Russel Brand... your thoughts?

[Frog Dreams]

I don't have the facts and so I'm not going to presume guilt or innocence.

Yeah, I'm not going to presume guilt or innocence either... unless it's about him being a predatorial creep (because he does that on camera).

I never said he was a rapist.

Like I said, I don't think we actually disagree about anything.

Call me crazy if you like i'll call you naive as fuck.

Not calling you crazy at all, bro.
Just pointing out an inconsistency.

You said people call Brand a paedophile because they don't like him... but aren't you implying the same about a whole bunch of people?

Prince Andrew isn't the entire royal family.

Anybody who associated with Saville throughout their life isn't guilty of paedophilia by association.

As for the US presidents... Brand has an accusations against him. So, what's the difference.

So what do you think? None of it is linked.

I'm not saying there are no paedophiles in positions of power.

I'm questioning this statement:

Media, government, the royal family, the vatican, is all run by paedophiles.

Not saying there aren't paedophiles in all of those institutions, but I'm not going to assume they are ALL fucking kids without any evidence.

 

[elgoucho9]

Yeah, I'm not going to presume guilt or innocence either... unless it's about him being a predatorial creep (because he does that on camera).

I never said he was a rapist.

Like I said, I don't think we actually disagree about anything.



Not calling you crazy at all, bro.
Just pointing out an inconsistency.

You said people call Brand a paedophile because they don't like him... but aren't you implying the same about a whole bunch of people?

Prince Andrew isn't the entire royal family.

Anybody who associated with Saville throughout their life isn't guilty of paedophilia by association.

As for the US presidents... Brand has an accusations against him. So, what's the difference.



I'm not saying there are no paedophiles in positions of power.

I'm questioning this statement:



Not saying there aren't paedophiles in all of those institutions, but I'm not going to assume they are ALL fucking kids without any evidence.

I agree with what you're saying bro. What makes me skeptical is there isn't a media witch hunt for say the people on Epstein's client list (obviously because these people are ultra rich, billionaires, politicians, powerful people), meanwhile you have a witch hunt for low level people lile Russel Brand.

Like i said in another thread here. It's like the people the media are branding rapists and paedophiles, we will say Tate and Brand for example, there is evidence of Tate being a misogynist, or Brand being touchy feely/a womaniser. But that isn't proof either of them is guilty of the charges held against them.

Can you link me to the video of Brand please man? I've not seen it but I'm always open to new information.

It's the odds of probability that leads me to think these people are mostly paedophiles. Hilary Clinton's emails, Bill Clinton on the Lolita Express (Epsteins jet), Donald Trump accused of raping a minor, Bidens daugher's book's claims of inappropriate showers with her father, Hunter's laptop... these big rich families are full of incest and molestion in my opinion. That's just US politicians, UK google Anthony Charles Linton Blair, cottaging lol. Then royals the Queen's favourite uncle was Mount Batten, a notorious abuser of young boys, Andrew's mates with Epstein/accused of raping young girls, Charles best mate was Jimmy Saville, they travelled to schools in scotland etc pictures of them with primary schools in the background, it's hard to imagine in that setting he didn't know what his best friend was upto.

The probabiliy of mone of these people all not knowing what their partners, spouses, family members, and best friends were upto vs the probability it's one big club and you're not in it. Obviously none of us can know the answer to that question for sure and it's a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Frog Dreams]

Kissing the journalist is assault on camera.

Are ALL of Saville's friends and family members paedophiles, or just Charlie because he's a better target (ie. you don't like him).

 

[Frog Dreams]

No assault here. He's probably just joking, but (again) it's creepy AF.

 

[elgoucho9]

Kissing the journalist is assault on camera.

Are ALL of Saville's friends and family members paedophiles, or just Charlie because he's a better target (ie. you don't like him).

Brand seems like an eccentric pervert but as I've said previously different times when most of this was said to now. It's like yes overly touchy feely, i don't agree those videos prove he's a rapist or a paedophile though as the media is saying.

I couldn't really care one bit either way about most of these people, it takes too much effort to hate.

