Forum menu
I shudder to think that any reasonable person couldn’t agree that:
- An adult having sex with a child is wrong.
- Using power to groom or manipulate people to take advantage of them for sex is wrong.
- Use of coercive behaviour into intimacy is wrong.
- Emotional, financial and physical abuse is wrong, let alone for your sexual advantage.
- Let alone a criminal justice system that is stacked against people reporting sexual assault and rape.
And that’s just for starters.
I care little about the semantics of age gaps when both parties are over 18. As long as there are no medical reasons that would mean that there is impaired judgement or either party is classed as vulnerable, they're adults in every sense and accountable for their own choices.
Anyone 18 or over and parking themselves in a 16yo is ****ing gopping. And that level increases with every year beyond it as well as any official or unofficial power dynamic.
That's my colours nailed to the mast. ****ing come at me.
Seems reasonable to me.
What do you mean “tell us”? You appear to be the only person asking the question.
I'm not the only one reading.
Well swerved.
I am not talking about changing law, I couldn’t give a monkeys whether it is legal or not, in the context of whether it is morally acceptable.
Morals are subjective. And for that matter, cultural.
You don't care whether he's acted illegally or not, just that he hasn't met with your own personal moral code? That's a bizarre stance to take IMHO but OK.
However this story pans out, whether Brand is convicted or not, his sexual relationship with a schoolgirl almost half his age, which he fully admits, should be condemned.
I agree. Condemn away. What's that changed?
Personally I'd rather see him arrested than tutted at, but y'know.
Anyone 18 or over and parking themselves in a 16yo is **** gopping.
Attachment, trauma, learning disabilities and developmental delay very much add layers of complexity to such a scenario.
Learning disabilities and developmental delay may add complexity to that.
Only as complex as you want to make it. Or choose to.
The latter two are certainly not a matter of personal choice. Mental capacity to consent, even above 16, is very much an issue relevant to the courts when it comes to allegations of abuse.
I tweaked my initial response.
Unless a lack of capacity is present it's not about how I choose or want to view it. The lens focus should very much be on voice of the individuals involved with anyone else's input purely being in those individuals best interest.
As a very simple example of complexity, hypothetically, if you had a neurotypical individual aged 17 years and 11 months (a child) having sex with another individual aged 24 years old (adult) & with an undiagnosed developmental age of 9 years old. Who is the victim and who is the perpetrator?
You don’t care whether he’s acted illegally or not, just that he hasn’t met with your own personal moral code?
And yet that is very clearly not what I said, which was:
I couldn’t give a monkeys whether it is legal or not, in the context of whether it is morally acceptable.
His behaviour, which he fully admits to, was not morally acceptable imo. The legality of his behaviour is not relevant to that point.
And you might feel that it reflects my "personal" moral code but I reckon that it probably chimes the moral code of the vast majority of adults in the UK.
I tweaked my initial response.
Unless a lack of capacity is present it’s not about how I choose or want to view it. The lens focus should very much be on voice of the individuals involved with anyone else’s input purely being in those individuals best interest.
As a very simple example of complexity, hypothetically, if you had a neurotypical individual aged 17 years and 11 months (a child) having sex with another individual aged 24 years old (adult) & with an undiagnosed developmental age of 9 years old. Who is the victim and who is the perpetrator?
Holy whataboutery batman! Cmon, throw some more 'complexity' out there; I bet you're fun at parties, do you make a point of constantly trying to prove yourself right?
You as you typed that utter waffle:
And yet that is very clearly not what I said, which was:
I couldn’t give a monkeys whether it is legal or not, in the context of whether it is morally acceptable.
Apologies. You don’t care whether he’s acted illegally or not, just that he hasn’t met with your interpretation of everyone else's moral code (including what he claims to be his own)?
Or, more succinctly, you believe that moral behaviour trumps legal behaviour. This is the point on which we would have to agree to disagree, I fear.
If he's acted illegally then he should be prosecuted for it. If he's done something that "the majority" disapprove of - myself included - then, meh, what are we proposing to do about that other than be outraged and shout at clouds? Send him to bed without any pudding?
It’s been remarkably Ok despite the subject
I think this has gone remarkably well.
