You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I saw a Reddit thread where many were convinced it was David Williams Catherine Ryan was talking about back before this came out. His creepiness stands out more to me than Brands did, not that I've watched a great deal of either of them for several years.
It doesn’t however make it morally acceptable imo,
I agree.
But at what age would it go from morally acceptable to unacceptable? This is the third time I've asked this now and no-one's offered a suggestion beyond "yeah but adult."
I was sniffing round a 16-year old for a little while back when I was 19. I walked away in the end because I thought the age gap was too great. If instead I'd dated her, would you have considered me morally bankrupt?
their banter whilst bragging about taking the law into you own hands with vigilante actions and no mention of calling the police makes you a part of the problem in my view.
Apologies if I've misremembered, but haven't you posted about dishing out street justice to dealers or similar? Not wanting to join a (in my opinion, imagined) pile on, but a bit hypocritical if that was the case
I don't often get accused of being macho so I'm taking it as a compliment...
Plus arguing with a troll is pointless so why bother. I wouldn't have been any good at that job if I'd lost my cool with anyone who was rude or objectionable.
Brand and his ilk rely on people (mainly men) staying silent and not calling them out on their behaviour. The thing that frightens me is that he was enabled and allowed to carry on the way he did. And when that behaviour is indulged then the reaction when they don't get what they want can get more and more extreme until something happens which someone will have to live with for the rest of their life.
Cougar. It’s not as black and white as I think you think (if that makes sense) it should be.
It’s degrees of difference where the age between two people goes from unremarkable to down right weird and to most peoples sensitivity’s, down right wrong.
A person aged 25 and another aged 35 would be barely noticed. A 16 year and 26 year old would be, in most circles, considered at best, strange. Add in the fact that despite the frankly bizarre situation where a 16 year old can’t legally buy alcohol, cigarettes or vote but can legally have sex, 16 year olds are, let’s be honest, still more within the realms of childhood than adulthood.
As I say, in my humble opinion, it’s not black and white, more of increasing or decreasing blurred lines but 16 is no age for an adult of 31 to be exploiting, because that’s what he (Brand) did, if it’s true, a child. Crikey, even four years difference (16 and 20) between the two ‘consenting’ people, although legal would raise a few eyebrows.
I was sniffing round a 16-year old for a little while back when I was 19. I walked away in the end because I thought the age gap was too great. If instead I’d dated her, would you have considered me morally bankrupt?
TBH 16 year olds with 19 year old guys seems to be fairly common, and I don't think it's always the guys making the moves. I think there's a perception that the intervening 3 years lets the lads grow up a bit, they might be earning and driving and have easier access to pubs and clubs. All factors likely to turn the head of a 16 year old lass.
I don’t often get accused of being macho so I’m taking it as a compliment…
Plus arguing with a troll is pointless so why bother. I wouldn’t have been any good at that job if I’d lost my cool with anyone who was rude or objectionable.
Brand and his ilk rely on people (mainly men) staying silent and not calling them out on their behaviour. The thing that frightens me is that he was enabled and allowed to carry on the way he did. And when that behaviour is indulged then the reaction when they don’t get what they want can get more and more extreme until something happens which someone will have to live with for the rest of their life.
Not that I ever frequented your establishments, but been quite a few times i've been grateful for some of your colleagues assistance over the years.
Also been really decent letting me know my troops are being turds and need to be collected before things get silly.
May not have been you, but the compliment extends to you.
As for some of the macho comments, some of the nicest men are know are ****ing high in EQ, sharply intelligent and ruthless in their professional capacity which makes them very quick to defend those who may be incapable or unable.
Often feel these sorts of criticism are just a projection of the insecurity of others in the presence of finer specimens than them.
Out of interest, when did 16yrs "regress" (poor choice of word!) from "adults" to "children"
Ie up until fairly recently, 16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army and sent to the trenches, which implies they were considered adults up until at least end of WW1 (and probably longer)...
Not much further back than that and 14 year olds were out of school and working long hours in horrendous occupations.
More progression going on than regression, as time passes.
16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army and sent to the trenches
That was more to do with class.
My wife and I were 17 and 23 when we met. Now 40 and 46. I guess I must be some sort of deviant.
Yeah, as a borderline boomer, I find it weird that so many (probably old people!) say shit like "kids grow up so quickly today" whereas we (society in general) are effectively doing the opposite as I'm sure kids sent out to work or into the trenches where the ones who matured more quickly...
