Forum menu
@edukator Mate, I don't dislike you, I don't even know you, I certainly don't hate you.
However, I'm in agreement with the people challenging you in this thread. So, I either say nothing (ineffective) , type pretty much what has already been said (pointless), or like their post.
That's me agreeing with what people say, nothing more. You might choose to infer otherwise, and I can't speak for others, but I can categorically state that when I hit a like button, its not to show my hatred of you in any way.
Especially in the context of the unpleasness diierected at me in this thread
Have some posts been deleted?
Meanwhile, perhaps we could return to the subject, which has some real victims.
This is a fascinating sociological exercise
I thought it was just a group of occasional MTBers spending a quiet day at work arguing with strangers on the internet
Oh and Edukator "damsel" in distress as you say....Is pretty demeaning in itself...
If any person is in distress or in need of help....HELP HELP HELP
Have some posts been deleted?
I'm beginning to think they must have been
Edukator - I don't know how to do the quotes bit, but smiley face or not, the below was an over-reaction to Beard and a pretty offensive and thoughtless character assassination. Now he seems to be taking it quite well but I agree, an apology would be appropriate. You were made to look somewhat foolish, which is a you problem, not a STW problem. No one is hating you, merely disageeing with you in ways that are far politer than you were to Beard. I'd always assumed that you were TJ on holiday, enthusiastically cantankerous, but you are wrong on this occasion and your claim of being a victim here comes across as somewhat self-adsorbed.
Intersting anecdotes The-Beard. Flaming people for their banter whilst bragging about taking the law into you own hands with vigilante actions and no mention of calling the police makes you a part of the problem in my view.
And I remember hauling some greasy dirt bag of a lawyer out of a bar after he tried to slap one of the bar staff because she wasn’t paying him enough attention
Would you have done the same if it had been a greasy dirt bag builder built like a brick latrine who had tried to slap a male bar tender? Your post reeks of macho sexist attitudes. 🙂
You’re just joining in with the group hate, Poly, and even Cougar is changing my wording.
I'm not - but if you are talking pish I'll tell you you are talking pish. If lots of people tell you you are talking pish it could be:
the use of underhand tactics to character assassinate.
or given most of us have never met you and have no axe to grind with you, that you are in fact talking pish
People are failing to find fault with what I’ve actually said so inventing what they think I’ve said (you),
if I think that's what you've said and its not what you meant then perhaps there's a failure to communicate effectively. Of course I can take some blame for that by not fully analysing what you intended to say but then perhaps you should reflect on whether you had a useful point to make and made it effectively.
Being petty about detail when incaple of finding arguments against the main points (does it really matter that we don’t have exactly the same experience of bouncers in clubs when debating Brand?)
Back peddling is bad for your free wheel! You brought the bouncers up and went off on a tangent on the the thread about Brand.
What you lot can’t do is is make an accurate quote long enough not to be cherry picked that makes me the person you’re trying to make me out to be. It’s an STW lynch mob, Bearneccessities yesterday, me today. Look at yourselves
A lynchmob - a little over dramatic! You've convinced yourself that there's some sort of collective agenda against you. If there is, nobody sent me the memo. You've convinced yourself that "likes" are used vindictively - to be honest I only just realised what the numbers beside posts are - iI just assumed it was yet another STW bug! Unless its purpose and use is much clearer to members then I'm surprised anyone uses them at all.
I don’t like Brand, I’d still like to see him get a fair judicial trial and find the trial by media increasingly distasteful.
I think most people here would agree with those sentiments.
Unfortunately it’s unlikely that all those who’ve enabled him will go on trial too.
I've never been a big fan so haven't particularly followed what he's said and done in the past. Whilst I appreciate it is with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight there are a lot of clips being replayed this week which seem to suggest that at least some of his behaviour was bloody obvious to lots of people who were either willing to overlook it or even condone it. And also a lot of people who are strongly hinting he was dodgy but perhaps restricted from saying so (did he use gagging orders?). I'm not sure any of them will have committed a crime (even if everything else is true) but there is a cultural issue / group think problem where "everyone" laughs along or is making money whilst he is making money and so perpetuate the behaviour. Somehow a bit of society/media seem to have thought its OK for a creepy, pervy guy to flash, frolic and fondle women in the workplace (whether they complained or not). If he wore a trenchcoat, spoke less flamboyantly and had less of an air of confidence about him he'd have been locked up ages ago! Bascially he's a young Boris - full of ego, bullshit, and arrogance and for some reason the media love that stuff. Presumably because collectively we seem to watch it or at least engage with it - even if only to say it's shit.
