Russel Brand seems to have an situation

[Ian H]

If this is true (and, I would not dispute it), then, I venture to suggest that he is not the only one who should lose his livelihood, there are a few in the Industry" who should be joining him.

You mean you've also heard the rumours about Laurence Olivier!

 

[Fab Foodie]

Brand's fate is not justice in the legal sense.

But it is in the natural sense.

Did that apply to Spacey as well?

 

[AndyRM]

Are you saying that addicts should not be held responsible for their actions? eg, if a drug addict. steals, to feed their habit, they are not responsible for the theft?, or, have I miss-understood your post?

Addiction is a complicated thing. It manifests itself in many ways.

There is so much stigma around addiction which can be hard to understand. I'd not wish addiction on anyone.

 

[icowden]

Brand hasnt been lynched. All that has happened to him is that some venues have cancelled his shows.
What about female staff backstage? Brand is an alleged rapist.

Ah ok. So it's fine to vilify him in the press, destroy his livelihood and make him a pariah on the basis of no actual evidence, you just draw the line at executing him without trial. Good to know.

 

[icowden]

IThe person booking them is the same rapist.

Good god! His tour manager and agent are also rapists? Why isn't this in the press?

 

[icowden]

Brand's fate is not justice in the legal sense.
But it is in the natural sense.

Ah, so we are back to villagers with pitchforks. As long as someone thinks he *probably* did something wrong, that's good enough to string him up.

I thought the whole point of the criminal justice system was to establish whether or not someone actually *had* done something wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[theclaud]

So it's fine to vilify him in the press, destroy his livelihood and make him a pariah on the basis of no actual evidence

 

[icowden]

View attachment 4613

No I'm pretty sure that I do know what it means. Hearsay is not evidence. Accusation is not evidence. If there are enough accusers and evidence is gathered, even circumstantial, then there may be enough evidence to bring charges. Those are heard in court and a case is made both for prosecution and defence, following which a Judge and / or Jury will decide if the charges are proven.

That process has not yet started. I don't like Brand, or think he's likeable. I think its very probably that some of the things he is accused of doing, he has done. But if we start with Brand, where do we stop? What happens when it's your turn?

 

[slowmotion]

He ( like Jimmy Saville ) should have got a decent haircut long ago.
He isn't a giant intellect either.....or funny.

That's it.

BTW, bragging about your sexual conquests on stage or on the TV isn't my idea of edgy and cool, but what do I know?

 

[theclaud]

No I'm pretty sure that I do know what it means. Hearsay is not evidence. Accusation is not evidence. If there are enough accusers and evidence is gathered, even circumstantial, then there may be enough evidence to bring charges. Those are heard in court and a case is made both for prosecution and defence, following which a Judge and / or Jury will decide if the charges are proven.

That process has not yet started. I don't like Brand, or think he's likeable. I think its very probably that some of the things he is accused of doing, he has done. But if we start with Brand, where do we stop? What happens when it's your turn?

My turn for what? I've not yet found it necessary to become a YouTube conspiracy theorist and build a following of credulous fools and online misogynists to fight my corner in anticipation of one of the numerous people I've abused going public. Not that I'd be very good at it, so that's just as well.,

A woman saying 'X did Y to me' or a person saying 'I saw X do Y to Z' is evidence by any definition. That you wish to restrict the meaning of evidence to what you think might result in a conviction in court is neither here nor there. It's extremely objectionable to claim that women's verbal evidence (often the only evidence available in cases of sexual abuse) is not evidence, and it's not the first time you've done it. I guess it must be related to your view that we are 'there to be impregnated'.

 

[BoldonLad]

Addiction is a complicated thing. It manifests itself in many ways.

There is so much stigma around addiction which can be hard to understand. I'd not wish addiction on anyone.

I am somewhat familiar with the problem.

Me either to the bolded bit.

But, that doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

[mudsticks]

Annoyingly he's in a lot of children's films (odd for such an iconoclastic anti establishment figure) making it possibly rather difficult to avoid him at that time of year. And the joke of course, for grown ups at least, is that his characters play off his well known persona, which while previously merely irritating, is now somewhat more sinister.

I'm pretty sure I have found some of his output amusing and or interesting in the past, when he was on the telly.

Not followed or seen much of him in the last few years as you-tube (apart from finding out how to fix things) isn't somewhere I venture very often.

Seems to have gone the way of many on there.

Some folks seem to want this binary 'Always was a total great guy, and always will be' or else 'always a villain' thing to apply, and that's not actually how it works.

My turn for what? I've not yet found it necessary to become a YouTube conspiracy theorist and build a following of credulous fools and online misogynists to fight my corner in anticipation of one of the numerous people I've abused going public. Not that I'd be very good* at it, so that's just as well.,

A woman saying 'X did Y to me' or a person saying 'I saw X do Y to Z' is evidence by any definition. That you wish to restrict the meaning of evidence to what you think might result in a conviction in court is neither here nor there. It's extremely objectionable to claim that women's verbal evidence (often the only evidence available in cases of sexual abuse) is not evidence, and it's not the first time you've done it. I guess it must be related to your view that we are 'there to be impregnated'.

*I think you'd probs be a pretty good watch / listen.

Especially up against some of the well dodgy types that seem to proliferate ont t'internet.

I reckon you'd have them for the proverbial breakfast 👍🏼

 

[icowden]

My turn for what?

To be accused.

I've not yet found it necessary to become a YouTube conspiracy theorist and build a following of credulous fools and online misogynists to fight my corner in anticipation of one of the numerous people I've abused going public. Not that I'd be very good at it, so that's just as well.,

You think that Brand built a youtube following entirely because he was worried that past sexual encounters might turn into rape or assault charges? I think you credit him with too much intelligence.

A woman saying 'X did Y to me' or a person saying 'I saw X do Y to Z' is evidence by any definition.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
A belief or a personal statement is not, and cannot be evidence without facts or information to back it up. Otherwise it's just he said / she said / they said.

That you wish to restrict the meaning of evidence to what you think might result in a conviction in court is neither here nor there. It's extremely objectionable to claim that women's verbal evidence (often the only evidence available in cases of sexual abuse) is not evidence, and it's not the first time you've done it. I guess it must be related to your view that we are 'there to be impregnated'.

I have never evinced that view. I have stated that that is the biological imperative for which mammals (including humans) have evolved. What I think is concerning is that apparently any woman can make an accusation and the man's reputation should be destroyed.
Not all women who make accusations are telling the truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/eleanor-williams-jailed-lying-rapes-trafficking

Of course we should believe women, of course we should help them. We should gather evidence etc. But the man being accused is also a person and they also deserve fair treatment. Just in case it turns out they didn't do it.

 

[The Crofted Crest]

the biological imperative for which mammals (including humans) have evolved

There is no biological imperative for evolution. Evolution is driven by random mutation and genetic drift.

 

[icowden]

There is no biological imperative for evolution. Evolution is driven by random mutation and genetic drift.

So mammals don't have an instinct to procreate and make more mammals?