Russell Brand: rape and sexual abuse allegations, grifting and general dodginess - discussion

[littlebabyjesus]

Peoples' behaviour is a function of contemporary sensibilities and laws.

Sensibilities and laws change over time

Present sensibilities are becoming retrospectively enforceable.

This is clearly illogical

As a point of information, new laws can't be enforced retrospectively, while those found guilty of historic crimes are sentenced according to maximum sentencing guidelines at the time of the offences. Those max sentences clearly are a reflection of the sensibilities of the time.

Those convicted of historic abuse will be sentenced according to the maximum sentence prescribed by the law in force at the time the crime was committed. If the maximum sentence at the time of the offence has since been reduced, the lower sentence will apply.

Historic Sex Abuse – Your Questions Answered

ETA:

This isn't just a legal nicety. We have seen people convicted of historic sex abuse receive shorter sentences than they would have received had the offences been committed more recently.

 

[Wilf]

Present sensibilities are becoming retrospectively enforceable.

No, this is about rape and sexual assault. Always illegal, always vile.

 

[Raheem]

Oakenfold did the Big Brother theme tune, coincidentally.

I can see why he wouldn't have been demonetised. It's one accusation, which he disputes, brought in a civil court.

Westwood, on the other hand, may very well end up spending his pensionable years in prison. Still not been arrested, but still being investigated. The accusations are multiple and damning.

It's also probably about what breaches of YouTube policy can be used as a pretext. Brand does his COVID weirdo stuff, but Westwood afaik just talks about nothing in an artificial accent.

 

[scalyboy]

Definitely one reason he was able to hide in plain sight was because of the toxic culture he was a part of. He wasn't so different to others around him. Anyone caught up in that, like (a then 22 year old) Lily Allen here, would've looked like the odd one out or unprofessional if they'd objected to any of these "jokes".

Sorry if it was already posted, clip of Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2007 with Brand, Jonathan Ross and Noel Fielding:



eta and Jimmy Carr, gross

Christ, that hasn’t aged well... and it’s not even that old, not from the 1990s ‘lad mag culture’ era but just 16 years ago. I don’t tend to watch TV so am out of touch with this stuff - does that sort of thing still appear post-Me Too, Weinstein etc.?
Or would it now be deemed unacceptable?

What’s becoming clearer is that this isn’t just a ‘Russell Brand problem’; as the Dispatches programme showed, he was allowed to continue unhindered & unsanctioned, and in some cases enabled, by various TV channels, production companies, producers, publishers, newspapers, the list goes on.

And as this clip shows, he wasn’t alone in normalising rape jokes and by extension ‘rape culture’. There could well be several other male comedians or TV personalities who will be facing similar allegations in the coming weeks and months if this gains traction, and if it appears the police & DPP are serious enough about pursuing these accusations so that they get to court.

Whatever happened with Tim Westwood? Numerous women came forward, was there not sufficient evidence, or is a case still being assembled?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Whatever happened with Tim Westwood? Numerous women came forward, was there not sufficient evidence, or is a case still being assembled?

Last interviewed under caution in July this year. Still under investigation but still no charges. It does seem painfully slow, but hopefully that's just so that they can make a watertight case.

 

[skyscraper101]

Oakenfold did the Big Brother theme tune, coincidentally.

I can see why he wouldn't have been demonetised. It's one accusation, which he disputes, brought in a civil court.

Westwood, on the other hand, may very well end up spending his pensionable years in prison. Still not been arrested, but still being investigated. The accusations are multiple and damning.

That's my issue tbh. It's the apparent inconsistency. If they're going to demonetize Brand, then why at least won't they also do the same with Westwood? The accusations aren't that dissimilar.

 

[8ball]

Re: the "lads mags" thing - I don't actually think there was a regression in the 90's and early noughties.
I think it was worse before.

For example, by the time they came around it was no longer acceptable to have basically soft porn pics on the office wall at work.
This happened in the 80's without being much commented on.

 

[Dystopiary]

This is it isn't it?

I don't know what's happening with Westwood except that investigations are ongoing.

eta That was in reply your post, scalyboy. Forgot to quote, sorry.

