[Staffsknot]

6 hours ago, Quiet Guy said:

So when a media orgainsation that tries to make money by selling stories attacks somebody, the target must not respond using their established media presence because that might, ergh, make money.

Dame Dinenage should have stayed out of it and let the courts do their job. There are criminal and civil processes available but I suspect it will be difficult for allegations going back years.

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/russell-brand-questioned-over-alleged-rape-7196916.html

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/russell-brand-accepts-substantial-damages-from-daily-star-over-rape-claim/

 

You'll royally lost the plot here.

It isn't 'an attack' or any other Brand BS its investigative journalism and painting it as'an attack' or 'hit job' is the work of his whackjobs.

It was a thoroughly investigated, legalled to the hilt and multi source corroborated joint story by Times and Ch4 in which C4 would be criticised as its activity done while he was one of its presenters.

If a paper paid a fortune to get Brand's story from his perspective and went on calling a lot of unfounded BS with zero journalistic standards or accountability it would be pilloried for paying so much.

If Harvey Weinstein had been paid a mint to go on air and call every accuser a liar and claim media smears the stations would rightly be hammered... oh wait they did go apeshit at certain channels offering him cash to do so so I guess there isn't a double standard at play is there... 

Oh wait yes there is a millionnaire Brand gets to use his platform to make money making out his accusers are part of a media conspiracy while they have no such platform or ability to make money off the case, no doubt having legal threats, etc... to worry about.

So lovely to watch all those railing about press billionnaires go into bat for a media millionnaire who litigates readily but is strangely quiet on the legal front...

So cut the BS lines.

Its telling how folks want to walk the story anywhere but Brand.

[athom]

6 hours ago, Quiet Guy said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/russell-brand-questioned-over-alleged-rape-7196916.html

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/russell-brand-accepts-substantial-damages-from-daily-star-over-rape-claim/

"questioned OVER alleged rape" rather than "questioned about an alleged rape" is the newspapers cheeky little way to encourage the reader to believe it was Brand being accused and they did nothing to steer the reader away from that error in the article. Journalists are disgusting people. Newspapers are filthy rages. The streets are of their shame.

[zugzwang]

There's more than a whiff of a co-ordinated moral re-armament campaign about the timing. Sunak is desperate to grub up headlines ahead of the GE, especially with women. Renewed attacks on trans subjects will be next I've no doubt.

Murdoch's compulsive self-abusers and the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker are both calling for the consent laws to be changed. Effectively, to punish young women for being sexually active.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/24112054/russell-brand-consent-laws/

[athom]

6 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

You'll royally lost the plot here.

It isn't 'an attack' or any other Brand BS its investigative journalism and painting it as'an attack' or 'hit job' is the work of his whackjobs.

It was a thoroughly investigated, legalled to the hilt and multi source corroborated joint story by Times and Ch4 in which C4 would be criticised as its activity done while he was one of its presenters.

If a paper paid a fortune to get Brand's story from his perspective and went on calling a lot of unfounded BS with zero journalistic standards or accountability it would be pilloried for paying so much.

If Harvey Weinstein had been paid a mint to go on air and call every accuser a liar and claim media smears the stations would rightly be hammered... oh wait they did go apeshit at certain channels offering him cash to do so so I guess there isn't a double standard at play is there... 

Oh wait yes there is a millionnaire Brand gets to use his platform to make money making out his accusers are part of a media conspiracy while they have no such platform or ability to make money off the case, no doubt having legal threats, etc... to worry about.

So lovely to watch all those railing about press billionnaires go into bat for a media millionnaire who litigates readily but is strangely quiet on the legal front...

So cut the BS lines.

Its telling how folks want to walk the story anywhere but Brand.

