Dispatches/Sunday Times investigation: Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

Coatigan said:
It is not about whether they are right or wrong, or who decides it is the personality trait and motivation you have attributed to it. The equivalent to accusi bff anyone campaining for social justice of really being a closet rapist looking to deflect their own accountability? Ffs how do you not see the ugliness in that.
Click to expand...
I really think you are reading something I didn’t actually say.

But I offer my apologies, either way, as it has obviously been taken in a way I did not mean—and I believe you are responding in good faith—and that means it is on me for communicating my thoughts poorly.

Edit: I just saw your revision and I am not sure what you mean by “ignoring the incorrect twisting if that”. I was only repeating exactly what I said.
 
Crooked_rain said:
Of course they're entitled to have what they want on their platform, it just seems you only get de-platformed or your ability to monetise your content is blocked if your theories are targeted towards a certain directions.

In this instance, he's had his youtube channel for a long time, but suddenly they won't let him make money from it, 2 days after these allegations come out, and yes at this point its still allegations. So its clearly not down to some breach of their rules is it? Let's be honest about that. I'm sure they'll say it is, but you're not that naive are you?

I mean channels like The Young Turks and others make all sorts of theories about what people would consider the right, no different to what Alex Jones, Brand etc do, but for some reason they don't run into any Terms Of Service problems when their target is in the opposite direction. Funny that isn't it?

Whether Brand is guilty or not, that's yet to be determined, he may well be. But if we're looking at this objectively, he's simply had his revenue stream cut off on the basis of allegations that come out a couple of days ago. I just don't think it sets a good precedent generally. Courts exist for reason.
Click to expand...
YT have every right to disable whichever channel they choose. He’s free to go and use any other media stream that he wishes.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I think this is more another example in a very long line of men being allowed to abuse (or worse) women for far too long, and most of the reaction and debate is the seeming steadfast support Brand has from more men than many of us are comfortable with.

At least for me, this is less a topical debate and more an existential one.
Click to expand...

I get this feeling aswell.
I think we’re entering an official age of no more ‘lad culture’ and emotional/physical abuse of women- this is a big wake up call to society more than anything.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
He’s not been stopped from having a fair trial. He’s had the right to reply to the dispatches programme.

Should he be charged with anything, he will go to court and his case will be heard.

He’s neither innocent nor guilty as of now.
Click to expand...
Schrodinger’s rapist.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I really think you are reading something I didn’t actually say.

But I offer my apologies, either way, as it has obviously been taken in a way I did not mean and that is on me for communicating my thoughts poorly.
Click to expand...

I think my not being alone in reading it that way, maybe says there was more there to misread than just my misunderstanding.

But I'll believe you regardless.
 
SebastianBlue said:
So everyone is meant to just ignore the substantiated allegations resulting from a four year investigation that will have been vetted and approved at many different stages as valid (and not violating libel or slander laws) by a bevy of lawyers? The one Brand and his lawyers chose not to contest?

And ignore the women that have come forward after the program have aired?

It’s just social media passing random judgement?

And if he is never taken to court or settles out of court, do we just act as if he is perfectly innocent?
Click to expand...

Sometimes on these threads - and there’s been too many of them recently - it feels like theres a lot of men who think their life could be undone at any moment by some crackpot false accusation of rape.


They completely ignore all the evidence presented by things like an 4 year investigation, or police reports and interviews and then act like there’s no evidence and we should all live in fear.
 
Coatigan said:
I think my not being alone in reading it that way, maybe says there was more there to misread than just my misunderstanding.

But I'll believe you regardless.
Click to expand...
I was actually referring to both you and @mancity2012_eamo finding fault with what I said being the reason I was offering my apology. One person finding fault can just be a misunderstanding or a bad faith reading independent of how I communicated my point. But two or more people is an indication that I was indeed at fault for the misreading/miscommunication.

And I have no problem taking responsibility for that.
 
Last edited:
LangleyBlue1970 said:
Of course not. All I’m saying is social media has already determined the outcome. Without it all you have is the telly and the next days paper. Social media speeds up the process ten fold and people make their mind up because of it.
Click to expand...

So what you’re actually saying is not that social media has determine the outcome, it’s the vast body of evidence accumulated over a 4 year investigation that’s determined the outcome and social media has meant everyone gets to see that evidence very quickly?



Let’s be honest here, a story broken by Channel 4 News and The Times is not an example of social media’s influence in 2023.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
I get this feeling aswell.
I think we’re entering an official age of no more ‘lad culture’ and emotional/physical abuse of women- this is a big wake up call to society more than anything.
Click to expand...
I agree. And, as has been said many times, the loss of privilege (in this case, the sense that one can to treat women however one likes without consequence) can feel like oppression.

As with the Rubiales scandal, I welcome the reckoning.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Comedy is subjective.
I reckon in 10/15 years time people will look back in disgust and bemusement how Jimmy Carr, Frankie Boyle and Gervais were ever considered funny considering how insulting, sexually crude they can be at times.
That’s why I find stand up clips of Brand being shared slightly disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Bernard Manning and Chubby Brown would be unacceptable today but they had the redeeming feature that they were funny, Manning especially. Agree it’s subjective but I’ve never heard anything remotely amusing from Brand whereas I can understand why people could like pretty much anyone else even if I don’t like them much.
 
M18CTID said:
Yep. Allegations aside, I find it astonishing that he gained so much popularity. His act was dogshit. Sure, he's not the only one who tells lewd jokes too but most of the rest tend to have a lot of other material as well. Brand was just a one-trick pony and an unfunny one at that. I never followed him particularly closely so a lot of the stuff passed me by but seeing it aired over the past few days makes me wonder why he ever got as far as he did.
Click to expand...
He didn’t even do lewd jokes. He just did lewd.
 
SWP's back said:
Reading the replies on here and who appears to be on which side of the debate, I’m pleased to see who my apparent bed fellows are and am very unsurprised by which people are defending him.
Click to expand...
I could have named the cunts who would be defending him on here the second the thread appeared.
It’s funny how they all align on every subject which is controversial and they all fall on the wrong’un side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top