Russell Brand and people defending indefensible

[athom]

14 hours ago, Pmax2020 said:

If one of my friends confided in me with the following confession…

”I’ve slept with 1000s of women whilst being heavily involved in drink and drugs…”

Then I’d be extremely concerned about how they judged or deemed every single one of those women to have consented to sex. That’s all I’m saying on the matter. 

If a woman gets in a drugged state and in that state does things with a man she later regrets is that his fault? Particularly if they are both as drugged as each other. There was a woman giving a room full of men blow jobs in Spain I think and next morning she went to the police to complain. She wasn't forced to at the time by the sound of it. She was drunk and got carried away but was conscious and willing. Now all the men are in prison. 

Don't get me wrong I'm happily married, monogamous and always have been pretty much one at a time relationships before marriage, haven't touched a drop of drink for 20 years now. Ideally we'd all be more like that. But if you decide not to be is it the automatic legal fall back that if you get off your face and do something you regret it was the mans fault. 

[70PC]

14 minutes ago, athom said:

You started this thread purely to push that he is guilty before any victim has even been proven to exist. 

Yes!

[Bob8]

11 minutes ago, 70PC said:

Yes!

There might be a misunderstanding here.

There has been evidence presented in the Times and the Dispatches documentary. As you were unaware of it, it would seem random accusation.

[Staffsknot]

32 minutes ago, 70PC said:

Yes!

This is patently false it is because other threads were going to fill up with conspiracy crap and be derailed and oh look this one has filled up with conspiracy crap and victim blaming.

See also 'establishment' threads that have popped up.

Read the first post it shoots down this crap straight out the bat and talks about the investigation and how dim BS from his crowd of acolytes are trying to undermine it.

Bother to read for yourselves both of you... one of whom I blocked ages ago for similarly dim takes and not worth bothering with

Edited September 20, 2023 by Staffsknot

[Bob8]

On 17/09/2023 at 12:36, Staffsknot said:

So to prevent other threads getting taken over here is the place for Russell Brand stuff.

Facts not his community BS

- Concerns raised throughout his career, people felt unable to speak out due to their careers when victims

- In the wake of Weinstein case of 2017 and MeToo people began going to media with reports as people listened

- late 2018 journalists began receiving multiple allegations on Russell Brand with corroborating sources and those willing to speak out

- 2019 investigation begins ( predating his Covid rants by a year)

This isn't about what he says or about him being in 'alternate media' this is investigative journalism doing its job and finding an alleged sex pest using his power and controlling people.

Why has he cultivated this conspiracy crowd to defend him? Because he knew this would come one day and its his money stream. He doesn't even have to believe what he says just as long as the supporters will keep clicking and defending him.

It is worth quoting this again. 

Also, the Sunday TImes investigation that most on this thread are not aware of:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russell-brand-investigation-sunday-times-video-watch-latest-news-x33ss0kmk#:~:text=In early 2019%2C The Sunday,for a number of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brand#2019–2023_Sunday_Times_/_Dispatches_investigation

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/russell-brand-in-plain-sight-dispatches

[70PC]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

There might be a misunderstanding here.

There has been evidence presented in the Times and the Dispatches documentary. As you were unaware of it, it would seem random accusation.

I am not defending or condemning Russel. Examples of multiple accusations against an individual being proved groundless are not without precedent. Money has been a factor in some cases. Mob justice is my issue. If it turned out that the accusers had made false allegations, this would be a case of victim blaming with Russel as the victim. That is why due process exists.

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, 70PC said:

I am not defending or condemning Russel. Examples of multiple accusations against an individual being proved groundless are not without precedent. Money has been a factor in some cases. Mob justice is my issue. If it turned out that the accusers had made false allegations, this would be a case of victim blaming with Russel as the victim. That is why due process exists.

There isn't mob justice at play FFS

[miguel]

No, I don't remember Saville ever being found guilty in a court of law but I do know that 99%+ of the court of public opinion certainly have found him guilty. I guess that dissenting 1% must include Schapiro, Petersen, Tate, Pearson et al. 

