You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The strangest part is why would the school let a pupil just walk out and get in a car?
Not that strange - secondary schools don’t have teachers at the gate to make sure every child is met by a responsible adult. Pupils are trusted to make their own way.
However, after watching the full interview of Katherine Ryan by Louis Theroux, it’s clear that even she has has used sex to get what she wanted when she was younger and didn’t see anything wrong with it even when pointed out by Louis. This is a bit hypocritical when pointing a finger at men for abusing their position. Neither are good behavior but surely both should be equally condenmed.
Well it depends, did Katherine Ryan hold the position of power? The person in the position of power taking advantage is very wrong.
My point being that if we look into the past with everyone, and view their lives through a modern lens you’ll pick fault. And the older they are and the further you look back the bigger disparages.
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”
So at what point do we forgive & forget someone's past misbehaviour?
If someone murdered someone close to you & it took 5yrs to find them do they go free? Or should it be 10yrs, 20yrs?
The strangest part is why would the school let a pupil just walk out and get in a car?
Whilst its something I would expect a primary school to really restrict and possibly a secondary school for the younger age group for a 16yo I wouldnt expect them to be really paying attention.
I’m just saying it all feels a bit off and that people’s “I never did like him” seems to be be playing a huge part in all of this.
Surely then he would welcome his best shot at an impartial judgement by saying he will see the complainants in court and leaving it at that, right?
I mean, we have to accept that a UK court is pretty much as close as you can get to a dispassionate judgement (unless your favourite hat is a bit tin foily).
So, obviously he's going to choose that option as it will be his vindication as well as placing on record what an incredibly masculine man he is?
Oh, hang on a minute...
He's pushing out non-specific denials, invoking conspiracy theories and courting allegiance with other people who would do similar. Hmmm.
After all it’s only in the past ten years or so that a fully grown adult picking up a 16 year old from school for sex has become unacceptable behavior right..
This was tolerated and often reported, just look at Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith, she was only 13 when they met. I don't see the Stones being "cancelled"
There is countless other examples of other music stars doing similar for ten's of years.
If it's in the interests of big companies and rich/powerful people to overlook people's indiscretions then they will.
So, obviously he’s going to choose that option as it will be his vindication as well as placing on record what an incredibly masculine man he is?
A libel trial does seem to be the obvious option for him.
Especially as he seems to have used legal action in the past to deal with complaints.
I don't know what the timeframe is for society to be ok with the past, for somethings probably never. My grandfather wouldn't buy anything Japanese because he fought in Burma in the second World War. Yet I've owned many Japanese made items including cars. But time does help heal.
Didn’t the Sun give them their coveted “Shagger of the Year Award” a few times. Wonder if they’ll mention that in their reporting?
Yep it's in the Sunday Times article
His womanising ways — he once said he could sleep with 80 women in a month — saw him crowned “Shagger of the Year” by The Sun three times
I re-listened to the recording of Brand and Ross leaving a message on Andrew Sach's answer phone, just to jog the memory. It was a horrible thing and quite telling of what Brand is really like and the people around him enabling his behavior.
I think there is a lot to be said for upping the age of consent to 18. I know thats only a small part of the alleged problem(s) here but its about time we acknowledged that a 16 year old is still a child.
I think there is a lot to be said for upping the age of consent to 18. I know thats only a small part of the alleged problem(s) here but its about time we acknowledged that a 16 year old is still a child.
The law does already acknowledge this.
I agree that 18 should be the age of consent. Also the age for the following:
- Buy and use nicotine products
- Buy and use marijuana products
- Buy and use alcoholic products
- Buy and use products with high levels of caffeine
- Gamble including the lottery
- Vote
- Pay taxes
- Drive a car or moped
- Get a bank loan, mortgage etc
- Be tried as an adult in court
There's bound to be more that I can't think of. I hated being 16/17 year old as I was treated like a adult or child whenever it suited the government and society
but I’ve not seen anything that would qualify as a evidence for him doing what he is being accused of.
Apart from all the witnesses and victims. Who dont usually come forward because they assume they wont be believed.
