ChaoticMusings

SF · Getting Gobby

RE: Dispatches...

Date: Sep 18 1:36 PM, 2023

Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Syl wrote:
Better late than never.

"TV bosses have launched a probe into Russell Brand amid claims he raped and sexually abused women.

The BBC and a production firm for Channel 4 are looking into his alleged behaviour and whether chiefs knew about it. A source said the reviews will aim to see “if a blind eye was turned to” any claims. Brand denies the accusations.

Our source said: "The reviews will look at what concerns were raised at the time, and crucially if they were acted on. There is more than a whiff of panic among certain quarters about what the probe could uncover, and if a blind eye was turned to aspects of Russell Brand's behaviour."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/russell-brand-dispatches-channel4-allegations-30955255
Syl, just watch this.
I watched it.
The voice over is wrong to suggest that this started because politically, Brand was treading on too many toes. It all started when the once 16 year old decided to speak out, and it grew from there.
As for the 'faked' texts...it does look doctored in some way, but that could be because they took out text that was not appropriate to be shown publicly.
If the police decide to investigate, it would soon become obvious to them whether they were genuine or not.
I understand his supporters will want to disbelieve the allegations, and no doubt some women will be rushing to add their own sordid encounters to the rest, but as there seems to have been a huge cover up. dont you think it's right that if he did sexually abuse, rape, and take advantage of women, including schoolgirls (latest accusation) he should be brought to book?

I agree Syl, if he's guilty of any of these allegations, he needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

However, what if this is just a sting operation?

He's very outspoken against the present democratic party, and as we've already witnessed, it could make you an undesirable.

Is it possible that he's being targeted because he's too outspoken?

I don't know, but you will have to ask yourself, why the need to doctor text messages if he's so obviously guilty?

I understand the SMS conversation was about the use of condoms, not rape, so why would channel 4 make it look like the girl said no to rape, when she actually said no to him not using a condom?

It changes the conversation all together.

It's still not right, but that's a different subject to be dealt with.

It has nothing to do with rape.

Would you not agree?

I think it's wrong that cases like this are being judged and prosecuted by the court of public opinion.

It could ruin innocent lives, as mud always sticks.

This needs to be investigated by the proper authorities, not by a rating hungry TV station.

The man deserves proper legal representation, of which he was deprived of.

Anyway, just my opinion.

Magica · Go Outside

SF wrote:
Syl wrote:
It's not hard to see where Brand got his contempt for women from.

"Brand's dad has criticised the attention around the 'unproven' allegations, writing: "Is this seriously the most important thing happening in this world? Immigrants? Cost of living? 10s of thousands killed in Ukraine? Who is prioritising at BBC News. Who is really driving this vendetta?"
With many struggling to pay bills. The unproven accusations of 15 years ago take lead on BBC News?"

...........

Writing in his 2007 autobiography My Booky Wook, the comedian described, when he was 17, his dad took him to Hong Kong and introduced him to prostitutes, where he received oral sex from a sex worker while his dad was on the adjacent bed with two other women.

He wrote.. "In the course of the rest of that holiday, I had sex with loads more prostitutes; always got a hard on, never wore a condom, and never fell in love. In Bangkok, when bar girls in Patpong left their posts to follow me down the street, cooing and touching my hair, I felt that I had my dad's unequivocal approval."

Russell Brand's dad, Ron Brand, speaks out in defence of son following Channel 4 Dispatches documentary (ladbible.com)

Pathetic. A pair of idiots.

Disgusting pair of

Date: Sep 18 4:44 PM, 2023

Anonymous wrote:

I understand the SMS conversation was about the use of condoms, not rape, so why would channel 4 make it look like the girl said no to rape, when she actually said no to him not using a condom?
It changes the conversation all together.
It's still not right, but that's a different subject to be dealt with.
It has nothing to do with rape.

FYI it is, in the UK at least.

"In the UK, although no specific legislation has been enacted, there have been a handful of convictions and thus case law has established that non consensual condom removal is rape"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal

Maddog · Go Outside

Maybe Russell is in possession of Epstein client list and this investigation will finally get that publicized.

