|
Post by Trowel 🏴 on Sept 16, 2023 23:17:59 GMT
Defended by the very best Seems a bit hand-fisted. I mean, ham-fisted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2023 23:19:01 GMT
No a fan of Brand but weren’t many slagging off Kevin Spacey not long ago until he proved his innocence. We all wanted the proper ending for House of Cards, but it's done. Let it go.
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Sept 16, 2023 23:19:25 GMT
With the courts as fucked as they are, sometimes you need a bit of ‘trial by media’. It’s kind of the point of them and we need a bit more of it. And it’s worth noting that this isn’t just reporting on a few salacious tweets, it was 90 minutes of rigorous journalism that C4s lawyers were happy Brands legal team wouldn’t screw them for. Bang. On.
|
|
|
Post by stuz359 on Sept 16, 2023 23:20:13 GMT
I've been thinking it through, not about the allegations but about the conspiracy theory nonsense he peddles.
The problem for me is, it's kind of convincing. It's quite easy to take a singular event, link it through to global events and believe there is a conspiracy there (WEF or something).
Personally I think it's bollocks. But you can kind of get there if you think of ideas as signalling devices. Bear with me.
So, in an economic system, if your economy is distressed (think 2008), the state is cutting spending, the private sector looks at the economy, not collectively, but individually and thinks that it's not worth investing. So investors watch each other. So they think, well, you're not investing, so I won't invest, another sees you are not investing, so they don't invest etc, etc... So short term shock to the economy becomes a long term investment crisis. This is what Kaynes argued in the 1940's. Rational expectations for investors.
The flip side of course is bubbles. We had the dot com bubble, we are seeing the AI bubble at the moment. When investors see Apple, Google, Nvidia etc investing everything into AI, investment follows as everyone is chasing the next big thing.
This isn't everyone deciding collectively to invest in something, it's individual companies/investment funds as well as individuals trying to get in on the ground floor of the next revolution.
I think as everyone acts on these signalling devices, it's kind of easy to make the jump to global conspiracy, some kind of guiding hand behind the scenes and it can be convincing for people. Because if you're trying to make sense of the world, it works as a narrative. The best description of a human I have heard comes from 'The Science of the Discworld,' which is that we are Homo Narrativium, or 'the story telling ape.'
From what I can tell, there hasn't been a global conspiracy. If you look at JP Morgan in the early eighties, they had something like 250 employees, I don't think they had a secret meeting in which one of the board suggested taking over the world. I can see the logic for some of what he is peddling, why he got there and why it makes sense for some people, I just think it's nonsense. He's peddling Youtube nonsense for clicks and money.
As for the allegations, I can't comment, haven't read the article or Dispatches, I hope that everything is investigated in full and anyone that seeks justice, gets it.
I would just like to end with this though, Julian Assange. I do not think this is the same thing just to be clear. What is the crime of Julian Assange? He's being held in Belmarsh, 23 hours a day in solitary and he has not being charged with anything. But the weapon used to discredit him was a rape allegation.
I don't think this is the same thing, but I can see how conspiracy theorists can use this to equate the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2023 23:25:55 GMT
I've been thinking it through, not about the allegations but about the conspiracy theory nonsense he peddles. The problem for me is, it's kind of convincing. It's quite easy to take a singular event, link it through to global events and believe there is a conspiracy there (WEF or something). Personally I think it's bollocks. But you can kind of get there if you think of ideas as signalling devices. Bear with me. So, in an economic system, if your economy is distressed (think 2008), the state is cutting spending, the private sector looks at the economy, not collectively, but individually and thinks that it's not worth investing. So investors watch each other. So they think, well, you're not investing, so I won't invest, another sees you are not investing, so they don't invest etc, etc... So short term shock to the economy becomes a long term investment crisis. This is what Kaynes argued in the 1940's. Rational expectations for investors. The flip side of course is bubbles. We had the dot com bubble, we are seeing the AI bubble at the moment. When investors see Apple, Google, Nvidia etc investing everything into AI, investment follows as everyone is chasing the next big thing. This isn't everyone deciding collectively to invest in something, it's individual companies/investment funds as well as individuals trying to get in on the ground floor of the next revolution. I think as everyone acts on these signalling devices, it's kind of easy to make the jump to global conspiracy, some kind of guiding hand behind the scenes and it can be convincing for people. Because if you're trying to make sense of the world, it works as a narrative. The best description of a human I have heard comes from 'The Science of the Discworld,' which is that we are Homo Narrativium, or 'the story telling ape.' From what I can tell, there hasn't been a global conspiracy. If you look at JP Morgan in the early eighties, they had something like 250 employees, I don't think they had a secret meeting in which one of the board suggested taking over the world. I can see the logic for some of what he is peddling, why he got there and why it makes sense for some people, I just think it's nonsense. He's peddling Youtube nonsense for clicks and money. As for the allegations, I can't comment, haven't read the article or Dispatches, I hope that everything is investigated in full and anyone that seeks justice, gets it. I would just like to end with this though, Julian Assange. I do not think this is the same thing just to be clear. What is the crime of Julian Assange? He's being held in Belmarsh, 23 hours a day in solitary and he has not being charged with anything. But the weapon used to discredit him was a rape allegation. I don't think this is the same thing, but I can see how conspiracy theorists can use this to equate the same thing. They're among us.
