Forum menu
Interesting how the Times is being revered by some in here, thought you hated Murdock and his 'tin-pot empire'?
desperatebicycle
Free Member
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.Yeah, you were either that type of male, who enjoyed the normalised sexual abuse of power, or you weren’t. It’s gone on in normal life forever, everywhere…. You just have to ask any woman about bosses, or any male in a higher position, go on ask your mum! Some men went along with it, others didn’t. Finally women have a voice.
As a 17 year old in my first job, I was held up against a wall by my male boss (probably in his late 30's). I was absolutely terrified, pushed him away as hard as I could and ran back into the workroom. If I'd told my father, he would have driven down and knocked the guys block off.
Women often hold back these dreadful incidents in their heads for years and block them out. I can remember the event as though it happened yesterday. I hope these women get justice 'if' Brand has raped/sexually abused them without consent.
Interesting how the Times is being revered by some in here, thought you hated Murdock and his ‘tin-pot empire’?
Just because I don't like their ownership and am not a fan of their political standpoint doesn't mean I can't acknowledge and respect the amount of time and effort they have obviously ploughed into this investigative journalism
I don't like the Daily Telegraph either but it was them who broke the MPs expenses scandal. The Daily Mail did loads of work on exposing Stephen Laurences killers
Life isn't black and white
As a 17 year old in my first job, I was held up against a wall by my male boss (probably in his late 30’s). I was absolutely terrified, pushed him away as hard as I could and ran back into the workroom. If I’d told my father, he would have driven down and knocked the guys block off.
Chatting to a one of the first generation of soldiers in the Army after women could join cap badges rather than the Women's Royal Army Corps at an event a while ago about her experiences, stories to make your toes curl for sure all to familiar in organisations with a very strong power dynamic.
Celebrity is no different, but much like other scandals like Rotherham we make it about the victims choices rather than the one abusing their positional power and harming other people.
Life isn’t black and white
I hope you didn't type that with a straight face. You of all people.
See what I did there? 😀
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
I hope if nothing else comes from this, people who say and do things to manipulate others for sex might actually pause and think about whether that's appropriate!
What puzzles me about this is the comments section below articles / social media where lots of accounts (which outwardly appear to be women) are jumping to his defence saying this is just media/powers that be etc. bringing him down, because his alternative narrative was getting too strong. Do you think those are real accounts? Real women? or an army of Brand drones or bots peddling his "alternative narrative" BS. I may just be hanging around in the wrong circles but I've never met a woman who found him funny/attractive and never met a woman who talked about "alternative narrative" or other pseudo-intellectual BS that he does. I'm not suggesting that the "sisterhood" must always stick together whenever there are allegations against someone but it just jumped out at me that there were a surprising number of "women" among the Neil Oliver wannabe's declaring him the victim.
My good friends ex-wife went to a RB show (many moons ago). She was lucky enough to be hand picked to hang out with him back stage after.
He ended up hanging out the back of her.
This was before my buddy was married to her mind. No idea if she consented to it (i would assume so, knowing her. And i hope for her own experience it was consensual).
I have nothing more to add to this discussion tho, i will let the long arm of the law hopefully serve justice as its required.
My mum was an officer in WRAC in the 50s stationed at Larkhill. A lieutenant colonel did something unwanted. She reported him. She was transferred but he did get a reprimand.
She was a tough nut.
Life isn’t black and white
Indeed. As an avid and long-term Guardian reader you must have no doubt read a few entertaining articles written by Russell Brand:
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/russellbrand
I worked on cruise ships in the 90's.
The crew were like a microcosm of society.
A lot of white privilege, have and have nots, quite a strict hierarchy.
The perfect environment for a "wrong un" to thrive. After a while it became quite easy to spot them, there was a quite distinct minority of males in positions of "power and status" who exploited that "power and status" for sexual gratification.
I guess a lot of what went on was consensual but not all and a lot of it seemed to be a very grey area.
