Russell Brand

[Ladysmith]

I hope the club denounce any link or association with this so called celebrity fan.

Absolute wrongun!

 

[Bungo]

The key common element to all of these types of story whether it be alleged criminal activity or even ‘just’ being a sex pest, is coercion.

The story over and over again is of the powerful ‘star’ who uses their position to manipulate those less powerful who are often rightly worried about how standing-up for themselves will affect both their current and future employment.

Few are permanently employed, most going from one freelance job to another, without any of the HR protections that permanent employment affords. This is clearly why it takes so long for many of the allegations to emerge. How the victims behave in these circumstances should really not be judged as if they had truly free and logical choice as their decisions are influenced by factors other than simple right or wrong.

Any consent given should only be viewed as real consent if not given under coercion.

[Council Scum]

I assume that anyone defending him hasn't read the public record texts where a clearly upset woman tells him he want too far, he scared her, and when a woman says no it means no, his response was to apologise and make it up to her with "love and kindness"

What you wrote, and the part of that tweet that was visible made it look really bad. Then I clicked the link and read the whole thing, where it's clear that she's not talking about him forcing himself on her. It reads like she consented to sex but that she wanted him to use a condom and he didn't. So she was (rightly) scared of catching a STD.

With you on that. When you read to the bottom the only thing she didn't consent to is unprotected sex... but still had it. 

[Gank]

I assume that anyone defending him hasn't read the public record texts where a clearly upset woman tells him he want too far, he scared her, and when a woman says no it means no, his response was to apologise and make it up to her with "love and kindness"

What you wrote, and the part of that tweet that was visible made it look really bad. Then I clicked the link and read the whole thing, where it's clear that she's not talking about him forcing himself on her. It reads like she consented to sex but that she wanted him to use a condom and he didn't. So she was (rightly) scared of catching a STD.

That changes it a lot, I thought the same but didn't read further.

[Jean-Luc Paul Goddard]

I assume that anyone defending him hasn't read the public record texts where a clearly upset woman tells him he want too far, he scared her, and when a woman says no it means no, his response was to apologise and make it up to her with "love and kindness"

What you wrote, and the part of that tweet that was visible made it look really bad. Then I clicked the link and read the whole thing, where it's clear that she's not talking about him forcing himself on her. It reads like she consented to sex but that she wanted him to use a condom and he didn't. So she was (rightly) scared of catching a STD.

[Gank]

He might even be able to say he can't remember as part of his defense, it would certainly introduce an element of doubt.

[Swiss.]

On a serious note I recon there's a lot goys out there jealopus of his success with women and like to spread untruths about him. Don';t get me wrong no is no under any circumstances. Even within marriage. But trying to prove it if often tough as it will come down to his word against hers. The fact it is 20 years ago also  doesn't help the prosecution's case. Can she vividly remember so much from that time ago? 

[Swiss.]

Bollocks to that, once you have consent and get going, she can't change her mind. You probably wouldn't hear her and even if you did, how are you going to put the brakes on? It's like trying to stop a piss mid-flow.

Yeah it's like the beginning of WWI . Once you go to all that effort to mobilise the army you've just got to go to war. 

[scott_d]

I'm sure if you just used that analogy the judge will be fine 

[Gank]

Bollocks to that, once you have consent and get going, she can't change her mind. You probably wouldn't hear her and even if you did, how are you going to put the brakes on? It's like trying to stop a piss mid-flow.

[scott_d]

Non-consensual sex IS wrong (and illegal) in most of the west (although there are a few imported cultures within which a marriage is regarded as blanket consent); the issue is, "When does initial, freely given consent become non-consent?".

And that is a good question Mike.  In usual circumstances, without alcohol, if consent is given then most decent and sensible adults should be able to recognise if and when that consent is withdrawn.  
Adding alcohol to the mix certainly makes things more complicated but it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse to behave in a way that you normally wouldn't - male or female.

Not saying it doesn't happen or that I've never been there before.  We've all used the excuse that we are drunk, but really if you start doing really stupid and dangerous things when you are drunk that you don't remember in the morning, there is a bigger problem.

[Mike Oxsaw]

Not defending him or stabbing him repeatedly with a pitchfork here, but if a woman freely consents to do something when pissed which she would never do when sober, who is responsible?

I'm not saying (any of) these women were under the influence at the time either, before you start turning your pitchforks on me - even if some of the alleged abuse occurred in the workplace, alcohol ot other substances could be involved.

I've often woken up next to a "fuck!-did-I-drink-that-much-last-night?" minger, accepted I got it wrong and we went our separate ways. I've no doubt several women felt the same way waking up next to me over the years.

Non-consensual sex IS wrong (and illegal) in most of the west (although there are a few imported cultures within which a marriage is regarded as blanket consent); the issue is, "When does initial, freely given consent become non-consent?".

