Forum menu
Fair point.
Brand is a complete shit. Surely that was as obvious to everyone else as it is to me? Yes he had enablers in the media – but that does not excuse him. He is not a victim for being a rapey shit. He is a rapey shit. Its very easy not to be a rapey shit. don’t treat women badly
there’s a big difference between being a complete shit and a rapey shit. He’s not been convicted of the latter (yet). Regardless of what you think of his morals I’d prefer to see due process occur before people state the latter as fact. He is after all still an innocent man when it comes to the allegations
the evidence is clear. Sexual assault cases have a very low conviction rate. the guy is at best a sexual predator using coercion to get what he wants. the chances of him getting convicted are very low
He most certainly is "rapey" if not an actual rapist. rapey meaning behaviour akin to rape
Rod Hull clearly dodged a bullet here.
His total career was based upon grabbing people by their genitals.
Many of them children.
Mid 30s man in a relationship with a 16 year old? He's a nonce afaic.
He is after all still an innocent man when it comes to the allegations
The state has yet to decide if the burden of proof has been reached to try and convict him of a crime. Not the same thing as him being innocent.
it seems that he is going through trial by media.
anyone remember Craig Charles?
just because someone says it happened doesnt always mean it did.
investigation followed by evidence followed by necessary justice.
or we could just light the torches now
just because someone says it happened doesnt always mean it did.
Yeah, there's a bit more to it than that.
just because someone says it happened doesnt always mean it did.
Brilliant observation, thanks so much for that. I bet The Times is really kicking itself for reprinting all those allegations they heard for the first time last Thursday teatime.
He most certainly is “rapey” if not an actual rapist. rapey meaning behaviour akin to rape
that makes zero sense. If rapey behaviour is akin to rape then you can’t say he is ‘rapey’ but not a rapist
being a total sexual degenerate (which he clearly is and as admitted as much) is not akin to rape. There is a clear distinction, defined by consent.
I’m not trying to defend the bloke, and if he gets send down I’ll not be shedding any tears. But due process should apply
Due process does not work. Have you seen sexual assault conviction rates?
. The papers and tv would not have put the story out without really good evidence. Im quite content with what i have said. The guy is at best a predator using coercion which is pretty rapey behaviour
Mid 30s man in a relationship with a 16 year old? He’s a nonce afaic.
Nonce = paedophile = sexually attracted to prepubescents.
t seems that he is going through trial by media.
anyone remember Craig Charles?
just because someone says it happened doesnt always mean it did.
Was that not an accusation made by one person. Do you not see a difference between one source and multiple sources.
So you are saying he’s a rapist. Fair enough he may well be..but don’t try to pretend that’s not exactly what you are saying
re sexual assault conviction rates, yes they are poor. But it doesn’t mean the guy isn’t due a fair trial. Otherwise why bother with the judicial system. Maybe we could just let stw decide based on the evidence provided via the media (who of course have never got anything wrong ever have they)
and for a bit of balance, there have been numerous conquests of his (including that Georgina bailie) who have come out to say whilst he clearly has issues, They didn’t find him ‘rapey’ in the slightest
obviously that doesn’t me he didn’t rape someone else…but not everyone who knew him (far better than we do) thinks he’s as bad as we all do.
The papers and tv would not have put the story out without really good evidence
For sure. And it's also true that
- sex, and salacious sex anecdotes, unpleasant and not in a good way
- celebrities, inc hollywood and pop royalty
- sex
- chance to have a vague kick at the BBC,
- chance to have a vague kick at Ed Miliband
- sex,
- reprinting a bunch of older stories about the above - Ross/Sachs etc
- chance to have a kick at new media
- teenage sex
...sells. I mean it's a legitimate story which has victims at the centre, but it's also a distraction at a time of lots of proper news - and a great opportunity for middle-aged decades out of the game sanctimony (I'm guessing, I've not read the thread). And I'm not that interested in the content, I'm posting about the fuss. Still if it makes a few guys realise that sex with "barely legal" (clue in the name. Shouldn't be in my view) teenagers is not well looked on by the majority of us, that's a good thing. And predatory behaviour and being horrible to women is bad too. But I hope most already know this.
Anyway, here I am adding to the airtime. Sounds like he should be prosecuted for something and if he is we'll get to do this all over again.
