Seems Russell Brands grifting days are over..

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 18/09/2023 at 14:41, keelansgrandad said:

But the media has made several allegations over the years such as about Stuart Hall, Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris and were correct. If yu use the media to portray yourself, then don't be surprised that you are under scrutiny from the same media.

The media made sure that he had a comfortable live, they hired him for all sorts of programs,  ensured that he got a taxi at the right time to get to another engagement and saying nothing at all during the last 20 years. why did they not scrutinize him whilst exploiting his celeb status?

But let us know when he is arrested and or charged for anything, cause I'm not using MSM or the racist BBC anymore.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

The media made sure that he had a comfortable live, they hired him for all sorts of programs,  ensured that he got a taxi at the right time to get to another engagement and saying nothing at all during the last 20 years. why did they not scrutinize him whilst exploiting his celeb status?

But let us know when he is arrested and or charged for anything, cause I'm not using MSM or the racist BBC anymore.

It isn't just a matter of being charged. Inappropriate behaviour which has been confirmed by many not directly involved, may well mean you are not fit for the position you occupy.

Swearing isn't illegal but would not be appropriate for many jobs and would likely lead to dismissal.

The celeb industry and those involved in it are in many cases, morally deficient and tend to exceed the boundaries.

Many of the women involved may well have known what he was like so their claims may be hypocritical. But that doesn't excuse him from inappropriate behaviour. 

I don't like the man because he is such a shallow and hypocritical narcissist (probably the right attributes for a celeb) so couldn't care less whether he remains in his profession.

[benchwarmer 625]

One obvious reason why this kind of offence is seldom reported is that by its very nature, first-hand independent witnesses and/or forensic evidence are seldom available.  Therefore the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction is almost impossible to meet. The existence of the Me Too movement shows what can happen when injustice is baked into the legal system.   

If a case ever gets to court it comes down to whose version the jury believes, and defence barristers routinely subject accusers to gaslighting with a full-on "you asked for it/you're a liar" line of questioning.  In the absence of a 'not proven' option, even repeat offenders are not only acquitted but can go on to depict themselves as the victims, which feeds into the narrative of Andrew Tate and his ilk.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by benchwarmer

[Herman 9,838]

He should be in the same bin as Brand.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

16 minutes ago, Herman said:

He should be in the same bin as Brand.

 

Yes - What's rather alarming is GBnoNews is trying to distance themselves from investigating these claims over their presenter for much the same reasons righties criticize the BBC for (historically). They seem incapable of learning.

He's obviously got questions to answer as per the Sun investigating and MailonLine pausing his column. It's not as if has even really refuted the claims!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

Hypothetically, were anyone in this group to have a sexual misconduct allegation made against them that was criminal in nature, would they think it appropriate for their guilt or innocence to be a matter of public conjecture? Would they consider it reasonable for their employers to dig into it, regardless of whether it happened while in their employee, and would they feel they had the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Edited September 22, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

50 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Hypothetically, were anyone in this group to have a sexual misconduct allegation made against them that was criminal in nature, would they think it appropriate for their guilt or innocence to be a matter of public conjecture? Would they consider it reasonable for their employers to dig into it, regardless of whether it happened while in their employee, and would they feel they had the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

The answer is usually no of course but there is a caveat.

If you are a presenter or the 'face' of a media organization / business / royalty representing their 'values' in the public realm then clearly they have a right indeed a need to make sure your are squeaky clean.

Sadly with our social media world it's nigh on impossible to stop rumour and innuendo. 

[benchwarmer 625]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Hypothetically, were anyone in this group to have a sexual misconduct allegation made against them that was criminal in nature, would they think it appropriate for their guilt or innocence to be a matter of public conjecture? Would they consider it reasonable for their employers to dig into it, regardless of whether it happened while in their employee, and would they feel they had the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

I'd be looking to use the 'public' (ie. media-generated) conjecture for my own ends by hiring a defence lawyer to argue that it prejudices my chances of a fair trial.

Edited September 22, 2023 by benchwarmer

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

23 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

I'd be looking to use the 'public' (ie. media-generated) conjecture for my own ends by hiring a defence lawyer who would argue that it prejudices my chances of a fair trial.

