FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Russell brand
Russell brand
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss…" I don't find him funny, other people do. Humour is subjective. *makes a point of not rising to the bait.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks!" I’ll watch though  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. " I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur. "I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly. "Good luck with that buddy.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is strange that it happens now at the height of his fame, innocent until proven guilty as the saying goes." this is not the height of his fame though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is strange that it happens now at the height of his fame, innocent until proven guilty as the saying goes.this is not the height of his fame though. " Not in terms of his mainstream stuff, it's not the height of his fame. But in terms of influence on the peasants psyche and consciousness, he certainly is at the height. And also most powerful in ability to pick and dismantle the establishment. They want him gone. I'd encourage everybody to check out his YouTube channel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The allegations that he is a comedian surprised me more than anything... Just strikes me as a Jack Sparrow you'd get if you ordered it from Wish..." Alright that is funny. Fancy your self as a comedian your self | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. " What Steve said.....
The number of posters in these very threads who believe absolutely that he's innocent, despite not seeing a shred of actual evidence, and are adamant the women are making it up, shows just how hard it is to be taken seriously.
I feckin despair  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this." He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy..." 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The allegations that he is a comedian surprised me more than anything... Just strikes me as a Jack Sparrow you'd get if you ordered it from Wish... Alright that is funny. Fancy your self as a comedian your self" I'm here til Thursday and don't forget 2 for 1 on chicken in a basket, just ask the barmaid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly" So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK?" Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The allegations that he is a comedian surprised me more than anything... Just strikes me as a Jack Sparrow you'd get if you ordered it from Wish..." Ouch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy..." Yes, I'd love for someone to tell me why Brand needs to be silenced so much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly" "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch." And seriously overstates his importance. Especially in the times of people like Andrew Tate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... Yes, I'd love for someone to tell me why Brand needs to be silenced so much. " He encourages critical thinking, exposes mainstream media. And government dealings with war, arms deals. Things to do with the vaccine. It's uncountable the amount of stuff he has exposed and feather he has rattled, just type russlebran in yt, First they tried to ban him from yt. Until he stuck to the policy of yt. And moved to an uncensored platform that actually allows free speach | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Side note: in the doc there’s a clip of him talking to the Australian journalist and it’s like watching the Rubiales thing and then it gets so much worse. Forcing a kiss on the lips, inappropriate touching, comments about removing her bra, her visible discomfort that the encounter is clearly not consensual or professional. There’s lots in the documentary that does clearly display RB to be someone that has crossed lines and acted inappropriately without consent. That’s aside from the misogyny. I also think the text messages that they showed came from his phone number and that were sent to his phone number display an element of awareness of how traumatising (at a minimum) his behaviour was for others. Whatever happens to him in the future and whatever happens in terms of cases and Justice, I think there are things I’ve seen and heard in that documentary that were evidence enough that RB’s video claiming to have only ever engaged in consensual sexual encounters are not true. " I told myself I wouldn't watch it because it'll be one sided but this now makes me want to see for myself the 'evidence' put forward by the documentary makers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch." They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Side note: in the doc there’s a clip of him talking to the Australian journalist and it’s like watching the Rubiales thing and then it gets so much worse. Forcing a kiss on the lips, inappropriate touching, comments about removing her bra, her visible discomfort that the encounter is clearly not consensual or professional. There’s lots in the documentary that does clearly display RB to be someone that has crossed lines and acted inappropriately without consent. That’s aside from the misogyny. I also think the text messages that they showed came from his phone number and that were sent to his phone number display an element of awareness of how traumatising (at a minimum) his behaviour was for others. Whatever happens to him in the future and whatever happens in terms of cases and Justice, I think there are things I’ve seen and heard in that documentary that were evidence enough that