Indeed. As an avid and long-term Guardian reader you must have no doubt read a few entertaining articles written by Russell Brand:
You may have to sit down for this one Ernesto as it may come as a bit of a shock...
Brace yourself...
Just because I read the Guardian, doesn't mean I agree with everything printed in it or like the people who write for it. They employ Adrian Chiles as a columnist FFS?!
I can't recall ever reading anything by him and for the record I've always thought Brand was a ****! Nothing to do with what we know now, more to do with my natural dislike of such an extreme narcissist with such an obvious messiah complex going on. As with Adrian Chiles (though for very different reasons) I found his popularity utterly inexplicable
So at the risk of breaking my irony filter...
Life isn’t black and white
😉
I can’t recall ever reading anything by him and the record I’ve always thought brand was a ****!
You are obviously a better judge about these things than the Guardian newspaper!
And for the record me too. I haven't always thought that Russell Brand was a ****. Although not exactly someone whom I am particularly interested in I have in the past found Brand to be fairly entertaining, amusing, and capable of making some very valid and important political observations, as some of his articles in my above link suggests.
Which is presumably why the Guardian paid him for his articles.
You are obviously a better judge about these things than the Guardian newspaper!
Well I wouldn't have given Adrian Chiles a job as a columnist either
I have in the past found Brand to be fairly entertaining, amusing, and capable of making some very valid and important political observations
Well thats another way in which you and I differ comrade 😉
Interestingly (or not, I guess) the Sunday Times journalist who started her investigation in 2019 said that she had done so becasue of comments some comedy performers had made about Brand both in their sets and to her off the record, and she also said that she thought it not un-coincidental that regular media work for him had started to dry up around that time as she and other journalists started to look more closely at his (past admitted) behaviour, and speaking with his alleged victims.
She though it wasn't a surprise then that he'd turned to both the right-wing and health-guru (read anti-vax and contrarian/culture-war opinion) grift on YouTube about the same time to keep earning
I have in the past found Brand to be fairly entertaining, amusing, and capable of making some very valid and important political observations
Well thats another way in which you and I differ comrade
He did nail Frogface on QT a few years back.
This is not an image I wanted just before lunch time.
all it does is add a resource burden to any charges being brought against him and make picking a jury a nightmare.
This is complete nonsense. You seem to be exaggerating the importance of a US practice. We don't even pick juries in England & Wales.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jury-vetting
He did nail Frogface on QT a few years back.
And then following the MeToo movement's arrival he cravenly went after the exact same audience when he realized that he needed followers who'd stick with him when the allegations finally came out.
The fact he probably knows better actually makes the tin-hatted bilge he now spouts on Youtube even more of a moral aberration than if he was just misinformed.
Which is presumably why the Guardian paid him for his articles.
His articles run from 2006 to 2015, so pretty much when he was at the height of his popularity. I rather suspect that the Guardian paid him for his articles because the public wanted to read them.
This is complete nonsense. You seem to be exaggerating the importance of a US practice. We don’t even pick juries in England & Wales.
I'm on about the bias of any jurors due to the widespread media and online comments by people due to the coverage of this whole thing.
@Binners : I will not stand here and watch you spread disgusting rumour and innuendo as if it were fact. You should be ashamed of yourself. There is no evidence whatsoever that Adrian Chiles's column enjoys any kind of "popularity".
Interesting how the Times is being revered by some in here, thought you hated Murdock and his ‘tin-pot empire’?
Murdoch is awful. His empire (being one of the largest, wealthiest and most influential media organisation in the world) is not "tin pot". The political coverage in The Times is generally factually accurate but woefully off base. The rest of The Times is generally sensible. The Sunday Times has had some of this country's best investigative journalism.
I’m on about the bias of any jurors due to the widespread media and online comments by people due to the coverage of this whole thing.
That's not a real problem. You're making it up. We have had tons of high profile jury trials in this country: Harold Shipman, Rose West, Tony Martin... This is no reason to suppress reporting or to suggest that reporting is somehow obstructing justice.