I caught part of the programme on Saturday night. Watched about half of it. Putting my thoughts on him aside, certainly an uncomfortable watch, but not so surprising.
It's exploded on a Whatsapp group I'm in, and sitting back listening to mostly men have their opinions, I'm feeling a bit let down. Anyway, a few people I know have gone off on one about about Katherine Ryan, I guess there is a lot going on with her somewhere?
On the Peterson guy, I used to listen to him quite a bit, around 5/6 years ago and could get onboard with some of his methods (his 12 ways to live book sort of time), but since he went balls deep on Twitter/X, he's lost the run of himself. Once watched an interview he did with Russell Howard where he broke down during it and talked a lot about his drug addiction.
but I’ve not seen anything that would qualify as a evidence for him doing what he is being accused of.
What would you want to see as evidence?
You clearly don't believe the women who have come forward - so how could someone convince you.
You clearly don’t believe the women who have come forward
Does he have to? Why is there this fervent need to 'believe' them?
I heard a compelling story, but then if it wasn't compelling Dispatches would have failed in my view. Clearly for others the story was less compelling, and we all arrived at these subjective judgements based on our own experiences and biases, but at the end of the day those judgements mean nothing as we have no real way of 'testing' the validity of their allegations.
So getting into a dick-waving contest about it doesn't really further the matter, simply feeds egos.
See also:
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.
After all it’s only in the past ten years or so that a fully grown adult picking up a 16 year old from school for sex has become unacceptable behavior right..
So, if you aren't too fussed about the age difference perhaps just put that to one side and focus on the fact that he forced his penis down her throat until she had to punch him to stop. And then, just in case that wasn't enough, he drooled in her mouth then held it shut until she swallowed. If true it is sick, power hungry sexual abuse, irrespective of age of the victim.
Ummmm …I assumed it was pretty obvious I was being sarcastic… at no time that I can remember was it ever acceptable for a grown man to be picking up a 16 year old from school for sex!
Ummmm …I assumed it was pretty obvious I was being sarcastic… at no time that I can remember was it ever acceptable for a grown man to be picking up a 16 year old from school for sex!
Clearly not for some, a few people here are holding on way too tight.
dick-waving
is probably not a good choice of words on this thread.
Is this the point in the discussion where everyone who hasn't watched the Dispatches report starts wading in with opinions and arguments that we put to bed on page 2?
@bearnecessities - to a point I agree with you, I initially said the same thing about Savile. But it's multiple accusations from multiple unconnected people, all describing much the same MO, often corroborated by others who worked with / knew him at the time. And sometimes corroborated by Brand himself in his stand-up routines when we all just thought he was being "outrageous" and laughed along.
If you haven't already then you need to go watch the programme (and if you have then I do not understand how you can still be saying what you're saying).
Dispatches: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/russell-brand-in-plain-sight-dispatches
The non-paywalled Times report again, if you'd prefer to read than watch: https://t.co/3ZQd9QaL8E
is probably not a good choice of words on this thread.
Go outside and touch the grass mate.
Is the whole sex addition thing an actual thing?
Sort of. Usually a sign of untreated issues, see also alcohol/drug addiction. You’re either looking for something, or trying to bury something.
I know I shouldn’t, but that did make me laugh.
Heard on the news just now, another one's come forward to the Met.
I know I shouldn’t, but that did make me laugh.
I watched the programme (in background) and I didn’t see anything close to evidence tbh.
He might be guilty of being a full blown bad guy, or he might be just have been a bit of a horny sod in the past that did or said anything to get laid - there’s a huge difference between the two and you and I don’t know the answer.
I suspect I’ll have to pull out (pun not intended) of this thread but there’s a load of accusations, suspicions and conclusions based on - as far as I can gather - famous person that liked to shag went about shagging, lots. Questionable tactics involved to shag, but shagged he did.
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
You clearly don’t believe the women who have come forward – so how could someone convince you.
We don't have to automatically believe them, just be prepared to believe them, and (as far as the police etc go, let them know they are being taken seriously).