Magica · Go Outside

Glad to see they've cancelled his tour at long last.

Date: Sep 18 6:12 PM, 2023

Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Syl, just watch this.
.....
As for the 'faked' texts...it does look doctored in some way, but that could be because they took out text that was not appropriate to be shown publicly.
.....

I don't think that Youtube clip demonstrates that the screen shot is faked in any way. One has to be very very careful when making claims because one would look a complete fool if it turns out that this was genuine and not fake. When I look at the white on blue background text it looks to me that the white text went from normal to bold. So I don't think that change in text dimension is proof that it was faked. Whether this alleged screen shot is relevant or not I don't know. All I am saying is that the Youtube upload from Mr H Reviews, in my opinion, does not prove this is fake. It may be, but I am not convinced by the argument used.

Date: Sep 18 6:28 PM, 2023

You hear stories of famous sports stars (basketball, football, golf players), rich young men, famous musicians and actors admitting to sleeping with upwards of tens of thousands of young women, often arranged by their agents - to go back stage and meet their heroes. Not sure if those numbers are exaggerated but it seems to be a lifestyle for some when fame and riches reaches them. Boris Johnson when he was a journalist and editor had a reputation for shagging staff members and others he encountered - not sure if this is true. Could have been just malicious gossip.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Anonymous wrote:
Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Syl wrote:
Better late than never.

"TV bosses have launched a probe into Russell Brand amid claims he raped and sexually abused women.

The BBC and a production firm for Channel 4 are looking into his alleged behaviour and whether chiefs knew about it. A source said the reviews will aim to see “if a blind eye was turned to” any claims. Brand denies the accusations.

Our source said: "The reviews will look at what concerns were raised at the time, and crucially if they were acted on. There is more than a whiff of panic among certain quarters about what the probe could uncover, and if a blind eye was turned to aspects of Russell Brand's behaviour."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/russell-brand-dispatches-channel4-allegations-30955255
Syl, just watch this.
I watched it.
The voice over is wrong to suggest that this started because politically, Brand was treading on too many toes. It all started when the once 16 year old decided to speak out, and it grew from there.
As for the 'faked' texts...it does look doctored in some way, but that could be because they took out text that was not appropriate to be shown publicly.
If the police decide to investigate, it would soon become obvious to them whether they were genuine or not.
I understand his supporters will want to disbelieve the allegations, and no doubt some women will be rushing to add their own sordid encounters to the rest, but as there seems to have been a huge cover up. dont you think it's right that if he did sexually abuse, rape, and take advantage of women, including schoolgirls (latest accusation) he should be brought to book?

I agree Syl, if he's guilty of any of these allegations, he needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
However, what if this is just a sting operation?
He's very outspoken against the present democratic party, and as we've already witnessed, it could make you an undesirable.
Is it possible that he's being targeted because he's too outspoken?
I don't know, but you will have to ask yourself, why the need to doctor text messages if he's so obviously guilty?
I understand the SMS conversation was about the use of condoms, not rape, so why would channel 4 make it look like the girl said no to rape, when she actually said no to him not using a condom?
It changes the conversation all together.
It's still not right, but that's a different subject to be dealt with.
It has nothing to do with rape.
Would you not agree?
I think it's wrong that cases like this are being judged and prosecuted by the court of public opinion.
It could ruin innocent lives, as mud always sticks.
This needs to be investigated by the proper authorities, not by a rating hungry TV station.
The man deserves proper legal representation, of which he was deprived of.
Anyway, just my opinion.

Your opinion is as valid as anyones.

I have no doubt he is a thorn in some peoples sides, and a lot of people find him pretty repulsive, me included, but given the women who are claiming he raped and abused them, I don't think their words should be ignored.

Hopefully, given the way this has escalated over the last couple of days, some of the women will be pressing charges, then it'll be in the hands of the police, the CPS, and the courts if it comes to that.

It hasn't been proven the texts have been doctored in any way...that's just opinion. I don't text, so my opinion is useless. Dispatches put their reputation on the line in vouching they had been verified.