RB’s video claiming to have only ever engaged in consensual sexual encounters are not true. I told myself I wouldn't watch it because it'll be one sided but this now makes me want to see for myself the 'evidence' put forward by the documentary makers. " This is the clip with the Australian journalist: https://youtu.be/JqHPTKa8Yms?si=WjY-vKAzOmdA7Ki_ It’s uncomfortable. It’s SA, simply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech" "They"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of" Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... Yes, I'd love for someone to tell me why Brand needs to be silenced so much. He encourages critical thinking, exposes mainstream media. And government dealings with war, arms deals. Things to do with the vaccine. It's uncountable the amount of stuff he has exposed and feather he has rattled, just type russlebran in yt, First they tried to ban him from yt. Until he stuck to the policy of yt. And moved to an uncensored platform that actually allows free speach" He encourages critical thinking. Right. What's he exposed that makes him a danger to the government more than the other people who call them to account? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. " Yeah I guess rishi sunak writes all his own speeches too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. " And they had that meeting more than 3 years ago, I think? Then instructed the C4 and Times journos to start an investigation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. Yeah I guess rishi sunak writes all his own speeches too" No, but he'll agree them. That's how government works; politicians take advice but make the decisions. So you must be right that the civil service would have decided that RB was a threat and needed to be removed? Probably MI5. This scandal just gets deeper and deeper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. Yeah I guess rishi sunak writes all his own speeches too No, but he'll agree them. That's how government works; politicians take advice but make the decisions. So you must be right that the civil service would have decided that RB was a threat and needed to be removed? Probably MI5. This scandal just gets deeper and deeper." Indeed it does, im glad we can both agree on that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. Yeah I guess rishi sunak writes all his own speeches too No, but he'll agree them. That's how government works; politicians take advice but make the decisions. So you must be right that the civil service would have decided that RB was a threat and needed to be removed? Probably MI5. This scandal just gets deeper and deeper." It's like living with my ex again being on here. He tried to convince me he worked for MI5. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Side note: in the doc there’s a clip of him talking to the Australian journalist and it’s like watching the Rubiales thing and then it gets so much worse. Forcing a kiss on the lips, inappropriate touching, comments about removing her bra, her visible discomfort that the encounter is clearly not consensual or professional. There’s lots in the documentary that does clearly display RB to be someone that has crossed lines and acted inappropriately without consent. That’s aside from the misogyny. I also think the text messages that they showed came from his phone number and that were sent to his phone number display an element of awareness of how traumatising (at a minimum) his behaviour was for others. Whatever happens to him in the future and whatever happens in terms of cases and Justice, I think there are things I’ve seen and heard in that documentary that were evidence enough that RB’s video claiming to have only ever engaged in consensual sexual encounters are not true. I told myself I wouldn't watch it because it'll be one sided but this now makes me want to see for myself the 'evidence' put forward by the documentary makers. This is the clip with the Australian journalist: https://youtu.be/JqHPTKa8Yms?si=WjY-vKAzOmdA7Ki_ It’s uncomfortable. It’s SA, simply. " It's not really that simple. Liz Hayes doesn't appear to be accusing him of anything. I'll watch the dispatches though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Side note: in the doc there’s a clip of him talking to the Australian journalist and it’s like watching the Rubiales thing and then it gets so much worse. Forcing a kiss on the lips, inappropriate touching, comments about removing her bra, her visible discomfort that the encounter is clearly not consensual or professional. There’s lots in the documentary that does clearly display RB to be someone that has crossed lines and acted inappropriately without consent. That’s aside from the misogyny. I also think the text messages that they showed came from his phone number and that were sent to his phone number display an element of awareness of how traumatising (at a minimum) his behaviour was for others. Whatever happens to him in the future and whatever happens in terms of cases and Justice, I think there are things I’ve seen and heard in that documentary that were evidence enough that RB’s video claiming to have only ever engaged in consensual sexual encounters are not true. I told myself I wouldn't watch it because it'll be one sided but this now makes me want to see for myself the 'evidence' put forward by the documentary makers. This is the clip with the Australian journalist: https://youtu.be/JqHPTKa8Yms?si=WjY-vKAzOmdA7Ki_ It’s uncomfortable. It’s SA, simply. It's not really that simple. Liz Hayes doesn't appear to be accusing him of anything. I'll watch the dispatches though. " Nah that ain’t