[Pmax2020]

22 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Women have casual or drunken sex because its desirable and exciting. Proving consent is all but impossible. They're not victims and they don't need a chaperone.

Er…. that sounds a bit rap*y. 

Sure, some men and women will have casual, drunken sex without a shred of remorse. Many undoubtedly go looking for it - and could be of an attitude where even a significant level of impairment through drink or drugs wouldn’t fundamentally change their willingness to have sex. 

However, the reason your comments are dodgy as hell is because it’s completely irrational and improbable to suggest that being partially clothed, in someone else’s bedroom and/or impaired by drink, unequivocally constitutes consent. Because that’s exactly what you’re saying. You’re not entertaining the idea that someone with a drink or drug problem could sleep with thousands of women and not one single woman could have been sexually assaulted, either as a result of being too intoxicated to consent, or by being overpowered by the other person who has a history of substance abuse. 
 

Hence my original point - if I had a friend who had a drink and drug problem, who had slept with thousands of women whilst intoxicated, then I’d be incredibly fearful that to me it would be highly unlikely every single one of those women consented to sex. It’s inconceivable in fact. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Pmax2020

[Staffsknot]

10 minutes ago, Pmax2020 said:

Er…. that sounds a bit rap*y. 

Sure, some men and women will have casual, drunken sex without a shred of remorse. Many undoubtedly go looking for it - and could be of an attitude where even a significant level of impairment through drink or drugs wouldn’t fundamentally change their willingness to have sex. 

However, the reason your comments are dodgy as hell is because it’s completely irrational and improbable to suggest that being partially clothed, in someone else’s bedroom and/or impaired by drink, unequivocally constitutes consent. Because that’s exactly what you’re saying. You’re not entertaining the idea that someone with a drink or drug problem could sleep with thousands of women and not one single woman could have been sexually assaulted, either as a result of being too intoxicated to consent, or by being overpowered by the other person who has a history of substance abuse. 
 

Hence my original point - if I had a friend who had a drink and drug problem, who had slept with thousands of women whilst intoxicated, then I’d be incredibly fearful that to me it would be highly unlikely every single one of those women consented to sex. It’s inconceivable in fact. 

The very case against Assange was that they had consensual sex while she was awake, it was just he decided not to bother waking her up again when he decided he wanted more. That quite simply is rape if as described, yet you get crazy folks firing in to defend it as 'not rape'...

[zugzwang]

13 minutes ago, Pmax2020 said:

However, the reason your comments are dodgy as hell is because it’s completely irrational and improbable to suggest that being partially clothed, in someone else’s bedroom and/or impaired by drink, unequivocally constitutes consent.

Lack of consent is impossible to establish in such circumstances, certainly where no physical evidence of abuse exists and the accusations are years or even decades old. In all but a handful of cases, prosecuting these claims is a waste of time. Most of the high profile #MeToo prosecutions from 2018 ended in dismissal or acquital, even the ones involving multiple 'victims'.

From personal experience I'd suggest that all men will have casual, drunken sex without remorse and most women. Especially the ones with prison tattoos running up their legs.

[Staffsknot]

10 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

From personal experience I'd suggest that all men will have casual, drunken sex without remorse and most women. Especially the ones with prison tattoos running up their legs

Thank you for detailing your prison experience but in normal society the rule is unless you have explicit consent you cannot assume consent so no you are talking a load of gash

[Bob8]

2 hours ago, Pmax2020 said:

Er…. that sounds a bit rap*y. 

Sure, some men and women will have casual, drunken sex without a shred of remorse. Many undoubtedly go looking for it - and could be of an attitude where even a significant level of impairment through drink or drugs wouldn’t fundamentally change their willingness to have sex. 

However, the reason your comments are dodgy as hell is because it’s completely irrational and improbable to suggest that being partially clothed, in someone else’s bedroom and/or impaired by drink, unequivocally constitutes consent. Because that’s exactly what you’re saying. You’re not entertaining the idea that someone with a drink or drug problem could sleep with thousands of women and not one single woman could have been sexually assaulted, either as a result of being too intoxicated to consent, or by being overpowered by the other person who has a history of substance abuse. 
 

