The Celebrity Sexual Harassment and Rapists Thread

[Keith Houchen]

23 minutes ago, Factotum said:

As for the the mad defenders, most it seems have seen this as the latest culture war boat to jump on. They don't actually believe a lot of what they're saying. It's a way of making THEM relevant. Most seem to have not even read the article with the texts etc. I guess they wont pay for the MSM.

Yeah, the GBeebies paradox. Claim to not be mainstream media despite being an actual TV channel that anyone can watch, and then bragging about how their ratings are bigger than other news channels. 
 

Whenever you see that “MSM won’t cover this” bullshit, either they ARE covering it, or the story is bollocks so they don’t / are proof of the conspiracy of suppression. 
 

(Good arrows for using ‘Boat’ there while mentioning culture wars!)

[Factotum]

4 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Whenever you see that “MSM won’t cover this” bullshit, either they ARE covering it, or the story is bollocks so they don’t / are proof of the conspiracy of suppression. 

Also, they always bring up Prince Andrew, like their main 'THEY HIDE THINGS' channel in the BBC, literally exposed the man as a huge bullshitter on  Saturday night prime time.

Throw in the Epstein thing. Well the media MAY be investigating this. We just wouldn't know. Ian Hislop used to say investigative reporting is boring, tedious and expensive with so many legal/blind alleys. Can you imagine a major news organisation investigation looking into something like that? Would take ages. But then again, I bet they wouldn't believe it at all, as they don't believe the MSM.

[Keith Houchen]

22 minutes ago, Factotum said:

Also, they always bring up Prince Andrew, like their main 'THEY HIDE THINGS' channel in the BBC, literally exposed the man as a huge bullshitter on  Saturday night prime time.

Throw in the Epstein thing. Well the media MAY be investigating this. We just wouldn't know. Ian Hislop used to say investigative reporting is boring, tedious and expensive with so many legal/blind alleys. Can you imagine a major news organisation investigation looking into something like that? Would take ages. But then again, I bet they wouldn't believe it at all, as they don't believe the MSM.

Oh God yeah, it’s reminiscent of the Hollie Grieg thread in gold where @Loki was trying to point out to Duane that the BBC deciding the whole thing was bollocks from the most cursory investigation, thus not reporting their smear campaign, doesn’t mean they were served a D notice and were complicit in the cover up. 
 

When the absolute wanker Andrew Pierce is the voice of reason, you know you’re on dodgy ground. 

EDIT. Fucking hell, it embedded!!  Clearly it’s part of the conspiracy against Love Muscle Russell. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Keith Houchen

[Loki]

4 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

the Hollie Grieg thread in gold where @Loki was trying to point out to Duane

That's Conservative Councillor Duane to you, Keith!

[SuperBacon]

Oh Beverley Turner. I'm taking back all my teenage wanks, thanks.

[d-d-d-dAz]

I hate to revisit my earlier post how this is all playing out how Russell Brand would probably prefer, if he had to accept it playing out at all.

Taking his podcasts and TV shows down, analysing every word he’s ever said… even getting Sach’s granddaughter back out the cupboard… It’s turned into a textbook, unfocused media beating, when it should have been a sober reporting on the fact a woman has reported a rape and a 16 year old is claiming serious abuses of power and privilege.

I just don’t think this thread is hugely helpful, and plays right into the hands of the ‘cancel culture’ conspiracy oddballs.

[Kfogg1991]

If you want to read something absolutely disgusting and outrageous go take a look at Jake shields twitter. Here is one to give you a idea

 

 

[WyattSheepMask]

MMA fighter in ‘Bit of a Knobhead’ shocker 

[Loki]

I get the feeling there's a lot of outrage online from people for whom Brand was a hero, and who share his opinion that consent is a relative thing rather than an absolute.  Brand's forceful over-masculinity was very much the norm in the 90s and the lads expected the lasses to just play along.  So if Brand is a sex offender, a lot of people would have to re-assess their own behaviour, and we can't have that!