The trouble with rape/sexual assault allegations between people who are known to each other, is that if there are two diametrically opposed versions of events, you need something to help get a criminal case proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's either an established pattern of behaviour from multiple women whose accounts tally in terms of detail, or third party witnesses.
The women involved going public is a two-edged sword. On one hand, it may prompt others to come forward in corroboration, on the other, some of the allegations - forced oral sex, the comment about mascara, the spit thing - are now useless in terms of other women telling the police 'he did that to me too'.
There was a line that resonated with me that another comedian said who was with the same agency as him (I forget her name) and who was warned about him. It was basically to stay away from him because once he’s had sex with you just being around you makes him feel physically sick so he’ll have you sacked or managed out which will totally stall your career almost by mistake . That sounds very much like a deep rooted psychological problem to me that might well be linked to all manner of abusive behaviour if true which it may or may not be obviously
Just watching the BBC news, and the Met are now investigating reports from people who’ve come forward about his behaviour. There were a number of video clips of him, forcing a presenter into kissing him, dropping his trousers down to his knees and sitting on a presenter’s lap, and other stand up routines, which were frankly excruciating to watch.
He’s a truly obnoxious human being, and I can’t imagine how anyone watching could not believe his accusers.
Yes it means to disprove, however it also means to deny, contradict or rebut.
to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false:
Fair enough, it seems my pedantry is the wrong side of the Atlantic! Hung through my own petard! I take it back.
The BBC sent cars to a school! Seriously WTF?
Hold on - is that correct? I may be confusing two incidents, but I thought the story she told about being in the back of the car was with Brand in the passenger seat and his friend driving.
Also, depending on the show, it's the production company that would have engaged Brand. And on productions it's usually just Addison Lees or other minicabs.
He’s a truly obnoxious human being, and I can’t imagine how anyone watching could not believe his accusers.
Because his obnoxiousness could make him a suitable mark for spurious accusations?
I'm not saying that's the case, but picking a bloke who has publicly shown how much of a proper ****ing arsehole he is would yield more success in the court of public opinion than accusing a less shitty celebrity, would it not?
I watched the programme (in background) and I didn’t see anything close to evidence tbh.
What do you think "evidence" is?
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
If you heard the descriptions of the alleged offences and thought to yourself, "yeah, well, we've all done that, haven't we"...
If it’s in the interests of big companies and rich/powerful people to overlook people’s indiscretions then they will.
Why is it in the interest of Channel 4 to pick a fight with big companies and rich/powerful people like MTV/Comcast, Endemol/Banijay, the BBC and...itself?
He’s a truly obnoxious human being, and I can’t imagine how anyone watching could not believe his accusers.
Being an obnoxious human being doesn't equate to guilt, and that's the kind of statement that his lawyers will be using across the internet to reduce chances of it going to court, or if it does, getting a mistrial due to the clamour of press causing mayhem throughout.
The Met and the CPS have a tough job now, hopefully they can do it without pressure from the outside and the right outcome occurs long term.
relapsed_mandalorian
Full Member
is probably not a good choice of words on this thread.Go outside and touch the grass mate.
Ooh, touchy there pal.
I think there is a lot to be said for upping the age of consent to 18.
I'm pretty sure from my safe grading training a few yrs ago that that swx at 16 is technically legal but if the age gap is big then it falls into another law.
Plus anyone under 18 is vulnerable adult, e.g. we had a student who live alone at 16 and had a care worker to help make sense of bills, council tax etc.
Ok so if my 16 yr old daughter wants to sleep with a 30 yr old then can I stop her citing the fact that it’s illegal?
Reference the BBC car.
I wonder what exactly the process is/was for using one. Is it just something that some have access to by calling a number, could be just a taxi contract, or would have to go through some authorisation process. It’s quite possible that no one really knew what the car was being used for. The Times story mentions a taxi was sent to pick her up.
