You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Anyone catch after the adverts, the following film was airing “slightly earlier than advertised.” I wonder what they had to cut out at short notice?
Given that it wasn’t even confirmed in the schedules until about an hour or two prior to transmission, I suspect there’s been a hell of a super-injunction legal bunfight going on pretty much right up unto the wire?
That was my point.
Yup. The inhouse lawyers will have been very, very busy and probably asked for a third party set of lawyers to mark their homework after that work.
BBC 5 o'clock news announced it, just after Final Score.
When are they ever not?
My point exactly. The mental gymnastics involved for someone to nullify the scope of the allegations is wild.
I cant believe he had so many subscribers on YT.
ctkFull Member
I cant believe he had so many subscribers on YT.
hed gone balls deep in the hard right conspiracy world
that's a very lucrative grift
I cant believe he had so many subscribers on YT
I can. Always keep in mind how thick the average person is, and then remember 50% of the people on the planet are even thicker than that. There's no end of gullible fools desperately lapping up his conspiracy nonsense
I still don’t know what I’m supposed to be thinking about @cinnamon_girl
Fancy popping back to enlighten me because I honestly don’t know.
For those saying that it should go to court, sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to prove, which is why they have such a low conviction rate, because it almost always comes down to he says/she says.
Which women know, which is partly why they don’t come forward.
I’ve just watched it and it’s deeply disturbing.
I challenge anyone to sit through it and say that it’s part of some deep state conspiracy
Andrew Tate, Laurence Fox, Russel Brand, Jordon Peterson… they’re all the same.
They’ve built their platforms to monetise exploiting gullible people by offering them easy answers to blame everyone else for their inadequacy. It’s very lucrative
I’m sure if Boris Johnson didn’t have the easy access to more powerful influential people to facilitate his career he’d be doing much the same
All narcissist sociopaths who have been very smart in exploiting the lack of regulation of social media
A reply I just received over on Twitter,
For those saying that it should go to court, sexual assault cases are notoriously hard to prove, which is why they have such a low conviction rate, because it almost always comes down to he says/she says.
Which women know, which is partly why they don’t come forward.
I would like to think, perhaps naively, that there's strength in numbers here. I said this earlier, one historical report is near-impossible to prove but multiple reports all telling the story coupled with him repeatedly boasting about it in public is surely well into the realms of "beyond reasonable doubt"?
I don't know if there's enough to build a court case but if they do I hope they throw the Booky Wook at him.
It’s very Jimmy Saville in that the powers that be at Endemol, like the BBC with Saville, knew full well what he was up to, but decided to turn a blind eye to his behaviour
They facilitated a lot of this. As did the BBC. The Jimmy Saville conversation is beyond belief
Why don’t we believe women?
It's not really gender biased on the choosing not to believe victims front, TBH. It's just that it is more likely a male who commits a sex crime and more likely a male who then co-opts the hard of thinking into complicity.
The psychology of the conspiracy nut is genuinely baffling, although I'm sure some psychoanalysts find it fascinating. Is it as simple as being genuinely played and not having the capacity to deal with the shame of admitting it? Or is it that, deep down, the conspiracy nut knows what they are propagating is nonsense, but they just crave the attention at any cost?
It truly is a modern phenomenon - the potential that the internet and social media has for establishing good sharing of good information seems to have been lost. Cynics following the Surkov playbook took one look and worked out how to play their games casting a wider net than ever.
Sad and scary.
Why don’t we believe women?
It’s not really gender biased on the choosing not to believe victims front, TBH. It’s just that it is more likely a male who commits a sex crime and more likely a male who then co-opts the hard of thinking into complicity.
Hm.
I suspect this falls into the "simple questions have complex answers" bucket.