it, man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. Yeah I guess rishi sunak writes all his own speeches too No, but he'll agree them. That's how government works; politicians take advice but make the decisions. So you must be right that the civil service would have decided that RB was a threat and needed to be removed? Probably MI5. This scandal just gets deeper and deeper. Indeed it does, im glad we can both agree on that" You're right. I've just found the list on a QAnon website and RB was #2, just under Philip Schofield. The Govt got him so I guess it was only a matter of time for poor RB. Orwell was right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is strange that it happens now at the height of his fame, innocent until proven guilty as the saying goes.this is not the height of his fame though. Not in terms of his mainstream stuff, it's not the height of his fame. But in terms of influence on the peasants psyche and consciousness, he certainly is at the height. And also most powerful in ability to pick and dismantle the establishment. They want him gone. I'd encourage everybody to check out his YouTube channel" I see. I thought that the alegations was more from the several women with the metoo campaign involved, but yes also from the establishment. I also watch his videos, they do want him gone too as he is going against the narrative. I like him, he is very informative too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this." Or maybe he’s just a sex-pest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. Yeah I guess rishi sunak writes all his own speeches too No, but he'll agree them. That's how government works; politicians take advice but make the decisions. So you must be right that the civil service would have decided that RB was a threat and needed to be removed? Probably MI5. This scandal just gets deeper and deeper. Indeed it does, im glad we can both agree on that You're right. I've just found the list on a QAnon website and RB was #2, just under Philip Schofield. The Govt got him so I guess it was only a matter of time for poor RB. Orwell was right. "Haha that did make me chuckle, touché touché, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is strange that it happens now at the height of his fame, innocent until proven guilty as the saying goes.this is not the height of his fame though. Not in terms of his mainstream stuff, it's not the height of his fame. But in terms of influence on the peasants psyche and consciousness, he certainly is at the height. And also most powerful in ability to pick and dismantle the establishment. They want him gone. I'd encourage everybody to check out his YouTube channelI see. I thought that the alegations was more from the several women with the metoo campaign involved, but yes also from the establishment. I also watch his videos, they do want him gone too as he is going against the narrative. I like him, he is very informative too "I'm with you shagger, but I still respect and appreciate other people level of consciousness critical thinking and opinions But our opinion is right and theirs are still wrong  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. Yeah I guess rishi sunak writes all his own speeches too No, but he'll agree them. That's how government works; politicians take advice but make the decisions. So you must be right that the civil service would have decided that RB was a threat and needed to be removed? Probably MI5. This scandal just gets deeper and deeper. Indeed it does, im glad we can both agree on that You're right. I've just found the list on a QAnon website and RB was #2, just under Philip Schofield. The Govt got him so I guess it was only a matter of time for poor RB. Orwell was right. "You're a very naughty boy YOLO. You said you were going to stay away from these threads! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. " This right here! Don’t forget, a Spanish footballer was subjected to unwanted sexual attention on live television and yet thousands still defended the man that assaulted her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. Or maybe he’s just a sex-pest. " Russle brand blessed my unborn son at the Time live on stage during one of his stand ups as I heckled him. I do now wonder if thats why my son was born with a nasty habit of pulling down other woman's low crop tops when he's been held, and, squeezing and motorboating breaststroke like his life depended onit. That still persists today. Alittle bit of russles spirit has been invoked within him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech" What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly So it's the government doing this now? Which one? The US or UK? Mainstream Media are just puppets of governments anyways. Sheer campaigns are not unheard of Great, thanks for clarifying. So is it Rishi Sunak or Joe Biden who's authorised this campaign? I think it would need to be agreed at the highest level? I can well imagine that meeting of Rupert Murdoch, Alex Mahon and 'The Government' where they decided their absolute #1 priority was to remove Russell Brand. Makes sense to me. Yeah I guess rishi sunak writes all his own speeches too No, but he'll agree them. That's how government works; politicians take advice but make the decisions. So you must be right that the civil service would have decided that RB was a threat and needed to be removed? Probably MI5. This scandal just gets deeper and deeper. Indeed it does, im glad we can both agree on that You're right. I've just found the list on a QAnon website and RB was #2, just under Philip Schofield. The Govt got him so I guess it was only a matter of time for poor RB. Orwell was right.
