Forum menu
All these “celebrities” have something of Keith Harris about them don’t they?
Is the whole sex addition thing an actual thing? It seems to me it is something that some celebrities use to excuse their appalling behaviour.
Is does appear that he floodgates have been opened and if the only people coming to his defence are the likes of Fox, Hopkins and Tate then he is in a pretty bad place.
There was a great quote on Twitter yesterday along the lines of how the conspiracy theorists have played a really, really long game given how these accusations started kicking around quite openly about 15 years ago.
Is the whole sex addition thing an actual thing?
Sort of. Usually a sign of untreated issues, see also alcohol/drug addiction. You're either looking for something, or trying to bury something.
Further indication of a damaged human, who quite often in turn damages other humans. Alleged or otherwise.
Is the whole sex addition thing an actual thing?
No it’s not, it was removed from the DSM because it’s regarded as a combination of high libido and poor impulse control rather than a psychological disorder.
All these “celebrities” have something of Keith Harris about them don’t they?
They've got their hands up a duck's arse?
if the only people coming to his defence are the likes of Fox, Hopkins and Tate then he is in a pretty bad place.
Definitely feels like some 'run out of friends' going on.
If Russell Brand has committed these offences – he definitely needs to face the consequences of his actions
So very much this.
the only people coming to his defence are the likes of Fox, Hopkins and Tate.
Of course, they inhabit they same media space, and have the same audience, It's mutually beneficial for all of them to support each other as all of them are peddling the grift to the same poor deluded suckers. I would bet money that anyone who follows Tate or Peterson, follows all these petty, angry little arseholes as well.
Ladies and gentlemen, the rational and reasonable Katie Hopkins…
Don't take legal, financial or PR advice from Katie Hopkins.
Don’t take [s] legal, financial or PR [/s] advice from Katie Hopkins.
Ftfy
They’ve got their hands up a duck’s arse?
Ha ha, not that, but he famously was quite bitter in his later years because he was dropped from the telly.
I think a lot of these people (Laurence Fox, Katie Hopkins et al) are quite similar. They have had a period of attention, and then they were fading from the public eye, and then they get into all this culture war/conspiracy theory stuff and it gives them a lifeline.
Added to which, probably for more than a few of them, the reason that they were dropped was that they weren't particularly pleasant to work with, so likely to have a few skeletons rattling in closets, and you can see why they all rush to defend him.
Years ago, I used to know someone who was/is a big name in the anti-vaccine movement. I don't know how they got there, but I remember that they used to very much enjoy being the centre of attention.
I think a lot of these people (Laurence Fox, Katie Hopkins et al) are quite similar. They have had a period of attention, and then they were fading from the public eye, and then they get into all this culture war/conspiracy theory stuff and it gives them a lifeline.
It makes sense when you have very little in the way of skills/talent for any kind of longevity in popular/mainstream entertainment.
The like minded are undoubtedly going to be the only friends you have left as you alienate any normal people you have in you life with your incrementally more extreme opinions. Pretty sad little world to live in, loaded or not.
Is there an issue here that he is all out refuting these claims (as most people would) as he doesn't see that what he has done might be considered to have crossed the line?
I'm absolutely not defending him - he needs to be in court and everything laid out so a judgement can be made - I'm not saying he is innocent or guilty as that just fuels the media circus judgement, but is he so adamant that he hasn't done anything wrong as he isn't seeing what he has done as 'wrong'? A bit like Trump and many others - they just don't see what they do as any different to the rest of us so as far as they are aware, they are innocent.
Unsure I've worded that properly but hopefully it is understandable.
and then they get into all this culture war/conspiracy theory stuff and it gives them a lifeline.
Yeah the money that's available to them is, I think, largely why they keep on the treadmill. Plus it's a Faustian pact, once you've joined the online culture war/right wing outrage space, there's no coming back, you've essentially made yourself unemployable, for media folks who can't do anything else, Fox, Hopkins etc, this is the only way for them to earn a living now, and the only audience they have just want more and more outrage from you. I wouldn't be at all surprised if lots of these folks from Peterson, Jones all the way down the food chain are pretty unhappy people.
