Celebrity Scandals

[Mandy Lifeboats]

18 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

 

I haven't read all the details, but make you hope we have all treated women like princesses in our life, cause I doubt almost any of us are safe.

I find this comment very troubling. 

I am not sure what the average man is but I'd like to think I am fairly representative of an average man.  

Have I ever had sex with a woman who said "No"?   Definitely not.  

Have I committed indecent assault, groomed a child or had an abusive relationship?  Definitely not.  

Have I ever hit a woman? Definitely not. 

In my opinion, anyone who think MOST men behave in a criminal way towards women has a very distorted view. I also wonder whether they are mistaking their own conduct as typical when it's really not.  

[StefanAVFC]

Also amazes me how he’s managed to convince thousands that he’s somehow not the establishment. He’s a millionaire who can hide his crimes using injunctions and payoffs. He’s exactly what he complains about to his useful idiots. 

[Rugeley Villa]

Just read a bit about what’s been allegedly going on .  Doesn’t look too good, and I’d like to say there’s no smoke without fire but I also got accused of rape and ended up with CID at my door who quickly acknowledged that it wasn’t me but had to follow the name dropping up which wasn’t actually by the victim but by some dickhead bouncer.  

[Rugeley Villa]

11 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I find this comment very troubling. 

I am not sure what the average man is but I'd like to think I am fairly representative of an average man.  

Have I ever had sex with a woman who said "No"?   Definitely not.  

Have I committed indecent assault, groomed a child or had an abusive relationship?  Definitely not.  

Have I ever hit a woman? Definitely not. 

In my opinion, anyone who think MOST men behave in a criminal way towards women has a very distorted view. I also wonder whether they are mistaking their own conduct as typical when it's really not.  

I think a lot of men still see women as a piece of meat. I’ve treated women terrible in the past I’ll admit.  Not saying your average bloke see women like that , but a lot of men do and it probably works the other way to a lesser degree.

[StefanAVFC]

9 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Just read a bit about what’s been allegedly going on .  Doesn’t look too good, and I’d like to say there’s no smoke without fire but I also got accused of rape and ended up with CID at my door who quickly acknowledged that it wasn’t me but had to follow the name dropping up which wasn’t actually by the victim but by some dickhead bouncer.  

So in your case, the false accusation wasn’t even made by a woman? So the woman’s case was made even harder for her by a man? Kinda proves why the crime is so hard for women to report right?

[Rugeley Villa]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

So in your case, the false accusation wasn’t even made by a woman? So the woman’s case was made even harder for her by a man? Kinda proves why the crime is so hard for women to report right?

Yes I actually knew of the woman and she knew of me. I wasn’t even out that night etc etc . Some knob on the doors went round saying it was me . I’m not sure how the case went for her . 

[StefanAVFC]

 

 

[foreveryoung]

38 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I find this comment very troubling. 

I am not sure what the average man is but I'd like to think I am fairly representative of an average man.  

Have I ever had sex with a woman who said "No"?   Definitely not.  

Have I committed indecent assault, groomed a child or had an abusive relationship?  Definitely not.  

Have I ever hit a woman? Definitely not. 

In my opinion, anyone who think MOST men behave in a criminal way towards women has a very distorted view. I also wonder whether they are mistaking their own conduct as typical when it's really not.  

Your taking the comment out of context, obviously. I was talking along the lines of arguing with your partner, which in reality is emotional abuse. Also if you have been a promiscuous man and slept with alot of women, even if you claim them all to be consensual, you as a man now are putting yourself at risk, an so the conversation on here proves it so.

An just for the guys who like to make up stories, please don't label me on a forum, I know what I mean and it's not condoning any sort of abuse or harassment on women.

[El Segundo]

It’s hard to get past the impression that some have not come to the debate with an entirely open mind, or armed with any critical thinking.   There seems to be a strong bias against Brand on the basis that he’s an annoying C*** and/or expresses political and other views many don’t agree with.  In my experience it’s very typical of new Left attitudes to dismiss anyone who espouses non-mainstream views as Alt-right, Conspiracy Theorists etc  and therefore obviously a wrong’un.  Ad hominem attacks as opposed to actually coming up with some rational counter arguments.  And there’s a hint of doing likewise to other posters who present a different view as well.  I’d rather hoped VT would be better than the torches and pitchforks school of debate.   