We seem to be pretty agreed that morally Brand has crossed a line that shouldn’t be crossed, nonconsensual sexual activity is wrong regardless of age, and the rest is mainly fluff pointing out the difficulty of establishing legal boundaries for any activity involving teenagers.
Precisely.
I think it's highly unlikely that he'll be convicted because unless there was video evidence or another person there it comes down to he said, she said, which is not sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. However having watched the program I think he likely is guilty and his punishment is to have all us know about it and for his public image to be affected. Perhaps this was the aim of the program makers.
On the subject of Brand, I hope if the allegations are true he gets what he deserves. Anyone using a position of power to dominate or manipulate others is a **** thing to do IMO. Unfortunately I don’t think it's that uncommon in our society. When it escalates to sexual assault or worse it is another level though and needs to be called out and prosecuted.
The only positive outcome from this is if it leads to more discussion and understanding about human power dynamics, and helps people escape (or not enter into) toxic relationships with people who display manipulative narcissistic traits.
You don’t care whether he’s acted illegally or not
What a ridiculous claim to make. I care whether Russell Brand is guilty of rape or not, obviously.
But whether he is guilty of rape/nonconsensual sex or not doesn't absolve him from using a 16 year old schoolgirl for sex, you seem to think it does. And if you don't I don't know wtf you are attempting argue with me about.
So just to recap..... Russell Brand doesn't deny having sex with a 16 year old child when he was 31. He reckons however that it was okay because it was consensual and therefore legal.
I, and I suspect most people, disagree. I do not think that it is appropriate for a 31 year old man with power and influence to have a sexual relationship with a 16 year old child, irrespective of what the law says. The victim, now in her thirties, also strongly agrees with that point.
I hope that clears everything up although I suspect that it won't and you will continue to accuse me of not caring if Russell Brand is a rapist.
Can’t believe anyone is offended by this thread to be honest. It’s been a generally agreeable conversation with very little debate or anger and I’ve being following it since page one. There’s a lot worse out there on mainstream social media.
Brand aside, the age thing is an interesting one. I posted earlier that my wife and I have a six year age gap. She was seventeen when we met. According to a lot of you that makes me a morally dubious borderline criminal. We’re now 40 and 46, still together with two lovely kids, and as of this morning a puppy! (Thread imminent)
Apparently the fact that she could join the armed forces and pay tax is significant to this particular news story.
So obviously plenty to argue over.
Only when you make shit up to cause one, as usual.
She was seventeen when we met. According to a lot of you that makes me a morally dubious borderline criminal. We’re now 40 and 46, still together with two lovely kids, and as of this morning a puppy! (Thread imminent)
So you were/are in a loving relationship. Which is fundamentally different to what is being discussed in the context of Russell Brand. His former 16 year old sex partner, now in her thirties, thinks it is weird that a man his age should have been interested in a 16 year old school girl.
Only when you make shit up to cause one, as usual.
Yeah all made up shit. No one has mentioned on this thread how old you have to be to join the armed forces or pay tax 🙄
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 **** Los Santos. Like I said, children when it suits the argument.
^^ Completely irrelevant to the Russell Brand case.
16 year olds are children, even if they can join the army and pay tax.
No one argues that 16 year olds should be sent to adult prisons because they can join the army and pay tax. They are always children and it has nothing to do with "suiting the argument"
What a ridiculous claim to make.
You literally said "I don't give a monkeys."
I, and I suspect most people, disagree. I do not think that it is appropriate for a 31 year old man with power and influence to have a sexual relationship with a 16 year old child, irrespective of what the law says. The victim, now in her thirties, also strongly agrees with that point.
I don't think anyone on this thread would disagree with that, myself included (I would hope) obviously.
So what?
What do you suppose our next steps are, we all sit around bemoaning what a bad man he is whilst vehemently agreeing with other for another 20 pages?
I think the law needs to be reviewed to better protect people like her from people like him. I thought there might have been a discussion to had in that but seemingly not.
Your response is interesting.
These can be the harsh realities of working within special educational needs settings.
It appears that there is a reality out there of which you have no comprehension.
But whether he is guilty of rape/nonconsensual sex or not doesn’t absolve him from using a 16 year old schoolgirl for sex, you seem to think it does.
I don’t think that is what Cougar has said, and it isn't what I understand him to mean.
Something...something...usual suspects....