It’s weird that there has been so much discussion of the rights and wrongs of older men “dating” children over 16. The allegation is not merely that Brand had sex with her, but also that he violently sexually assaulted her.
I am not sure that it is. The woman who uses the pseudonym Alice has very much focused on the fact she was 16 when Russell Brand, who was 31 at the time, had a sexual relationship with her.
I don't think that she claims it was nonconsensual but she does accuse
him of "emotional abuse", which I am unsure of the legality of. She says she ended the relationship when she found another woman in his bed.
Alice has focused on the allegation that cars were sent on a couple of occasions to pick her up from school so that Brand could have sex with her. She isn't claiming that it was illegal but she is claiming that now, as a woman in her thirties, she considers it as wholly unacceptable. She also claims that Brand called her "the child".
I agree with her, it isn't simply about the legality of the relationship but also the moral considerations of a 31 man having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old schoolgirl.
Unfortunately that sort of consensual sexual relationship between a man in his thirties and a 16 year old girl is more common than some might imagine, I personally know of two cases, both involving girls/women very close to me. It doesn't however make it morally acceptable imo, nor does it absolve Russell Brand from moral responsibility.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/22/russell-brand-dozens-female-comedians-abuse-rife
Sadly this scenario can be applied to so many industries. Whenever there is a power imbalance it is exploited.
Sadly this scenario can be applied to so many industries. Whenever there is a power imbalance it is exploited.
Happens in defence, especially in recruit training establishments. Many instructors rightly removed from posts for inappropriate relationships with trainees.
There's that quote about power corrupting for a reason. You see the true measure of peoples character and morals when they have power and/or influence over others.
I saw a Reddit thread where many were convinced it was David Williams Catherine Ryan was talking about back before this came out. His creepiness stands out more to me than Brands did, not that I've watched a great deal of either of them for several years.
It doesn’t however make it morally acceptable imo,
I agree.
But at what age would it go from morally acceptable to unacceptable? This is the third time I've asked this now and no-one's offered a suggestion beyond "yeah but adult."
I was sniffing round a 16-year old for a little while back when I was 19. I walked away in the end because I thought the age gap was too great. If instead I'd dated her, would you have considered me morally bankrupt?
their banter whilst bragging about taking the law into you own hands with vigilante actions and no mention of calling the police makes you a part of the problem in my view.
Apologies if I've misremembered, but haven't you posted about dishing out street justice to dealers or similar? Not wanting to join a (in my opinion, imagined) pile on, but a bit hypocritical if that was the case
I don't often get accused of being macho so I'm taking it as a compliment...
Plus arguing with a troll is pointless so why bother. I wouldn't have been any good at that job if I'd lost my cool with anyone who was rude or objectionable.
Brand and his ilk rely on people (mainly men) staying silent and not calling them out on their behaviour. The thing that frightens me is that he was enabled and allowed to carry on the way he did. And when that behaviour is indulged then the reaction when they don't get what they want can get more and more extreme until something happens which someone will have to live with for the rest of their life.
Cougar. It’s not as black and white as I think you think (if that makes sense) it should be.
It’s degrees of difference where the age between two people goes from unremarkable to down right weird and to most peoples sensitivity’s, down right wrong.
A person aged 25 and another aged 35 would be barely noticed. A 16 year and 26 year old would be, in most circles, considered at best, strange. Add in the fact that despite the frankly bizarre situation where a 16 year old can’t legally buy alcohol, cigarettes or vote but can legally have sex, 16 year olds are, let’s be honest, still more within the realms of childhood than adulthood.
As I say, in my humble opinion, it’s not black and white, more of increasing or decreasing blurred lines but 16 is no age for an adult of 31 to be exploiting, because that’s what he (Brand) did, if it’s true, a child. Crikey, even four years difference (16 and 20) between the two ‘consenting’ people, although legal would raise a few eyebrows.