If the car was used as a BBC pool car then the BBC have ultimate responsibility
If the car was used as a BBC pool car then the BBC have ultimate responsibility
doubt it, they have responsibility that the driver has a license and isn’t banned, but what they do with or in the car is the drivers responsibility, same as most companies and their car pool / hire car policy
If the car was used as a BBC pool car then the BBC have ultimate responsibility
So, if you were order a taxi through work for dodgy behaviour without the company know what for they would be responsible?
Brands own production company ran the radio show the beeb might not have known who it was for.
The controller at the time might has some sleepless nights if she was told of his behavior
After all it’s only in the past ten years or so that a fully grown adult picking up a 16 year old from school for sex has become unacceptable behavior right..
was hard work being a 16yo lad in the mid 90's, there was more novas and xr2i's parked outside of school at 330pm than there were school buses,
If the car was used as a BBC pool car
Would be very surprised if the BBC has a pool of cars with drivers sitting around waiting to be sent off. Maybe there's a couple for the toppest of nobs, idk. More likely it's just Addison Lee or Uber.
But where specifically does this BBC car story come from? Is it in the reporting? It just seems to appear halfway through this thread. Sorry if I missed something.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/18/video-emerges-russell-brand-joking-i-raped-someone-once/
But where specifically does this BBC car story come from?
Its as though its a random conspiracy theory. Maybe we should do our own research?
But where specifically does this BBC car story come from? Is it in the reporting? It just seems to appear halfway through this thread. Sorry if I missed something.
It was an interview with one of victims
The car story and many more will be coming in the next few weeks, we live in a country where there's so many desperate for their 15 minutes or have an axe to grind with something that this'll just be a never ending circus, which will unfortunately cause more harm for any prosecutions, as it'll eat up valuable resource and time.
was hard work being a 16yo lad in the mid 90’s, there was more novas and xr2i’s parked outside of school at 330pm than there were school buses,
this was the story at my school too. But it tended to be 18 year old lads, not 32 year olds!
(and also, there was definitely nothing as s****y as an XR2i. But Novas with blacked out windows, definitely...)
(and, the suggestions that teachers would check up on where kids were going. I don't know if that was a thing in some places, but at my school the idea that teachers would keep tabs on 1000 kids swarming out of the exits and seeing who got in which car would be pretty far-fetched)
The notion that this is a coordinated attack by "the establishment" to discredit him is absolutely hilarious.
If that kind of thing was possible, then the likes of Ian Hislop and the rest of the Private Eye staff would've been framed years ago as they've actually done credible, honest work to out the corruption and criminality of "the establishment" compared to the swivel eyed lunatic nonsense that Brand peddles
As a UK teacher slightly earlier than the mid-nineites when Novas and XR2is really were a thing I was given a run down of a group new to me which included "x works as a prostitute"... "four car thieves".. "your head of department (a woman) was punched in the face recently", the school hierarchy did absolutely nothing about it. She was 16 by then but had clearly been working younger. In that school there was nobody picking up anybody outside the gates, not even parents, the kids made their own way home or wherever they were going. I walked not long after, no way was I going to be a part of that shambles.
was hard work being a 16yo lad in the mid 90’s, there was more novas and xr2i’s parked outside of school at 330pm than there were school buses,
Twas Escorts and Minis in the late 70s when I were a lad. Ford Escorts that is....drivers usually in their mid 20s but some were older.
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
Did you force yourself on 3 separate women to get laid, resulting in one going to a rape centre and counseling? If not perhaps you're ok. Also what about the text message evidence? There is some actual evidence being offered or perhaps you missed it as it was 'on in the background'
Mid-2000s it was Corsas driven by a handful of 17-19 year olds, subject to much ridicule.
Not following this closely but the cars ultimately had a driver (same or different ones) who carried out the task of picking up a 16 year old from school and taking her to 30 something Brand's house. And not asking any questions, just getting on with the job?!
edit to add - I don't know if they asked. Just thinking the things we're taught about on courses to keep an eye out for potentially bad situations, like modern slavery etc.