Re those London Hughes comments
i can quite believe them. And ties in with my thoughts that brand is an utter utter xxxx. However conversely it would also possibly give cause for why a good few woman will feel very aggrieved and used by him.
Feeling aggrieved and used, and treating women appallingly isn’t the same as rape however. I have no idea if he’s a rapist or just a horrible little man (see Kevin spacey), however just because you are one doesn’t mean you are the other
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if lots of these folks from Peterson, Jones all the way down the food chain are pretty unhappy people.
Still easier and more lucrative than getting a proper job, though.
So, to summarise - anyone advancing the theory that this is an establishment witch-hunt against Brand is on the same side as Katie Hopkins, Laurence Fox and Michael Barrymore.
If in doubt, always look at who you are sharing a point of view with. 😂
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if lots of these folks from Peterson, Jones all the way down the food chain are pretty unhappy people.
Always wonder if they have a little buyers remorse. Like you say, it's a small step then you're in for good having to keep an audience with a voracious appetite happy, who will burn you in a heartbeat if you don't meet their expectations and have rivals pounce like sharks with blood in the water.
A quick glance at who is backing him tells you everything you need to know. I'm sure he'll be popping up as a GB News Presenter at some point.
(Cold War Steve nailing it again).
Always wonder if they have a little buyers remorse.
I listen to a podcast called "Knowledge Fight" hosted by two comedians who basically pull apart Alex's Jones output. It's pretty clear when they started delving into the lives of these guys that they all have some pretty severe problems; from failed marriages, drinking/drug problems, paranoia and other mental health isues, not to mention in Jones' case, multi billion dollar bankruptcy law-suits.
Did anyone hear the Radio 4 Today reports this morning?
He was, presumably joking, that he is going to get under the newsreaders desk and get between her legs (or similar),the newsreader reported it to her Boss, who did nothing. He spoke to Jimmy Saville on air, with sick talk about a younger sister. How he wasnt sacked after that is strange looking back now, he clearly wasnt fit to present a show with his lewd remarks.
I'm so pleased that I have no idea who the majority of those faces in that martinhutch pic up there are. Only actually recognise Brand and Musk.
treating women appallingly isn’t the same as rape however. I have no idea if he’s a rapist or just a horrible little man (see Kevin spacey), however just because you are one doesn’t mean you are the other
It's slightly more complicated by the implication that some of these things are within a workplace.
Being an unpleasant dick down the pub is a different dynamic to being an unpleasant dick who could have you fired, blacklisted and end your career if you make a fuss.
Just when would it be coercion and how far could it be pushed?
'Culture war' aside, I have always found Russell Brand an un-funny throbber who thought he was cleverer than he is.
He has a domineering and combative/coercive manner about him that make it easy to look at the current allegations -true or false- and go 'yeah, I can see how he could have been that person'.
@nickc, you beat me to it:
I listen to a podcast called “Knowledge Fight” hosted by two comedians who basically pull apart Alex’s Jones output. It’s pretty clear when they started delving into the lives of these guys that they all have some pretty severe problems; from failed marriages, drinking/drug problems, paranoia and other mental health isues, not to mention in Jones’ case, multi billion dollar bankruptcy law-suits.
Yeah, Peterson has had substance misuse issues, and the stuff that came out in Alex Jones divorce didn't show a happy man. Similar stuff came out about Fox News and Tucker Carlson in the Dominion lawsuit.
But all this is MSM stuff so can't possibly be true.
Feeling aggrieved and used, and treating women appallingly isn’t the same as rape however. I have no idea if he’s a rapist or just a horrible little man (see Kevin spacey), however just because you are one doesn’t mean you are the other
Whilst I don't disagree, some his victims - sorry, alleged victims - sound pretty certain.
