Forum menu
A reply I just received over on Twitter,
https://twitter.com/li2ardbreath/status/1703169488294744373
For those saying that it should go to court, sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to prove, which is why they have such a low conviction rate, because it almost always comes down to he says/she says.
Which women know, which is partly why they don’t come forward.
I would like to think, perhaps naively, that there's strength in numbers here. I said this earlier, one historical report is near-impossible to prove but multiple reports all telling the story coupled with him repeatedly boasting about it in public is surely well into the realms of "beyond reasonable doubt"?
I don't know if there's enough to build a court case but if they do I hope they throw the Booky Wook at him.
It’s very Jimmy Saville in that the powers that be at Endemol, like the BBC with Saville, knew full well what he was up to, but decided to turn a blind eye to his behaviour
They facilitated a lot of this. As did the BBC. The Jimmy Saville conversation is beyond belief
Why don’t we believe women?
It's not really gender biased on the choosing not to believe victims front, TBH. It's just that it is more likely a male who commits a sex crime and more likely a male who then co-opts the hard of thinking into complicity.
The psychology of the conspiracy nut is genuinely baffling, although I'm sure some psychoanalysts find it fascinating. Is it as simple as being genuinely played and not having the capacity to deal with the shame of admitting it? Or is it that, deep down, the conspiracy nut knows what they are propagating is nonsense, but they just crave the attention at any cost?
It truly is a modern phenomenon - the potential that the internet and social media has for establishing good sharing of good information seems to have been lost. Cynics following the Surkov playbook took one look and worked out how to play their games casting a wider net than ever.
Sad and scary.
Why don’t we believe women?
It’s not really gender biased on the choosing not to believe victims front, TBH. It’s just that it is more likely a male who commits a sex crime and more likely a male who then co-opts the hard of thinking into complicity.
Hm.
I suspect this falls into the "simple questions have complex answers" bucket.
Certainly historically, women were unlikely to be believed because Patriarchy. I'd like to think we've got better at this but you don't need to spend long on Musk-era Twitter to see that we've still got a ways to go yet. Go see why Katherine Ryan is trending right now, for instance. Or indeed, the reply I just had from this unit:
https://twitter.com/cjmgoggins/status/1703183441938767927
In isolation, historical claims are difficult to prove without corroborating witnesses or #metoo reports. And we operate on "innocent until proven guilty." Is it right to convict a potentially innocent man? "He might've done it" isn't good enough.
In this specific case - like with Savile - it's at least as much about power. Savile's victims were lured by their stardom and then scared to speak out because of who he was. Who's more likely to be believed, a TV sensation and national treasure who does a lot of work for charity, or Tracey the 16-year old nail technician.
All that said though. We need to be better at this. There might well be the odd gold-digger who sees a soft target (I still think that Michael Jackson fell foul of this) but on the whole I do not believe that the vast majority of assault victims just make it up for attention or money. We need to be much better at creating safe spaces for women - for anyone - to come forward and report what's happened to them in the knowledge that they'll be taken seriously and with respect.
Tragically there seems a receptive audience for all these self-serving charlatans
https://twitter.com/deplorablevet84/status/1703164455855460362?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
The conspiracy igbechesdvof dunking in dvon
I would like to think, perhaps naively, that there’s strength in numbers here. I said this earlier, one historical report is near-impossible to prove but multiple reports all telling the story coupled with him repeatedly boasting about it in public is surely well into the realms of “beyond reasonable doubt”?
Exactly my thoughts. It was practically his main selling point, his voracious sexual appetite, which he promoted every time he appeared on a TV chat show. There isn’t a single soul can convince me that every one of his vic… sorry conquests willingly threw themselves at his feet thankful that he considered them worthy of his Christ-like attention. I’m surprised he didn’t have ‘Jesus Christ Pose’ as his intro music. Or maybe he did, I don’t know. He always looked like he needed dunking in a cattle trough and given a bloody good scrub with a yard broom and a bottle of Domestos.
🤮
I would like to think, perhaps naively, that there’s strength in numbers here.
There needs to be. For all it's world wide appeal and the significance of the #metoo movement, Weinstein was convicted on just one charge of rape and four counts of sexual abuse for the 20 plus years of offences that are now coming to light.
The psychology of the conspiracy nut is genuinely baffling
It's not really, a mix of personality traits and motivations, including folks who rely strongly on their own intuition and are convinced of their own intellect and intelligence, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and the perception of imagined threats to their environment or their lifestyles.