Brand has said literally nothing about the allegations or the alleged victims other than a blanket denial of any wrong doing in the initial video before the story was even released. I suspect he's going to continue not addressing it directly as it would be stupid to give it more air. So much for this guy who calls everyone a loon and talking wibble and woo woo (whatever the hell that is) and having lost the plot etc  

Edited September 25, 2023 by athom

[Bob8]

8 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

You have to realise its all the evil mainstream media what made him get his todger out and flash people or alegedly sexually assault people years before he went alt right commentator... it was a conspiracy so they could err silence him when he spoke out on Covid and all those truths... err like he's been censored and can only announce it to 6mfollowers on YT and 200k on Rumble + people on TikTok.

What evil nefarious planning and censorship...

As I mentioned earlier, there are now lots of articles about relatively trivial stuff Brand did, that would not have been seen as a big deal a few weeks ago. I think the split on this thread is that we assume lots of people are still active and as bad as Brand, the difference is whether this means Brand should be let off or the others getting away with it is the problem. 

In California, I had the situation of a couple of women clearly enjoying attention from me. To one of my colleagues this meant that work harassment complaints were BS as he would have been in trouble over the same acts. The difference is not hard, it is the difference between welcome attention from someone you find attractive or attention that is not welcome. I suspect Zug would not have felt comfortable with Brand as his boss expecting him to do sexual things for him.

[Staffsknot]

3 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

As I mentioned earlier, there are now lots of articles about relatively trivial stuff Brand did, that would not have been seen as a big deal a few weeks ago. I think the split on this thread is that we assume lots of people are still active and as bad as Brand, the difference is whether this means Brand should be let off or the others getting away with it is the problem. 

In California, I had the situation of a couple of women clearly enjoying attention from me. To one of my colleagues this meant that work harassment complaints were BS as he would have been in trouble over the same acts. The difference is not hard, it is the difference between welcome attention from someone you find attractive or attention that is not welcome. I suspect Zug would not have felt comfortable with Brand as his boss expecting him to do sexual things for him.

There are quite a few comedians bricking it that this may be coming their way.

Brand is not the only offender but possibly the worst offender.

Jason Mountford was outed as a weasel years back for his behaviour but wasn't in the same league of allegations as Brand. He disappeared for a bit from Apollo and then came back and has built a career inc TV now.

The other fun thing is knowing many of Brand's deenders probably screamed Met corruption when Sarah Everard's killer was found to be a serial flasher unpunished. Now its Brand its ooh he just got his knob out big deal are they frigid?

[zugzwang]

6 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

As I mentioned earlier, there are now lots of articles about relatively trivial stuff Brand did, that would not have been seen as a big deal a few weeks ago. I think the split on this thread is that we assume lots of people are still active and as bad as Brand, the difference is whether this means Brand should be let off or the others getting away with it is the problem. 

In California, I had the situation of a couple of women clearly enjoying attention from me. To one of my colleagues this meant that work harassment complaints were BS as he would have been in trouble over the same acts. The difference is not hard, it is the difference between welcome attention from someone you find attractive or attention that is not welcome. I suspect Zug would not have felt comfortable with Brand as his boss expecting him to do sexual things for him.

American women are greedy, self-absorbed narcissists but then so are most American men. Made that way by the anti-social strictures of their culture. Except for wishing them harm collectively, as a general rule I have nothing to do with them.

[Staffsknot]

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

American women are greedy, self-absorbed narcissists but then so are most American men. Made that way by the anti-social strictures of their culture. Except for wishing them harm collectively, as a general rule I have nothing to do with them.

Wibble and evidence of being a xenophobic scumbag to boot.

You really have become the resident Hatey Hopkins in a few posts.

I believe the Krishnan Guru-Murty comment on Steve Baker applies...

Edited September 25, 2023 by Staffsknot

[athom]

4 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

There's more than a whiff of a co-ordinated moral re-armament campaign about the timing. Sunak is desperate to grub up headlines ahead of the GE, especially with women. Renewed attacks on trans subjects will be next I've no doubt.