[Bungo]

Interesting to hear people say that "no-one complained back then".  That's rubbish, people may have complained privately or through proper channels, or may have stayed quiet through fear of repercussions.  Just because he got away with it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You can never excuse someone just because no-one spoke up.  As we have seen quite clearly with other bigger cases such as Jimmy Saville.

Also to suggest that because someone went through with something, it means they are consensual.  People can be manipulated, bribed, etc into doing things they don't want to do.  It happens all the time and especially from people with certain amount of power.

Quite worrying that people would think that it's ok because no-one spoke up or that they had to be consenting because they did it.

 

 

 

 

It's quite apparent too in many of these type of cases, that the people that are often the victims of the unwanted attention, are freelancers at the bottom rung of the ladder, who are worried that if they speak out against the 'big star', they will never be hired again. In many cases they are probably correct.

The world is full of people who are scared to speak out against those that are more powerful than them and have power over their current and future employment. This is not really surprising.

[scott_d]

Interesting to hear people say that "no-one complained back then".  That's rubbish, people may have complained privately or through proper channels, or may have stayed quiet through fear of repercussions.  Just because he got away with it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You can never excuse someone just because no-one spoke up.  As we have seen quite clearly with other bigger cases such as Jimmy Saville.

Also to suggest that because someone went through with something, it means they are consensual.  People can be manipulated, bribed, etc into doing things they don't want to do.  It happens all the time and especially from people with certain amount of power.

Quite worrying that people would think that it's ok because no-one spoke up or that they had to be consenting because they did it.

[Mr Anon]

Never mind the maths, XK. Brand DOES have a beard, so he's pretty much banged to rights.

I like your beard theory, Bill Oddie is rumoured to be a bit handsy, but If Brian Blessed turns out to be a wrongun I'd be crushed 

[Gank]

Never mind the maths, XK. Brand DOES have a beard, so he's pretty much banged to rights.

[XKhammer]

I assume that anyone defending him hasn't read the public record texts where a clearly upset woman tells him he want too far, he scared her, and when a woman says no it means no, his response was to apologise and make it up to her with "love and kindness"

Also the case against him isn't one woman's word against his word.....it's four women!

[F 129 Row66]

I saw about 10 minutes of him in Arthur and he was shit. I saw him in a you tube video spouting off about politics, and thought him a naive fucking imbecile. What is he, a comedian or what? I know nothing about his perversions, same as everybody else on here, but based on my limited views of his "work", I really hope he is guilty. He just looks and sounds like a cսnt

[honky cat]

That Dott doesnt look creepy or strange at all . . 

[Gank]

I don't think Dott is a nonce. For one thing, he doesn't have a beard.

[joe royal]

Graham Dott is now in a bit of trouble 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/34375291 ... mpionship/

[Mr Anon]

I assume that anyone defending him hasn't read the public record texts where a clearly upset woman tells him he want too far, he scared her, and when a woman says no it means no, his response was to apologise and make it up to her with "love and kindness"

[Bungo]

What Gank said about people with degrees. Also there's a fair amount* of people with degrees, who are extremely intelligent, but only in relation to the subject they're into. Other subjects, they struggle with.

*Don't know the official stats, but I've asked that student doing the survey on here to look into it.



 

 

 

 

 

When I used to interview people, you could tell a vast amount about an applicant by the degree that they had, the level that they had achieved and where it was from. 

You are right that some of the best qualified on paper were not always able to adapt to the realities of commercial life. I remember interviewing someone with a first from Cambridge in some terribly academic subject, who was completely unaware of the requirements of the industry he was attempting to join.

Likewise, there were some who had barely scraped through in a questionable subject from somewhere not well known for its academic rigor. They had to have something very special going for them to even be invited to start the interview process. 

However companies attempted to make the process as objective as possible, it still always came down to how much you did or didn't like the person in front of you.

[WHU(Exeter)]

As a for instance, there was a bloke I worked with who knew the ins and outs of engineering specs, knowledge stretching back 30 years back and loads of people in the place would always be seeking advice.

The same bloke though used to rant on each week about the plot in the latest episode of Death in Paradise, as if was the most ingenious whodunit it stuff for decades. To a group of 4 or 5 people, none of whom even watched the programme. Went on so much I used to dread the announcement of a new series.
​​​​

[WHU(Exeter)]

What Gank said about people with degrees. Also there's a fair amount* of people with degrees, who are extremely intelligent, but only in relation to the subject they're into. Other subjects, they struggle with.

*Don't know the official stats, but I've asked that student doing the survey on here to look into it.

[Mike Oxsaw]

Did I hear that the detail of the charges are something like antagonised and pressured oral sex both ways?

So basically one bird is suggesting he was plating her kebab and she didn't want to do it. Not really sure how that works. 

It works if you've taken (or been "promised") the establishment's shilling as part of their quest to discredit and cancel him (for (him) basically asking questions they'd rather have not been asked).