|
|
Lizard
Junior Member
I love ploughmans
Posts: 4,490
Member is Online
|
Post by Lizard on Sept 16, 2023 23:40:43 GMT
There are Reptoids in our midst
|
|
|
Post by Danno on Sept 16, 2023 23:46:41 GMT
There are Reptoids in our midst -.- Watching you. *licks own eye*
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 17, 2023 0:03:07 GMT
I feel like it should be taken as given that if you are an adult man and your ‘girlfriend’ is a schoolgirl then there shouldn’t be a question about consent to even be begun, its just a crime.
And thats before you even get to how forensic this investigation must have been to beat the legal challenges that must have been thrown at C4 and The Times by Brand’s people already.
|
|
X201
Full Member
Posts: 5,132
|
Post by X201 on Sept 17, 2023 5:54:19 GMT
And thats before you even get to how forensic this investigation must have been to beat the legal challenges that must have been thrown at C4 and The Times by Brand’s people already. That’s the part that a lot of people won’t realise, the nearest they’ll have gotten to it is jokes about the lawyers in the front row on Have I Got News For You, but it’s a serious point. This will have been checked over and over by the legal team to make sure that it’s defendable if it went to court. Brand’s legal people were notified 8 days before this report became public. The fact that they didn’t/couldn’t use legal tools to prevent publication also says a lot about the strength of the reporting.
|
|
|
Post by damagedinc on Sept 17, 2023 6:17:43 GMT
So how do injunctions work? I'm suprised he didn't get one or try to?
I always get confused that some get them and some don't.
|
|
loto
Junior Member
Posts: 1,050
|
Post by loto on Sept 17, 2023 6:33:01 GMT
From Reddit, posted 235 days ago
“Russell Brand is moving to the right so that when the ~accusations~ finally come out he can claim it’s a witch hunt.”
|
|
apollo
Junior Member
Posts: 1,730
|
Post by apollo on Sept 17, 2023 6:41:00 GMT
Just been reading through the posts since yesterday its horrible stuff but can't say I'm surprised from Brand from what I heard from my friend at the time at MTV and Brand's persona of "this mega brain ultra leftie lovie" type it was just a cover to be this cult like figure to abuse and rape women (allegedly just to cover this post) Also sure Katy perry said he was emotional abusive in their short marriage?
So when people stop protecting him he jumps on the alt/far right nut job grift (and of course they are supporting him) Its funny Barrymore is defending him, (maybe Barrymore can invite him to one of his pool parties?)
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Sept 17, 2023 6:58:30 GMT
Ooof, finally just finished reading that. That's a proper hard read. Not remotely surprising and the stuff about Alice was frankly terrifying. The media industry needs to do better.
Also clear that he tried to get a court to stop this but just couldn't. Props to C4 and The Times.
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Sept 17, 2023 7:10:55 GMT
It's really depressing how many Brand simps are fervently defending him, I think I'll need to ignore this news as that lot are making feel too much despair.
|
|
Lukus
Junior Member
Posts: 2,707
|
Post by Lukus on Sept 17, 2023 7:47:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wizzard_Ook on Sept 17, 2023 8:02:15 GMT
It's really depressing how many Brand simps are fervently defending him, I think I'll need to ignore this news as that lot are making feel too much despair. Honestly, It just grim how sexual abuse as a whole has been made a facet of the Culture Wars. Some people have no empathy or self awareness at all.