I was sniffing round a 16-year old for a little while back when I was 19. I walked away in the end because I thought the age gap was too great. If instead I’d dated her, would you have considered me morally bankrupt?
TBH 16 year olds with 19 year old guys seems to be fairly common, and I don't think it's always the guys making the moves. I think there's a perception that the intervening 3 years lets the lads grow up a bit, they might be earning and driving and have easier access to pubs and clubs. All factors likely to turn the head of a 16 year old lass.
I don’t often get accused of being macho so I’m taking it as a compliment…
Plus arguing with a troll is pointless so why bother. I wouldn’t have been any good at that job if I’d lost my cool with anyone who was rude or objectionable.
Brand and his ilk rely on people (mainly men) staying silent and not calling them out on their behaviour. The thing that frightens me is that he was enabled and allowed to carry on the way he did. And when that behaviour is indulged then the reaction when they don’t get what they want can get more and more extreme until something happens which someone will have to live with for the rest of their life.
Not that I ever frequented your establishments, but been quite a few times i've been grateful for some of your colleagues assistance over the years.
Also been really decent letting me know my troops are being turds and need to be collected before things get silly.
May not have been you, but the compliment extends to you.
As for some of the macho comments, some of the nicest men are know are ****ing high in EQ, sharply intelligent and ruthless in their professional capacity which makes them very quick to defend those who may be incapable or unable.
Often feel these sorts of criticism are just a projection of the insecurity of others in the presence of finer specimens than them.
Out of interest, when did 16yrs "regress" (poor choice of word!) from "adults" to "children"
Ie up until fairly recently, 16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army and sent to the trenches, which implies they were considered adults up until at least end of WW1 (and probably longer)...
Not much further back than that and 14 year olds were out of school and working long hours in horrendous occupations.
More progression going on than regression, as time passes.
16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army and sent to the trenches
That was more to do with class.
My wife and I were 17 and 23 when we met. Now 40 and 46. I guess I must be some sort of deviant.
Yeah, as a borderline boomer, I find it weird that so many (probably old people!) say shit like "kids grow up so quickly today" whereas we (society in general) are effectively doing the opposite as I'm sure kids sent out to work or into the trenches where the ones who matured more quickly...
I've read the first few pages and the last , my take for what it's worth . Brand is a horrible unfunny predator. I know humour was different back in the noughties and comedians could get away with more misogyny. It's been said that at the height of his fame girls were literally throwing themselves at him . Add to that the drink and the drugs and being surrounded by yes men. That said It can never excuse the stuff he got up to , The Andrew Sachs incident , grovelling to Jimmy Saville , exposing himself to female assistants and worse still the dispatches rape allegations.
Whats almost worse is the way the BBC , Jonathan Ross and his Assistant lapped up the whole thing up like it was normal .
If his only redeeming factor is that he is highlighting a corrupt government , a dubious COVID campaign and energy companies exploiting the poor and It's a conspuracy to expose him he is hardly Julian Assange. I hope he gets whats coming to him as a father to two daughters he is your worse nightmare not to mention being an annoying fud.
Still good to see Edukator is still an unfunny troll like a home bargains version of GW who could at least talk the talk and was kinda funny.
I doubt they matured any quicker, rather more likely that such experiences cause them to become stunted imature adults who passed on the damage such experiences caused thoughout their lives. It is just looking at history with roise tinted glasses to believe that past generations were more mature, I suspect most of us would find their general attitudes rather disapointing.
I don't know much about the accused .
There's some serious allegations there
Thankfully the courts will decide the outcome and not social media or forums
It's fine to discuss but what happened to innocent until proven guilty
I doubt they matured any quicker, rather more likely that such experiences cause them to become stunted imature adults who passed on the damage such experiences caused thoughout their lives. It is just looking at history with roise tinted glasses to believe that past generations were more mature, I suspect most of us would find their general attitudes rather disapointing.
Many papers have been written on this topic, over 250,000 teenagers served in the trenches, 120,000 were killed or wounded. It stunted their development physically and mentally and those that made it back alive didn't have the greatest of times, many with PTSD and behavioural problems.
Ie up until fairly recently, 16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army and sent to the trenches,
Recently? Have I entered the 1920s?