In his early 6 Music days he was very funny along with Matt Morgan. At times he has also appeared to be trying to make a positive contribution to society and from memory I think he appeared as a panel member on Question Time.
It’s always been clear he’s a narcissist womaniser though. It seems pretty much a certainty that the allegations are true. Still can’t get over how much more excited we all are about this versus NHS consultants.
Stop press sex addicted narcissistic drug addict does some horrible things.
I rather suspect that the Guardian paid him for his articles because the public wanted to read them.
Well they no doubt felt that many Guardian readers would be interested in reading articles penned by Russell Brand. I don't imagine that popular journalism is high on the Guardian's priority list.
That’s not a real problem. You’re making it up. We have had tons of high profile jury trials in this country: Harold Shipman, Rose West, Tony Martin… This is no reason to suppress reporting or to suggest that reporting is somehow obstructing justice.
We'll find out soon enough hopefully, once the CPS prosecute, i wouldn't say any of those cases are anywhere near this one though.
Still can’t get over how much more excited we all are about this versus NHS consultants.
Stop press sex addicted narcissistic drug addict does some horrible things.
Unfortunately, because Brand is a very recognisable [and punchable] face he's going to draw more attention than nameless and faceless surgeons. I was much more horrified about the surgeons, but still horrified by what Brand has done.
I don’t imagine that popular journalism is high on the Guardian’s priority list.
It's popular with its target audience. Surviving financially requires having enough people (being popular enough) to survive which I would assume is a high priority.
The Guardian is a collection of people, some of the content I find informative, some amusing and some irritating. There is no on Guardian message, it's a collection of messages form different people that are often contradictory. During Brexit the editiorial position was remain but pretty much every week there was some petty click-bait negative shit concerning one european country or another. They express concern about climatic change and have travel stories that encourage flying around the world - Sweeden and Greece today with other stories about India and Kenya that might enourage people to go there. It's a reflection of society, a mass of contradictions.
biggest problem is the cult of celebrity.
Auto-correct again?
biggest problem is the cult of celebrity.
Auto-correct again?
Pretty sure that wasn't supposed to read celibacy
This is going to hit him where it hurts; YouTube has shut down his channel, preventing him from earning from it!
It hasn't shut his channel down though, just stopped him earning from it?
A must watch that Ernie, thanks. I remember watching it at the time. Lock is much missed. Brand won't be.
Aaah Sean Lock. Now there’s a decent chap that like Kelvin says is much missed.
It’s not up to us to state whether he’s guilty or innocent, that’s up to the courts
Not really. It's up to the state to determine if he has broken its laws, and punish him accordingly. It is right that there is a high burden of proof required in order to deprive someone of their liberty. The rest of us are free to review the evidence in the public domain, and draw their own conclusions. I conclude that he is a rapey nobber.
We’ll find out soon enough hopefully, once the CPS prosecute,
There's no guarantee that they will prosecute. Newsworthy claims of being a wrongun and sufficient evidence that CPS believe there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction are not the same benchmark.
i wouldn’t say any of those cases are anywhere near this one though.
I'm not sure how you weigh up totally different cases. High profile serial killers v's celebrity sex crimes for example. Don't think that just because you are familiar with the celebrity tittle tattle, social media who-ha and newspaper over excitement that everyone in the country is. I'll bet there's plenty of people who couldn't tell you what he's been accused of, and probably some who couldn't tell you what he's famous for. I suspect any bias is not so much to do with the media coverage and more to do with the fact he's a polarising personality.
I give you one Bev Turner –
Uggh. I've not felt so conflicted in a long time. Agreeing with Andrew Pierce - I feel unclean. Hating the fact GB News producers would be loving that spat as probably 10x as many people watched it as if it had been civilised on either side. I've no idea who she is? Is she the next Katie Hopkins - just saying shit to generate a profile?
I can also guarantee you that every newspaper office in the country would have known full-well about Brand for years – because thats their job – but knowing about it and having enough evidence to publish are very different things.