Charles it just seems unlikely to me probability wise two best friends visit schools/childrens homes, Saville being Charles marriage advisor, and then Charles not at very least knowing what Saville was upto. Given the BBC knew and covered it up, it's hard to imagine his best friend who was a member of the royal family and likely briefed by security agencies, didn't know. He either knew and turned a blind eye (unlikely imo), knew and participated (it does seem to run in the family), or he's the most gullible person on the planet and knew nothing despite media and low level celebrities knowing at the time.

Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols was black balled by the media and music industry for years for speaking out against Saville. When you have both the media and the music industry black balling someone, it would suggest an entity above either of these industries was protecting Saville.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

You can downplay it by calling him an eccentric pervert all you want but what he did to that journalist was the definition of sexual assault

 

[elgoucho9]

You can downplay it by calling him an eccentric pervert all you want but what he did to that journalist was the definition of sexual assault

I never said it's not. I literally called him a pervert after seeing it lol. It is 100% sexual assault. What i said is that still does not prove he's a rapist and a paedophile, like the news here has been claiming.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

He either knew and turned a blind eye (unlikely imo)

Why unlikely? IMO it seems more likely than these institutions being composed largely of extreme sexual deviants.

In a lot of these cases, like in “elite circles,”people probably do know some among them are “weird” sexually, but choose to write it off as personal eccentricity (that they don’t know the specifics of anyway, and don’t wanna know either) that doesn’t affect them personally and is thus easy to ignore. And then you have people like Epstein who cast a wide net among such people for blackmail purposes etc

Look at what happens in many police departments. Most officers don’t commit atrocities but many know of and cover for the atrocities committed by “bad apples.” The Catholic Church is another example of these “institutional sympathies” imo, albeit on a pretty large, extreme scale. Cops cover for cops, doctors cover for doctors, priests cover for priests, people involved in the law and politics cover for each other, and so on

 

[jasperkent]

For four years I worked with (and was friends with) a man who'd been convicted of 2nd degree murder. His case was complicated and some would say it was justifiable homicide.

Does this mean I am a murderer? No.
Do I think all murders are OK? No.
Is a 2nd degree murderer the same as a serial killer? No.

Just sayin'

 

[elgoucho9]

Why unlikely? IMO it seems more likely than these institutions being composed largely of extreme sexual deviants.

In a lot of these cases, like in “elite circles,”people probably do know some among them are “weird” sexually, but choose to write it off as personal eccentricity (that they don’t know the specifics of anyway, and don’t wanna know either) that doesn’t affect them personally and is thus easy to ignore. And then you have people like Epstein who cast a wide net among such people for blackmail purposes etc

Look at what happens in many police departments. Most officers don’t commit atrocities but many know of and cover for the atrocities committed by “bad apples.” The Catholic Church is another example of these “institutional sympathies” imo, albeit on a pretty large, extreme scale. Cops cover for cops, doctors cover for doctors, priests cover for priests, people involved in the law and politics cover for each other, and so on

You think the prince who was in line to be king was covering for a TV persona? They were close friends and vacationed together.

The reason that often happens in police departments is the officers who cover are scared of loosing their job.

Even supposing your right. If you know your friend is in childrens hospitals raping kids and choose to turn a blind eye what does that make you?

Like i already said if the BBC knew years ago when saville was alive. There is zero chance the future King of England who's family is briefed by mi5 didn't know.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

You think the prince who was in line to be king was covering for a TV persona? They were close friends and vacationed together.

The reason that often happens in police departments is the officers who cover are scared of loosing their job.

Even supposing your right. If you know your friend is in childrens hospitals raping kids and choose to turn a blind eye what does that make you?

Like i already said if the BBC knew years ago when saville was alive. There is zero chance the future King of England who's family is briefed by mi5 didn't know.

I mean I admit that I’m not as familiar with the example you’re talking about cuz I don’t live in the UK…I do know vaguely about Saville as a cultural figure who was implicated in widespread sexual abuse, we have figures like that in the USA like Cosby for example, and just like people like Cosby, Weinstein etc people knew on some level and chose to turn a blind eye to it.

Is it fucked up? Yeah but humans are fucked up many times. Humans will willingly take actions that don’t just negatively impact the lives of individual victims but thousands, even millions of people and will just choose to put it out of their minds. What does that say about people? Nothing good but it happens all the time.