 

[editor]

I wonder if Jimmy Carr will be having a bit of a think about his rape jokes in the current climate.*

“My girlfriend can be really loud during sex. I don’t know why—she knows no one’s coming to help.”

“And it’s true, if you’re a rapist, you’ve got pretty much your pick of women.”

“I said to my girlfriend, do you want to role play with a rape fantasy? She said ‘No!’ and I said, ‘That’s the spirit.’”

“‘Rape’ is such a horrible word, though, it’s such a harsh brutal word. That’s why I prefer to call it a ‘Struggle Snuggle.’”

20 Jokes That Didn’t Stop Netflix From Giving Jimmy Carr A Show

Netflix’s new ‘The Fix’ is an utterly pointless waste of a comedian as funny as Jimmy Carr, who doesn’t give a hoot about political correctness.

thefederalist.com

*What is and what is not acceptable material for comedy is a whole can of worms, but I was just thinking about such a high profile comedian powering on with such gags right now.

 

[editor]

That's my issue tbh. It's the apparent inconsistency. If they're going to demonetize Brand, then why at least won't they also do the same with Westwood? The accusations aren't that dissimilar.

Westwood was nowhere near as famous as Brand and if the investigation is ongoing you can't expect much news to filter though.

 

[BigMoaner]

Peoples' behaviour is a function of contemporary sensibilities and laws.

Sensibilities and laws change over time

Present sensibilities are becoming retrospectively enforceable.

This is clearly illogical

Might be worth popping down the pub for a nice big pint of Fuck Off

 

[strung out]

That's my issue tbh. It's the apparent inconsistency. If they're going to demonetize Brand, then why at least won't they also do the same with Westwood? The accusations aren't that dissimilar.

Westwood's channel isn't monetised, at least, not according to this page: Check if a YouTube Channel or Video is Monetized

 

[Pickman's model]

As a point of information, new laws can't be enforced retrospectively, while those found guilty of historic crimes are sentenced according to maximum sentencing guidelines at the time of the offences. Those max sentences clearly are a reflection of the sensibilities of the time.



Historic Sex Abuse – Your Questions Answered

ETA:

This isn't just a legal nicety. We have seen people convicted of historic sex abuse receive shorter sentences than they would have received had the offences been committed more recently.

New laws can be enforced retrospectively. If you recall the war crimes act 1991, for example, that was retrospective.

 

[skyscraper101]

Westwood's channel isn't monetised, at least, not according to this page: Check if a YouTube Channel or Video is Monetized

View attachment 392381

Thank you. I guess that answers the question.

 

[8ball]

That's my issue tbh. It's the apparent inconsistency. If they're going to demonetize Brand, then why at least won't they also do the same with Westwood? The accusations aren't that dissimilar.

On YouTube, you mean (isn't that where most of Brand's dosh was coming from)?
YouTube love the moolah and will demonetise anyone at the drop of a hat, so might just be that.

edit: and what strung out said

 

[Sue]

Re: the "lads mags" thing - I don't actually think there was a regression in the 90's and early noughties.
I think it was worse before.

For example, by the time they came around it was no longer acceptable to have basically soft porn pics on the office wall at work.
This happened in the 80's without being much commented on.

But it was normalised (and acceptable) for men to read Loaded and Nuts etc (which I reckon weren't that far off soft porn though admittedly not my area of expertise) on the bus or in the pub or the canteen at work. And if you were a woman in music or whatever, you were meant to aspire to appear in those magazines. And if you were a woman who found those magazines and their photos and attitudes unacceptable and said so, you were a prude and a killjoy and just plain jealous.

 

[8ball]

But it was normalised (and acceptable) for men to read Loaded and Nuts etc (which I reckon weren't that far off soft porn though admittedly not my area of expertise) on the bus or in the pub or the canteen at work. And if you were a woman in music or whatever, you were meant to aspire to appear in those magazines. And if you were a woman who found those magazines and their photos and attitudes unacceptable and said so, you were a prude and a killjoy and just plain jealous.

Yeah, I wasn't saying it was great. But these mags were really just less aspirational versions of stuff like GQ which had been around for some time.

