Celebrity Scandals

[479Villan]

4 minutes ago, leemond2008 said:

I've seen this as well, they are saying that there are dates missing off the messages (I might be wrong but if you reply to a message shortly after it was sent then the date doesn't appear as it will be the same as the previous message)

They are also saying that the font is bolder on the second half of a message and that it is misaligned.

Could be some shithousery going on or it could have just been the way the messages were stitched together for the purpose of the program.

Put it this way, if it is shithousery and they have been doctored or faked then they'll be opening themselves up to a lawsuit that will cost them millions, would they be stupid enough to put a 4 year investigation in jeopardy for the sake on one text message?

Look if it's good enough for the guy who's made 100 videos on the "Hellraiser" series of movies, I don't know what else you'd want for debunking.

[El Segundo]

3 minutes ago, 479Villan said:

There's a reason Anne Sullivan was known as "The Miracle Worker," and she was dealing with a student who was not willingly blind and deaf.

There's also a reason why I will now choose to ignore someone who is just posting provocative nonsense to try and get a reaction. 

[479Villan]

Just now, El Segundo said:

There's also a reason why I will now choose to ignore someone who is just posting provocative nonsense to try and get a reaction. 

Physician, heal thyself.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

The audio evidence I've heard suggests he is a scumbag that coerced/bullied/forced his girlfriend into doing things against her will.  I think if charges had been pressed he may well have been convicted.   

I don't think the audio evidence in Greenwood's case is sufficient personally. It doesn't prove there's no consent. It could be CNC. There's no charges so he's innocent. Not sure why you're calling an innocent man a scumbag tbh. It's like 1984 that he had to leave the country despite not being guilty of anything.

[fruitvilla]

OK I'll play Blackstone's Ratio
Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.

Just ignoring the ratio for the moment ... In our minds are Blackstone's guilty persons innocent?

Edited September 17, 2023 by fruitvilla

[El Segundo]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

How is this ad hominem?

You asked me how I feel you misunderstand 1984. I answered you.

In 1984, accusations are made and those accused go to the Ministry of Truth for reeducation.

Here, we have a millionaire who will get even richer from this accusation. As he's able to freely post his defence to millions of supporters on a platform. This platform where he can post that defence has millions of members, and is owned by a billionaire who has already come out in support of him.

So I'll ask again. Perhaps even clearer.

How on earth is a piece of investigative independent journalism done by two idealogically differing media outlets investigating the sexual misconduct of a millionaire remotely reminicent of  the world of 1984? 

Well quite simply because it's aimed personally at me, rather than what I'm arguing.

Again you are misconstruing what I have said.  Again I'll try to explain even clearer. I am comparing the investigation into Brand to 1984.  I am saying that the tendency for some to conclude that a person must be guilty based on accusations alone rather than actual proof is not too far removed  to some unsavoury elements of 1984.        

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Well quite simply because it's aimed personally at me, rather than what I'm arguing.

Again you are misconstruing what I have said.  Again I'll try to explain even clearer. I am comparing the investigation into Brand to 1984.  I am saying that the tendency for some to conclude that a person must be guilty based on accusations alone rather than actual proof is not too far removed  to some unsavoury elements of 1984.        

There is actual proof though. Your view is that that proof isn’t sufficient, mine is that it demonstrates some wrongdoing.  Neither viewpoint has any relation to 1984 and it’s stupid to compare it. 
 

your entire argument here seems to be based on that a 4 year investigation is ultimately just ‘some accusations’. This is entirely in bad faith. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by StefanAVFC

[El Segundo]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I don't think the audio evidence in Greenwood's case is sufficient personally. It doesn't prove there's no consent. It could be CNC. There's no charges so he's innocent. Not sure why you're calling an innocent man a scumbag tbh. It's like 1984 that he had to leave the country despite not being guilty of anything.

Faulty logic.  No charges do not mean he's innocent.  No charges means he couldn't be found guilty or not guilty.   

I haven't called him a scumbag either, I've said the evidence I've heard suggests he is one. 

Interesting though that you're defending Greenwood now whilst condemning Brand, when Greenwood had to leave the country precisely because of the court of public opinion that you so advocate.  

[StefanAVFC]

10 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Faulty logic.  No charges do not mean he's innocent.  No charges means he couldn't be found guilty or not guilty.   

I haven't called him a scumbag either, I've said the evidence I've heard suggests he is one. 

Interesting though that you're defending Greenwood now whilst condemning Brand, when Greenwood had to leave the country precisely because of the court of public opinion that you so advocate.  