Hence my original point - if I had a friend who had a drink and drug problem, who had slept with thousands of women whilst intoxicated, then I’d be incredibly fearful that to me it would be highly unlikely every single one of those women consented to sex. It’s inconceivable in fact. 

Yes, and I imagine Zug has often been round a relatives or friends and slept over. Persumably, no man raped him because of it. Zug thinks it is different if he is the predator though.

[athom]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

In all but a handful of cases, prosecuting these claims is a waste of time.

not if the main objective is cutting off the head that appeared above the parapet. It will be hard for brand to carry on as he was regardless of any later outcome. All the MSM simultaneously giving suddenly total credibility to unproved anonymous claims (their broadside) is, they hope, enough to sink his pirate media ship. 

It will be interesting to see how he plays this. If I was him I'd stay out of sight, give it a few days or a week while the media are letting off all their ammo, bit of a rope-a-dope tactic, then come out and carry on as if nothing happened with typical videos on unrelated things. Not even address it.

He'll have to accept the fact that a lot of what he was doing before will be pressured into cancelling him but fortunately there are non-MSM outlets these days, and millions of people who are capable of seeing this for what it is. 

[athom]

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

Thank you for detailing your prison experience but in normal society the rule is unless you have explicit consent you cannot assume consent so no you are talking a load of gash

Does it need to be in writing? Detailing each bedroom maneuver and intimate contact in advance. Including between man and wife I guess. Oh he blocked me I forgot. This joker is something else. Something is eating him on this issue. I don't know what but he's really got something personal going on. 

[Pmax2020]

3 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Lack of consent is impossible to establish in such circumstances, certainly where no physical evidence of abuse exists and the accusations are years or even decades old. In all but a handful of cases, prosecuting these claims is a waste of time. 

 

So lets imagine your daughter, or wife, or a female friend confided in you to describe the following situation…

Female, (or male!), has a couple of drinks on a date with someone who has more to drink, possibly takes some drugs that evening too, and is potentially physically stronger, or more coercive, or is in a position of power / trust etc. They go back to either house, and despite one individual saying ‘no’ or even physically trying to stop the other, in your warped world that isn’t sexual assault or potentially rape?! 

Rather than acknowledge that a situation like this is highly probable when drink/drugs are involved, or where it involves a celebrity or someone in a powerful position, instead you focus on the idea that it’s permissible because the lack of consent and therefore incrimination therein is ‘impossible to prove’.

That’s f*cked up.

When my kids are older I’ll teach them that if they have sex outside a relationship, where drink is involved, then they cannot establish if they have consent. They are taking an enormous risk.

 

[Bob8]

7 hours ago, Pmax2020 said:

So lets imagine your daughter, or wife, or a female friend confided in you to describe the following situation…

Female, (or male!), has a couple of drinks on a date with someone who has more to drink, possibly takes some drugs that evening too, and is potentially physically stronger, or more coercive, or is in a position of power / trust etc. They go back to either house, and despite one individual saying ‘no’ or even physically trying to stop the other, in your warped world that isn’t sexual assault or potentially rape?! 

Rather than acknowledge that a situation like this is highly probable when drink/drugs are involved, or where it involves a celebrity or someone in a powerful position, instead you focus on the idea that it’s permissible because the lack of consent and therefore incrimination therein is ‘impossible to prove’.

That’s f*cked up.

When my kids are older I’ll teach them that if they have sex outside a relationship, where drink is involved, then they cannot establish if they have consent. They are taking an enormous risk.

 

To turn it around, Zug also would not find it unreasonable behaviour if someone he was sharing a house with stuck their willy up his bottom in the night and satisfied themselves.

[athom]

8 hours ago, Pmax2020 said:

Female, (or male!), has a couple of drinks on a date with someone who has more to drink, possibly takes some drugs that evening too, and is potentially physically stronger, or more coercive, or is in a position of power / trust etc. They go back to either house, and despite one individual saying ‘no’ or even physically trying to stop the other, in your warped world that isn’t sexual assault or potentially rape?! 