I've read the first few pages and the last , my take for what it's worth . Brand is a horrible unfunny predator. I know humour was different back in the noughties and comedians could get away with more misogyny. It's been said that at the height of his fame girls were literally throwing themselves at him . Add to that the drink and the drugs and being surrounded by yes men. That said It can never excuse the stuff he got up to , The Andrew Sachs incident , grovelling to Jimmy Saville , exposing himself to female assistants and worse still the dispatches rape allegations.
Whats almost worse is the way the BBC , Jonathan Ross and his Assistant lapped up the whole thing up like it was normal .
If his only redeeming factor is that he is highlighting a corrupt government , a dubious COVID campaign and energy companies exploiting the poor and It's a conspuracy to expose him he is hardly Julian Assange. I hope he gets whats coming to him as a father to two daughters he is your worse nightmare not to mention being an annoying fud.
Still good to see Edukator is still an unfunny troll like a home bargains version of GW who could at least talk the talk and was kinda funny.
I doubt they matured any quicker, rather more likely that such experiences cause them to become stunted imature adults who passed on the damage such experiences caused thoughout their lives. It is just looking at history with roise tinted glasses to believe that past generations were more mature, I suspect most of us would find their general attitudes rather disapointing.
I don't know much about the accused .
There's some serious allegations there
Thankfully the courts will decide the outcome and not social media or forums
It's fine to discuss but what happened to innocent until proven guilty
I doubt they matured any quicker, rather more likely that such experiences cause them to become stunted imature adults who passed on the damage such experiences caused thoughout their lives. It is just looking at history with roise tinted glasses to believe that past generations were more mature, I suspect most of us would find their general attitudes rather disapointing.
Many papers have been written on this topic, over 250,000 teenagers served in the trenches, 120,000 were killed or wounded. It stunted their development physically and mentally and those that made it back alive didn't have the greatest of times, many with PTSD and behavioural problems.
Ie up until fairly recently, 16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army and sent to the trenches,
Recently? Have I entered the 1920s?
Cougar. It’s not as black and white as I think you think (if that makes sense) it should be.
Oh, I'm well aware of that. I'm just trying to provoke discussion beyond emotive soundbites like "yes but 31" or people screaming "nonce" without any further useful comment.
Personally I think it's shady as ****. As I said, I turned away from an opportunity with a 16-year old when I was 19 because it felt wrong. (I did wind up with her older sister in the end so it wasn't a dead loss.😁) But Brand and was it 'Alice'? were at the time both legally consenting, the crux of the matter isn't that he's a weirdo, it's that he assaulted her.
--
even four years difference (16 and 20) between the two ‘consenting’ people, although legal would raise a few eyebrows.
literally the next post:
BH 16 year olds with 19 year old guys seems to be fairly common, and I don’t think it’s always the guys making the moves.
So 19 is common and 20 is eye-raising.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's subjective.
There are plenty of relatively mature 16-year olds and plenty of relatively immature 19-year olds. It's messed up that at 15 years and 364 days old it's illegal to have sex even with someone else exactly the same age, then literally the following day it's perfectly lawful for two 16-year olds to bump uglies with each other (or with Russell Brand) so long as they don't take photographs. Gotta wait another two years for that.
Maybe what's needed as far as age of consent goes is that at 16 you can legally have sex but only with someone who is say 18 or younger. Ideally the age of sexual consent should be 18 but you've got King Canute's chance of stopping teenagers from shagging, last I heard plenty are starting a lot younger than 16.
I reckon he probably worried for years that this would happen and since he couldn't stop it, all he could do would be to try and mitigate the results. Thereby turning himself into a social warrior for injustice and the general betterment of the public. Kinda like how Savile ran marathons for charity as some sort of penance for his evil deeds.
Kinda like how Savile ran marathons for charity as some sort of penance for his evil deeds.
Well he cheated on the commando tabs he did by getting in his car, so most likely did the same with marathons. Which aligns with his utter absence of morals.
Out of interest, when did 16yrs “regress” (poor choice of word!) from “adults” to “children”
Ie up until fairly recently, 16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army
You might think 16 year olds are adults. I wouldn't let a 16 yo pack my parachute, check my brakes or stay out after midnight. Stacking a dishwasher is a major challenge for some of them.
The UK was for many years the only developed country to send child soldiers into battle, and oppose children being enlisted into the military. IIRC it no longer allows children to serve in combat roles.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c2c.html
I reckon he probably worried for years that this would happen and since he couldn’t stop it, all he could do would be to try and mitigate the results.