I’m absolutely not defending Greenwood, I was posting ironically. 
 

however what I don’t understand is:

Greenwood case, 1 recording, a few pictures, sufficient evidence 

Brand, 4 year investigation, hundreds of witnesses and sources, insufficient evidence 

Why is that? And why do you think that believing Greenwood’s victim based on the evidence is ok, and believing the accusers of Brand is Orwellian?

Your dancing around words is exactly why women don’t press charges. In the court of public opinion, not guilty and innocent are exactly the same thing. 

To be honest im not sure what you even think is Orwellian anymore. Is reading an article of excellently researched investigative journalism and forming an opinion based on that, Orwellian? 

Edited September 17, 2023 by StefanAVFC

[El Segundo]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

There is actual proof though. Your view is that that proof isn’t sufficient, mine is that it demonstrates some wrongdoing.  Neither viewpoint has any relation to 1984 and it’s stupid to compare it. 
 

your entire argument here seems to be based on that a 4 year investigation is ultimately just ‘some accusations’. This is entirely in bad faith. 

There is evidence which supports one of the accusations.  It is not yet conclusive proof that establishes the case. 

A 4 year investigation and yet they felt it necessary to include "he had an affair with a 16 year old" (not big, not clever but not illegal) and " he hung around in his pants in front of me" in the body of evidence of what a heinous character he is.  He may well be the absolute arsehole he comes across as, it really wouldn't surprise me,  but is that really some of the worst they could come up with in four years?  Anyway the number of years is irrelevant, however long it took they remain accusations, some with supporting evidence, some without..     

[KentVillan]

18 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Well quite simply because it's aimed personally at me, rather than what I'm arguing.

Again you are misconstruing what I have said.  Again I'll try to explain even clearer. I am comparing the investigation into Brand to 1984.  I am saying that the tendency for some to conclude that a person must be guilty based on accusations alone rather than actual proof is not too far removed  to some unsavoury elements of 1984.        

But that makes no sense because Russell Brand is a political irrelevance. If these accusations were being levelled at some kind of upstart political candidate who was genuinely threatening to upturn the political order, then okay, maybe it would be worth thinking about why the "establishment" might be going after them suddenly.

This is Russell Brand, though. There's no social control consequence of getting Russell Brand cancelled. It's literally just a famous person being accused of doing various things. It means very little in the grand scheme of things, besides him being a nasty piece of work. There's no obvious conspiracy, nobody benefits.

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, El Segundo said:

There is evidence which supports one of the accusations.  It is not yet conclusive proof that establishes the case. 

A 4 year investigation and yet they felt it necessary to include "he had an affair with a 16 year old" (not big, not clever but not illegal) and " he hung around in his pants in front of me" in the body of evidence of what a heinous character he is.  He may well be the absolute arsehole he comes across as, it really wouldn't surprise me,  but is that really some of the worst they could come up with in four years?  Anyway the number of years is irrelevant, however long it took they remain accusations, some with supporting evidence, some without..     

this is where it’s obvious to me that you’re not posting in good faith. 

the ‘worst they could come up with’ in 4 years is not ‘he hung around in his pants’

it’s ‘he shoved his dick down my throat so far I choked’ (which was also the 16 year old) and that a woman went to a rape treatment centre after an encounter where he texts him saying ‘no means no’ and he apologises. 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

But that makes no sense because Russell Brand is a political irrelevance. If these accusations were being levelled at some kind of upstart political candidate who was genuinely threatening to upturn the political order, then okay, maybe it would be worth thinking about why the "establishment" might be going after them suddenly.

This is Russell Brand, though. There's no social control consequence of getting Russell Brand cancelled. It's literally just a famous person being accused of doing various things. It means very little in the grand scheme of things, besides him being a nasty piece of work. There's no obvious conspiracy, nobody benefits.

It means even less considering he probably won’t face any charges and if anything, he’ll make money from this based on his numbers on YouTube and Twitter for his defence video. 

[NurembergVillan]

4 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

"he had an affair with a 16 year old" (not big, not clever but not illegal)

What about "he throatf**ked said 16 year old against her will to the point of making her eyes water and she had to punch him in the stomach to escape"?

Part of the story here is that he appears to have been willing to commit non-consensual, violent sexual acts against women with whom he already had some degree of a relationship.

[El Segundo]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I’m absolutely not defending Greenwood, I was posting ironically. 
 

however what I don’t understand is:

Greenwood case, 1 recording, a few pictures, sufficient evidence 

Brand, 4 year investigation, hundreds of witnesses and sources, insufficient evidence 

Why is that? And why do you think that believing Greenwood’s victim based on the evidence is ok, and believing the accusers of Brand is Orwellian?

Your dancing around words is exactly why women don’t press charges. In the court of public opinion, not guilty and innocent are exactly the same thing. 