This expose is clearly the result of extensive and painstaking investigative journalism, not to mention the bravery of the victims that have come forward and put themselves in the firing line for the nutters who support him
Well worth listening to the News Agents podcast yesterday. They interviewed the Time media editor, Rosamund Urwin. Her insight, level of detail and description of bringing a story like this was absolutely fascinating. She also said that every newspaper had this story but it took years of work to get out to a point where they could confidently publish. It is a really interesting insight.
I may just be hanging around in the wrong circles but I’ve never met a woman who found him funny/attractive
I had the "fortune" to get tickets to see him some years ago.
A sizeable portion of the audience were definitely ladies who found him funny and attractive.
(An amount of self selection going on, I would assume.)
biggest problem is the cult of celebrity.
Auto-correct again?
Pretty sure that wasn’t supposed to read celibacy
Nah 🙂
I think its got to be appealing, the cult of Tate's Incels is probably more appealing 🙁
@franksinatra That's an awful thing to say to me. You've chosen to take my comment in the worst way imaginable and reached a pretty unpleasant conclusion.
What a shit of a place the world is when you've been on a site for over ten years, met plenty of people in person, and clearly nothing more than someone that makes stupid jokes and very, very occasionally wades into a serious topic and you can then be accused of:
I have nothing to be ashamed of. Sounds like you do though, so perhaps the issue isn’t the idea of reporting but, instead, your conduct towards women.
Bear, you were the one who said:
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
How else are we meant to interpret that? Maybe it’s just clumsy wording on your part but it doesn’t read well at all.
Yeah but you've taken it one step beyond, Frank. You've added the notion of shame yourself them shamed him for his conduct towards women that you have no idea about.
Are you absolutely sure you'd like everything you've done or said to get laid all over the media. I certainly wouldn't and I'm in the romantic seduction camp rather than getting heavy or creepy or rapey. In fact I soon learned that letting myself be seduced was more successful than trying to seduce - and still I wouldn't want the details all over the press. You may have noted I'm quite discreet about my past and present relationships on this forum.
get laid all over the media
And we're back to Russell Brand.
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
I'm dreading the day 2-3 girls go to a newspaper and complain that I wasn't really a dolphin trainer
How else are we meant to interpret that? Maybe it’s just clumsy wording on your part but it doesn’t read well at all.
The other way you could interpret it is that I’m not an unpleasant person that you’ve accused me of and at the worst it was clumsy wording. But you didn’t do that did you?
Also enjoyed the comment basically suggesting someone on here was a rapist enabler. Quality discussion! Also be sure to come at us with more stupid-people and hard-of-thinking comments please!
You may have noted I’m quite discreet about my past and present relationships on this forum.
Did...anyone ask?
I'm interested in finding out how I can go about becoming a dolphin trainer like Boardinbob.
Anyone surprised by this? I always assumed he was a serial sex pest because of his unutterably vile attitude to women
Did…anyone ask?
You're not normally into dumb questions so I'll answer assuming it's a genuine question. That's the point I thought Bear is making. Stars suffer a level of scrutiny and intrusion most of us don't and I'm happy to be in the anonymous majority free to have the kind of sex life me and my partners past and present want without it being all over the papers.
There are many realationship/divorce threads on this forum which indicate that protagonists had pretty catastropic relationships/separations - would those people feel comfortable with that all over the media? I doubt it. Some have made it clear that their partners have lied for advantage in financial matters and child acces. Add the media, star status and higher stakes, and what would those have become - Heard-Depp or some other media driven fiasco.
In how many relationships are both parites in absolute agreement about the type of sex they want? BDSM has had a lot of airing with frankly daft media representations such as shades of grey or more realistically on your amateur site of choice. But even if they're into BDSM most people are exhibitionist to the point of wanting it all over the media. Some people like rough sex, both men and women, and most of it is legal.