And a fuller quote:
And if you don’t I don’t know wtf you are attempting argue with me about.
I have no idea what cougar is arguing about. I have mostly ignored his comments but he keeps returning to this nonsense claiming that I don't care if Russell Brand is guilty of rape.
It appears that there is a reality out there of which you have no comprehension.
I think it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be convicted because unless there was video evidence or another person there it comes down to he said, she said, which is not sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt
The black belt barrister was interesting on this as in his personal opinion he thought that it’s likely there is more to it than has been reported as it is unlikely they would have made the program and allegations without something pretty solid.
So you were/are in a loving relationship. Which is fundamentally different to what is being discussed in the context of Russell Brand.
I understand that Ernie but other posts in this thread, that have sidetracked from the original topic, have said a 16 year old and 20 year old would be weird and creepy. In the context of those posts, which there are a few of, I’d be a wrong un.
funkmasterp for the record my older brother was (ironically) 31 years old when he started dating a 17 year old girl working in his office. He understood that it was a bit iffy and needless to say her dad wasn't too pleased. He confronted my brother demanding to know what my brother's plans were for his daughter.
His attitude was, quite reasonably, if you are just interested in sex go and find a woman closer to your own age to do that with. If however you love her and you want a relationship with her then at least provide some intent of marriage/long-term commitment. A very sensible and dutiful father imo!
My brother thought about it and he wasn't at that point prepared to commit himself so he attempted to end the relationship. He felt that her father's demands were perfectly reasonable.
However he realised after a while that he was prepared to make a commitment after all, he genuinely loved her. They are still very happily married about 40 years later with 3 children and a multitude of grandchildren.
This story obviously isn't in anyway similar to the Russell Brand saga.
Seriously, after all that?
Good grief.
Ernie you're either trolling or too stupid to understand. Either way, I've shown my working enough times now so I'm done with you.
Do the thread a favour and bugger off. Better yet, do the forum a favour...
I think it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be convicted because unless there was video evidence or another person there it comes down to he said, she said
More a case of he said they said, and multiple reports show a pattern of offending.
.
He took advantage, and seems to have the concept that 'consent' means he is able to do anything, force anything upon the 'consenting' party. He has in fact treated the women to be sex slaves to his whim, forcing himself upon them. Coercive and violent.
This shows and makes him a predator.
The only problem i have with this is the 'common industry knowledge' I mean we heard the exact same thing about Savile. Oh everyone knows, but nothing is ever done. So how many more do the industries know about but aren't for telling.
Ernie you’re either trolling or too stupid
And......we are back to personal insults from squirrelking, what a surprise! You come out with some nonsense about old enough to join the armed forces and paying taxes (paying taxes has nothing to do with age) which has absolutely nothing to do with the Russell Brand case, and you accuse me of either trolling or being stupid!
And btw it is you, by your own admission, who apparently has problems with the moderators and bans, not me.
So just to recap….. Russell Brand doesn’t deny having sex with a 16 year old child when he was 31. He reckons however that it was okay because it was consensual and therefore legal.
I, and I suspect most people, disagree.
In U.K. law, 16 is the age of consent. Therefore, what he did was legal, of that, there is no doubt. However, his behaviour is morally wrong and he was clearly behaving in a manipulative manner and should be condemned for it.
His behaviour with women, regardless of the age difference is repugnant and reprehensible.
Seriously, after all that?
After all that what? I have no idea what your point is/was cougar. You were apparently disagreeing with me but I have no idea over what.
My point was/is that there is, in this case, a difference between what is legal and what is morally acceptable. If everything that Russell Brand did turns out to have been consensual and therefore legal it doesn't mean that it was morally acceptable.
My brother was/is a loving relationship with his wife. There is a big age difference but he never sent a car to pick her up from school when she was 16 so that he could have sex with her.
According to you Russell Brand is likely to have been only interested in someone with "a fanny and a pulse", there is no comparison.
You seem to be asking how the law can be changed to stop this behaviour. You can't always legislate to deal with poor moral behaviour. There is probably very little that can be done to stop someone like Brand from exploiting for their own sexual gratification 16 year old children.