I disagree that what happens re the cops is just related to some self preservation instinct related to losing their job. That’s giving them far too much credit…what really prevents them from being a whistleblower within the system is the risk of being ostracized within their own milieu. Calling out outright criminal abuses of power wouldn’t make them lose their job but would label them as a “rat”

 

[AlsoTapered]

Russell Brand: Second police force launches investigation into allegations

Thames Valley Police said it was contacted by a woman with new information in relation to reports of ‘harassment and stalking’

www.independent.co.uk

So now two different police forces are investigating RB.

 

[elgoucho9]

I mean I admit that I’m not as familiar with the example you’re talking about cuz I don’t live in the UK…I do know vaguely about Saville as a cultural figure who was implicated in widespread sexual abuse, we have figures like that in the USA like Cosby for example, and just like people like Cosby, Weinstein etc people knew on some level and chose to turn a blind eye to it.

Is it fucked up? Yeah but humans are fucked up many times. Humans will willingly take actions that don’t just negatively impact the lives of individual victims but thousands, even millions of people and will just choose to put it out of their minds. What does that say about people? Nothing good but it happens all the time.

I disagree that what happens re the cops is just related to some self preservation instinct related to losing their job. That’s giving them far too much credit…what really prevents them from being a whistleblower within the system is the risk of being ostracized within their own milieu. Calling out outright criminal abuses of power wouldn’t make them lose their job but would label them as a “rat”

There seems to be figures like that in positions of power all over the place.

I'm sure with the cops the risk of being ostracized is just one of several risks of speaking out there. They could also loose their jobs or be set up by colleagues. Or worst case depending on the subject they spoke out on they could be murdered.

Russell Brand: Second police force launches investigation into allegations

Thames Valley Police said it was contacted by a woman with new information in relation to reports of ‘harassment and stalking’

www.independent.co.uk

So now two different police forces are investigating RB.

Harassment and stalking. Hmm, i was thinking before i read the article why hasn't she came forward years ago. But then also the channel 4 dispatches investigation into him started over a year ago. I wonder if this is what triggered it?

 

[AlsoTapered]

Interesting to watch the Paxman/Brand interview. I found it rather painful to watch. A monologue consisting of undigested facts, opinions framed as facts and in the end, the classic ad hominem attack.

Paxman realized he didn't need to say anything. Brand buried himself.

As someone noted 'It was hardly Frost/Nixon. More like a monkey throwing it's own excrement at a foghorn'.

It's interesting to note that the historical socialist thinker Karl Marx moved to England because he believed that the world revolution would begin in that nation. In fact he moved from London to Manchester as he identified the latter city as the site of the greatest iniquity within the nation. Marx almost starved to death such was the conviction of his beliefs.

So someone whose wealth is conservatively estimated to be £20 million, some who moved their preferred streaming platform NOT because they were banned but rather because they were demonetized would not be recognized by Marx as someone who had ANY conviction in their stated beliefs.

In short - Brand is acting out of self-interest.

There is nothing inherently wrong in acting out of self-interest, but to do so under the flimsy camouflage of seeking a world revolution seems highly manipulative to me. After all, IF a Marxist revolution actually occurred, ownership would be considered theft so all of the homes, properties, businesses and and large amount of shares held by Brand certainly wouldn't see him classified as a member of the proletariat but clearly a successful capitalist and member of the bourgeoisie.

I've previously mentioned how the Youtube algorithm chooses the ads screened to each viewer but I'm unaware of Brand ever making any ethical complaint concerning ANY of those businesses. Of course, content providers can state that they don't get to choose the ads - but if you place content on a platform that hosts such ads, you are tacitly accepting that your content could be placed next to ANY advertiser.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...usg=AOvVaw3KdmCWdJ-ZdW62undMfwul&opi=89978449

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Some seriously butthurt types itt

 

[Arnold]

Interesting to watch the Paxman/Brand interview. I found it rather painful to watch. A monologue consisting of undigested facts, opinions framed as facts and in the end, the classic ad hominem attack.

Paxman realized he didn't need to say anything. Brand buried himself.

As someone noted 'It was hardly Frost/Nixon. More like a monkey throwing it's own excrement at a foghorn'.