Brand set himself up as a bad boy. Women knew they were they were going with a bad boy and as one poster on this thread pointed out at least one willingly. Given the numbers of women Brand claims to have had relationships with and the relatively small number of complaints I suggest that the vast majoirity got what they expected/consented too. What were seeing are the dissatisified customers, those that didn't get what they bargained for and/or agreed to, and at least one too young to have really made those decisions for herself even if legal.
So I'd like to see the legal process follow its course and find the level of gloating both on this thread and in the media getting distasteful. And Frank's attitude to Bear equaly distasteful. Concensual or non-concensual that is the question. Because even if I find Brand's attitude to women distaeful some women don't and who am I to deprive them of him because I think he's an arse.
I’m interested in finding out how I can go about becoming a dolphin trainer like Boardinbob.
Dolphins? The Russell Brand of the sea apparently.
https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/sep/19/dolphin-sex-scandal-hooked-on-freddie
Because even if I find Brand’s attitude to women distaeful some women don’t and who am I to deprive them of him because I think he’s an arse.
Well yes, consenting adults can do what they like, but that isn’t what the Russell Brand story is about.
Sadly our media feel its the most important issue in world news at the moment, which is a shame, as lots of more important stuff has got buried.
I suggest that the vast majoirity got what they expected/consented too. What were seeing are the dissatisified customers, those that didn’t get what they bargained for and/or agreed to, and at least one too young to have really made those decisions for herself even if legal.
I am sure you do not mean it but that sounds a lot like downplaying the abuse these women suffered and its the classic rape defense - regrets afterwards is the cry
"aren't" not "are" in one of the line in my previous post.
I note that the number of likes on Frank's post at the top of the page is up to 7. I'm beginning to detest the anonymous likes which are only available to the "paying elite" on this site and find the use often made of them as anonymous hate dispicable. If you want to be an arse at least have the courage of your convictions and type your hate for all to see.
I agree with most of that (Edukator) but,
I suggest that the vast majoirity got what they expected/consented too. What were seeing are the dissatisified customers
This may be true, but it's hardly a defence. Like a murderer arguing, "yeah, but look at how many people I didn't kill!"
Besides, what we are seeing are the "dissatisfied customers" who have come forward so far. Reporting of rape cases is poor under normal circumstances and being a well-known celeb, Brand is an exceptional case for reasons as discussed: who'd believe them; threats of libel/slander action; hush money; etc etc. We heard this all before with Savile.
Brand set himself up as a bad boy. Women knew they were they were going with a bad boy and as one poster on this thread pointed out at least one willingly. Given the numbers of women Brand claims to have had relationships with and the relatively small number of complaints I suggest that the vast majoirity got what they expected/consented too. What were seeing are the dissatisified customers, those that didn’t get what they bargained for and/or agreed to, and at least one too young to have really made those decisions for herself even if legal.
Dissatisfied customers? did you mean to post this on a Giant warranty thread.
Saville's purported (but never found) victims were nearly all special needs children, vunerable victims, from what I remember, a better comparison would be DLT. At least 12 attempts at conviction in 2012-14 for sexual assault (groping) with one majority guilty verdict.
Edit: if your Giant frame breaks there's no stigma attatched to reporting it and you have some pretty good evidence, a broken frame. However if I tried to warranty a Giant frame I cracked in the 90s (I didn't it's still fine) today it might be harder to prove I didn't break it deliberately to try to get a new frame - another poor comparison. A smiley if you're joking helps. 🙂
Up to 8 anonymous hate likes on Franks post now. 🙁 Proper ganging up school playground stuff but anonymous.
I’m beginning to detest the anonymous likes which are only available to the “paying elite” on this site and find the use often made of them as anonymous hate dispicable.
I agree they shouldn’t be anonymous, but msybe you need a day or two away from the forum just to calm down a bit. This isn’t like you.
Edit: if your Giant frame breaks there’s no stigma attatched to reporting it and you have some pretty good evidence, a broken frame. However if I tried to warranty a Giant frame I cracked in the 90s (I didn’t it’s still fine) today it might be harder to prove I didn’t break it deliberately to try to get a new frame – another poor comparison. A smiley if you’re joking helps. 🙂
The only one making poor comparisons is you. You are smart enough to know exactly how your dissatisfied customer comment would be interpreted.
but msybe you need a day or two away from the forum just to calm down a bit. This isn’t like you.