Gah. And as I'm back trying to click past a few ads to edit out the formatting bollocks, having not been much exposed to the actual story, the tone of the reporting is irritating to say the least. Someone solomly saying that he'd said to a caller "you shouldn't be afraid of your sexuality. Though you should be a bit afraid of mine...." as some sort of confession. It's a funny line. Certainly my wife laughed at me when I said it.
@tjagaon - 'pretty rapey behaviour', but not one shred of evidence or conviction on actual rape. Trial and character assassination by media it is is it these days?
All these allegations and NOT A SINGLE arrest, court case or conviction. Why didn't all these 'victims' go to the police? I watched the documentary and it seemed mostly like a load of angry women who'd been stitched right up listening to his bullshit and were angry that they fell for it. Loads did and loads gladly went along because of his reputation. Some were used and abused like loads are on a one night stand, some went along knowing what the score was. The only dodgy ground is the 16 year old (but still legal) and the Jimmy Saville conversation was utterly bizarre and sickening, but that's his style - shock.
I'm no fan of his either. Unless there is concrete evidence there isn't that much you can do. It's completely unfair to monetise etc someone because of allegations whether truthful or fabricated. Proof of guilt - a totally different conversation.
I was refering to the Louis Theroux investigative journalism quoted on here a few days back, politecameraaction, again hindsight is wonderful.
I’ve been observing the use of likes since they appeared, jamj1974 and it isn’t all positive appreciation. If you are careful to use it positvely and avoid liking posts slagging off members that’s good.
The colours thing displays a hierarchy and the rosette like thing gives privileges to the higher echelons of that hierarchy, it’s all very Twitter blue bird. Divide to better reign except it didn’t help Twitter. I think it’s counter productive but I’m not running STW. There’s always been the paying members slagging off the freeloaders (a tag once upon a time IIRC). It creates divisions and clans and petty conflict. IMO it makes people less likely to pay now, some have us have become entrenched wearing our freeloader badges with pride even if sometimes we might be interested enough in an article to pay 99p in the same way as I’ll buy a newspaper if an article jumps off the page as I walk past the news stand.
😳 Well, bugger me! All of that has been going on right under my nose, and I’ve been completely unaware of it! I rarely pay any attention to the ‘Like’ button, having been on here for around twenty years without such a function and I’m just not really interested enough to bother tapping it. I have, on occasion, tapped it, mostly because the post made me laugh! To think that there’s some underlying, secret process at work here is, frankly laughable.
If you’ll excuse the pun…
.
Nonce = paedophile = sexually attracted to prepubescents.
Pointless interjection & not correct.
Mid 30s man in a relationship with a 16 year old? He’s a nonce afaic.
I've known girls younger than that who could pass for early 20s, conversely I've known women in their early 20s who looked under 16.
It doesn't make him a nonce, it makes him a predator, get someone in the package you want with the emotional immaturity that lends itself to being manipulated. (assuming thats what the case was)
Pointless interjection & not correct.
Please show your working.
The man is in his 30s and she is a child. Nonce is not a scientific word and even paedophile has a wider common usage than being sexually attracted to pre pubescent children. It can mean sexually attracted to children. & as your post says its not just about looks its about being emotionally/ intellectually immature & him taking advantage of this.
ctkFull Member
Nonce = paedophile = sexually attracted to prepubescents.
Pointless interjection & not correct.
And weirdly made me think of the word pubes for the first time in years 😂
It's all down to the police and CPS now, and the evidence they can put together to bring charges, if some of the allegations made during the dispatches programme is backed up by evidence, then they should be able to do something, but i do get the feeling this whole issue will be getting managed at all levels due to the press coverage.
I’ve known girls younger than that who could pass for early 20s, conversely I’ve known women in their early 20s who looked under 16.
The fact Brand sent a limo TO HER SCHOOL to pick her up, it doesn't matter if she looked 90, he clearly knew how old she was
To be fair to Edukator, I read that as a tongue-in-cheek comment
It was a flippant catch all without making libelous statements about Brand. (in the middle of some stuff distasteful stuff about dolphins which I assumed was also not entirely serious). "Dissatified customers" I used as a catch all for the range of accustions made about Brand which include... well read the Times article and make yourself a list. Not all include rape or even sexual asault. What they have in common is that the complainants were dissatisfied with how their relationships (working, sexual, other) with Brand had turned sour - the product, Brand, did not live up to their expectations. Some just wanted a good professional working relationship, others were up for sex but not the type he wanted and claim they had acts they didn't want forced on them. Whomever you believe it's clear that the women were dissatisfied customers, I can say that without judging Brand before a jury does.