Certainly historically, women were unlikely to be believed because Patriarchy. I'd like to think we've got better at this but you don't need to spend long on Musk-era Twitter to see that we've still got a ways to go yet. Go see why Katherine Ryan is trending right now, for instance. Or indeed, the reply I just had from this unit:
https://twitter.com/cjmgoggins/status/1703183441938767927
In isolation, historical claims are difficult to prove without corroborating witnesses or #metoo reports. And we operate on "innocent until proven guilty." Is it right to convict a potentially innocent man? "He might've done it" isn't good enough.
In this specific case - like with Savile - it's at least as much about power. Savile's victims were lured by their stardom and then scared to speak out because of who he was. Who's more likely to be believed, a TV sensation and national treasure who does a lot of work for charity, or Tracey the 16-year old nail technician.
All that said though. We need to be better at this. There might well be the odd gold-digger who sees a soft target (I still think that Michael Jackson fell foul of this) but on the whole I do not believe that the vast majority of assault victims just make it up for attention or money. We need to be much better at creating safe spaces for women - for anyone - to come forward and report what's happened to them in the knowledge that they'll be taken seriously and with respect.
Tragically there seems a receptive audience for all these self-serving charlatans
https://twitter.com/deplorablevet84/status/1703164455855460362?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
The conspiracy igbechesdvof dunking in dvon
I would like to think, perhaps naively, that there’s strength in numbers here. I said this earlier, one historical report is near-impossible to prove but multiple reports all telling the story coupled with him repeatedly boasting about it in public is surely well into the realms of “beyond reasonable doubt”?
Exactly my thoughts. It was practically his main selling point, his voracious sexual appetite, which he promoted every time he appeared on a TV chat show. There isn’t a single soul can convince me that every one of his vic… sorry conquests willingly threw themselves at his feet thankful that he considered them worthy of his Christ-like attention. I’m surprised he didn’t have ‘Jesus Christ Pose’ as his intro music. Or maybe he did, I don’t know. He always looked like he needed dunking in a cattle trough and given a bloody good scrub with a yard broom and a bottle of Domestos.
🤮
I would like to think, perhaps naively, that there’s strength in numbers here.
There needs to be. For all it's world wide appeal and the significance of the #metoo movement, Weinstein was convicted on just one charge of rape and four counts of sexual abuse for the 20 plus years of offences that are now coming to light.
The psychology of the conspiracy nut is genuinely baffling
It's not really, a mix of personality traits and motivations, including folks who rely strongly on their own intuition and are convinced of their own intellect and intelligence, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and the perception of imagined threats to their environment or their lifestyles.
It truly is a modern phenomenon
I would say the breadth and depth of them is modern, and how quickly they're spread, but Q-anon is just the blood liable (perhaps the world's oldest conspiracy theory) bought into the 21st C, and for all their immediacy no one really care anymore about the "fact" that Germans were spreading disease in American cities in the run up to the invasion that was going to take place in 1917.
It’s not really, a mix of personality traits and motivations, including folks who rely strongly on their own intuition and are convinced of their own intellect and intelligence, feeling a sense of antagonism and superiority toward others, and the perception of imagined threats to their environment or their lifestyles.
You just described 90% of STW posters who exist solely in the chat/political threads.
Or is it that, deep down, the conspiracy nut knows what they are propagating is nonsense, but they just crave the attention at any cost?
This article would suggest that:
Quite a few snippets came out in Alex Jones (Infowars) divorce hearings. Cynical doesn’t even begin to cover it. The contempt for his listenership is stunning.
For a lot of people involved in it, it gives them status. It’s quite easy to build a reputation in online communities and social media, especially if someone has a (ahem) tenuous relationship with the truth.
Coupled with the tendency for social media to amplify outrageous things and I can start to see how people fall down the rabbit hole.
Once their identity and sense of self becomes entwined with their status in these communities there is no incentive for them to doubt, and lots for them to continue with it.
All for inocent until proven guilty. Given a lot of the complaints predated Jimmy Saville investigation and various other celebrities being investigated. Surely there was enough allegations/ witnesses to investigate Russell Brand?
