Jump to content

Russell Brand


Tyler Durden

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Jubbs said:

No one has said "I think he's innocent" but people have questioned the victims and saying it stinks or is just cancel culture.

I take it you are referring to my post in an indirect way and so I will answer your points.

You speak of victims as if that has been proven beyond any doubt in a court of law.  That is how criminal matters should be dealt with, but you seem upset with that, raging even that anyone dare question allegations brought forth through mass media instead of the police and the courts.  Accusations do not equal guilt.

Edited by ramit
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep , seems this topic is headed the usual way , he was the darling of the left when at the height of his disgusting self whether that be regards the allegations or his disgusting so called comedy , as I say I’m not the best to make judgements at this point as my personal view of him is below the gutter , seems these kind of people get a pass from one side or the other all too often when they could and should have been stopped from going on to where we are now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yep , seems this topic is headed the usual way , he was the darling of the left when at the height of his disgusting self whether that be regards the allegations or his disgusting so called comedy , as I say I’m not the best to make judgements at this point as my personal view of him is below the gutter , seems these kind of people get a pass from one side or the other all too often when they could and should have been stopped from going on to where we are now

That doesn't appear to have stopped you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Archied said:

Yep , seems this topic is headed the usual way , he was the darling of the left when at the height of his disgusting self whether that be regards the allegations or his disgusting so called comedy , as I say I’m not the best to make judgements at this point as my personal view of him is below the gutter , seems these kind of people get a pass from one side or the other all too often when they could and should have been stopped from going on to where we are now

I'm interested what he did to upset you so much. He can be very grating and he was/is a massive slut (something that appears to be coming back to bite him on his much publicised "winky"), but at the height of his fame he was just an average vacuous celebrity.

I'm completely done with trial by social media. I don't care about allegations other than wanting the accused/accusers to have their day in court to establish the actual facts of the matter. Too many times we've been assured by a rabid media and even more rabid social media mob that the accused is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo, only for charges to be dismissed once that old pesky proof is requested. Benjamin Mendy being a recent case in point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jubbs said:

image.png.9d0898fea8a1035b938f7f1dbecb373b.png

I'm just leaving this here. Some people need to actually have a think about what they say, because you never know what the people you are talking to have been through. Imagine this happened to one of your family members and they weren't believed just because they waited a year to say anything.

When you write "have a think about what they say", can you clarify exactly what you mean? Given that it has already been established that no one in this thread has declared Brand innocent. I absolutely will not believe accusations without proof. I do not care if that upsets anyone. Thank you for the lesson in empathy though, I have never before considered that a thing I'm discussing could potentially effect me or my family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anon said:

I absolutely will not believe accusations without proof.

This is probably the most naïve thing I've seen for a while.

You really think C4 and The Times would be able to publish a documentary after a 3 year investigation, with 0 evidence?! Considering how the victims and other comedians have seen how aggressive and threatening Brand's legal team are, you really think they wouldn't have proof before the did this? Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jubbs said:

This is probably the most naïve thing I've seen for a while.

You really think C4 and The Times would be able to publish a documentary after a 3 year investigation, with 0 evidence?! Considering how the victims and other comedians have seen how aggressive and threatening Brand's legal team are, you really think they wouldn't have proof before the did this? Wow.

I lose nothing by waiting for a criminal conviction. A conviction that will surely be forthcoming with the plethora of evidence amassed by C4 and The Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jubbs said:

This is probably the most naïve thing I've seen for a while.

You really think C4 and The Times would be able to publish a documentary after a 3 year investigation, with 0 evidence?! Considering how the victims and other comedians have seen how aggressive and threatening Brand's legal team are, you really think they wouldn't have proof before the did this? Wow.

The laughable thing is, this comes from a guy who we know from his posts believes plenty of conspiracy theories without a shred of credible evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

The whole "why haven't they just reported it to the police instead of the media" brigade need to remind themselves of this thread

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/41764-why-are-our-police-forces-still-getting-away-with-this-crap

I'm very confused as to what point you're attempting make here. That the police sometimes push incredibly flimsy convictions means we should do away with a judicial system entirely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being jailed for rape is incredibly rare because police will only tend to go for those cases where a victim has been attacked in public and had no knowledge of the accused, which is about 5% of all rape cases. 

If you have knowledge of the accused and you are raped and you've communicated beforehand, the chances of conviction are pretty much nil. Essentially if you've been texting each other, for example, before the incident happened then the police won't bother, simple as that. But of course, the celebrity status of Russell Brand means the police have to do something about it. If it was a commoner who went around raping men and/or women in their homes, there would be no interest by the authorities.

Makes me sick.

Edited by SSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jubbs said:

This is probably the most naïve thing I've seen for a while.

You really think C4 and The Times would be able to publish a documentary after a 3 year investigation, with 0 evidence?! Considering how the victims and other comedians have seen how aggressive and threatening Brand's legal team are, you really think they wouldn't have proof before the did this? Wow.

You don't seem to understand that C4 and The Times are just propaganda outlets. They have no more credibility than the bloke next door. 

What are the facts we know for certain?

We know that Brand has had sex with hundreds of women. He's admitted that. He's also had sex unprotected with prostitutes. He's admitted that.

What can we infer from that? Well I would say that there is a very high chance that he has herpes and he has passed this on to many women. 

If you someone has given you herpes you are not going to publicly accuse someone. No woman wants the world to know she has herpes. How else could you get back at someone who has given you this disease? I'm not saying he hasn't raped all these women but you have to look at all possible explanations. You can't take things on blind trust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

We know that Brand has had sex with hundreds of women. He's admitted that. He's also had sex unprotected with prostitutes. He's admitted that.

What can we infer from that? Well I would say that there is a very high chance that he has herpes and he has passed this on to many women. 

If you someone has given you herpes you are not going to publicly accuse someone. No woman wants the world to know she has herpes. How else could you get back at someone who has given you this disease? I'm not saying he hasn't raped all these women but you have to look at all possible explanations. You can't take things on blind trust.

I'm sorry, what????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

The whole "why haven't they just reported it to the police instead of the media" brigade need to remind themselves of this thread

https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/41764-why-are-our-police-forces-still-getting-away-with-this-crap

 

2 hours ago, Anon said:

I'm very confused as to what point you're attempting make here. That the police sometimes push incredibly flimsy convictions means we should do away with a judicial system entirely?

Still scratching my head on this one. Would you agree that a degree of scepticism is fair regarding unproven rape allegations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...