Rather than acknowledge that a situation like this is highly probable when drink/drugs are involved,

Maybe you've never done alcohol or other drugs but the most probable scenario is saying YES in situations were if they weren't under the influence of the drug they would have said no. The second most probable thing is having REGRET the next day. This is incredibly well known. Utterly understood by everyone. Except you when you don't want to. 

Unless the drugs were Bill Crosbyed into that person it is their responsibility to keep themselves in a state where they know what they are doing, and can keep that consistent with what they want to do when they are sober. This is legally the case. If you commit a crime it is not a defense to say you were under the influence of a drug you had taken and that you wouldn't have done it if you'd been sober so let me off judge. YOU are responsible for the state you get into.

However if you were drugged unwittingly you are NOT responsible because it is well understood that you would do things and go along with things that you would not do if sober. 

Thats quite the paradox isn't it

Being famous being said to put him in a position of power is interesting. Is it different to being just very handsome. Is that a position of power? It is really in the same vein isn't it. The woman is smitten and under his spell because she wants what he's got. Is that his fault that she has desires for him because of his fame or looks? Should he refuse her willingness if its based on something shallow? But the shallowness is on her part? 

Edited September 21, 2023 by athom

[zugzwang]

7 hours ago, Pmax2020 said:

So lets imagine your daughter, or wife, or a female friend confided in you to describe the following situation…

Female, (or male!), has a couple of drinks on a date with someone who has more to drink, possibly takes some drugs that evening too, and is potentially physically stronger, or more coercive, or is in a position of power / trust etc. They go back to either house, and despite one individual saying ‘no’ or even physically trying to stop the other, in your warped world that isn’t sexual assault or potentially rape?! 

Rather than acknowledge that a situation like this is highly probable when drink/drugs are involved, or where it involves a celebrity or someone in a powerful position, instead you focus on the idea that it’s permissible because the lack of consent and therefore incrimination therein is ‘impossible to prove’.

That’s f*cked up.

When my kids are older I’ll teach them that if they have sex outside a relationship, where drink is involved, then they cannot establish if they have consent. They are taking an enormous risk.

 

Women drink and take drugs because they like getting drunk and stoned. They also like showing their tits off and getting f***ed by strangers.

It's none of your business to tell them they shouldn't do it. Just who the f**k do you think you are?

[Staffsknot]

4 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Women drink and take drugs because they like getting drunk and stoned. They also like showing their tits off and getting f***ed by strangers.

It's none of your business to tell them they shouldn't do it. Just who the f**k do you think you are?

The comprehension of a childish individual claiming intelligence laid bare in public

[Staffsknot]

28 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Just give me two c*nts and a prick of steel and keep your dirty finger out of my sugar bum, baby.

This could actually have been said by Brand and explains a lot more about Zugs fantasyland than any reality or relation to consent

And what you do with Putin and Johnson with your viagra boner is best left for your imagination and unwritten

Edited September 21, 2023 by Staffsknot

[A.steve]

23 hours ago, 70PC said:

That is why due process exists.

In practise, I'm not convinced that it does.

[Bob8]

50 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

This could actually have been said by Brand and explains a lot more about Zugs fantasyland than any reality or relation to consent

And what you do with Putin and Johnson with your viagra boner is best left for your imagination and unwritten

The point is he sees it happening to him as wrong, but cannot grasp why it happening to others and particularly women is not OK. Some women want to have sex with some men, there fore any man having sex with any woman against her will is a bizarre argument. 

It does fit with his politics that is very top down. It is the socialism that Orwell warned against, that where the workers are told what to do with a red flag rather than a blue one.

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

This could actually have been said by Brand and explains a lot more about Zugs fantasyland than any reality or relation to consent

And what you do with Putin and Johnson with your viagra boner is best left for your imagination and unwritten

He did request those things. We tend not to ask for what we already have.

[zugzwang]

From the billionaire press this morning:

One of these characters is an evil sexual predator and a threat to all women.

And the other one is Russell Brand. 😁