[Rugeley Villa]

Just seen a glimpse of the dispatches show going out tonight. It’s serious shit , and I’d hate to think it was a ploy to attack brand and bring him down. Not sure why they would want to bring him down but he seems to think they are having just watched his response on twitter. He’s slept with thousands of women drunk, high, clean and sober , so there’s potentially a massive grey area. He does annoy me but I’ve always taken him for what he is and respected his recovery. 

[maqroll]

16 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Literally piles of proof and the main takeaway for his followers and the right wing grift job is that it’s a hit piece. 
 

Post-truth age

Yep. They are queueing up to support a "groomer" because he's a useful celebrity advocate of their right wing Q-Anon world view, which includes exposing "groomers" as it's primary animating feature. 

[Rugeley Villa]

Wasn’t Brand a leftie at one point? I’ve never been into him so wouldn’t know. 

[El Segundo]

3 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Yep. They are queueing up to support a "groomer" because he's a useful celebrity advocate of their right wing Q-Anon world view, which includes exposing "groomers" as it's primary animating feature. 

Exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.  The fact that you earlier included Jordan Peterson in your list of right wing reprobates just shows how little research you've done into the subject. 

[Chindie]

You can think Brand is a bellend and not think he's a rapist.

The problem comes when there's a pile of incidents, from unrelated parties over a sustained period, that describe varying levels of sexual impropriety on his behalf that ranges from outright rape (that there's evidence of) to sexual assault of varying sorts, to predatory and abuse of power actions with associated institutional failings. It's kinda hard to look past those and not come to the conclusion he's a wrong'un as well as a clearing in the woods.

[markavfc40]

I have watched the documentary/read the Times report. I have also seen brief bits of Brand denying the allegations. Like pretty much everyone posting on this thread then any thoughts I have on the matter are based on that. I had zero clue what his political views are now but had I been pushed to give an answer my last recollection of him was that he was left leaning. It seems he may well be far from that now though.

I've got to say based on what I have seen/read I don't know about wanting the bloke sent to prison I'd want him strung up by his bollocks and left like that till he rots. Now it may well transpire that he has a valid defence for all the accusations but him just simply denying them doesn't give equal weight as a handful of women, who as far as we know have no connection to each other, giving some very detailed and harrowing accusations of rape and sexual assault.

I am not sure why people seem to think his political views would influence people's view on him after what he has allegedly done other than perhaps if you are similarly aligned with his views you may well be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, which given some of the high profile people/media outlets defending him could well be the case. For the rest of us I'd imagine the natural reaction was one of being appalled when watching the documentary.

Edited September 17, 2023 by markavfc40

[El Segundo]

5 minutes ago, Chindie said:

You can think Brand is a bellend and not think he's a rapist.

The problem comes when there's a pile of incidents, from unrelated parties over a sustained period, that describe varying levels of sexual impropriety on his behalf that ranges from outright rape (that there's evidence of) to sexual assault of varying sorts, to predatory and abuse of power actions with associated institutional failings. It's kinda hard to look past those and not come to the conclusion he's a wrong'un as well as a clearing in the woods.

But my point is that some people  don't seem to just be basing their condemnations on the evidence as shown,  rather that there's apparent personal prejudice at play. 

I fully agree the alleged rape, backed up by medical evidence, looks pretty damning for Brand, and so it should be if it proves to be true. 

Everything else in that programme came across as an attempt to paint Brand as the kind of person that would do such a thing, to establish a pattern of Weinstein-like behaviour, without much actual substance to it.  I’d say little or none of it would stand up to scrutiny in court.  One might find it distasteful that he had a fling with a 16 year old, and maybe it is, but in the eyes of the law that was two consenting adults.  She may have felt controlled or manipulated, but that doesn’t mean she was.   The former assistant moaning about how disgusting it was that she would often find him in his underpants came across like something from Brass Eye.     