Cougar. It’s not as black and white as I think you think (if that makes sense) it should be.
Oh, I'm well aware of that. I'm just trying to provoke discussion beyond emotive soundbites like "yes but 31" or people screaming "nonce" without any further useful comment.
Personally I think it's shady as ****. As I said, I turned away from an opportunity with a 16-year old when I was 19 because it felt wrong. (I did wind up with her older sister in the end so it wasn't a dead loss.😁) But Brand and was it 'Alice'? were at the time both legally consenting, the crux of the matter isn't that he's a weirdo, it's that he assaulted her.
--
even four years difference (16 and 20) between the two ‘consenting’ people, although legal would raise a few eyebrows.
literally the next post:
BH 16 year olds with 19 year old guys seems to be fairly common, and I don’t think it’s always the guys making the moves.
So 19 is common and 20 is eye-raising.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's subjective.
There are plenty of relatively mature 16-year olds and plenty of relatively immature 19-year olds. It's messed up that at 15 years and 364 days old it's illegal to have sex even with someone else exactly the same age, then literally the following day it's perfectly lawful for two 16-year olds to bump uglies with each other (or with Russell Brand) so long as they don't take photographs. Gotta wait another two years for that.
Maybe what's needed as far as age of consent goes is that at 16 you can legally have sex but only with someone who is say 18 or younger. Ideally the age of sexual consent should be 18 but you've got King Canute's chance of stopping teenagers from shagging, last I heard plenty are starting a lot younger than 16.
I reckon he probably worried for years that this would happen and since he couldn't stop it, all he could do would be to try and mitigate the results. Thereby turning himself into a social warrior for injustice and the general betterment of the public. Kinda like how Savile ran marathons for charity as some sort of penance for his evil deeds.
Kinda like how Savile ran marathons for charity as some sort of penance for his evil deeds.
Well he cheated on the commando tabs he did by getting in his car, so most likely did the same with marathons. Which aligns with his utter absence of morals.
Out of interest, when did 16yrs “regress” (poor choice of word!) from “adults” to “children”
Ie up until fairly recently, 16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army
You might think 16 year olds are adults. I wouldn't let a 16 yo pack my parachute, check my brakes or stay out after midnight. Stacking a dishwasher is a major challenge for some of them.
The UK was for many years the only developed country to send child soldiers into battle, and oppose children being enlisted into the military. IIRC it no longer allows children to serve in combat roles.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c2c.html
I reckon he probably worried for years that this would happen and since he couldn’t stop it, all he could do would be to try and mitigate the results.
There is a train of thought which suggests that his current persona may have been created for just that reason, so that he can scream about being cancelled for his views and get all the useful idiots to rally around him along with the Tucker Carlson, Muskrat etc types rushing to support him in his hour of injustice.
It’s messed up that at 15 years and 364 days old it’s illegal to have sex even with someone else exactly the same age, then literally the following day it’s perfectly lawful for two 16-year olds to bump uglies
Champ, try not to stay up late worrying about it. No 16 year olds are being prosecuted for having sex with 15 year olds. Of course there's a spectrum of development and 16 is a bit arbitrary. Why not 15? Why not 17? Why not 32mph in town, or 28mph? Don't tie yourself in knots, don't be a 35 year old having sex with a 16 year old, and don't drive at 40mph down the High Street. It's not that complicated and if it's really interfering with one's life choices, maybe reconsider...
Thankfully the courts will decide the outcome and not social media or forums
I admire your optimism. The media have already convicted him and hung him up. I have no idea if he is guilty or innocent. Any court finding him innocent will be vilified for being woke and lefty whatever the evidence shows
The UK was for many years the only developed country to send child soldiers into battle, and oppose children being enlisted into the military. IIRC it no longer allows children to serve in combat roles.
Going to be a pedant, they can enlist but they are not allowed to deploy on operations until they are 18. There is no bar to which roles (capbadges) they join/undertake.
16-17 year old recruits will go to Army Foundation College Harrogate (think prep school for Army) once complete there they will go on to their trade specific training, then onto their field army units. Some who join right at the earliest opportunity having just turned 16 (you can start your application at 15 and 7 months) may land at their units at aged 17. But the above about deployment still stands.