You're a very naughty boy YOLO. You said you were going to stay away from these threads!"I know. But you know us unthinking sheeple just can't resist. I think it's something to do with my MMR as a child, when the government took away my ability to handle the truth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't find him funny, his voice annoys me and he always looks to me like he needs a wash. I don’t know enough and don't care to know more about the current situation, but there are some very skilled liars in the world, some very skilled gaslighters and some very bitter folks. Which side of this any of them are on is the issue though. Not all of those who claim to be victims are truthful, and those that are twisting and bending truths for any kind of gain are, in my view, as bad as if not worse than the perpetrators of actual abuse. Because they not only destroy lives, they give ammunition to the voices who disbelieve actual victims. As a result, I rather hope that no one would "cry wolf" and that the accusations are truthful. While also wishing that anyone who has been assaulted or abused had never had to suffer it." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him?" Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly. "You've never done jury service.For the majority the decision is a coin toss. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly.
You've never done jury service.For the majority the decision is a coin toss."I have done jury service | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's creep, always was. But let the Police investigate and CPS decide if prosecution is warranted. Lot's of people decrying the MSM, but without them we wouldn't know about Savile, Rolf Harris et al would we?" Yeah and who indorced Saville? Guy had a children's wing in Aylesbury hospital named after him. So many high up was aware of his doings and what did that do f all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly.
You've never done jury service.For the majority the decision is a coin toss.
I have done jury service "Man said coin toss. No it isn’t  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly.
You've never done jury service.For the majority the decision is a coin toss.
I have done jury service "Then you would know fairness is at the bottom of the list when it comes to how people treat it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly.
You've never done jury service.For the majority the decision is a coin toss.
I have done jury service
Man said coin toss. No it isn’t "My experience is it's a coin toss.I was with the jurors (not on that case) of a nurse accused of poisoning patients.They couldn't understand the medical evidence,the court told them "get on with it".Their verdict was a guess.One example of many coin toss verdicts from my time.On guy forced the undecideds on the jury to go guilty,so they could get out of court early because he wanted to mow the lawns before it rained. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks" It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"6.1 million followers, 6.1 million followers asked to question not just to do. 6.1 million followers say to RB your going to end up like josh r if you keep goading the media. It has now come to pass, like his followers predicted. RB is an easy target, he was at the height of his addiction at the time of C4 reporting, the doc' shows him out of his face, this isn't an excuse it is how he was at the time. His text apology looks to me as he told her he had worn a condom but he lied and she reacted, which is understandable. She states that she didn't want to lose her job so never said anything till now. I think if this carries on, (football, acting, doctors, the press) all these allegations that women will suffer ultimately. **Men only clubs, men only bars you know all the stuff women have overcame will be put back in place to make men safe from allegations.**" ** So that women can go out and be safe from predatory men. Bring on the curfew!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A man on a similar thread said (I can't remeber the exact words...) he'd read that most women have experienced SA. He didn't believe it so he asked women he knew (who he could ask such a question) and they all said yes, they had experienced it. He was shocked. ..." I have, more than once in my life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks" As a follower of his, I hoped you'd be able to tell me one thing he's said that would make the government want him silenced. I doubt HMG want him silenced for his views on iPhones and Tik Tok. Gotta be more to it than that............. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too." Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks As a follower of his, I hoped you'd be able to tell me one thing he's said that would make the government want him silenced. I doubt HMG want him silenced for his views on iPhones and Tik Tok. Gotta be more to it than that............." That's not what I was getting at at all, you misinterpreted what I said, im saying go see for you self. My mention of all the other things people are to interested in rather than actually opening their eyes and seeing the world for what it really is. Was my view not russles. If you got up you will see I mentioned 3 types of things that would get him silenced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"6.1 million followers, 6.1 million followers asked to question not just to do. 6.1 million followers say to RB your going to end up like josh r if you keep goading the media. It has now come to pass, like his followers predicted. RB is an easy target, he was at the height of his addiction at the time of C4 reporting, the doc' shows him out of his face, this isn't an excuse it is how he was at the time. His text apology looks to me as he told her he had worn a condom but he lied and she reacted, which is understandable. She states that she didn't want to lose her job so never said anything till now. I think if this carries on, (football, acting, doctors, the press) all these allegations that women will suffer ultimately. **Men only clubs, men only bars you know all the stuff women have overcame will be put back in place to make men safe from allegations.