There is a train of thought which suggests that his current persona may have been created for just that reason, so that he can scream about being cancelled for his views and get all the useful idiots to rally around him along with the Tucker Carlson, Muskrat etc types rushing to support him in his hour of injustice.
It’s messed up that at 15 years and 364 days old it’s illegal to have sex even with someone else exactly the same age, then literally the following day it’s perfectly lawful for two 16-year olds to bump uglies
Champ, try not to stay up late worrying about it. No 16 year olds are being prosecuted for having sex with 15 year olds. Of course there's a spectrum of development and 16 is a bit arbitrary. Why not 15? Why not 17? Why not 32mph in town, or 28mph? Don't tie yourself in knots, don't be a 35 year old having sex with a 16 year old, and don't drive at 40mph down the High Street. It's not that complicated and if it's really interfering with one's life choices, maybe reconsider...
Thankfully the courts will decide the outcome and not social media or forums
I admire your optimism. The media have already convicted him and hung him up. I have no idea if he is guilty or innocent. Any court finding him innocent will be vilified for being woke and lefty whatever the evidence shows
The UK was for many years the only developed country to send child soldiers into battle, and oppose children being enlisted into the military. IIRC it no longer allows children to serve in combat roles.
Going to be a pedant, they can enlist but they are not allowed to deploy on operations until they are 18. There is no bar to which roles (capbadges) they join/undertake.
16-17 year old recruits will go to Army Foundation College Harrogate (think prep school for Army) once complete there they will go on to their trade specific training, then onto their field army units. Some who join right at the earliest opportunity having just turned 16 (you can start your application at 15 and 7 months) may land at their units at aged 17. But the above about deployment still stands.
IT was as a result of a UN treaty circa 2002, but as is the way with Defence they managed to **** that up and have deployed under 18's on a couple of occasions. In defence of the policy, they were unit admin errors, mostly because the G1 chain is often populated with the dross nobody else wants.
I admire your optimism. The media have already convicted him and hung him up. I have no idea if he is guilty or innocent. Any court finding him innocent will be vilified for being woke and lefty whatever the evidence shows
Sadly the longer the media witch hunt goes on, the more ammunition his defence will have to argue a jury cannot have a balanced and unbiased appraisal on the situation if it goes that way.
Maybe that's the point though? Burn him in the media spotlight as a conviction is unlikely? I'm sure that'll be argued at some point.
I also get the argument that it's been 'diligently investigated' but has it really, what are those who argue that benchmarking it against?
Time will tell, but the sooner he goes back into his media rabbithole with the rest of the loons that like his material or jail, the better. Sadly if is successfully prosecuted or is found innocent, we'll be hearing from him quite a bit I'd imagine.
vlad_the_invaderFull Member
Ie up until fairly recently, 16yr olds could be conscripted into the Army and sent to the trenches, which implies they were considered adults up until at least end of WW1 (and probably longer)…
As far as I can tell from a fairly quick Google search, and my memories of reading Charlie's War as a kid, during the First World War the British Army treated men from 18 - 41 as being of military age. Recruiters maybe didn't enquire too hard if a particularly youthful lad turned up claiming they were 18, but officially 16 year olds weren't supposed to be joining up. The same seems to have applied in the Second World War too.
Edit: Reading further through the following Wikipedia article I learn that the upper age was increased to 50 (or possibly 56) later in the war, but it doesn't seem like the lower age got reduced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitment_to_the_British_Army_during_World_War_I
the more ammunition his defence will have to argue a jury cannot have a balanced and unbiased appraisal
This concern is entirely confected.
Why not 32mph in town, or 28mph?
I almost mentioned speed limits. It's the same logic. You have to draw the line somewhere from a legal point of view, you can't prosecute someone for speeding if the evidence is a copper thinking that in their opinion you were going a bit quick. Subjective again, y'see. Whereas 30mph is a hard line in the sand, as is age 16.
Don’t tie yourself in knots
Oh, I'm not. I'm just trying to encourage people to think rather than react. These are if you like 'devil's advocate' questions aimed at those who are so sure of themselves. We've just had two successive posters respectively suggesting that 19 is normal and 20 is odd. The difference there could be a day. The real difference there is probably two opinions.
Burn him in the media spotlight
This is one of those times where the R and the N run into each other on STW's font.