Watched part of dispatches last night, the part where he pulled his Jean's down and sat on the audience members lap was beyond the pale.
To me it seems anything goes in the entertainment industry as long as the alleged perpetrator is getting the viewing figures
Given what's just happened following the women's World Cup final there were clips on Dispatches last night of him behaving in a much worse fashion.
Just reread some of thread on here. If he managed to suppress these allegations with an injunction.
Then sorry something very wrong about being able to silence multiple complainant's...
I used to think he was amazing in his earlier 6 Music days. Sad to see him descending into conspiracy nonsense of late.
Given his admissions of drug abuse and sex addiction I am sadly thinking the worst.
Having said that there is a disturbing video on the BBC website this morning, but in the middle of the recounting there is mention of his eyes going black like something out of a supernatural TV programme. Is it just me or does this make the story sound fabricated? No matter what horrible things people do, their eyes don’t go black in real life!!
The only thing I could imagine would be that if your pupils are massively dilated it might change the appearance of your eyes? Seemed a very strange clip to use, unless the BBC decided to use that deliberately to make it sound unreliable?
I suspect Brand was off his head on drugs much of the time, hence his eyes looking black.
I’ll withhold my judgement on RB’s guilt - but these allegations are very serious indeed. I can’t support trial by social media either.
I’m not a paid up member of the tin-foil hat club and don’t believe in a lot of conspiracy theories - but somethings don’t seem to be as simple as they are portrayed and have later turned out not to be e.g the extra-judicial shootings of IRA members in Gibraltar, the Birmingham Six and Extraordinary Rendition. I’m far from a from a terrorist sympathiser - but this was not and is not acceptable.
Yes that was the only thing I could think of - massive pupil dilation secondary to being high as a kite.
For a time after escaping drug addiction it seemed he really wanted to make a positive contribution to society, before he descended from left wing comedian into right wing lunacy.
@cougar - your twitter/x follower made this claim:
Or that 33% of rape allegations are false
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/key-facts-about-how-CPS-prosecutes-allegations-rape#05
A CPS report published in 2013 showed that over a 17-month period, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and, during the same period, there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape.
So less than 1%. Not sure where that 33% number comes from, but given this is twitter/X we're talking about I would assume it is garbage, like (almost) everything else on there these days.
Bad faith actors conflate many stats in this area, some will conflate that allegations that fail to meet an evidence threshold or deemed that 'there is no reasonable prospect of prosecution' are somehow evidence of false allegations, etc etc.
Some real bastards that politicise such offences for their own selfish means.
I think CG's comment further back about 'why now' was a good one, but not for the reasons I suspect her delusions illude to. RB was once a bit of player - had friends of influence that would make bringing this stuff up uncomfortable. Now he has drifted into the making his cash by being popular with the gullible nobodies, he has lost his shield. No one of influence is going to put their career and reputation on the line to muddy the waters for a tosser - there is simply nothing in it for them anymore to do so. It's far more to do with him no longer being a cash cow than any great soothsayer truths he is revealing.
No one of influence is going to put their career and reputation on the line to muddy the waters for a tosser
What about Andrew Tate, Lawrence Fox, Evil Smells and Neil Oliver?
Not sure where that 33% number comes from
95% of Twitter/X stats are made up. FACT!
somethings don’t seem to be as simple as they are portrayed and have later turned out not to be e.g the extra-judicial shootings of IRA members in Gibraltar, the Birmingham Six and Extraordinary Rendition.
The first two of those injustices are examples of where large institutions behaved negligently to victims and actively suppressed justice, and where the truth was revealed by meticulous TV journalism: "Death on the Rock" (This Week) and World in Action.
For a lot of people involved in it, it gives them status. It’s quite easy to build a reputation in online communities and social media, especially if someone has a (ahem) tenuous relationship with the truth. Once their identity and sense of self becomes entwined with their status in these communities there is no incentive for them to doubt, and lots for them to continue with it.