It truly is a modern phenomenon
I would say the breadth and depth of them is modern, and how quickly they're spread, but Q-anon is just the blood liable (perhaps the world's oldest conspiracy theory) bought into the 21st C, and for all their immediacy no one really care anymore about the "fact" that Germans were spreading disease in American cities in the run up to the invasion that was going to take place in 1917.
It’s not really, a mix of personality traits and motivations, including folks who rely strongly on their own intuition and are convinced of their own intellect and intelligence, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and the perception of imagined threats to their environment or their lifestyles.
You just described 90% of STW posters who exist solely in the chat/political threads.
Or is it that, deep down, the conspiracy nut knows what they are propagating is nonsense, but they just crave the attention at any cost?
This article would suggest that:
The Atlantic: Why Is Marjorie Taylor Greene Like This?
Quite a few snippets came out in Alex Jones (Infowars) divorce hearings. Cynical doesn’t even begin to cover it. The contempt for his listenership is stunning.
For a lot of people involved in it, it gives them status. It’s quite easy to build a reputation in online communities and social media, especially if someone has a (ahem) tenuous relationship with the truth.
Coupled with the tendency for social media to amplify outrageous things and I can start to see how people fall down the rabbit hole.
Once their identity and sense of self becomes entwined with their status in these communities there is no incentive for them to doubt, and lots for them to continue with it.
All for inocent until proven guilty. Given a lot of the complaints predated Jimmy Saville investigation and various other celebrities being investigated. Surely there was enough allegations/ witnesses to investigate Russell Brand?
Watched part of dispatches last night, the part where he pulled his Jean's down and sat on the audience members lap was beyond the pale.
To me it seems anything goes in the entertainment industry as long as the alleged perpetrator is getting the viewing figures
Given what's just happened following the women's World Cup final there were clips on Dispatches last night of him behaving in a much worse fashion.
Just reread some of thread on here. If he managed to suppress these allegations with an injunction.
Then sorry something very wrong about being able to silence multiple complainant's...
I used to think he was amazing in his earlier 6 Music days. Sad to see him descending into conspiracy nonsense of late.
Given his admissions of drug abuse and sex addiction I am sadly thinking the worst.
Having said that there is a disturbing video on the BBC website this morning, but in the middle of the recounting there is mention of his eyes going black like something out of a supernatural TV programme. Is it just me or does this make the story sound fabricated? No matter what horrible things people do, their eyes don’t go black in real life!!
The only thing I could imagine would be that if your pupils are massively dilated it might change the appearance of your eyes? Seemed a very strange clip to use, unless the BBC decided to use that deliberately to make it sound unreliable?
I suspect Brand was off his head on drugs much of the time, hence his eyes looking black.
I’ll withhold my judgement on RB’s guilt - but these allegations are very serious indeed. I can’t support trial by social media either.
I’m not a paid up member of the tin-foil hat club and don’t believe in a lot of conspiracy theories - but somethings don’t seem to be as simple as they are portrayed and have later turned out not to be e.g the extra-judicial shootings of IRA members in Gibraltar, the Birmingham Six and Extraordinary Rendition. I’m far from a from a terrorist sympathiser - but this was not and is not acceptable.
Yes that was the only thing I could think of - massive pupil dilation secondary to being high as a kite.
For a time after escaping drug addiction it seemed he really wanted to make a positive contribution to society, before he descended from left wing comedian into right wing lunacy.
@cougar - your twitter/x follower made this claim:
Or that 33% of rape allegations are false
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/key-facts-about-how-CPS-prosecutes-allegations-rape#05
A CPS report published in 2013 showed that over a 17-month period, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and, during the same period, there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape.
So less than 1%. Not sure where that 33% number comes from, but given this is twitter/X we're talking about I would assume it is garbage, like (almost) everything else on there these days.
Bad faith actors conflate many stats in this area, some will conflate that allegations that fail to meet an evidence threshold or deemed that 'there is no reasonable prospect of prosecution' are somehow evidence of false allegations, etc etc.
Some real bastards that politicise such offences for their own selfish means.