** ** So that women can go out and be safe from predatory men. Bring on the curfew!! "When I see a group of people complain about an issue that effects them, and they go about doing and saying the somethings that affects them. I do not have any empathy for that group. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't find him funny, his voice annoys me and he always looks to me like he needs a wash. I don’t know enough and don't care to know more about the current situation, but there are some very skilled liars in the world, some very skilled gaslighters and some very bitter folks. Which side of this any of them are on is the issue though. Not all of those who claim to be victims are truthful, and those that are twisting and bending truths for any kind of gain are, in my view, as bad as if not worse than the perpetrators of actual abuse. Because they not only destroy lives, they give ammunition to the voices who disbelieve actual victims. As a result, I rather hope that no one would "cry wolf" and that the accusations are truthful. While also wishing that anyone who has been assaulted or abused had never had to suffer it." Well said Miss Posh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... Yes, I'd love for someone to tell me why Brand needs to be silenced so much. He encourages critical thinking, exposes mainstream media. And government dealings with war, arms deals. Things to do with the vaccine. It's uncountable the amount of stuff he has exposed and feather he has rattled, just type russlebran in yt, First they tried to ban him from yt. Until he stuck to the policy of yt. And moved to an uncensored platform that actually allows free speach He encourages critical thinking. Right. What's he exposed that makes him a danger to the government more than the other people who call them to account? " Yeah government does not want us thinking for our selves, we are much harder to control when we are not devided and conquered | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks As a follower of his, I hoped you'd be able to tell me one thing he's said that would make the government want him silenced. I doubt HMG want him silenced for his views on iPhones and Tik Tok. Gotta be more to it than that............. That's not what I was getting at at all, you misinterpreted what I said, im saying go see for you self. My mention of all the other things people are to interested in rather than actually opening their eyes and seeing the world for what it really is. Was my view not russles. If you got up you will see I mentioned 3 types of things that would get him silenced. " Are his social media profiles still open and active? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a Government would “silence” someone by making them the focus of a MASSIVE news story is clearly delusional. If a government is capable of doing some of the things these conspiracy theorists say they are doing, then that same government would have absolutely no problem with making someone they wanted to silence have a tragic “accident”. They wouldn’t bother with trying to fake some sort of character assassination. " Exactly this. ^^^ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly.
You've never done jury service.For the majority the decision is a coin toss.
I have done jury service
Man said coin toss. No it isn’t
My experience is it's a coin toss.I was with the jurors (not on that case) of a nurse accused of poisoning patients.They couldn't understand the medical evidence,the court told them "get on with it".Their verdict was a guess.One example of many coin toss verdicts from my time.On guy forced the undecideds on the jury to go guilty,so they could get out of court early because he wanted to mow the lawns before it rained."The cases I got we all deliberate based on the evidence and definitions to go by and reached verdicts based solely on those things. As instructed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks As a follower of his, I hoped you'd be able to tell me one thing he's said that would make the government want him silenced. I doubt HMG want him silenced for his views on iPhones and Tik Tok. Gotta be more to it than that............." Something that was debated was the covid contracts that were signed by governments and big phama. RB stated that big phama had covered themselves against litigation if persons became ill due to the vaccine. This was denied and RB somehow got a source and discussed the contract on his YT channel. A few months ago an African court ordered the contracts to be published without redaction and the truth came out, and that RB wasn't conspiring but telling the truth. It have yet to be reported by the mainstream, but I could of missed it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove" Did it need exposing? Google tells me it has been around since 1878 and has a website...(not since 1878, but perhaps it did, and they just kept the internet a secret for over a hundred years...) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a Government would “silence” someone by making them the focus of a MASSIVE news story is clearly delusional. If a government is capable of doing some of the things these conspiracy theorists say they are doing, then that same government would have absolutely no problem with making someone they wanted to silence have a tragic “accident”. They wouldn’t bother with trying to fake some sort of character assassination. " Nah cause his followers have been saying for years, if he ever dies unexpectedly they will always expect that loooool | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's creep, always was. But let the Police investigate and CPS decide if prosecution is warranted. Lot's of people decrying the MSM, but without them we wouldn't know about Savile, Rolf Harris et al would we? Yeah and who indorced Saville? Guy had a children's wing in Aylesbury hospital named after him. So many high up was aware of his doings and what did that do f all" Yeah that's exactly my point. The media has a role to expose wrongdoing. Let's see if they've got it right with Brand. My hunch his they likely have (The Times and C4 would have taken some heavy-duty legal advice). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove Did it need exposing? Google tells me it has been around since 1878 and has a website...(not since 1878, but perhaps it did, and they just kept the internet a secret for over a hundred years...)" It was more to do with the children being taken in and also the deities they was worshipping satanic etc not the location or establishment in itself the ongoing's and workings of the core of that establishment was the issue not its existence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove Did it need exposing? Google tells me it has been around since 1878 and has a website...(not since 1878, but perhaps it did, and they just kept the internet a secret for over a hundred years...) It was more to do with the children being taken in and also the deities they was worshipping satanic etc not the location or establishment in itself the ongoing's and workings of the core of that establishment was the issue not its existence" And also high ranking government officials ex-presidents prime ministers and people in the main spotlight of the entertainment industry etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove Did it need exposing? Google tells me it has been around since 1878 and has a website...(not since 1878, but perhaps it did, and they just kept the internet a secret for over a hundred years...) It was more to do with the children being taken in and also the deities they was worshipping satanic etc not the location or establishment in itself the ongoing's and workings of the core of that establishment was the issue not its existence And also high ranking government officials ex-presidents prime ministers and people in the main spotlight of the entertainment industry etc" Was all members | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a Government would “silence” someone by making them the focus of a MASSIVE news story is clearly delusional. If a government is capable of doing some of the things these conspiracy theorists say they are doing, then that same government would have absolutely no problem with making someone they wanted to silence have a tragic “accident”. They wouldn’t bother with trying to fake some sort of character assassination. Nah cause his followers have been saying for years, if he ever dies unexpectedly they will always expect that loooool" That’s because his followers are gullible fools who will twist anything to fit their distorted worldview rather than question their own beliefs. These people who always claim to be “open minded” and “free thinkers” very rarely actually use any sort of critical thinking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone who thinks that a Government would “silence” someone by making them the focus of a MASSIVE news story is clearly delusional. If a government is capable of doing some of the things these conspiracy theorists say they are doing, then that same government would have absolutely no problem with making someone they wanted to silence have a tragic “accident”. They wouldn’t bother with trying to fake some sort of character assassination. Nah cause his followers have been saying for years, if he ever dies unexpectedly they will always expect that loooool That’s because his followers are gullible fools who will twist anything to fit their distorted worldview rather than question their own beliefs. These people who always claim to be “open minded” and “free thinkers” very rarely actually use any sort of critical thinking " I appreciate your input | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks As a follower of his, I hoped you'd be able to tell me one thing he's said that would make the government want him silenced. I doubt HMG want him silenced for his views on iPhones and Tik Tok. Gotta be more to it than that............. Something that was debated was the covid contracts that were signed by governments and big phama. RB stated that big phama had covered themselves against litigation if persons became ill due to the vaccine. This was denied and RB somehow got a source and discussed the contract on his YT channel. A few months ago an African court ordered the contracts to be published without redaction and the truth came out, and that RB wasn't conspiring but telling the truth. It have yet to be reported by the mainstream, but I could of missed it." Government signing contracts to supply covid vaccines with the manufacturers is hardly a surprise. Who else is going to sign them? All vaccine manufacturers cover themselves against litigation. No medicine is risk free and if manufacturers can be sued they'll stop producing medicines. However there is a government backed compensation scheme for every vaccine produced since the year dot. This is not new news. As millions of people all over the world are spouting the same nonsense, the government must have a very long list of "people to be silenced" And Russell Brand is supposed to be encouraging critical thinking. Pahahahahaha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly. "problem is most people are brainwashed by the media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. " Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. " Agree! And the woman that was r*ped did report it to a local r*pe shelter and we saw what she’d said. She didn’t go to the police and that’s completely understandable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's creep, always was. But let the