IT was as a result of a UN treaty circa 2002, but as is the way with Defence they managed to **** that up and have deployed under 18's on a couple of occasions. In defence of the policy, they were unit admin errors, mostly because the G1 chain is often populated with the dross nobody else wants.
I admire your optimism. The media have already convicted him and hung him up. I have no idea if he is guilty or innocent. Any court finding him innocent will be vilified for being woke and lefty whatever the evidence shows
Sadly the longer the media witch hunt goes on, the more ammunition his defence will have to argue a jury cannot have a balanced and unbiased appraisal on the situation if it goes that way.
Maybe that's the point though? Burn him in the media spotlight as a conviction is unlikely? I'm sure that'll be argued at some point.
I also get the argument that it's been 'diligently investigated' but has it really, what are those who argue that benchmarking it against?
Time will tell, but the sooner he goes back into his media rabbithole with the rest of the loons that like his material or jail, the better. Sadly if is successfully prosecuted or is found innocent, we'll be hearing from him quite a bit I'd imagine.
vlad_the_invaderFull Member
Ie up until fairly recently, 16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army and sent to the trenches, which implies they were considered adults up until at least end of WW1 (and probably longer)…
As far as I can tell from a fairly quick Google search, and my memories of reading Charlie's War as a kid, during the First World War the British Army treated men from 18 - 41 as being of military age. Recruiters maybe didn't enquire too hard if a particularly youthful lad turned up claiming they were 18, but officially 16 year olds weren't supposed to be joining up. The same seems to have applied in the Second World War too.
Edit: Reading further through the following Wikipedia article I learn that the upper age was increased to 50 (or possibly 56) later in the war, but it doesn't seem like the lower age got reduced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitment_to_the_British_Army_during_World_War_I
the more ammunition his defence will have to argue a jury cannot have a balanced and unbiased appraisal
This concern is entirely confected.
Why not 32mph in town, or 28mph?
I almost mentioned speed limits. It's the same logic. You have to draw the line somewhere from a legal point of view, you can't prosecute someone for speeding if the evidence is a copper thinking that in their opinion you were going a bit quick. Subjective again, y'see. Whereas 30mph is a hard line in the sand, as is age 16.
Don’t tie yourself in knots
Oh, I'm not. I'm just trying to encourage people to think rather than react. These are if you like 'devil's advocate' questions aimed at those who are so sure of themselves. We've just had two successive posters respectively suggesting that 19 is normal and 20 is odd. The difference there could be a day. The real difference there is probably two opinions.
Burn him in the media spotlight
This is one of those times where the R and the N run into each other on STW's font.
This concern is entirely confected.
It's not a concern, simply a valid line of defence that could be used to argue for a cessation of media reporting should it get to court.
And line a defence barrister would likely try and use given an opportunity. The success of that is down to the judge in question, if it ever gets that far.
Plenty of reporting on precedents set, this isn't an opinion or observation I just pulled out of my ass.
But please do tell me more secret barrister.
This is one of those times where the R and the N run into each other on STW’s font.
Come again?
That was more to do with class.
Recently? Have I entered the 1920s?
My old man was born in 1955, not much older than some of the old sods on here (if he was still alive). Anyway, he left school at 15 and joined the Navy.
@relapsed_mandalorian your comment about stunted adults etc. I'll give you that. There's a reason people leave home at 15 and Ganges sure as **** wasn't the answer.
But you can still join the army at 16 and get taxed or have someone think you're fair game for getting run off the road like we live in ****ing Los Santos. Like I said, children when it suits the argument.
Oh and he's talking about kerning.
rn
m
A sixteen year old child is considered sufficiently mature to hold a full time job. Taxation has nothing to do with maturity and a six or nine year old child isn't exempt from paying taxes, although the circumstances where this might be necessary are obviously diminished.
The fact that a sixteen year old might be sufficiently mature to hold a job does not, imo, automatically mean that they are mature enough to enter, as an equal, into a sexual relationship with a thirty something adult.
It might well be a legal relationship but it is unlikely to be an equal relationship - most sixteen year olds lack the sexual and relationship experience to enter into an equal relationship with someone twice their age. Which presumably is part of the attraction for someone like Russell Brand.