How he wasnt sacked after that is strange looking back now, he clearly wasnt fit to present a show with his lewd remarks.
It's an odd one. It's a fine line between having an "outrageous" persona that everyone laughs along at, and actually meaning the stuff that you're saying.
Out of context one could argue for instance that on the conversation with Savile, Brand was setting Savile up honeypot-style. Black humour exists, Shock Jocks are (or were?) a thing. But looking at the broader picture it seems increasingly unlikely.
Known as the Edinburgh defense on STW.
Dieudonné, a not funny comic like Brand has had his outrageous content taken to the letter in court and wound up with prosecutions in France and Switzerland. You shouldn't have to mean it for it to be unacceptable, some things aren't funny whatever the context. And some constitute hate crimes.
Pretty much all celebs are nasty pieces of work. If they don’t start off that way, power corrupts eventually.
Of course being a nasty piece of work isn’t necessarily criminal, but it’s hardly surprising when it does step over that boundary.
You don’t have to be religious to view idolatry as a bad thing.
Hatie Kopkins
It's mad, the first time I heard 'Hatie Kokpins' used with any regularity was by Matt Morgan - Russell Brands old 6M sidekick/producer. I used to listen regularly back then, I used to like them both. Haven't paid any attention for years so was unaware that RB is a full on nutjob now. Back then, they were anything but right wing.
Pretty much all celebs are nasty pieces of work
I'm not sure I would agree with that. I think the power of celebrity amplifies existing traits.
Russell Brand clearly had a really shitty attitude to the opposite sex, that was evident ever since his Radio 2 debacle. The bad attitude combined with his celebrity power fits the pattern of many abusers.
Hindsight is a fabulous thing, but none of this is really surprising, he wore his shitty attitude on his sleeves for years and has recently been tumbling down the conspiracy rabbit hole.
I think he was given the benefit of the doubt by people who should have know better because he famously, and rather brilliantly it must be said, skewered Farage on Question Time.
Back then, they were anything but right wing
John Cleese is similar - used to be a fairly centrist / Lib-Dem type, he was quite vocally anti-Trump but as his fame and comedic impact has dwindled, he's got progressively more right-wing, Brexity and conspiracy theorist, especially around "cancel culture" (he was apparently being "cancelled" because no-one was booking him any more and it clearly can't be because he's simply not funny now, it must be because The Establishment don't want to hear him speaking The Truth).
So he is now lined up to be a GB News presenter.
I thought Cleese had realised his errors and about-turned? Or have I just made that up?
I think a lot of these people (Laurence Fox, Katie Hopkins et al) are quite similar. They have had a period of attention, and then they were fading from the public eye, and then they get into all this culture war/conspiracy theory stuff and it gives them a lifeline.
That Fox News Throbber in the US jettisoned Trump before Dominion, got the boot, felt the oxygen of publicity hissing rapidly out of the room, now got his tongue back up Trumps hoop. They’re all soooo ****ing fickle these morons.
John Cleese has got a lot of divorces to pay for... To be fair, he might have become a bit of a dinner party bore in his old age, but I don't think anyone has ever said his personal conduct was a problem.
Is there an issue here that he is all out refuting these claims (as most people would) as he doesn’t see that what he has done might be considered to have crossed the line?
It's not exactly that. Brand has denied the allegations but not said which bits he accepts are true e.g. he was in a relationship with y, and he hasn't tried to explain anything. (He said he "refuted" them, he meant he denied them. Refute means you've disproved something).
Problem is these people don't exist in isolation.
The BBC was sending chauffer driven cars to pick up 16 year old girls from school and ferrying them to his lair in full knowledge. That makes them pretty complicit.
This is not going to read well on the BBC and thats not ideal timing - 'why now' somebody asked? Well this may partially be an answer.
Pretty much all celebs are nasty pieces of work
I think it's more that only the bad ones get in the news.
I thought Cleese had realised his errors and about-turned? Or have I just made that up?