It was an interview with one of victims
Thank you - I hadn't picked that up.
the cars ultimately had a driver (same or different ones) who carried out the task of picking up a 16 year old from school and taking her to 30 something Brand’s house
You might be stretching the idea of a duty of care too far. Did you know you can call an Uber from the age of 13...?
Fair enough. Instructions could have simply been: pick up girl from school, take to this address. Could be her home for all they might have known. Rather than a personal chauffeur knowing full well what's going on.
Meanwhile, on the subject of "why don't supposed victims of sexual abuse speak up earlier? Aren't TV reporters just trying to make a media circus? And isn't it unfair to bring up claims from the past?", it might be worth reading today's profile of Barry Bennell, a sexual predator uncovered by Dispatches, who has just died in prison.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/sep/18/barry-bennell-dies-in-prison
Not following this closely but the cars ultimately had a driver (same or different ones) who carried out the task of picking up a 16 year old from school and taking her to 30 something Brand’s house. And not asking any questions, just getting on with the job?!
From the times article:
Cheers for filling me in. Well done that man.
Cougar linked the full article a few pages back. 5th post on page 4
I genuinely think that the only evidence some people in this thread would accept would be if they were there watching with their own eyes
Even then I think they'd take their evidence to their **** bank rather than the authorities as they're not seeing anything wrong.
Exactly, if you don't see a problem with it you are the problem
I genuinely think that the only evidence some people in this thread would accept would be if they were there watching with their own eyes
It's not up to us to state whether he's guilty or innocent, that's up to the courts and their job will be near impossible with the media circus that's around this now. If the evidence was irrefutable then Brand would be charged by now, the police and CPS are now working this case at least, so if there's evidence available, that'll show up in any charges they bring against him.
I have my own personal feeling towards Brand, i've never seen him much as a comedian, not my type of humour, he has always had a fake persona and self importance, which has just grown and grown over the years with his weird ability to get work as a comedian, actor, TV host.
we live in a country where there’s so many desperate for their 15 minutes or have an axe to grind with something that this’ll just be a never ending circus
Sorry if I've read this wrong, but are you suggesting women will be coming forward as sexual assault victims because they want their 15 minutes of fame?
Because that's really not how it works.
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
Why would you hope that?
TBH I think the biggest problem is the cult of celebrity.
Even then I think they’d take their evidence to their **** bank rather than the authorities as they’re not seeing anything wrong.
The trouble is there is no smoking gun,no video footage of unwanted penetration, no dramatic audio recording of rape.
Just a rich and ‘influential’ man with a following of x millions,lawyers and money.
Imagine sticking your head over the parapet on that one.
I also think that a blanket news ban should be imposed and invitations for others to bring any further information forward
It’s a weird one but I can’t see how you can let the courts do their job without shutting down the media feeding frenzy.
we live in a country where there’s so many desperate for their 15 minutes or have an axe to grind with something that this’ll just be a never ending circus
We also live in a country who let a prolific child abuser go to the grave without facing the consequences of his actions.
Sorry if I’ve read this wrong, but are you suggesting women will be coming forward as sexual assault victims because they want their 15 minutes of fame?
Because that’s really not how it works.
I'm saying you'll have folk going to the press to sell their stories so the press circus keeps gaining momentum, or going on TV/Instagram/etc and telling their side to whatever, all it does is add a resource burden to any charges being brought against him and make picking a jury a nightmare.
I’m saying you’ll have folk going to the press to sell their stories
No, additional victims will most-likely contact the reporters working on the story for the Sunday Times/Times, who will then have to rigorously check their claims out before any potential publication. I strongly doubt anyone's been paid for their story.
Now the police have begun an investigation, other victims may go direct to them as well too.
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
Yeah, you were either that type of male, who enjoyed the normalised sexual abuse of power, or you weren't. It's gone on in normal life forever, everywhere.... You just have to ask any woman about bosses, or any male in a higher position, go on ask your mum! Some men went along with it, others didn't. Finally women have a voice.
