Russell Brand

[Ram-Alf]

7 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

I read many years ago that Brand was gay. He's also related to many branches of British nobility.

Ah that makes him a right nob ☺️

[Jubbs]

14 minutes ago, ramit said:

This has the earmarks of a hit job.  I don't agree with Watson that it's a left-right issue, he has his horse to flog, but he makes strong points in this video.

So you want me to watch a video that that clown as made? 

I'm sure far-right conspiracy theorist, Paul - who is banned on Facebook and Instagram for hate speech, regularly worked/works with Alex Jones(who still owes $1.5b to the families of Sandy Hook victims), believes in 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theories and openly opposes to Islam - is going to have a REALLY balanced view on what Russell Brand has done. 

Have a look a the "Race and ethnicity" part of his Wikipedia.

   

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Jubbs said:

So you want me to watch a video that that clown as made? 

I'm sure far-right conspiracy theorist, Paul - who is banned on Facebook and Instagram for hate speech, regularly worked/works with Alex Jones(who still owes $1.5b to the families of Sandy Hook victims), believes in 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theories and openly opposes to Islam - is going to have a REALLY balanced view on what Russell Brand has done. 

Have a look a the "Race and ethnicity" part of his Wikipedia.

   

No, no, don't bother looking at issues from both sides, just attack the messenger.  I expected as much.  Am I now a supporter of all that Watson says and stands for by posting this?  Yes of course.  Pathetic.

[ariotofmyown]

8 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

So you want me to watch a video that that clown as made? 

I'm sure far-right conspiracy theorist, Paul - who is banned on Facebook and Instagram for hate speech, regularly worked/works with Alex Jones(who still owes $1.5b to the families of Sandy Hook victims), believes in 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theories and openly opposes to Islam - is going to have a REALLY balanced view on what Russell Brand has done. 

Have a look a the "Race and ethnicity" part of his Wikipedia.

   

From the above, I've got this crazy feeling that this Watson fella is probably cool with what Brand has been "alleged" to have done.

[YorkshireRam]

5 minutes ago, ramit said:

No, no, don't bother looking at issues from both sides, just attack the messenger.  I expected as much.  Am I now a supporter of all that Watson says and stands for by posting this?  Yes of course.  Pathetic.

He's examining the provenance of a source, that's the objectively intelligent thing to do. If you shared a video of David Icke, pointing out he believes lizard people are real would be pertinent to his overall credibility. If you want to present a contrary stance, then make sure your evidence comes from a reliable, credible source, or that it cites its references- it's not hard (unless you're trying to support some weird conspiracy theory when the only people that agree with you are nutjobs)

[Jubbs]

2 minutes ago, ramit said:

No, no, don't bother looking at issues from both sides, just attack the messenger.  I expected as much.  Am I now a supporter of all that Watson says and stands for by posting this?  Yes of course.  Pathetic.

I'm pathetic? Wow, okay lol.

What I'm getting at is that Paul is a huge imbecile and the fact you even bother watching his videos is a massive red flag in itself. I never said once you were a supporter of him.

[ramit]

8 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

He's examining the provenance of a source, that's the objectively intelligent thing to do. If you shared a video of David Icke, pointing out he believes lizard people are real would be pertinent to his overall credibility. If you want to present a contrary stance, then make sure your evidence comes from a reliable, credible source, or that it cites its references- it's not hard (unless you're trying to support some weird conspiracy theory when the only people that agree with you are nutjobs)

The objective intelligent thing to do is to examine issues from all sides, to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.  A truth does not mind who speaks it, it remains true, no matter who utters it, a nut, or you.

[Eddie]

13 hours ago, Anag Ram said:

Punishment sorted

 

 

That reminds me - got to make a Zigeuner sauce for schnitzels tomorrow.

[ramit]

7 hours ago, Jubbs said:

I'm pathetic? Wow, okay lol.

What I'm getting at is that Paul is a huge imbecile and the fact you even bother watching his videos is a massive red flag in itself. I never said once you were a supporter of him.

What you wrote was pathetic in my view, that is not the same as calling you pathetic as a person.  I really don't care how you view me.

[ariotofmyown]

8 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

I read many years ago that Brand was gay. He's also related to many branches of British nobility, right up to the Royal Family. 