I agree that the present way people are damned before they ever see a court is wrong, but it's legal, and that's the way the news operates in this country.

If and when cases get to court, innocent people have a platform to show their innocence.

From what has been reported, Brand does have legal representation, he has been threatening women to keep quiet or face legal charges brought against them....a classic way to scare vulnerable people into silence.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Anonymous wrote:
You hear stories of famous sports stars (basketball, football, golf players), rich young men, famous musicians and actors admitting to sleeping with upwards of tens of thousands of young women, often arranged by their agents - to go back stage and meet their heroes. Not sure if those numbers are exaggerated but it seems to be a lifestyle for some when fame and riches reaches them. Boris Johnson when he was a journalist and editor had a reputation for shagging staff members and others he encountered - not sure if this is true. Could have been just malicious gossip.

Anyone can shag anyone else if they so wish...as long as it's legal and consensual.

Maddog · Go Outside

Magica wrote:
Glad to see they've cancelled his tour at long last.

It's only been like two days since the accusations were made.

Should all accused be forced to stop working until they prove their innocence?.

Maddog · Go Outside

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I understand the SMS conversation was about the use of condoms, not rape, so why would channel 4 make it look like the girl said no to rape, when she actually said no to him not using a condom?
It changes the conversation all together.
It's still not right, but that's a different subject to be dealt with.
It has nothing to do with rape.

FYI it is, in the UK at least.

"In the UK, although no specific legislation has been enacted, there have been a handful of convictions and thus case law has established that non consensual condom removal is rape"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal

Might be illegal in California..

In any event it sort of changes the dynamics.

Her and Russell had sex before. He invited her over and asked her to bring a friend. I'm guessing to help her make him lunch.

She gets there and before she can make him a sandwich, he puts her against the wall and has sex with her without a condom. This upsets her and she leaves. No word on if her friend ever showed up later to make sandwiches..

Maddog · Go Outside

The more I read about this it seems like it has very little to do with consent, but what sort of activities the consensual partners wanted to engage in.

This creates a pretty slippery slope where someone can get their life ruined for not following the choreographed moves that a willing partner has in their head. A partner that may harbor some serious ill will after being discarded for something more interesting and new..

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I understand the SMS conversation was about the use of condoms, not rape, so why would channel 4 make it look like the girl said no to rape, when she actually said no to him not using a condom?
It changes the conversation all together.
It's still not right, but that's a different subject to be dealt with.
It has nothing to do with rape.

FYI it is, in the UK at least.

"In the UK, although no specific legislation has been enacted, there have been a handful of convictions and thus case law has established that non consensual condom removal is rape"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal
Might be illegal in California..

In any event it sort of changes the dynamics.

Her and Russell had sex before. He invited her over and asked her to bring a friend. I'm guessing to help her make him lunch.

She gets there and before she can make him a sandwich, he puts her against the wall and has sex with her without a condom. This upsets her and she leaves. No word on if her friend ever showed up later to make sandwiches..

It makes no difference if they had sex 10 minutes before...if a man forces a woman to have sex, he is raping her.

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I understand the SMS conversation was about the use of condoms, not rape, so why would channel 4 make it look like the girl said no to rape, when she actually said no to him not using a condom?
It changes the conversation all together.
It's still not right, but that's a different subject to be dealt with.
It has nothing to do with rape.

FYI it is, in the UK at least.

"In the UK, although no specific legislation has been enacted, there have been a handful of convictions and thus case law has established that non consensual condom removal is rape"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal
Might be illegal in California..

In any event it sort of changes the dynamics.

Her and Russell had sex before. He invited her over and asked her to bring a friend. I'm guessing to help her make him lunch.

She gets there and before she can make him a sandwich, he puts her against the wall and has sex with her without a condom. This upsets her and she leaves. No word on if her friend ever showed up later to make sandwiches..
It makes no difference if they had sex 10 minutes before...if a man forces a woman to have sex, he is raping her.

Is it rape if she says yes, but only with a condom?