Murdoch's compulsive self-abusers and the inmates of the Northcliffe House bunker are both calling for the consent laws to be changed. Effectively, to punish young women for being sexually active.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/24112054/russell-brand-consent-laws/

They teach kids about sex from 5 years old in schools now. What's that all about then? They teach ******** from 10 and in Warwickshire they used to give out ******** lube and condoms to kids though I think they were forced to stop doing that. The general excuse is "well they're going to do it anyway so we better give them the lube and instructions on how to do it". In my day at school we sort of knew about sex and there was pretty lame fumbling between sexes but thankfully no one gave us specific instructions with diagrams on how to complete the act of procreation more successfully. But its always the boys that are punished when this encouraged promiscuous behaviour is acted out regardless who's idea it was. Brands promiscuity was what is encouraged and celebrated in schools and in TV and films. Our culture is full of it. But reading the papers now "Brand invited me to have sex with him" its like a parallel Victorian universe exists when it suits them. 

Talking of The Sun though they published Samantha Fox topless when she was 16 and still at school. Maybe it wasn't her but someone who wasn't the legal age, they had a countdown of the days until they could publish her topless. Classy rag. 

[athom]

28 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

In California, I had the situation of a couple of women clearly enjoying attention from me. To one of my colleagues this meant that work harassment complaints were BS as he would have been in trouble over the same acts. 

Why were you giving work colleagues "attention" as you call it? What did you want from them? 

[zugzwang]

1 minute ago, athom said:

They teach kids about sex from 5 years old in schools now. What's that all about then? They teach ******** from 10 and in Warwickshire they used to give out ******** lube and condoms to kids though I think they were forced to stop doing that. The general excuse is "well they're going to do it anyway so we better give them the lube and instructions on how to do it". In my day at school we sort of knew about sex and there was pretty lame fumbling between sexes but thankfully no one gave us specific instructions with diagrams on how to complete the act of procreation more successfully. But its always the boys that are punished when this encouraged promiscuous behaviour is acted out regardless who's idea it was. Brands promiscuity was what is encouraged and celebrated in schools and in TV and films. Our culture is full of it. But reading the papers now "Brand invited me to have sex with him" its like a parallel Victorian universe exists when it suits them. 

Talking of The Sun though they published Samantha Fox topless when she was 16 and still at school. Maybe it wasn't her but someone who wasn't the legal age, they had a countdown of the days until they could publish her topless. Classy rag. 

Oh, I'm all for teaching kids about sex. We learned it from jazz mags stolen from the local newsagent.

This faux Victorian moralising is something the Tory press always turn to around election time. I recall Major's 'Back to Basics' campaign that was renamed Back to My Place when it was discovered he was banging out Edwina Curry behind his wife's back.

Rupert Murdoch is a deviant and dishonest scumbag. Pornographer-in-chief for the Tory establishment.

[athom]

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

Oh, I'm all for teaching kids about sex. We learned it from jazz mags stolen from the local newsagent.

I remember biking out to a layby where my friend said he'd found some mags in some bushes. It was like stand by me without the dead body. They were rain soaked with stuck together pages. Other than that it was those channel 4 programs where there might be a glimpse of a bare nipple so they put a red triangle up. Now kids have 24/7 hardcore extreme porn on their phones and the government is dragging their heals pretending they give a shit to stop that being possible. So some changes to sex ed was inevitable but from what I've seen they are going beyond what is necessary and the assumption that every kid has the same access means the kids who have parents who kept them away from it are also being shown the same stuff. Lowest common denominator rules. 

[Staffsknot]

Thread sliders gonna slide, weirdo Brand defenders going to be increasingly weird.

None of them want to touch the allegations against Brand which tells you everything you need to know.

[zugzwang]

 

Fun House legend Pat Sharp's life now after the joke that ended his career

Story by Louise Lazell • 1

Former Fun House legend and radio DJ Pat Sharp was dramatically taken off air earlier this year after reportedly humiliating a woman live on stage at an awards show.