Describes that prick Dr (failed nurse) John Campbell on YouTube perfectly, once he realised his posts reached millions of viewers during the early months of the covid pandemic and raised his status/bank balance he went full on vaccine conspiracy.
What about Andrew Tate, Lawrence Fox, Evil Smells and Neil Oliver?
Not sure if being ironic 😀.....but just incase.......
As I said, no one of influence! They are nobodies too - I'm talking media moguls not fellow scumbags.
I’m talking media moguls not fellow scumbags.
perhaps scumbags of greater influence would be a better description? Can’t say I’m surprised by the allegations against Brand - the Andrew Sachs episode confirmed him as an unpleasant character in my mind.
@convert we may not like it, but there's no denying that Andrew Tate at least has massive influence.
So less than 1%. Not sure where that 33% number comes from
I think I may have found it. About a third of rape cases which actually go to trial result in a "not guilty" verdict. Which of course is not the same thing at all as 'proven to be false'.
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rape-a-lack-of-conviction/
Though, given his subsequent reply to me which I shan't post here but you're welcome to go and read, I'm disinclined to continue that particular dialogue.
Behaving like an immature dickhead (with Johnathan Ross it should be said) is not in any way comparable to assaulting women.
There's a non-paywall copy of The Times' writeup here.
@convert we may not like it, but there’s no denying that Andrew Tate at least has massive influence.
There is influence and there is influence. He has significant over dysfunctional teenage boys. Not people with money.
I absolutely loathe Russel Brand so i'm going to enjoy every minute of his impending downfall.
However, i'm also really not a fan of this whole trial by media circus and think the introduction of a statute of limitations as many other countries have would improve the situation, as a trial based on stuff that happened decades ago in some instances is always going to be flawed.
But in all of these cases raising concerns at the time seems to have been incredibly difficult as it's often one persons word against another, and one of those people has a lot more power and money to pay for lawyers. Wouldn't a statute of limitations stop them ever being found out?
Slightly sideways tack here but in some ways I’m not massively surprised that a drug addicted sex crazed guy with a huge ego has done this.
What I found a huge amount more shocking recently was the report about NHS consultants abusing and assaulting female trainee surgeons, often in operating theatres and presumably in front of other staff. This seemed to take up less news space than the current R Brand story amazingly, since it appears to be systemic and involving large numbers of women.
a trial based on stuff that happened decades ago
Latest accusation (so far) is 10 years ago, the earliest is 2006. Hardly the distant past.
What I found a huge amount more shocking recently was the report about NHS consultants abusing and assaulting female trainee surgeons, often in operating theatres and presumably in front of other staff.
Both equally appalling stories, but one celeb appears to "beat" a large number of senior NHS staff
@convert I think you’d be surprised
You think Tait would have influence about a holiday film getting made or a TV series getting commissioned, or ensure a newspaper article is written or not? Tait is not a person of influence beyond influencing twonky young lads' behaviour.
The only real person of influence who will support Musk because as the owner of X Musk can still monetise Brand.
Bob Geldof summed it up = Russell Brand, what a ****
Can I just be clear - I was not serious when listing those people.
Apparently, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon can be added to the list of supporters as well.
Both equally appalling stories, but one celeb appears to “beat” a large number of senior NHS staff
The Dispatches programme took a year to make. When did the NHS thing come to light?
Andrew Tate may only hook 0.5% of those who see any of his content, but that's still a massive number of people.
It is the influencer equivalent of phishing or, from back in the day, mass mailings for timeshare.
Tate, Brand, Peterson et al rely on a small percentage of people being vulnerable enough to be sucked in. It is an utterly cynical worldview, but it guarantees a few messed up cultists will stand up for them. There's one born every minute.
You think Tait would have influence about a holiday film getting made or a TV series getting commissioned, or ensure a newspaper article is written or not?
