Again - I’m happy to be corrected but you weren’t doing that, you were being a knob.
Russell Brand: rape and sexual abuse allegations, grifting and general dodginess - discussion
- Thread starter mod
- Start date
Again - that’s not. A child molester is a nonce & a 16yr old is a child.
Ranbay
The same rules apply
nogojones
spelling is overrated
Just imagine how shitty you have to be for Hollywood to say "Oh, he's a bit much!"
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
It did seem to me like there was at least a brief period when Brand was talking sensibly about the war on drugs. I never got into his comedy, so I didn't know that it was anything more than the typical bawdiness one might expect of a comedian. I didn't pay him much attention after that.
Then Covid happened and it turned out that he's either gone off the deep end himself, or has turned to courting that crowd for money and influence. Even before these allegations came to light, that speaks very badly of his character. It's rather damning in my opinion that millionaire Brand is not suing the arse off Channel 4, but is instead wittering on about a conspiracy against him. That would be an awful response even if he was completely innocent.
I don't understand why sexual predators in the entertainment industry get so much protection. There must be dozens of aspiring comedians and other stars in waiting who can be brought in to replace them. It doesn't even make sense on a coldly calculating level either, since newer talent commands lower pay, and being a rapey dick is a perfectly acceptable reason to drop someone. If it's not a criminal conspiracy to cover this kind of stuff up as far as the law is concerned, then maybe it should be.
Then Covid happened and it turned out that he's either gone off the deep end himself, or has turned to courting that crowd for money and influence. Even before these allegations came to light, that speaks very badly of his character. It's rather damning in my opinion that millionaire Brand is not suing the arse off Channel 4, but is instead wittering on about a conspiracy against him. That would be an awful response even if he was completely innocent.
I don't understand why sexual predators in the entertainment industry get so much protection. There must be dozens of aspiring comedians and other stars in waiting who can be brought in to replace them. It doesn't even make sense on a coldly calculating level either, since newer talent commands lower pay, and being a rapey dick is a perfectly acceptable reason to drop someone. If it's not a criminal conspiracy to cover this kind of stuff up as far as the law is concerned, then maybe it should be.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
A fair point. Brand is notoriously litigious though, so why not now. His career died yesterday, so suing the Times et al would be a good payday. Of course, to get those damages, he would have to persuade a judge that all of the women were lying.
Last edited:
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Sexual predators across many industries get a lot of protection but entertainment (and football as an aside) are high profile, so it gets reported on publically.
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
Am guessing that the power they wield (however fleeting) puts people off? Or the fear that nobody will believe you when you come forward? That you will lose your job/never work in the industry again etc...
Am still amazed that a sexual predator became the US president and will probably do so again.
Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
I'm not sure it did, judging by the number of comments by his followers underneath any social media post. Providing he stays out of jail, are things that much worse for him now?
His career's far from over. He hasn't appeared on mainstream media for a very long time, doesn't need them, and has built up a massive fanbase through his social media channels and podcasts which will probably only grow as a result of this.
And I can't see him being convicted of anything really. As many commentators have been saying this morning, by broadcasting that doco it's pretty much made it impossible for him to get an impartial jury.
Well thats exactly what I mean. You've not even seen it have and have convicted him already based on the media coverage around it. I assume that's the line his lawyers will take anyway.
I almost had to shut it off after those first few minutes. It's a gruelling watch.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
You've come across ... jokes ... before haven't you?
Er yes, but I can't see a joke in your post?
What does the last word say following him saying he’s impartial, dum dum?
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
No it's more than that. It's a culture within industries that constantly rely on 'yes men' - people with wealth and influence always being told they're right. Always being said yes to. And always involving men.
That builds egos and intolerance of criticism. The football industry (some of us remember when it was a sport) has added machismo and a culture of men being men, or even boys being men. The entertainment industry, all of it, through TV, film and music, practically has this 'yes' culture built into its structures. This builds (and attracts) narcissistic characters like Brand. The higher the profile, the more protection they seemingly get.
It's not a coincidence that Brand is now being pursued after he left MSM. There are many more Brands within, and under the protection of, MSM.
Everyone you see on TV is a cunt.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
So yesterday you said it wasn't worth it, now you want to flog this horse some more.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I don't really want to get into this discussion, I think it's grim how you just go "ah 16, it's legal, so that's fine then" but I do want to point at that we have actually not made the decision to put the line at 16.
In most cases, 16 is the age of consent but...
If the older person is in a position of authority or responsibility it is 18. This is mainly aimed at positions like school teachers because we don't feel happy about them fucking 6th formers, or at scout leaders, or counsellors or whatever. In law it would be extremely difficult to define a celebrity but I'm pretty sure most of us would agree that celebrities exist in a position of power, authority and privilege over teenagers which would put them in the same moral area as teachers, social workers etc when it comes to relationships with 16-18 year olds, unless that celeb is themselves a teenager... which brand most definitely was not.
There is also the "quirk" of the UK legal system that whilst you can consent to sex at 16, you cannot consent to being filmed/photographed, that age is also set to 18, anyone under 18 being filmed/photographed is child abuse in the eyes of the law... because a 16 year old is still a child.
So "the line" is in fact somewhat blurred, and as I said at the start, it's grim that you want to make it some kind of hard divide between ok and not ok, and can't seemingly see why everyone else thinks it's fucking dodgy for a 30 year old to be dating a 16 year old.
it was on the NY Times app frontpage but about half way down. I think the story makes it interesting enough rather than him being particularly well known.
paul mckenna
Bellend
editor
hiraethified
She was still a child, as defined by the law:
Children and the law | NSPCC Learning
Covers legislation and definitions about children’s rights, ages of consent and criminal responsibility, school leaving age, child employment and GDPR.
Similar threads