To be honest im not sure what you even think is Orwellian anymore. Is reading an article of excellently researched investigative journalism and forming an opinion based on that, Orwellian? 

It's tiresome how often you get it wrong, I'm now assuming it's deliberate to try and wind me up.. 

Please point out where I have said that Brand's accusers are Orwellian.   You won't be able to because I haven't. 

Please point out where I said I believe Greenwood's victim.  You won't be able to because I haven't.

And you have yet to refer me to the other items you falsely attributed to me in previous posts. 

Dancing around words?  I'm sorry but if you really believe "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing in any context then there isn't much point in discussing this any further with you.

TIme for bed as I have work tomorrow, and this is going nowhere.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

It's tiresome how often you get it wrong, I'm now assuming it's deliberate to try and wind me up.. 

Please point out where I have said that Brand's accusers are Orwellian.   You won't be able to because I haven't. 

Please point out where I said I believe Greenwood's victim.  You won't be able to because I haven't.

And you have yet to refer me to the other items you falsely attributed to me in previous posts. 

Dancing around words?  I'm sorry but if you really believe "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing in any context then there isn't much point in discussing this any further with you.

TIme for bed as I have work tomorrow, and this is going nowhere.

Ta ra, I learned a lot about Orwell and critical thinking today, I’ll be forever grateful. 

[KentVillan]

6 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

It's tiresome how often you get it wrong, I'm now assuming it's deliberate to try and wind me up.. 

Please point out where I have said that Brand's accusers are Orwellian.   You won't be able to because I haven't. 

Please point out where I said I believe Greenwood's victim.  You won't be able to because I haven't.

And you have yet to refer me to the other items you falsely attributed to me in previous posts. 

Dancing around words?  I'm sorry but if you really believe "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing in any context then there isn't much point in discussing this any further with you.

TIme for bed as I have work tomorrow, and this is going nowhere.

Literally on this same page you said:

37 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

I am comparing the investigation into Brand to 1984.  I am saying that the tendency for some to conclude that a person must be guilty based on accusations alone rather than actual proof is not too far removed  to some unsavoury elements of 1984.        

Do you understand what Orwellian usually means?

And no, I'm not trying to wind you up, btw, I'm all ears, but I don't think what he was saying took your words out of context ... maybe your intended meaning wasn't what was conveyed, but it reads as if you're saying people are going after Brand in a 1984 (i.e. Orwellian) way.

[Rodders]

58 minutes ago, leemond2008 said:

I've seen this as well, they are saying that there are dates missing off the messages (I might be wrong but if you reply to a message shortly after it was sent then the date doesn't appear as it will be the same as the previous message)

They are also saying that the font is bolder on the second half of a message and that it is misaligned.

Could be some shithousery going on or it could have just been the way the messages were stitched together for the purpose of the program.

Put it this way, if it is shithousery and they have been doctored or faked then they'll be opening themselves up to a lawsuit that will cost them millions, would they be stupid enough to put a 4 year investigation in jeopardy for the sake on one text message?

Beyond any other consideration, two organisations going public with serious accusations of assault would be sued to oblivion if it was clearly made up. Britain has pretty strict libel laws I think. They gave brand 8 days to respond. He hasn't. The lawyers signed off on this bits knowing if it's wrong they'll go bankrupt from paying court fees. They aren't making these allegations on a whim. Balance of probabilities, I'm confident there's truth to these claims. But I'm not prosecuting a court case. This is is just a forum in which people express opinions. I don't know for certain and asking for that level of certainty is basically saying no one should get prosecuted for sex crimes. 

 

Also this whole court of public opinion line is baloney too. People discuss everything from tabloid gossip through to well documented true crime sagas and everything in between. Brand is just on that continuum. People will have opinions. If there's **** all to the claims, I look forward to brand making gazillions in suing them.

[LondonLax]

Brand will most likely never face a court and will most likely never face any sort of legal punishment, so he’s not going to be unfairly treated by the state in some sort of 1984 way. 

However ‘the court of public opinion’ is still a thing. This ’court’ is simply all of us being presented with the evidence of the journalist’s investigation and deciding whether we think it is more likely Brand is telling the truth or whether we believe it is more likely one or more of the women are telling the truth.  

 

[maqroll]

By the way, I'm quite certain nobody on here particularly cares what Brand's political views are or if he even believes what he says, but it's telling that the people who are supporting him on Twatter this weekend are on the political Right. They support him because they view him as one of their own, and when it comes to their own, they'll excuse every bad deed imaginable, while holding their perceived political enemies to a much higher standard. Just look at Trump's cult members.