The 61-year-old - who is best known for hosting Fun House on children’s TV in the 90s - reportedly made a joke about “getting on your t**ts” to a woman as he handed her a T-shirt with his face on it, The DailyMail reported. The T-shirt had an old photo of Pat with his classic mullet hairdo and the caption: ‘Pat Sharp - AS SEEN ON FUN HOUSE - LOOKING SHARP SINCE 1982’.

In response to what happened, the woman posted on social media to say she felt ‘violated’ in front of around 400 colleagues and friends. “I was in complete shock and hadn’t really processed what happened,” she wrote. “Today I am struggling with it — I feel sad, dirty and, frankly, violated."

Greatest Hits Radio - where Pat had presented a show since February 2019 - announced that his contract was due to expire at the end of the month and they had made the decision not to renew. They added that he would not return to the show with “immediate effect”. A spokesperson for Bauer, which owns Greatest Hits Radio, said: "Due to the introduction of new weekend programming, a decision had already been made not to renew Pat's contract which comes to an end later this month. However with this issue now having been brought to our attention, we have agreed with Pat that he will not return to the station with immediate effect."

Other than Greatest Hits, Pat has previously hosted programmes on Radio 1, Capital FM, Smooth Radio and Heart, as well as presented some episodes of music TV show Top Of The Pops in the 1980s. Since the incident, Pat has stayed under the radar but has been keeping fans updated with his life on Instagram. He posts snapshots of him with his grandchildren and some throwback pictures of him in his heyday.

In one Instagram video, the grandad shared dozens of images of his grandchildren having fun in the pool, playing games and roaming the park in a post captioned 'Grandkids galore'. When he wasn't spending time with the grandkids, Pat appeared to be taking some time away at Windermere in the Lake District in July and enjoying trips to the beach in Watergate Bay in Cornwall with his wife Monica.

Earlier this month Pat was advertising an 80s tribute gig Ultimate 80's Reloaded in Torquay with himself alongside another DJ Max Corderoy. Sharing tickets to book on his Facebook page, the event described itself as "non-stop nostalgia" with "a pulsating mix of 80's hits". Earlier this year, Pat took part in a handful of other gigs - including Music in the Park in Leyland, Lancashire, in May, and at Butlin's Big Weekenders and Lets Rock Leeds retro festival, both in May.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/fun-house-legend-pat-sharps-31001063

 

 

The new puritanism. One joke and your career's over!

[miguel]

16 hours ago, zugzwang said:

What's the problem? Russell Brand is being denied the right to earn a living on the basis of accusations made about him anonymously and published in one of Rupert Murdoch's scabrous hate-sheets! To add insult to injury, 'Dame' Caroline Dinenage*, Tory MP and chair of the UK parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, has sent letters to other social media providers demanding that they too demonitise Brand's content. Dinenage seems to have forgotten that she is an MP in a liberal democracy. What business is it of an MP whether a private citizen is profiting from posting videos on a social media channel? What’s more, however serious the allegations may be, Brand has not even been interviewed by the police about them, let alone convicted of any crime.

* She cucked off her first husband to marry Tory MP Mark Lancaster, an utter skidmark of a man bizarrely enobled for his part in the illegal Invasion of Afghanistan.

He must be short of a bob or two. You can always donate. 

[Joris Bohnson]

There's a slight difference between making an ill advised joke that causes someone offence and allegations of child grooming, sexual assault and rape though.

A lot of these articles are sensationalised in order to drive 'clicks and shares' - purely because we've built a system which rewards content that makes us fearful or angry. Also your 'the new puritanism' comment reminds me of Stewart Lee's 'these days, if you say you're English' sketch.

 

[athom]

This just in, Stewart Lee caught fantasizing on stage about murdering black and gay women. Its absolutely shocking how open he is about it and will no doubt back up any accusations and rumours that unnamed sources might have said are thought to be common in the comedy circuit. The police ask that any women who have been violently assaulted or murdered to come forward no mater how long ago it was. Click here to follow this story as it unfolds in our rolling coverage.