I don't think this case has anything to do with consent. It's about the parameters around what that consent entails.

What if he wore the wrong color condom?

Maddog · Go Outside

It appears this woman was worried about catching a disease from Russell, which is understandable. But she wasn't worried about sex with him..

Date: Sep 18 7:19 PM, 2023

Not sure if this is appropriate for this thread:

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I understand the SMS conversation was about the use of condoms, not rape, so why would channel 4 make it look like the girl said no to rape, when she actually said no to him not using a condom?
It changes the conversation all together.
It's still not right, but that's a different subject to be dealt with.
It has nothing to do with rape.

FYI it is, in the UK at least.

"In the UK, although no specific legislation has been enacted, there have been a handful of convictions and thus case law has established that non consensual condom removal is rape"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal
Might be illegal in California..

In any event it sort of changes the dynamics.

Her and Russell had sex before. He invited her over and asked her to bring a friend. I'm guessing to help her make him lunch.

She gets there and before she can make him a sandwich, he puts her against the wall and has sex with her without a condom. This upsets her and she leaves. No word on if her friend ever showed up later to make sandwiches..
It makes no difference if they had sex 10 minutes before...if a man forces a woman to have sex, he is raping her.
Is it rape if she says yes, but only with a condom?

I don't think this case has anything to do with consent. It's about the parameters around what that consent entails.

What if he wore the wrong color condom?

In the documentary, the woman declared: "July 1st 2012 was when my rape happened. I was out late and he happened to call me and say, 'I've had a really bad day, please come over'... The door was unlocked, I just walked into his place, [and] he comes running out of the bedroom naked."

"He came at me with kisses and stuff which was kind of fun, and then it wasn't then fun when I couldn't move. I knew what he wanted from me at that point," the woman continued.

Speaking of her trauma, the woman said: "He pushed me up against a wall... He is grabbing at my underwear, pulling it to the side and I am telling him to get off of me but he won't get off."

Shortly after the incident, Brand sent messages to the woman, apologising for his "crazy and selfish" behaviour.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

So at least one woman is claiming actual rape....not sex without a condom, rough sex, choking her with hs penis, actual penetrative sex without her permission.
She visited a rape crisis centre the day after, and the programme claims to have seen her medical records verifying this.

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I understand the SMS conversation was about the use of condoms, not rape, so why would channel 4 make it look like the girl said no to rape, when she actually said no to him not using a condom?
It changes the conversation all together.
It's still not right, but that's a different subject to be dealt with.
It has nothing to do with rape.

FYI it is, in the UK at least.

"In the UK, although no specific legislation has been enacted, there have been a handful of convictions and thus case law has established that non consensual condom removal is rape"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal
Might be illegal in California..

In any event it sort of changes the dynamics.

Her and Russell had sex before. He invited her over and asked her to bring a friend. I'm guessing to help her make him lunch.

She gets there and before she can make him a sandwich, he puts her against the wall and has sex with her without a condom. This upsets her and she leaves. No word on if her friend ever showed up later to make sandwiches..
It makes no difference if they had sex 10 minutes before...if a man forces a woman to have sex, he is raping her.
Is it rape if she says yes, but only with a condom?

I don't think this case has anything to do with consent. It's about the parameters around what that consent entails.

What if he wore the wrong color condom?
In the documentary, the woman declared: "July 1st 2012 was when my rape happened. I was out late and he happened to call me and say, 'I've had a really bad day, please come over'... The door was unlocked, I just walked into his place, [and] he comes running out of the bedroom naked."
"He came at me with kisses and stuff which was kind of fun, and then it wasn't then fun when I couldn't move. I knew what he wanted from me at that point," the woman continued.
Speaking of her trauma, the woman said: "He pushed me up against a wall... He is grabbing at my underwear, pulling it to the side and I am telling him to get off of me but he won't get off."
Shortly after the incident, Brand sent messages to the woman, apologising for his "crazy and selfish" behaviour.

That's the one where he said bring a friend too..

She knew what he wanted before she got there. She just wanted him to wear a condom like during the last time she answered his booty call..