Is that what I said?
will this lead to a #metoo moment ? if other victims feel empowered enough to go the police (and if the Danni Minogue stories are true) there may be some high profile victims.
<span style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">What I found a huge amount more shocking recently was the report about NHS consultants abusing and assaulting female trainee surgeons, often in operating theatres and presumably in front of other staff. This seemed to take up less news space than the current R Brand story amazingly, since it appears to be systemic and involving large numbers of women.</span>
As an NHS doctor, I was disappointed but not surprised in the least.
I bet he's breaking out the emergency box this afternoon.
@convert Tate has his hooks into people well beyond the teenage boy demographic. He and folk like Peterson hold a far broader appeal then has been credited. Toby Young/ Laurence Fox and the free speech union all sit on the same end of the spectrum of reactionary, regressive thinking. Tate and brand share a very similar mode of operation - that of the radical cult. Similar conversations around de-radicalisation as were had over a decade ago could and should happen today.
Peterson is very smart, and some very smart men (not met a women taken in by him yet) fall for his approach long term. The number of otherwise very savvy guys that will tell you he has been misrepresented by others and is worth listening to is quite scary. Brand on the other hand seems to have a shelf life… people get excited by him for a while, but his own contradictions while bandwagon jumping cannot easily be ignored, so fewer people seem to go along with him for long. He has the charisma but not the smarts.
I lasted about 5 minutes of one of his YouTube videos-
Not about Brand, but might help explain "why not report / why now?"
Kramer if you’re not surprised, surely there are enough decent people like yourself (hopefully!) that are reporting this? Why does it take an external analysis to bring it to light?
Boris Johnson is very similar.
I agree. But Brand isn’t as smart as either of them, and doesn’t have the techniques that they do when it comes to obsfucation and stringing people along longer term. He has the presence to hold an audience, and for any 3 month period of his cult leader behaviour people go along with him. He doesn’t have their shelf life, the ability to shift what he’s selling in a believable manner that Johnson in particular had, and you can just use comparisons of his own words to condemn him as a con artist. As always there are some people that don’t want to see through him, but they are far rarer than for Peterson in my experience. Johnson is more of a busted flush… but look where he got to, and how the money is following in now… more “successful” than any of us will ever be if status, attention and money are the goals.
@andylc reporting it does very little. Lip service is paid, but basically the path of least resistance is almost always chosen.
Personally, I have to pick my battles and choose how and where to spend my energy. Fortunately in my current situation I’m not aware of any sexual harassment occurring.
The last time I had a serious concern, I had to push beyond what would be considered reasonable in order to get some action taken. Even then, I personally feel that the outcome was less than satisfactory.
Long story short, I had to push so hard to get people to take action about something, that actually it could easily have been misconstrued as a vendetta on my part.
As in any organisation it’s a combination of status quo bias, people’s workload being too much, and not wanting to rock the boat.
In the NHS, the whole culture from the Department of Health and NHS England down is inherently unhealthy IMO.
@kelvin - Brand is similar in his approach. He uses flamboyant language to make things sound cleverer than they are. Johnson uses his classical education and Peterson uses psycho-philosophical mumbo-jumbo to similar effect.
It truly is a modern phenomenon
I would say the breadth and depth of them is modern, and how quickly they’re spread, but Q-anon is just the blood liable (perhaps the world’s oldest conspiracy theory) bought into the 21st C, and for all their immediacy no one really care anymore about the “fact” that Germans were spreading disease in American cities in the run up to the invasion that was going to take place in 1917.
Just been reading this article about the internet and the growth of conspiracy theories, much of the early internet material has been lost, the earliest reference to the Rothschilds and dark practices is 1994, IIRC, but it covers the likes of Alex Jones and his development of the conspiracy chat show.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-internet-never-met-a-rothschild-conspiracy-it-cant-love
Brand is similar in his approach. He uses flamboyant language to make things sound cleverer than they are. Johnson uses his classical education and Peterson uses psycho-philosophical mumbo-jumbo to similar effect.