This concern is entirely confected.
It's not a concern, simply a valid line of defence that could be used to argue for a cessation of media reporting should it get to court.
And line a defence barrister would likely try and use given an opportunity. The success of that is down to the judge in question, if it ever gets that far.
Plenty of reporting on precedents set, this isn't an opinion or observation I just pulled out of my ass.
But please do tell me more secret barrister.
This is one of those times where the R and the N run into each other on STW’s font.
Come again?
That was more to do with class.
Recently? Have I entered the 1920s?
My old man was born in 1955, not much older than some of the old sods on here (if he was still alive). Anyway, he left school at 15 and joined the Navy.
@relapsed_mandalorian your comment about stunted adults etc. I'll give you that. There's a reason people leave home at 15 and Ganges sure as **** wasn't the answer.
But you can still join the army at 16 and get taxed or have someone think you're fair game for getting run off the road like we live in ****ing Los Santos. Like I said, children when it suits the argument.
Oh and he's talking about kerning.
rn
m
A sixteen year old child is considered sufficiently mature to hold a full time job. Taxation has nothing to do with maturity and a six or nine year old child isn't exempt from paying taxes, although the circumstances where this might be necessary are obviously diminished.
The fact that a sixteen year old might be sufficiently mature to hold a job does not, imo, automatically mean that they are mature enough to enter, as an equal, into a sexual relationship with a thirty something adult.
It might well be a legal relationship but it is unlikely to be an equal relationship - most sixteen year olds lack the sexual and relationship experience to enter into an equal relationship with someone twice their age. Which presumably is part of the attraction for someone like Russell Brand.
Which presumably is part of the attraction for someone like Russell Brand.
I rather suspect that the attraction for someone like Russell Brand would be that she had a fanny and a pulse. And I'm not entirely convinced he was that choosy.
My old man was born in 1955, not much older than some of the old sods on here (if he was still alive). Anyway, he left school at 15 and joined the Navy.
Joining the navy (forces) is not being sent to the trenches.
Anyway, back to Brand.
A sixteen year old child is considered sufficiently mature to hold a full time job.
You can't work full time in England until you're eighteen.
You can, sort of - if you're in an apprenticeship or traineeship. And England is distinct from rUK
England
You can leave school on the last Friday in June if you’ll be 16 by the end of the summer holidays.You must then do one of the following until you’re 18:
stay in full-time education, for example at a college
start an apprenticeship or traineeship
spend 20 hours or more a week working or volunteering, while in part-time education or training
Yes you can.
Anyway, back to Brand.
I see, to the surprise of hopefully no one, he has gone the everyone is being nasty to him and trying to silence his words of truth.
I rather suspect that the attraction for someone like Russell Brand would be that she had a fanny and a pulse. And I’m not entirely convinced he was that choosy.
And he had trouble finding an adult woman with a fanny and a pulse, as you delightfully put it?
You can, sort of – if you’re in an apprenticeship or traineeship. And England is distinct from rUK
I specifically referred to England. An apprenticeship has a minimum 20% education element.
specifically referred to England.
If you’ve left school you can work full time at 16.
Joining the navy (forces) is not being sent to the trenches.
Since we're pointing out the obvious my point was that a 16 year old is still considered sufficiently mature to sign up for the forces and find themselves on front line service 2 years later.
Ah! Got you.
a valid line of defence that could be used to argue for a cessation of media reporting should it get to court.
You're going from a concern that the jury would be tainted to a concern that the trial would be reported under restrictions? That's a weird shift from somone supposedly worried about the mEdIa CiRcUs.
this isn’t an opinion or observation I just pulled out of my ass.
It is, though.
If you’ve left school you can work full time at 16.
If you choose to count an apprenticeship as full time. I don't, for the reason I gave.
But at what age would it go from morally acceptable to unacceptable? This is the third time I’ve asked this now and no-one’s offered a suggestion beyond “yeah but adult.”
TBH I’m always wary of ‘morals’ as who is the arbitrator of them ?
We also hear a lot about them but tbh I’m not sure I ever received the handbook 🙂
Where does this bizarre notion that because a sixteen year old child is mature enough to do certain things they are therefore as mature as any adult come from?
Are we going to start sending convicted sixteen year olds to adult prisons? After all they sufficiently mature to sign up for the forces, and pay taxes!
Anyway, back to Brand.
The audio recording in this link is damning, to say the least:
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66882644
I am amazed that it still exists all these years later.