It doesn't however mean that he shouldn't be called out and condemned. IMHO
...for the record my older brother was (ironically) 31 years old when he started dating a 17 year old girl working in his office. He understood that it was a bit iffy and needless to say her dad wasn’t too pleased
Jeez Ernie, you can be hard work sometime! 😉
Whilst this thread is specifically about Russel Brand, the way I've read it there seems to be be near unanimous agreement that the specific nature of Brands relationship with the 16yr is morally bankrupt based on the power imbalance and the fame, and yes, a large age difference. And (probably) actually illegal based on, at least, "withdrawal of consent" if nothing else.
There's a spectrum of morality. I don't know where I personally sit in that spectrum* but, as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's truely consensual between all parties, and all parties have the mental capacity, then I don't care what they do in private.
*I suspect I'm somewhat more liberal than others like the poster above who seemed outraged that Brand had (somehow!) had sex with 5 different people in one night...
EDIT: to add more context.
I think this thread went sideways because the outrage had been pretty well established for most of the elements of this story but, from a philosophical point, there was a grey area about the absolute age and the age difference and what is/is not "acceptable" in general rather than in the specific Brand case. The example of your brother seems to suggest it is acceptable in some circumstances (loving relationship) so, that seems to be another item we can agree on...
So according to you Ernie:
Russell Brand dated a 16-year old child when he was 31. This is obviously morally reprehensible to the majority of people.
Your brother dated a 17-year old child when he was 31. This in your eyes is seemingly perfectly acceptable behaviour.
The difference? Your brother married her whereas Brand assaulted her.
So it's not about age now then, is it.
There is probably very little that can be done to stop someone like Brand from exploiting for their own sexual gratification 16 year old children.
Sure there is. Limit sex with 16-year olds to those of 18 and younger. Enhance the existing laws banning people in positions of trust to include people in positions of power.
Ha ha Ernie/Cougar, jeez guys. Let it go. You both set to it on so many threads about utter minutiae shite and purposeful misinterpretation. I sadly have never met you Cougar, but bet you are lovely ( if you are ever in Dumfries & Galloway give me a shout). I have met Ernie a few times and he is great. I know "The North" and Croyden are a bit far, but go for a pint sometime. Let it go!
Brand - knew he was a wrong-un after the Andrew Sachs horrow show. Not paid any attention since. Hope it runs it course.
Your brother dated a 17-year old child when he was 31. This in your eyes is seemingly perfectly acceptable behaviour.
I didn't say that it was perfectly acceptable behaviour. I, and everyone else, thought it was dodgy, including unsurprisingly her father. My brother too fully accepted that he was on dodgy ground, which is precisely why after intervention from her father he agreed to end the relationship.
They had a few months apart, my brother was in bits but he felt that he was doing the right thing. The time apart helped him to re-evaluate things and make a commitment.
It would have been totally different if she had been a much more similar age to him. Her father only intervened because she was so young. He had absolutely no problem at all when my brother agreed to make a long-term commitment to her.
I don't know how close to eighteen she was but children mature at an alarming rate. The difference between 16 and 17 can be significant. She was in a work environment surrounded by mature adults, she was possibly less vulnerable than she was as a 16 year old schoolgirl. I suspect that her father would have been even more uptight about the situation.
And if my brother had behaved like Russell Brand towards her, eg sent cars to pick her up from school whilst generally screwing around, he would have been condemned by everyone including me. And quite rightly so.
Context is everything. Ernie/Rob thats a genuinely lovely story about your brother. I dated an 18 yo when I was 25 for 6 years. She wanted marriage, I thought she was too young. We separated when I was grieving when my dad died.
I genuinely dont see how your brothers experience has anything to do with Russell Brand's behaviour towards that girl.
This thread should totally be about encouraging abuse victims to step forward. Anything else is pathetic.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/04/russell-brand-charged
The comedian and actor Russell Brand has been charged with one count each of rape, indecent assault and oral rape as well as two counts of sexual assault.
Brand will appear in court in London on 2 May, according to the Metropolitan police, which began investigating him in September 2023 after a range of allegations.
The force said the allegations related to four separate women, as it appealed for anyone affected by the case to come forward.
About effing time.
Don't mind them taking their time for the right outcome. Just glad they're taking it seriously. If he's guilty then I hope he gets sent down!
As he's found God in the States, what are the chances...
a) he'll verily pop back across the pond for the trial?
b) try and hide behind the orange buffoon?