I’m saying you’ll have folk going to the press to sell their stories so the press circus keeps gaining momentum, or going on TV/Instagram/etc and telling their side to whatever
Have you actually watched the documentary or read the Times article? It certainly doesn't sound like it
The women who have come forward have done it on condition of remaining anonymous. All the coverage on channel 4 and the BBC has either been voiced by actors and filmed in a way to protect this anonymity
They are doing this anonymously due to the tirades of abuse/rape/death threats they know they will get off off his supporters and the rest of the Andrew Tate/Jordon Peterson brigade if their identity becomes public knowledge.
Thats because thats the world we now live in and Brand has already shown he is prepared to exploit this (and to hell with the consequences) by pre-empting publication with his 'is there another agenda at play?' conspiracy nonsense.
He knows full well what he's doing there
No, additional victims will most-likely contact the reporters working on the story for the Sunday Times/Times, who will then have to rigorously check their claims out before any potential publication. I strongly doubt anyone’s been paid for their story.
So you're saying the red tops won't be running any stories that aren't rigorously checked for validity, you're statement lives in a world that is black and white, it's a media circus now, just wait until we see any court drama with Russell Brand putting it on for the cameras.
argee
I have my own personal feeling towards Brand, i’ve never seen him much as a comedian, not my type of humour, he has always had a fake persona and self importance, which has just grown and grown over the years with his weird ability to get work as a comedian, actor, TV host.
It's interesting you say that, when you watch comedy I usually assume it's just an exaggerated version of the comics real personality. However rewatching some of the clips about how he pretends to be nice just long enough to get sex, the mascara blowie comments etc, it actually seems like he was just using his real persona and talking 100% honestly.
Rather grim that people watched and laughed at those sketches.
eta- of course it's also possible the girl saw that sketch and made up a story based on it. However it sounded credible, i have no reason to disbelieve it.
So you’re saying the red tops won’t be running any stories that aren’t rigorously checked for validity
The tabloids have pretty much the same legal teams as (or even better than) the broadsheets, and the same fact checking goes on for both. The differences are in terms of how stories are presented.
There's an exception that proves the rule here. The Sun didn't fully bottom out the Huw Edwards story because it was so keen to stick one on the BBC. They've taken a kicking for that, but it's actually quite rare.
So you’re saying the red tops won’t be running any stories that aren’t rigorously checked for validity
Having worked for 3 national newspapers (broadsheet and tabloid) I can guarantee you that nothing like this gets published without it having the lawyers all over it to make sure its absolutely watertight before publication.
I can also guarantee you that every newspaper office in the country would have known full-well about Brand for years - because thats their job - but knowing about it and having enough evidence to publish are very different things.
This expose is clearly the result of extensive and painstaking investigative journalism, not to mention the bravery of the victims that have come forward and put themselves in the firing line for the nutters who support him
Have you actually watched the documentary or read the Times article? It certainly doesn’t sound like it
The women who have come forward have done it on condition of remaining anonymous. All the coverage on channel 4 and the BBC has either been voiced by actors and filmed in a way to protect this anonymity
I watched the documentary, i should clarify, i am not on about those who were part of this programme, i'm on about from now until any court appearance, it'll be a media circus with every tom, dick and harry coming out to make claims, which will then dilute the resource for the original claims made during the programme.
Again, i'm on about from now onwards with a daily load of new claims, i'm also not on about potential victims, i'm on about taxi drivers, hotel cleaners, etc.
I also think that a blanket news ban should be imposed and invitations for others to bring any further information forward
How do you propose doing those two things at once?
edit: I can't be bothered with this forum any more
I can also guarantee you that every newspaper office in the country would have known full-well about Brand
The reporter from the Sunday Times has said as much. She started working on the story in 2019, and has said in interviews that she was aware that other journalists have worked on and off this story for at least as long. She's also stated that they sent Brand a letter eight days before publication outlining their story, showed the evidence, (texts, hospital records, rape centre reports in one case) and told him they were to publish, there was a couple of lawyer letters back and forth, and it all went quiet.
but I’ve not seen anything that would qualify as a evidence for him doing what he is being accused of.
It is all really weird
Probably because you have literally nothing to do with the case! Good job too by the sounds of it 😉