Just because I dislike Brand and find his public persona odious doesn't mean I'm willing to take a newspaper article or TV programme as absolute proof. Remember watching the BBC as Cliff Richard's place got raided. Sure hes' always seemed a bit strange but I was pleased not to have jumped on the bandwagon of accusers. I tried to find the Rolf/Cliff thread but it appears to have been deleted - the jivehoneyjive ramblings on a Cliff thread are still there.
He’s a nonce afaic.
Out of curiosity, which specific law is being broken here? Does the law define an acceptable/unacceptable legal age difference? Or is this just a moral judgement?
(For the sake of clarity, mid 30s & 16 is definitely "unacceptable" by my own personal moral standards but I'm not so sure about a 17 yr or 18yr old and a 16yr is illegal. And obviously there's various shade of grey when the age difference grows)
Genuinely, I've always thought "nonce" was school play ground level name calling, a bit like "slag".
but not one shred of evidence or conviction on actual rape. Trial and character assassination by media it is is it these days?
All these allegations and NOT A SINGLE arrest, court case or conviction.
Have you seen conviction rates for sexual assualt?
Those papers and TV companies would have not done this without t least enough evidence to defend a libel case. so yes - there clearly is plenty of evidence
cops are now looking at the evidence.
I’ve known girls younger than that who could pass for early 20s
Till you talk to them
Out of curiosity, which specific law is being broken here? Does the law define an acceptable/unacceptable legal age difference? Or is this just a moral judgement?
Moral judgement only
Nonce is jail slang for peadophile. In the UK judicial system this means child under 16. In the medical sense peadophile means " attracted to pre pubescent children"
Why didn’t all these ‘victims’ go to the police? I watched the documentary
Did you really? Because one of the people involved explained exactly why.
Thanks TJ
In the UK judicial system this means child under 16.
I should get around to reading that Times article but haven't yet, but other posters have said that she was 16 at the time, so definitely morally dubious (under-statement) but no specific law is being broken related to the age thing but (probably/allegedly) rape based on lack of consent??
Nonce is jail slang for peadophile. In the UK judicial system this means child under 16. In the medical sense peadophile means ” attracted to pre pubescent children”
Which is correct and yet still a regular source of disagreement on here.
The issue of the thread isn't about "age differences" - most of us will know perfectly happy couples whose age differences raise eyebrows.
The issue is consent and people abusing their power if necessary to coerce people into giving it. Or just ignoring it completely.
Age of consent in the UK is daft. Two 15 yr olds bonking makes them both criminals even with consent. A 30 yr old with a 16 yr old is legal if as well all know hugely dodgy at best.
I would be in favour of a graduated legal age of consent 14 or 15 if the age gap is a year or two. 18 if it is over 5 years. maybe a step in between? fiddle with the numbers as you wish but a law that criminalises experimenting youths and allows predatory older men is not fit for purpose
I read the woman in question arguing for something similar today TJ. I'm sure it was on the Guardian but cant find it now.
Well this has been a mad thread. I’ve never liked Brand and actively avoid anything he’s a part of because he’s an utterly annoying ****. Always seemed like a rejected villain from a Dickens novel. Not surprised or shocked by the allegations against him either. If he’s guilty I hope they throw the book at him.
As for the whole hate/like thing. That’s some conspiracy level shit right there. I’m going to start liking posts I disagree with just to balance things out.
I would be in favour of a graduated legal age of consent 14 or 15 if the age gap is a year or two.
I believe some European countries have something like this?
The fact Brand sent a limo TO HER SCHOOL to pick her up, it doesn’t matter if she looked 90, he clearly knew how old she was
Well yes, my point is that a nonce is attracted to the childlike looks, in this case it's not as clear cut as I suggested his motives may have been different. But in neither case is it illegal.
Rape and sexual assault allegations aside, one thing that is not in doubt is that a 30 year old bloke was shagging a 16 year old school girl
now the age of consent, as we know is 16. However has anything illegal taken place here? I’m thinking specifically that sounds very much like coercion or (worse) grooming. As he clearly used his position and celebrity status to get his wicked way.
i have no idea if that’s illegal, or just very immoral.
Genuinely, I’ve always thought “nonce” was school play ground level name calling, a bit like “slag”.
It doesn't have to legal definition. As far as I am concerned a man in his thirties who has a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old girl is a nonce, irrespective of what the law says or whether the girl "looked twenty years old".