If these people can get their hooks into 0.1% of the UK population, that is nearly 70,000 people. Events of the last ten years or so suggest that very suggestible people constitute much more than 0.1%. It's a numbers game.
"i’m also really not a fan of this whole trial by media circus and think the introduction of a statute of limitations as many other countries have would improve the situation"
1) California, which is where one of the alleged assaults allegedly took place, has a statute of limitations.
2) England and Wales doesn't have a fixed statute of limitations, but it does have strong protections against abuse of process - the state doesnt and cant dredge up old stuff its known about for ages. And in any case the more aged the offence, the weaker the evidence will be, and the less likely the allegation will pass the prosecutors two point test, and them convince a judge or jury. The prisons are not filled with people convicted on historic charges.
3) in any case, an SoL would not stop media outlets reporting on stories. There are already overly aggressive defamation laws to protect the likes of Brand from false reporting.
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">i’m also really not a fan of this whole trial by media circus</span>
Since two media companies are in the firing line for mishandling this affair, I think it's totally appropriate.
@roger_mellie I think this quote from the Atlantic article on Marjorie Taylor-Greene sums things up best:
She has no choice but to be the person her followers think she is, because her power is contingent on theirs.
I think it’s true about a lot of these people.
A lot of them have in common that they seem to be fading from attention for various reasons (getting older, career not working out, had their 15 minutes of fame) and they find this new audience with an almost insatiable desire for nonsense. However once they start down that route there’s no going back, because for the majority of that audience, they’re not interested in reality, only their comforting fantasy.
Look who’s supporting Brand on X
In the wake of allegations of rape and sexual abuse against comedian and social influencer Russell Brand, Tesla owner Elon Musk, social media influencer Andrew Tate and political commenter Tucker Carlson have came in support of him.
In response to Brand’s video suggesting he was targeted as part of a coordinated attack for his right-wing criticism of the media, Musk wrote on X: “Of course. They don’t like competition."
Going off on a bit of a tangent with the right wingers, but as others say, there's a lot of weirdness coming from that side that's influencing too many, Peterson i would say is intelligent and wins most of his arguments because he studies it beforehand and uses a lot of information and facts to sway the argument to his side, which the opposition don't tend to do too often unfortunately, he basically picks weak opponents and plays the player, hence his following.
As for the Dispatches show last night, have to say it was a bit disappointing, you break it down and it was a lot of 'alleged' statements being made, not even sure why the comedian at the end was wheeled out, he had to use alleged as well, and at best he had hearsay to add. All this show has done is open up the media circus, which will now mean a lot of the crackpots coming out of the woodwork and making daft allegations, destroying the credibility of any actual victims. We live in a world where everyone wants their 15 minutes, and the amount of people who will try and use this will be vast i'd guess, it'll keep the papers going for months.
As stated earlier, is he a wrong un, haven't a clue, we need more than that show provided, but what i do know is that the likes of Russell Brand is what this world creates, as someone said regarding if money changes you, money allows you to become more of who you really are, it's the same with fame.
The UK has some of the strongest libel laws in the world, let him sue if it’s not true.
it was a lot of ‘alleged’ statements being made
Because if you don't use phrasing like "alleged rapist" prior to a trial taking place then you're an open goal for a libel/slander case with a side order of risking perverting any trial. Have you never watched any news broadcast ever?
is he a wrong un, haven’t a clue, we need more than that show provided
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Watching the report, did he come across as a fine, upstanding citizen to you?
However once they start down that route there’s no going back, because for the majority of that audience, they’re not interested in reality, only their comforting fantasy.
Yeah, but fame (sort of) and attention, appearance fees etc.
Many so-called celebs are not interested in anything other than maintaining their profile. If that means demeaning yourself to sucker some mugs then so what?