Edit: I am referring to the second audio recording btw
After all they sufficiently mature to sign up for the forces,
I thought they needed their parents consent to sign up at 16?
An apprenticeship has a minimum 20% education element.
But you're paid for the whole thing, including the education bit, it's 'full time employment' and you're not a schoolkid anymore. Anyway, we only got onto this as a distinction of whether 16 year olds are adults or kids rather than a deep analysis of employment law in the UK.
For me whether adults or kids, the abuse of power and position over someone else, but particularly a younger person is morally if not actually provably legally wrong. Even if they were 19, 20, 25, whatever, the abuse of power is the problem compounded by the age in this case.
But it's hard to turn into law and to police; if the 16, 18 or 25 year old knows what they are doing and willingly enters that relationship.... how much freedom or constraint can we expect to have over an individual's own life choices.
For avoidance of doubt - not advocating a free for all once you reach 16 and from what I've read I'm very uneasy.
I thought they needed their parents consent to sign up at 16?
Correct. And the safeguards I know that get put in place and the reason behind them make it even more distasteful that some think him having sex with a 16yo is okay.
Legal/illegal, either way he's morally bankrupt.
There is a train of thought which suggests that his current persona may have been created for just that reason, so that he can scream about being cancelled for his views and get all the useful idiots to rally around him along with the Tucker Carlson, Muskrat etc types rushing to support him in his hour of injustice.
TBH I was surprised when he didn’t get picked up on when Metoo started.
IMHO I think it’s just the next step when work dries up(once you’ve hit your sell by date),the next available bandwagon was that,covid opened the floodgate on it.
This thread is a disgrace and needs closing well before it inevitably crosses the boundary that moderators have oversight of. IMO it’s already gone too far with some people spouting claims and making assumptions that have literally zero basis on any fact. Not to mention quite frankly disappointing insights into the way some people on here view the world. I gather there have been several bans/post deletions already and that ought to be enough of an alarm bell.
And before you start, yes I know I don’t have to read it etc etc but there is no warning that it may contain distasteful/disturbing content, the graphic description of the alleged assault on that poor girl is not something that should be copied and pasted for public viewing without some kind of warning.
I think we've found the driver.
I gather there have been several bans/post deletions already
Have there? (Serious question - I have read this thread in real time and didn't notice any)
IMHO I think it’s just the next step when work dries up(once you’ve hit your sell by date),the next available bandwagon was that,covid opened the floodgate on it.
It's profitable for sure. The money some similar mouthpieces make is bonkers.
DracFull Member
"How do you have claim to have an inclusive and welcoming sport and then a thread like this is allowed to run on STW?"
The victim blames have been rightfully lambasted by a majority on here. The judging on appearance I’d have to wade through to find them, of course they can also be reported. We’ve deleted posts, warned users and issued bans due to this thread. It’s something that needs discussed in the hope some see the wrong he has been accused of.
EDIT The stupid formatting on here attributed that whole text to Drac but the first paragraph was a quote from another poster.
oceanskipper
Full Member
This thread is a disgrace and needs closing well before it inevitably crosses the boundary that moderators have oversight of. IMO it’s already gone too far
I agree.
TBH if it was closed another one would be opened when he gets to court or not.
I don’t think any RB thread was going to be a bed of roses and was always going to be a complete car crash.
Where does this bizarre notion that because a sixteen year old child is mature enough to do certain things they are therefore as mature as any adult come from?
Correct. And the safeguards I know that get put in place and the reason behind them make it even more distasteful that some think him having sex with a 16yo is okay.
I'm arguing the opposite, for clarity. I'm not really in favour of 16 year old being allowed to enter a marriage either, parental permission or not.
My point, once again, is that we let 16 year olds be adults when it suits us. This is wrong IMO.
Oh and for the too lazy to do a simple Google search:
Full-time work
Children can only start full-time work once they’ve reached the minimum school leaving age - they can then work up to a maximum of 40 hours a week.Once someone reaches 16, you may need to pay them through PAYE.
Once someone reaches 18, adult employment rights and rules then apply.
https://www.gov.uk/child-employment
So they can leave school, leave home, take full-time work but don't have the same employment rights or wages as adults. Like I said...
All that said, the fact he slept with a 16 year old is still legal despite any cultural misgivings. Whilst we focus on that we're giving barely any thought towards the alleged emotional abuse involved in the relationship. That's the real problem here.