It's interesting to note that the historical socialist thinker Karl Marx moved to England because he believed that the world revolution would begin in that nation. In fact he moved from London to Manchester as he identified the latter city as the site of the greatest iniquity within the nation. Marx almost starved to death such was the conviction of his beliefs.

So someone whose wealth is conservatively estimated to be £20 million, some who moved their preferred streaming platform NOT because they were banned but rather because they were demonetized would not be recognized by Marx as someone who had ANY conviction in their stated beliefs.

In short - Brand is acting out of self-interest.

There is nothing inherently wrong in acting out of self-interest, but to do so under the flimsy camouflage of seeking a world revolution seems highly manipulative to me. After all, IF a Marxist revolution actually occurred, ownership would be considered theft so all of the homes, properties, businesses and and large amount of shares held by Brand certainly wouldn't see him classified as a member of the proletariat but clearly a successful capitalist and member of the bourgeoisie.

I've previously mentioned how the Youtube algorithm chooses the ads screened to each viewer but I'm unaware of Brand ever making any ethical complaint concerning ANY of those businesses. Of course, content providers can state that they don't get to choose the ads - but if you place content on a platform that hosts such ads, you are tacitly accepting that your content could be placed next to ANY advertiser.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwio_73iyNmBAxX-U0EAHe2hCvYQwqsBegQIDRAG&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-uNx3LAguE&usg=AOvVaw3KdmCWdJ-ZdW62undMfwul&opi=89978449

Am I the only one who when watching RB for 10 seconds wants to twat him in the face?

 

[Foreigner]

I don't believe the allegations against him. I smell bullshit.

 

[AlsoTapered]

Russell Brand pleads with fans to pay £48 a year fee after YouTube cuts him off

Russell Brand has urged fans to pay £48 in a bid to rescue his earnings, after YouTube announced it was suspending payments to the comedian earned through his channel.

www.lbc.co.uk

Now RB is attempting to get his viewers to pay £48 up-front to watch his podcasts because he's just realized that Rumple pays pennies.

Note how he tries to frame this as 'an attack on free speech'. Nobody has stopped him from producing and placing podcasts onto social media platforms. But no business wants to be associated with him.

So now people have to buy 'Rumble Premium' which of course has no ads. Next, I fully expect him to try to sell products and/or services directly to generate income. Anyone want to bet against me on that prediction?

 

[elgoucho9]

Russell Brand pleads with fans to pay £48 a year fee after YouTube cuts him off

Russell Brand has urged fans to pay £48 in a bid to rescue his earnings, after YouTube announced it was suspending payments to the comedian earned through his channel.

www.lbc.co.uk

Now RB is attempting to get his viewers to pay £48 up-front to watch his podcasts because he's just realized that Rumple pays pennies.

Note how he tries to frame this as 'an attack on free speech'. Nobody has stopped him from producing and placing podcasts onto social media platforms. But no business wants to be associated with him.

So now people have to buy 'Rumble Premium' which of course has no ads. Next, I fully expect him to try to sell products and/or services directly to generate income. Anyone want to bet against me on that prediction?

Brand has always been like that, he likes to preach what we should be doing etc, but doesn't do it himself.

He goes on about celebrity elites but he was married to one and hung around many.

Like you say, he's not a man of substance. Merely just someone who talks alot but doesn't follow through, people like that are ten a penny.

I feel like there will be many more desperate cash grabs to come since all his sponsors dropped him. He is bound to experience a cash flow problem at some point, if he has been living a lavish lifestyle.

Watched the interview you linked with Paxman there. Brand makes a couple of valid points about government, points that are probably discussed in places across the country on a daily basis. But he uses language to make himself sound cleverer than he is, as he has no idea how to solve them or enforce any of his solutions. He is also so painfully loud and obnoxious, talking over Paxman etc, that I put it off after 6mins.

On a sidenote but still 'current news related', Sky News had an entire section this morning on The Beckhams new Netflix documentary lol. Do you think by some chance they might just want us to watch it?

 

[AlsoTapered]

As I've said before, he's a pseudointellectual and will break the golden rule of effective communication - never use a complicated word if a simple one will do.

It's that shallow attempt to appear clever that grates.