It will be interesting to see what happens in court. 

My cynicism tells me it will never go to court and its all a false flag story.

Maybe you need to be a bit more sceptical of your cynicism. We've seen so many cases similar to this, where women have been afraid to speak out about their assaults and rapes as they won't be believed/are too traumatised. But actual journalists investigate stories and bring these accusations together, empowering the victims to finally speak up. This often happens years after the event, when their ability to survive their trauma reaches a point when they feel like they can discuss it.

The only conspiracies knocking around here are how the stars are protected when there are "open secrets" of their abuse. We hear a lot about "lefty lawyers" at the moment helping the most vulnerable. Maybe the "rapey laywers" need some looking into.

If there is an actual conspiracy theory anywhere, it's probably that all the conspiracy theories are just there just to send people down rabbit holes to keep them away from what is staring them in the face.

 

[ariotofmyown]

10 minutes ago, ramit said:

The objective intelligent thing to do is to examine issues from all sides, to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.  A truth does not mind who speaks it, it remains true, no matter who utters it, a nut, or you.

I'm obviously not going to watch a video by such a nut job, but would be interested to know the actual evidence you are referring too. Could you quickly mention a couple of things so we know?

[YorkshireRam]

8 minutes ago, ramit said:

The objective intelligent thing to do is to examine issues from all sides, to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.  A truth does not mind who speaks it, it remains true, no matter who utters it, a nut, or you.

How do you determine what is truthful though? You start by examining the credibility of the source...

I've just skimmed through that video, it's not actually about the allegations, more the media response. That said response cannot be used to try defend Brand's alleged actions. You could use it to establish a hypothesis, but you'd then need to go a level deeper and analyse the allegations themselves. 

What you've essentially done is go ''here's a video on the way the media response could be seen as a witch-hunt. I'm going to use ONLY that to suggest Brand is innocent.'' It's just not enough evidence, it's just an unqualified bloke on the internet waffling...

[ramit]

7 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

I'm obviously not going to watch a video by such a nut job, but would be interested to know the actual evidence you are referring too. Could you quickly mention a couple of things so we know?

No 😁

[ariotofmyown]

4 minutes ago, ramit said:

No 😁

Actually, I did watch some of it. Turned it off when he offering 30% off paying for something. Didn't see much actual evidence, maybe it was all in the 2nd half!

I assume he would be cool with wanted Islamic terrorists making money from Rumble doing cooking demostrations?

I do think our government should have better things to do than write to video platforms telling them to remove content though. But it's quite cute that this truthsayer thinks they are capable of any coordinated actions, rather than just some non-entity trying to look good.

 

[ramit]

7 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

How do you determine what is truthful though? You start by examining the credibility of the source...

I've just skimmed through that video, it's not actually about the allegations, more the media response. That said response cannot be used to try defend Brand's alleged actions. You could use it to establish a hypothesis, but you'd then need to go a level deeper and analyse the allegations themselves. 

What you've essentially done is go ''here's a video on the way the media response could be seen as a witch-hunt. I'm going to use ONLY that to suggest Brand is innocent.'' It's just not enough evidence, it's just an unqualified bloke on the internet waffling...

A government body spokesman seems to be involved.  My point from the beginning of this discussion is we cannot handle certain criminal cases outside the law, we must find room within the existing system to handle all cases fairly for all sides.  No one should be deemed guilty of any crime without having their day in court.  Innocent until proven guilty is an idea worth defending in my view.

A few years ago I was drugged and then sexually assaulted in the most brutal manner.  I did not go to the police, or to a doctor to ascertain my physical state and because of that mistake I have no right to call out the perpetrator on some media outlet as a rapist, even if that is what he surely is.  My wife and my sister know his identity, he knows what he did and I was left to pick up the pieces and try and pull myself together again using the tools at my disposal, help groups and counseling.  I admit, I was afraid of going the legal way, the guy terrifies me, the system intimidates me and I wish that I had options of a more supporting way of coming forward for my good and his, so that he never will do such a thing again.  He was drunk and afterward very sorry, but I plucked up the courage to tell him to never do  such a thing to anyone else ever again, whatever good that did.