[StefanAVFC]

42 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

It’s hard to get past the impression that some have not come to the debate with an entirely open mind, or armed with any critical thinking.   There seems to be a strong bias against Brand on the basis that he’s an annoying C*** and/or expresses political and other views many don’t agree with.  In my experience it’s very typical of new Left attitudes to dismiss anyone who espouses non-mainstream views as Alt-right, Conspiracy Theorists etc  and therefore obviously a wrong’un.  Ad hominem attacks as opposed to actually coming up with some rational counter arguments.  And there’s a hint of doing likewise to other posters who present a different view as well.  I’d rather hoped VT would be better than the torches and pitchforks school of debate.   

I couldn’t give a monkeys about his political views, but what concerns me most is two things. 
 

1) he knew this was coming out and pivoted hard to content that is eaten up by conspiracy theorists, who are more likely to defend him than the left who he used to more identify with. These stories have likely been suppressed for years with injunctions and the like, and him becoming a Q anon, anti-vax populist who coincides very nicely with this story. 
 

2) the amount of ‘trust the law’ opinions everywhere. The law is notoriously bad at getting convictions for rape even when the accused is just a normal person. Do you think that random nobody women would have a chance against Brand and his lawyers? 
 

so the choice is either keep completely quiet or speak to the media (and bear in mind this is a collaboration between the times and channel 4, right and left wing) gathering evidence from multiple sources and let the court of public opinion decide. 
 

‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is the basis of legality. Not public opinion. 
 

I also haven’t seen any ad hominem here. Your post is entirely deflection. 
 

People have asked legit questions to both @Demitri_C and @foreveryoung and been totally ignored. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by StefanAVFC

[StefanAVFC]

It would also be good if you could quote a balanced view provided by @foreveryoung because it seems from your post that your criticism is aimed at those replying to him. It would be good for us to see if we got it wrong here so we can apologise for our lack of critical thinking and nuance 

[AvfcRigo82]

14 hours ago, AlwaysAVFC said:

It is such a minefield though, in the fact sometimes there are false claims. Similarly last week I think, on the same day there was a report about a number of women making false claims to get custody and to ban contact entirely.

False accusations like highlighted above and (other areas too), can bring down and ruin people's lives and have huge impacts on others - at the bang of a gavel - based on a minefield of lies in a pre-meditated attack.

Edited September 17, 2023 by AvfcRigo82

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

But my point is that some people  don't seem to just be basing their condemnations on the evidence as shown,  rather that there's apparent personal prejudice at play. 

I fully agree the alleged rape, backed up by medical evidence, looks pretty damning for Brand, and so it should be if it proves to be true. 

Everything else in that programme came across as an attempt to paint Brand as the kind of person that would do such a thing, to establish a pattern of Weinstein-like behaviour, without much actual substance to it.  I’d say little or none of it would stand up to scrutiny in court.  One might find it distasteful that he had a fling with a 16 year old, and maybe it is, but in the eyes of the law that was two consenting adults.  She may have felt controlled or manipulated, but that doesn’t mean she was.   The former assistant moaning about how disgusting it was that she would often find him in his underpants came across like something from Brass Eye.     

I don't see that at all.

A week ago besides a couple of people, myself included, I doubt many even knew much about Brand these days. He's become a niche figure, successfully reinventing himself as a wellness guru with a solidly large following but well away from the mainstream. I doubt most of the topic gives a flying **** about him.

Now this investigation comes out, and it doesn't paint a good picture. Not only that, it does so with a sustained, unconnected series of women he's encountered that allege rape, sexual assault to immoral and improper actions that abused his position. The stuff with the 16yo is grim, but asides from her alleging he forced himself on her, it's not illegal activity... but it's immoral, nasty, seedy, sleazy and paints a picture of someone that probably should be looked at with skepticism.

I don't think people are being clouded by bias in saying that seems to be the actions of a complete word removed.