I'm reasonable certain he recently called Brexit a disaster, so he's definitely not gone full GBeebies
It's increasingly feeling like most of the ones going "why now?" are implying "... because they shouldn't." You know, those same people who cry about cancel culture.
Why now? Does it matter? Here's a better question: Why not now?
When do we suppose would be a better time? When she was still a terrified 16-year old girl who had just been (allegedly) raped by a high-profile celebrity in a position of power? Or go the other way, wait till after he's dead?
"Why now?" is nothing more than misdirection, a diversion, and the insidious nature of it is starting to really piss me off.
Im pretty sure 99% of celebs are are absolutely fine. The rotten ones make the news as they are celebs. I bet all over the uk there are hideous individuals like brand whom do just as odious things, but it’s just not news worthy
for every Russell Brand or Kevin Spacey, there is a Keanu Reeves or Ryan Reynolds..as in any walk of life
He said he “refuted” them, he meant he denied them. Refute means you’ve disproved something
IME brand has always been someone who butchers our vocabulary - he tries to use flowery language to appear more erudite (similar to BoJo's approach) but often uses poorly chosen words that don't quite mean what he wants. So I wouldn't read too much into the subtleties of the language he used when repudiating the allegations.
he tries to use flowery language to appear more erudite (similar to BoJo’s approach) but often uses poorly chosen words that don’t quite mean what he wants
"These baroque accusations" for example.
I wonder if he's used Wiki to pick his own, more dated definition of the word?
In the 16th century, the Medieval Latin word baroco moved beyond scholastic logic and came into use to characterise anything that seemed absurdly complex. The French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) associated the term baroco with "Bizarre and uselessly complicated."Other early sources associate baroco with magic, complexity, confusion, and excess.
I don’t believe it to be honest. Massively unpopular opinion and he could be a wrong ‘un, but my personal opinion is that something stinks about this.
I don’t even find him entertaining or funny anymore, and his YouTube channel is borderline crackers, but there’s something fishy going on with this story - it just doesn’t add up.
(He said he “refuted” them, he meant he denied them. Refute means you’ve disproved something)
Yes it means to disprove, however it also means to deny, contradict or rebut.
to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false:
Sorry its a Cambridge link but the OED is pay walled.
There's enough to dislike here without getting upset about his choice of words.
The BBC was sending chauffer driven cars to pick up 16 year old girls from school and ferrying them to his lair in full knowledge. That makes them pretty complicit.
I'm not defending the Brand-16yo liasons, thats pretty messed up.
But "the BBC" being complicit? Who, the director general personally OKed the expense? Or did Gary Linekar lend him his chauffered car?
Or perhaps did some desparate to please intern personal assistant fresh out of school/uni do whatever Brand asked.
We don't need to weave the "BBC are all Paedos" conspiracy into (and diluting) what should be a case against Brand and him alone.
He has a domineering and combative/coercive manner about him that make it easy to look at the current allegations -true or false- and go ‘yeah, I can see how he could have been that person’.
Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but yeah, 100% that.
Strangely reminiscent of the Jared Leto allegations, except he's still getting big roles in Hollywood.
But “the BBC” being complicit? Who, the director general personally OKed the expense? Or did Gary Linekar lend him his chauffered car?
I'm sure there are some very senior members of staff banging on the DGs door demanding to know wtf is going on and why am I working for a pimping service and who when an why authorized this.
If he's guilty then I hope that justice is carried out to the letter of the law.
However, after watching the full interview of Katherine Ryan by Louis Theroux, it's clear that even she has has used sex to get what she wanted when she was younger and didn't see anything wrong with it even when pointed out by Louis. This is a bit hypocritical when pointing a finger at men for abusing their position. Neither are good behavior but surely both should be equally condenmed.
My point being that if we look into the past with everyone, and view their lives through a modern lens you'll pick fault. And the older they are and the further you look back the bigger disparages.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"