That's always been an issue for many decades in high profile cases. However, in this country at least, juries rise above such issues (such that I don't think your arguemnt will fly) and in extremis we can have non-jury trials.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Hypothetically, were anyone in this group to have a sexual misconduct allegation made against them that was criminal in nature, would they think it appropriate for their guilt or innocence to be a matter of public conjecture? Would they consider it reasonable for their employers to dig into it, regardless of whether it happened while in their employee, and would they feel they had the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Bragging about it on your own radio show minutes after ought to be reason enough.I am sure any of my employers would have done something if I had bragged I had just exposed myself in  front of a member of staff.

Its nothing to do with the law at the moment, He may not have broken the law. But its inappropriate behaviour that is apparently historical in his case. Several people in the celeb industry have said its well known. So considering they did nothing about Saville, I think its pertinent to investigate wha thas been alleged.

Edited September 22, 2023 by keelansgrandad

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

I'll

13 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

I'd be looking to use the 'public' (ie. media-generated) conjecture for my own ends by hiring a defence lawyer to argue that it prejudices my chances of a fair trial.

And you'd have a fair point.

11 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Bragging about it on your own radio show minutes after ought to be reason enough.I am sure any of my employers would have done something if I had bragged I had just exposed myself in  front of a member of staff.

Its nothing to do with the law at the moment, He may not have broken the law. But its inappropriate behaviour that is apparently historical in his case. Several people in the celeb industry have said its well known. So considering they did nothing about Saville, I think its pertinent to investigate wha thas been alleged.

That might apply in the specifics regarding Brand, but that doesn't apply in most cases. It was actually reading about Wootton that inspired the question, where the allegations relate to his time at the Sun, not GBNews.

[The Real Buh 3,486]

Do you think the BBC has a sort of child delivery service for its talent at this point? A kind of “Uber-eats for kids”?

 

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

3 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

Do you think the BBC has a sort of child delivery service for its talent at this point? A kind of “Uber-eats for kids”?

 

Like Jeffrey Epstein and the Church?

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

Brand hasn't changed his political beliefs, he's still a Lefty through and through -- Look at his YT video list and one will see he has made enemies of the world's most powerful. All political persuasions and none...

[The Raptor 1,248]

7 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Like Jeffrey Epstein and the Church?

Slight sidetrack but 'spotlight' is a great film if you've not seen it. True story about journalists uncovering peado priests in Boston 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 21/09/2023 at 15:39, keelansgrandad said:

It isn't just a matter of being charged. Inappropriate behaviour which has been confirmed by many not directly involved, may well mean you are not fit for the position you occupy.

Swearing isn't illegal but would not be appropriate for many jobs and would likely lead to dismissal.

The celeb industry and those involved in it are in many cases, morally deficient and tend to exceed the boundaries.

Many of the women involved may well have known what he was like so their claims may be hypocritical. But that doesn't excuse him from inappropriate behaviour. 

I don't like the man because he is such a shallow and hypocritical narcissist (probably the right attributes for a celeb) so couldn't care less whether he remains in his profession.

I don't like him either, KGD, but were was the media 15/20 years ago when they knew of his behaviour, but assisted and feted him, because he was an interesting celeb, and now that the tone of me too is prevalent, they are hanging him out to dry because he has critical views that do not chime with the tub thumping majority of the media.

I have reservations about the carte blanche approach of the pharmaceutical industry towards public health, How was it possible to reduce the minimum testing research regime for any medicine, be allowed to shorten without any accountability of those companies.

The least they should offer us, is true figures, such as how many death were allocated to covid which had no causal link to the pandemic virus?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

I don't like him either, KGD, but were was the media 15/20 years ago when they knew of his behaviour, but assisted and feted him, because he was an interesting celeb, and now that the tone of me too is prevalent, they are hanging him out to dry because he has critical views that do not chime with the tub thumping majority of the media.

I have reservations about the carte blanche approach of the pharmaceutical industry towards public health, How was it possible to reduce the minimum testing research regime for any medicine, be allowed to shorten without any accountability of those companies.

The least they should offer us, is true figures, such as how many death were allocated to covid which had no causal link to the pandemic virus?

 

The media, governments, papprazzi, celebs. None tell the truth. The tell their version of the truth. 

I was reflecting last week that the announcement from NASA about UPA is as much as you will ever get to find out. Tell them half the truth and they will believe you.

And the media were quite happy to allow Brand elbow room until he went past what they required of him. Then they were happy to ignore him. Now, they seek to bury him. And I'm sure he thought it was funny at first butnow knows its the end for him.