You're probably right. I've reported what I see as abuse of the likes on Franks post to the mods and I'll see what they say. I feel sorry for Bearnecessities who I think is a victim of anonymous bullies abusing the likes system.
But you're probably right so I'll step away. Have a good day folks, and remember that STW members have feelings too.
The comparison with Saville is not what he did but who knew about what he did and what they did about it.
Brands victims may have been a bit more complicit than Saville's but that doesn't mean they were 100% at fault does it. The fact that many people are pretty much victim blaming on this threads just demonstrates that we haven't progressed as much as we should have over the last 50 years or so.
What were seeing are the dissatisified customers, those that didn’t get what they bargained for and/or agreed to, and at least one too young to have really made those decisions for herself even if legal.
Edukator, you really need to take a step back from the internet if you are prepared to post that sort of shit.
Concensual or non-concensual that is the question.
So I’d like to see the legal process follow its course
That is the crux of what I've got to say, concentrate on that.
And what is wrong with that statement, Dickboy? It's in no way either victim blaming or approving Brands's actions. On the contrary it's making a moral judgement I perhaps shouldn't be making about a 31 year old dating a 16 year old. I disapprove even though it's legal. Perhaps you should be aiming at her mother rather than me.
"Hi, I'm a dolphin trainer - are you interested in free willy"
Surely that's OK ?
Up to 8 anonymous hate likes on Franks post now.
To be fair, whilst Frank may have put 2+2 together and got 69, Bear's post was poorly worded at best. It read to me like he'd said/done things in order to have sex that others may disapprove of. Seemingly that's not what he meant.
I suppose it's a grey area to a point. One could argue that I used a form of coercion in order to bed my now-girlfriend: I bought her drinks, dinner, flowers, paid her compliments... What today might perhaps be seen as harassment was once known as 'wooing' (how many romantic songs are actually a bit creepy and stalkery to modern ears? There was a thread about this). It would be difficult to find a partner without some form of interaction, unless you're relying on the direction of a swipe.
Concensual or non-concensual that is the question
But not the only one these days. Taking advantage of a powerful position to prey on those with no power is also considered bad. Although that wasn't always the case.
We do not have to await the outcome of criminal proceedings that may never happen to form a view of Brand's character based on the information available to us.
BoardinBob
Full Member
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.I’m dreading the day 2-3 girls go to a newspaper and complain that I wasn’t really a dolphin trainer
Are you Bud or Sandy - because Flipper is missing you…?
And what is wrong with that statement, Dickboy? It’s in no way either victim blaming or approving Brands’s actions.
You think that calling people claiming to be victims of sexual abuse "dissatisfied customers" is acceptable?
I always thought it was a shame that there was felt a need for a women's specific forum, then I read some of the comments on here...
Up to 8 anonymous hate likes
U-wot? What magical property of the "like" function gives you the insight to know that that's the case, and also, what in the world is a "hate-like"?
Edit
which are only available to the “paying elite”
Ah right, scratch that, all becomes clear
We'll never know how many 'females' were coerced, which could easily happen if one is naive, not streetwise or just plain - "ooh a well known man wants to sleep (I'm being polite now) with me", all of which could end in consequences where the 'act' of being with someone like Brand was a dreadful experience, much regretted and never talked about.
Sean Lock got the measure of Brand, I wonder how many other men in the entertainment world also knew.
U-wot? What magical property of the “like” function gives you the insight to know that that’s the case, and also, what in the world is a “hate-like”?
Was going to ask the same, as a 'paying elite', i didn't even know about the like function, and just found it there, still can't find the hate-like button though?!
Saville’s purported (but never found) victims
This is simply untrue.
I will charitably assume you are misinformed rather than engaging in some kind of Sandy Hook Crisis Actors conspiracy theory.