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 17, 2023 8:05:14 GMT
And thats before you even get to how forensic this investigation must have been to beat the legal challenges that must have been thrown at C4 and The Times by Brand’s people already. That’s the part that a lot of people won’t realise, the nearest they’ll have gotten to it is jokes about the lawyers in the front row on Have I Got News For You, but it’s a serious point. This will have been checked over and over by the legal team to make sure that it’s defendable if it went to court. Brand’s legal people were notified 8 days before this report became public. The fact that they didn’t/couldn’t use legal tools to prevent publication also says a lot about the strength of the reporting. The Times/ST article about how the investigation was carried out is a real eye opener. Started in 2019, interviews with hundreds of people, FOI requests to all his former employers, the Times, Sunday Times and Dispatches investigations had all begun independently and it wasn’t until last year that they collated everything. Spoilered to avoid clogging the thread but here it is
|
|
Tuffty
Junior Member
Posts: 3,631
|
Post by Tuffty on Sept 17, 2023 8:05:18 GMT
Reading through some of his defenders and I don't know how people do it. To be so invested, it's exhausting to see the hoops they'll jump through to defend him. Globalists, Marxists, big pharma, mainstream media all round the world coordinating an attack on a poxy British comedian who is a bit of a nonce. Surely if they're all powerful the best way to silence him is to take him out? I dunno, guess I'm not cut out to be one.
The defences are somewhat easier to take when you realise that if all the same allegations came out against say Hunter Biden, these same people would believe it without question.
|
|
geefe
Full Member
Short for Zangief
Posts: 8,323
|
Post by geefe on Sept 17, 2023 8:15:16 GMT
So how do injunctions work? I'm suprised he didn't get one or try to? I always get confused that some get them and some don't. This is based purely on my half remembering of uni but our journalism and "free speech" (which we don't have) laws are based around whether something is in the public interest. Ryan Giggs was our story at the time. He had the injunction - before MPs shat all over it by talking about him in the Commons, which they are allowed to do and then allowed us to report that MPs had said Ryan Giggs had an injunction about X. They're used for all sorts and aren't limited to just celebs. A journalist or team must be able to prove that it is in the public interest and they basically have enough evidence to support that. That in itself is an absolute pain to do. Injunctions are important because they do offer a level of protection to people and can protect information about certain proceedings, until they're dealt with - until after the Partey has finished, one might say.
|
|
|
Post by Zuluhero on Sept 17, 2023 9:47:18 GMT
|
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,385
|
Post by cubby on Sept 17, 2023 10:00:39 GMT
Nadia's case is the most iron cast one. She kept the receipts of everything. That alone should be enough for charges to be brought.
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Sept 17, 2023 10:04:06 GMT
But he said he was very sorry and then "peace and love" so it should all be square.
|
|
|
Post by rawshark on Sept 17, 2023 10:40:42 GMT
I feel like even if the worst charges are brought he could just do what that Girls Gone Wild douche did and flee to Mexico, build his own private palace and live in peace while continuing to be a crackpot on Yt to his legions of idiot fans.
It’s just the tip of the iceberg, too. The 2000s was the decade of raunch. Sexual harassment and coercion was just passed off as having a laugh and looking back it was all regretful. As much as we’d like to Bojack the worst offenders it’s just scratching the surface. There needs to be some kind of reckoning but it’s going to get so much opposition because so many people are themselves implicated.
|
|
|
Post by rawshark on Sept 17, 2023 10:43:42 GMT
But let’s see how venues for Brand’s shows react - a few cancellations would be a start.
|
|
kal
Full Member
Posts: 8,309
|
Post by kal on Sept 17, 2023 10:51:52 GMT
The Times stuff is extremely thorough. Medical records. Text messages. Witnesses. I can’t see how this doesn’t result in severe consequences.
Worth also considering that investigative journalists have clearly set a very high bar of proof for what they’ve chosen to report, suggesting the size of the iceberg not reported on is very large indeed.
It may well spiral from here also. These things tend to. Other people will come forward now.
|
|
|
Post by clemfandango on Sept 17, 2023 10:54:09 GMT
I’d suggest not going on Twitter today, it’s an absolute cesspit of alt right grifters and brain dead simpletons defending brand.
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 17, 2023 10:59:48 GMT
I think there will be a lot of indie bands and trendy comedians from the 00s doing a lot of worrying and soul-searching this weekend. That Skins era of NME backed cool isn’t called indie sleaze for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Trowel 🏴 on Sept 17, 2023 11:03:25 GMT
The defences are somewhat easier to take when you realise that if all the same allegations came out against say Hunter Biden, these same people would believe it without question. Or say for example, Huw Edwards...
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 17, 2023 11:11:00 GMT
She’s doubly annoying because she’s one of the ones who used to know better so its hard to tell which of her terrible takes she believes and which are her playing the game now she’s down the rabbit hole
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Sept 17, 2023 11:25:54 GMT
She’s doubly annoying because she’s one of the ones who used to know better so its hard to tell which of her terrible takes she believes and which are her playing the game now she’s down the rabbit hole It's easier if you just follow the route of everything she says is bullshit. People like her automatically forgoe the defence of nuance when they peddle in this grifting nonsense.
|
|