 

[skyscraper101]

I remember Nuts and Zoo appearing on the scene almost at the same time and it seemed like a low.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

New laws can be enforced retrospectively. If you recall the war crimes act 1991, for example, that was retrospective.

Generally speaking, they can't. So, for example, 'upskirting' is now a specific criminal offence. But you can't be done under the new law unless you did it after the new law came into force. That is generally true despite you having dug up an exception.

 

[8ball]

Generally speaking, they can't. So, for example, 'upskirting' is now a specific criminal offence. But you can't be done under the new law unless you did it after the new law came into force. That is generally true despite you having dug up an exception.

I was surprised that wasn't already illegal under an existing offense.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I was surprised that wasn't already illegal under an existing offense.

Probably was. But now it's a specific offence with a specific max penalty and you'll be put on the sex offenders list for it. But only if you did it after the new law came in.

 

[skyscraper101]

IIRC it was why camera phones were mandated in Korea and Japan to make that camera shutter sound which can't be muted.

 

[Elpenor]

IIRC it was why camera phones were mandated in Korea and Japan to make that camera shutter sound which can't be muted.

Yes, this is correct

 

[8ball]

IIRC it was why camera phones were mandated in Korea and Japan to make that camera shutter sound which can't be muted.

Ah, I noticed mine can't be muted and wondered why - maybe they standardised it.
Only annoying because I take screenshots of silly stuff for bandwidthz thread or whatever and it also does the noise then, and so people think I'm taking photos of my knees.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

But it was normalised (and acceptable) for men to read Loaded and Nuts etc (which I reckon weren't that far off soft porn though admittedly not my area of expertise) on the bus or in the pub or the canteen at work. And if you were a woman in music or whatever, you were meant to aspire to appear in those magazines. And if you were a woman who found those magazines and their photos and attitudes unacceptable and said so, you were a prude and a killjoy and just plain jealous.

FWIW I don't think Loaded was pornographic - the women in there were generally fully clothed iirc. The later ones continually upped the ante though - I guess you could see it as the early stages of a process that was pumped up by the internet not long after and ends up with Andrew Tate etc.

 

[Plumdaff]

Not so long ago I found someone had uploaded a load of my uni student paper from the mid 90s.

It didn't take much time to regret having a look through. Just horrendous outright misogyny, every woman involved in student union judged harshly on looks and their opinions ridiculed or discounted.

I remember things being worse in some respects but I had honestly forgotten how shitty it was. Like the opposite of Atwood's analogy of being a frog not noticing they were being boiled alive, I hadn't noticed the temperature going down.

Then I had the depressing thought I may just have aged and become invisible and therefore spared some of the worst of it.

 

[Rob Ray]

Arguably the Tate-type worldview is partly a reaction to the decline of LADS LADS LADS social hegemony, which peaked (or bottomed out, possibly) with the likes of Nuts but has been struggling for a while - it was a happy home for a brand of sexual toxicity which no longer quite fits in mainstream circles. It's a very similar mentality, just without the nod and a wink "we're only being bawdy, no harm no foul, go on have a laugh" bit.

The generation being dragged into the spotlight now were actually much more clever than Tate in many ways, because while he relies solely on making men feel entitled to behave like shits (which does them no favours outside the "manosphere" or whatever cringe they're calling it these days) the nineties/noughties LADS made women and the public more generally feel like they needed to join in to fit in.

 

[klang]

you were a prude and a killjoy and just plain jealous.

And being a geezer-bird was / is something to aspire to.

 

[8ball]

Arguably the Tate-type worldview is partly a reaction to the decline of LADS LADS LADS social hegemony, which peaked (or bottomed out, possibly) with the likes of Nuts but has been struggling for a while - it was a happy home for a brand of sexual toxicity which no longer quite fits in mainstream circles.

I think possibly more a reaction to the collapse of the "pick up artist" era.
A more extreme and distilled form to pick up the stragglers who couldn't let it go and didn't fit into either the standard MRA or incel circles.

 

[planetgeli]

And being a geezer-bird was / is something to aspire to.

Christ I remember that. True equality achieved by being like us. That was how it was presented.