I think CG's comment further back about 'why now' was a good one, but not for the reasons I suspect her delusions illude to. RB was once a bit of player - had friends of influence that would make bringing this stuff up uncomfortable. Now he has drifted into the making his cash by being popular with the gullible nobodies, he has lost his shield. No one of influence is going to put their career and reputation on the line to muddy the waters for a tosser - there is simply nothing in it for them anymore to do so. It's far more to do with him no longer being a cash cow than any great soothsayer truths he is revealing.
No one of influence is going to put their career and reputation on the line to muddy the waters for a tosser
What about Andrew Tate, Lawrence Fox, Evil Smells and Neil Oliver?
Not sure where that 33% number comes from
95% of Twitter/X stats are made up. FACT!
somethings don’t seem to be as simple as they are portrayed and have later turned out not to be e.g the extra-judicial shootings of IRA members in Gibraltar, the Birmingham Six and Extraordinary Rendition.
The first two of those injustices are examples of where large institutions behaved negligently to victims and actively suppressed justice, and where the truth was revealed by meticulous TV journalism: "Death on the Rock" (This Week) and World in Action.
For a lot of people involved in it, it gives them status. It’s quite easy to build a reputation in online communities and social media, especially if someone has a (ahem) tenuous relationship with the truth. Once their identity and sense of self becomes entwined with their status in these communities there is no incentive for them to doubt, and lots for them to continue with it.
Describes that prick Dr (failed nurse) John Campbell on YouTube perfectly, once he realised his posts reached millions of viewers during the early months of the covid pandemic and raised his status/bank balance he went full on vaccine conspiracy.
What about Andrew Tate, Lawrence Fox, Evil Smells and Neil Oliver?
Not sure if being ironic 😀.....but just incase.......
As I said, no one of influence! They are nobodies too - I'm talking media moguls not fellow scumbags.
I’m talking media moguls not fellow scumbags.
perhaps scumbags of greater influence would be a better description? Can’t say I’m surprised by the allegations against Brand - the Andrew Sachs episode confirmed him as an unpleasant character in my mind.
@convert we may not like it, but there's no denying that Andrew Tate at least has massive influence.
So less than 1%. Not sure where that 33% number comes from
I think I may have found it. About a third of rape cases which actually go to trial result in a "not guilty" verdict. Which of course is not the same thing at all as 'proven to be false'.
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rape-a-lack-of-conviction/
Though, given his subsequent reply to me which I shan't post here but you're welcome to go and read, I'm disinclined to continue that particular dialogue.
Behaving like an immature dickhead (with Johnathan Ross it should be said) is not in any way comparable to assaulting women.
There's a non-paywall copy of The Times' writeup here.
@convert we may not like it, but there’s no denying that Andrew Tate at least has massive influence.
There is influence and there is influence. He has significant over dysfunctional teenage boys. Not people with money.
I absolutely loathe Russel Brand so i'm going to enjoy every minute of his impending downfall.
However, i'm also really not a fan of this whole trial by media circus and think the introduction of a statute of limitations as many other countries have would improve the situation, as a trial based on stuff that happened decades ago in some instances is always going to be flawed.
But in all of these cases raising concerns at the time seems to have been incredibly difficult as it's often one persons word against another, and one of those people has a lot more power and money to pay for lawyers. Wouldn't a statute of limitations stop them ever being found out?
Slightly sideways tack here but in some ways I’m not massively surprised that a drug addicted sex crazed guy with a huge ego has done this.
What I found a huge amount more shocking recently was the report about NHS consultants abusing and assaulting female trainee surgeons, often in operating theatres and presumably in front of other staff. This seemed to take up less news space than the current R Brand story amazingly, since it appears to be systemic and involving large numbers of women.
a trial based on stuff that happened decades ago
Latest accusation (so far) is 10 years ago, the earliest is 2006. Hardly the distant past.
What I found a huge amount more shocking recently was the report about NHS consultants abusing and assaulting female trainee surgeons, often in operating theatres and presumably in front of other staff.
Both equally appalling stories, but one celeb appears to "beat" a large number of senior NHS staff
@convert I think you’d be surprised
You think Tait would have influence about a holiday film getting made or a TV series getting commissioned, or ensure a newspaper article is written or not? Tait is not a person of influence beyond influencing twonky young lads' behaviour.
The only real person of influence who will support Musk because as the owner of X Musk can still monetise Brand.
Bob Geldof summed it up = Russell Brand, what a ****
Can I just be clear - I was not serious when listing those people.
Apparently, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon can be added to the list of supporters as well.