^ from your link:
England
You can leave school on the last Friday in June if you’ll be 16 by the end of the summer holidays.
You must then do one of the following until you’re 18:
stay in full-time education, for example at a college
start an apprenticeship or traineeship
spend 20 hours or more a week working or volunteering, while in part-time education or training
My wife works for the NHS, dealing with mental health in school age children.
She told me a tale this week of one of her kids (F)who had a run in with a drunken male in the park. He asked how old she was, and when told 16 he dropped his keks and wave his junk at her, saying they should 'have some fun'
The police were called and (to my surprise) attended, pulled the guy in and took a statement from the girl. Other folk in the park corroborated her story.
During this, the lead plod asked her why this incident had "got her so triggered"!
Clearly he didn't think this was such a big deal.
With this sort of response ingrained with the authorities, it's no wonder going to the mediums is considered a more sympathetic audience.
^ from your link:
Bollocks.
Hoisted by my own petard.
TBH I had no idea employment law was a devolved matter.
😂 I work with young people coming out of care, it's a real frustration for some of them that they can't go into full time work!
@Oceanskipper the thread is being watch and monitored as much as we can. As always we also rely on people reporting posts. It’s been remarkably Ok despite the subject. You nay disagree of course, but it’s a topic that can be discussed as it’s based on allegations that have come to light.
I have no idea why the focus is on the age of a legally (but morally wrong relationship).
What has been alleged that went on within that relationship should be the focus. Arguing about whether a 16 year old can buy cigarettes, pay tax or go to war is diluting what has been alleged to have occurred.
Shouldn’t the focus be on the how does this happen?
In Boomerlives example of how the Police treat victims of sexually assaults or predatory behaviour, can we not focus on that? When that occurred, with it being a school aged child, I presume there was adults present, did they not pick up on this comment? Has a formal complaint been made back to the force? If this event did occur as explained, then that person needs to be removed from that line of service and re-trained.
Well he is going all in on that YouTube vid.
His fans love him according to the comments it's all the misinformation from main stream media apparently.
Asshat
Where's that link from Drac? Not England I presume?
We have to report our figures to the government, and have to adhere to the English rules on the gov.uk link that oceanskipper added.
Ooops! You’re right it not. A bit embarrassing.
ACAS however says.
https://www.acas.org.uk/young-workers-apprentices-and-work-experience
I have no idea why the focus is on the age of a legally (but morally wrong relationship).
I think it is because everyone appears to agree that the rape/nonconsensual sex allegations made against Russell Brand are unacceptable, so obviously not much to argue over. But some people appear to be struggling with the "a thirty-one year man had a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old schoolgirl" angle to the story.
Apparently the fact that she could join the armed forces and pay tax is significant to this particular news story.
So obviously plenty to argue over.
And he had trouble finding an adult woman with a fanny and a pulse, as you delightfully put it?
As according to some witnesses he was getting through five a night, seemingly not.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJ7butcs/
Connor Burns sums it up beautifully
For me whether adults or kids, the abuse of power and position over someone else, but particularly a younger person is morally if not actually provably legally wrong.
There is a legal clause which covers this to an extent, though the word they use is "trust" IIRC. We spoke about this a couple of pages back. Personally I don't think it goes far enough.
IMHO the fact that Brand was a 'star' is as problematic as his age. She went to visit him because of who he was, she wouldn't have got in a car to visit 31-year old Geoffrey from Accounts.
Legal/illegal, either way he’s morally bankrupt.
No arguments here.
As according to some witnesses he was getting through five a night, seemingly not.
That's what puts him in wrong un category for me, I have no doubt there was/are plenty of celebrity shaggers that would have happily indulged him.
But he chose a 16yo.
But some people appear to be struggling with the “a thirty-one year man had a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old schoolgirl” angle to the story.
Because it's morally dubious but legally valid. If we don't like that, we should look to fix the law.
Still waiting for you to tell us all where you personally would draw the line. How would you feel if he was 25? 20? 18? Because, if you can't define that then you'll never be able to protect against it.
What do you mean "tell us"? You appear to be the only person asking the question.
I am not talking about changing law, I couldn't give a monkeys whether it is legal or not, in the context of whether it is morally acceptable.
However this story pans out, whether Brand is convicted or not, his sexual relationship with a schoolgirl almost half his age, which he fully admits, should be condemned.
And all the more so as Brand chooses not to be a private person but celebrity in the public eye and seeks to influence public opinion.