Whenever I'm tempted to think that we've evolved as a society, I see a post like that Jake Shields tweet above, and realise we're still making baby steps.

[Keith Houchen]

1 hour ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I just don’t think this thread is hugely helpful, and plays right into the hands of the ‘cancel culture’ conspiracy oddballs.

Why do you think that? I haven’t seen anyone say he is innocent. But I do take your point about victims of the abuse, I don’t think victims and their well-being is a priority on here at all. 

[David]

4 hours ago, Loki said:

So if Brand is a sex offender, a lot of people would have to re-assess their own behaviour, and we can't have that!

If? Isn't it confirmed? Surely he's not being shut down left, right & centre on accusations alone? 

EDIT: Just had a quick scan of the news. It isn't just accusations. There's rape centre reports, etc, to back it up. So I'd say it's pretty much confirmed. There's no ifs or buts about it.

I've just caught up on all this. Absolutely not surprising when you look at how he's acted in the past in public. He's a prick.

Edited September 20, 2023 by David

[d-d-d-dAz]

6 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

Why do you think that? I haven’t seen anyone say he is innocent. But I do take your point about victims of the abuse, I don’t think victims and their well-being is a priority on here at all. 

I didn’t mean the thread on here, I meant the thread on Twitter I copied in, just to be clear. This thread is one of the more reasonable.

But in a broader sense I think the current conversation nationally is unhelpful because I think by pulling episodes of QI, or episodes of Diaries of a CEO or whatever, you muddy the conversation, and allow his supporters to frame this as another cancellation or erasure. 

The more ‘evidence’ you throw at people that is simply what he said on a show once, the further you move away from the real substantial issues at play. The more articles there are on a joke he once made that now sounds a little rum, the more people can say “see, they’re just throwing any old shit at him now.”

I think if this plays out as a ‘cancel culture’ conversation, he’s winning.

As an example, I don’t think these sort of articles are hugely helpful right away:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66843160

Its almost like people are rushing to do the post mortem before they even have a body.

Edited September 20, 2023 by d-d-d-dAz

[BomberPat]

It's a tough one. Framing it as the result of 00s lad culture ignores the fact that it's a story of abuse of fame and power that could have happened in any time, and handwaves away the need for the organisations involved to look in at themselves and consider what they should be doing differently moving forward to prevent the next Russell Brand, but I also think that 00s lad culture is overdue critical examination for the same reason.

The thing to remember when it comes to the "mainstream media conspiracy " types is that the UK has some of the strictest libel laws in the world, and that if libel cases go to court, it falls to the person who made the claim to prove it to be correct rather than the person claiming libel to prove it false (as opposed to the US, for example, where it's the other way around). Mainstream media outlets aren't in the habit of just idly accusing celebrities of years of sexual assault without making sure their argument is about as watertight as it can get. But I agree that raking over previous comments "in character", while potentially illuminating, isn't helpful in general because there's already more than enough evidence.

[Dead Mike]

29 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

 

The thing to remember when it comes to the "mainstream media conspiracy " types is that the UK has some of the strictest libel laws in the world, and that if libel cases go to court, it falls to the person who made the claim to prove it to be correct rather than the person claiming libel to prove it false (as opposed to the US, for example, where it's the other way around). Mainstream media outlets aren't in the habit of just idly accusing celebrities of years of sexual assault without making sure their argument is about as watertight as it can get. But I agree that raking over previous comments "in character", while potentially illuminating, isn't helpful in general because there's already more than enough evidence.

Brand will be announcing the legal action he's taking against C4 & Dispatches any day now I'm sure.

[Mr_Danger]

10 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

Why do you think that? I haven’t seen anyone say he is innocent. But I do take your point about victims of the abuse, I don’t think victims and their well-being is a priority on here at all. 

I think conflating risqué jokes and inappropriate public comments with actual sexual abuse and rape allegations means it easier for people to shut down the latter by using the former. It’s obvious a massive leap in logic but most of the mouth breathing watchlist bastards don’t need much of a reason.