It is claimed that Russell Brand had a sexual relationship when he was in his thirties with a girl which he knew to be sixteen years old. If this is true I would consider him to be a nonce.
When I was 40 the bar maid at my local pub asked me on a date. She was 19. whilst flattered I said no but as she was hot was quite tempted.
if I’d said yes I wouldn’t have considered myself a ‘nonce’, she was a fully mature young woman who hadn’t been coerced in anyway, and without meaning to sounding nasty, was not an inexperienced little girl
point being the age difference is kind of irrelevant, what matters is the maturity of the person. And imo a 16 year old school girl is clearly not a mature young woman
– ‘pretty rapey behaviour’, but not one shred of evidence or conviction on actual rape. Trial and character assassination by media it is is it these days?
There is actually quite a lot of evidence of rape. I urge you to read the full article or, if short of time, listen to the Times media editor being interviewed on Mondays News Agents. They discuss a remarkable text message exchange between Nadia and Brand where he basically apologises for assaulting her. They have confirmed it was his phone number. They also have her medical records from a rape centre. It is meticulously researched with a remarkable level of corroborating evidence. Much more evidence than you would usually expect for allegations of this nature.
that makes zero sense. If rapey behaviour is akin to rape then you can’t say he is ‘rapey’ but not a rapist
being a total sexual degenerate (which he clearly is and as admitted as much) is not akin to rape. There is a clear distinction, defined by consent.
TJs distinction made sense to me - I had the misfortune to work with someone for about a year who was commonly referred to as “a bit rapey”. Absolutely no suggestion that he was guilty of rape or a rapist but at the same time people proactively made sure that he was never left alone with a woman because he had an incredible ability to be a creepy ****er who, especially with a drink in him, made women feel vulnerable. He either had zero social awareness and couldn’t pick up on the clues that women didn’t like him or he didn’t care. I suspect he enjoyed the power of making people feel uncomfortable without actually having to go as far as physically touching them.
There is actually quite a lot of evidence of rape.
people often say there’s no evidence, completely ignoring the witness statement from the complainer. That 100% IS evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence on its own to secure a conviction but it absolutely is evidence. In this case there may even be physical evidence that supports the claims made in parole (oral) evidence. The reason so few sexual offences get reported / prosecuted is because people say stuff like “there is no evidence” when at the very least there is a significant piece of evidence in the form of the alleged victim.
Nonce is not a scientific word
What does it mean if not paedophile? It's slang and several posters seem to think it means all manner of different things, by that logic we might as well call him a coatrack.
even paedophile has a wider common usage than being sexually attracted to pre pubescent children.
It has a wider common incorrect usage, yes.
Nonce is jail slang for peadophile. In the UK judicial system this means child under 16. In the medical sense peadophile means ” attracted to pre pubescent children”
Does it? As far as I'm aware "paedophile" doesn't exist in the 'UK judicial system'.
From Stop It Now, a child abuse support organisation:
"The tenth edition of the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) classifies paedophilia as a disorder of sexual preference.
...
Paedophilia relates to a specific disorder where there is a preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children. Therefore, it would not usually be the correct description for someone with a sexual preference for under-age teenagers (see hebephilia, below)."
https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/concerned-about-your-own-thoughts-or-behaviour/help-with-inappropriate-thoughts-or-behaviour/get-the-facts/understanding-the-terminology/
And the reason I'm making a fuss about this is because it dilutes the meaning of the word. It's a bit like screaming racism because someone talks about blackboard, eventually people become acclimatised and numb to actual racism. If we normalise it to mean 'a bit rapey' then what do we call actual pedos, 'ultrapedos' or something?
He's a pedo because he slept with a 16-year old? No he isn't. There isn't a straight man in this country who hasn't wanted to shag a 16-year old lass at some point in their lives. So we're down to age difference. What's the cut-off? He's a pedo if he sleeps with a 16-year old when he's 18? 22? 30? The "half the age plus 7" rule?
And if we mean "nonce" to mean something other then "pedo" then we should probably establish what it does mean before slinging it around. I'm fairly sure he isn't a random number in cryptography either.
Out of curiosity, which specific law is being broken here? Does the law define an acceptable/unacceptable legal age difference? Or is this just a moral judgement?
It's illegal if someone over 18 is "in a position of trust." The usual example given is a student / teacher relationship. Could Brand fall into this category? Feasible I guess.