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, ramit said:

A government body spokesman seems to be involved.  My point from the beginning of this discussion is we cannot handle certain criminal cases outside the law, we must find room within the existing system to handle all cases fairly for all sides.  No one should be deemed guilty of any crime without having their day in court.  Innocent until proven guilty is an idea worth defending in my view.

A few years ago I was drugged and then sexually assaulted in the most brutal manner.  I did not go to the police, or to a doctor to ascertain my physical state and because of that mistake I have no right to call out the perpetrator on some media outlet as a rapist, even if that is what he surely is.  My wife and my sister know his identity, he knows what he did and I was left to pick up the pieces and try and pull myself together again using the tools at my disposal, help groups and counseling.  I admit, I was afraid of going the legal way, the guy terrifies me, the system intimidates me and I wish that I had options of a more supporting way of coming forward for my good and his, so that he never will do such a thing again.  He was drunk and afterward very sorry, but I plucked up the courage to tell him to never do  such a thing to anyone else ever again, whatever good that did.

Firstly I'm sorry that you had to go through that, but then your second paragraph seems to contradict your first paragraph "innocent til proven guilty" - you know he is guilty of what he did, even though you never took it to court?

 

Anyway - it's all a digression in the case  of RB, because the fact remains that it's not a binary issue.

He is not guilty OR it's a media hatchet job. On the balance of probability and the evidence we've seen - it's both.

In which case he's a worthy victim of a hatchet job, as no matter whether it goes to court or not - he will never be able to do this to another unwitting victim.

 

[ramit]

7 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Firstly I'm sorry that you had to go through that, but then your second paragraph seems to contradict your first paragraph "innocent til proven guilty" - you know he is guilty of what he did, even though you never took it to court?

 

Thank you.  There is a difference to him and I and my closest family members knowing and naming him for all to see.  I asked that my closest never mention this to anyone.

[YorkshireRam]

4 minutes ago, ramit said:

A government body spokesman seems to be involved.  My point from the beginning of this discussion is we cannot handle certain criminal cases outside the law, we must find room within the existing system to handle all cases fairly for all sides.  No one should be deemed guilty of any crime without having their day in court.  Innocent until proven guilty is an idea worth defending in my view.

A few years ago I was drugged and then sexually assaulted in the most brutal manner.  I did not go to the police, or to a doctor to ascertain my physical state and because of that mistake I have no right to call out the perpetrator on some media outlet as a rapist, even if that is what he surely is.  My wife and my sister know his identity, he knows what he did and I was left to pick up the pieces and try and pull myself together again using the tools at my disposal, help groups and counseling.  I admit, I was afraid of going the legal way, the guy terrifies me, the system intimidates me and I wish that I had options of a more supporting way of coming forward for my good and his, so that he never will do such a thing again.  He was drunk and afterward very sorry, but I plucked up the courage to tell him to never do  such a thing to anyone else ever again, whatever good that did.

I'm truly sorry that happened to you, that's utterly horrific. I wouldn't say it was a ''mistake'' to not report it though, that feels unfairly harsh on yourself. You're spot on, the system is intimidating and not accommodating to victims. The idea of going through that after being traumatised in such a brutal way is really, really grim. It's great you had the support of your family, that is often truly a lifesaver.

In the same way your family didn't need a criminal case nor conviction to know what that monster did, the families of Brand's alleged victims probably feel the same. It's different with the public obviously, but because of how you've described the process, I do kind of operate in a 'guilty until proven innocent' way when there's multiple reports corroborating similar stories- the texts apologising are the final straw that made up my mind. 

I'm just sick of the flaws in the system that you had to experience yourself. I don't profess to know all the answers but I'm tired of seeing victims either retraumatised by the process, or just never get justice. Something has to change. 

[Scott129]

50 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

He's examining the provenance of a source, that's the objectively intelligent thing to do. If you shared a video of David Icke, pointing out he believes lizard people are real would be pertinent to his overall credibility. If you want to present a contrary stance, then make sure your evidence comes from a reliable, credible source, or that it cites its references- it's not hard (unless you're trying to support some weird conspiracy theory when the only people that agree with you are nutjobs)

Icke's son supports Derby County, doesn't he?

[ramit]

Am bowing out of the discussion for now, bringing my trauma up again really upsets me, perhaps I should not have