Police investigate and CPS decide if prosecution is warranted. Lot's of people decrying the MSM, but without them we wouldn't know about Savile, Rolf Harris et al would we? Yeah and who indorced Saville? Guy had a children's wing in Aylesbury hospital named after him. So many high up was aware of his doings and what did that do f all Yeah that's exactly my point. The media has a role to expose wrongdoing. Let's see if they've got it right with Brand. My hunch his they likely have (The Times and C4 would have taken some heavy-duty legal advice)." Don't fool yourself. The media don't care about exposing wrong doing, there is plenty of wrong doing that goes ignored by them. The media only cares about being relevant and the exposure they bring to themselves. The media as a whole don't care about these victims or any victims of anything - it's a business, and they do whatever continues to turn the wheel of chaos. Individual journalists might on some level but overall, no it's just another story for them to push until another one comes along. Media is neither left nor right, it loves the chaos in the middle because that is where it thrives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. " Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove Did it need exposing? Google tells me it has been around since 1878 and has a website...(not since 1878, but perhaps it did, and they just kept the internet a secret for over a hundred years...) It was more to do with the children being taken in and also the deities they was worshipping satanic etc not the location or establishment in itself the ongoing's and workings of the core of that establishment was the issue not its existence" That's BIG news. I'd like to read more. Can you send me links to the details of those who were prosecuted for the child trafficking/abuse? That's awful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28" Lots of men do this. Yes. If an older woman slept with you when you were 16 that is not ok… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove Did it need exposing? Google tells me it has been around since 1878 and has a website...(not since 1878, but perhaps it did, and they just kept the internet a secret for over a hundred years...) It was more to do with the children being taken in and also the deities they was worshipping satanic etc not the location or establishment in itself the ongoing's and workings of the core of that establishment was the issue not its existence That's BIG news. I'd like to read more. Can you send me links to the details of those who were prosecuted for the child trafficking/abuse? That's awful." Well that's probably what epstine would have exposed if he was not killed in prison, oh I mean if he hadn't killed himself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28" At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. " Girls mature before boys | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove Did it need exposing? Google tells me it has been around since 1878 and has a website...(not since 1878, but perhaps it did, and they just kept the internet a secret for over a hundred years...) It was more to do with the children being taken in and also the deities they was worshipping satanic etc not the location or establishment in itself the ongoing's and workings of the core of that establishment was the issue not its existence That's BIG news. I'd like to read more. Can you send me links to the details of those who were prosecuted for the child trafficking/abuse? That's awful. Well that's probably what epstine would have exposed if he was not killed in prison, oh I mean if he hadn't killed himself" Oh, I see. No evidence, and our one true witness dead. What are we going to do?!?!?!?! Join us next time for another exciting episode... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. Girls mature before boys "No, I'm sorry. That is absolute guff. The 16-yr-olds I know still act like teenagers, both male and female. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28" Assisting the elderly is laudable, but the accusations are being made by young girls (at the time). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. What Steve said.....
The number of posters in these very threads who believe absolutely that he's innocent, despite not seeing a shred of actual evidence, and are adamant the women are making it up, shows just how hard it is to be taken seriously.
I feckin despair "Don't know if he is guilty or this is a hit job. That is for the courts to decide, I don't need to get a dopamine hit from discussing it no virtual Social Virtue points by chest beating either way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread went left and I think a VAR check is required. "JFC you're not wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. Girls mature before boys
No, I'm sorry. That is absolute guff. The 16-yr-olds I know still act like teenagers, both male and female. "I have a 16 year old. They are CHILDREN. Saying girls mature before boys to suggest it's ok for 30yo men to sleep with them? Check your thinking.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think if this carries on, (football, acting, doctors, the press) all these allegations that women will suffer ultimately. **Men only clubs, men only bars you know all the stuff women have overcame will be put back in place to make men safe from allegations.** ** So that women can go out and be safe from predatory men. Bring on the curfew!!
When I see a group of people complain about an issue that effects them, and they go about doing and saying the somethings that affects them.
I do not have any empathy for that group."Is this group women? And what are the women doing and saying that means they will be SA'd - I think I'm interpreting your comment correctly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. Girls mature before boys
No, I'm sorry. That is absolute guff. The 16-yr-olds I know still act like teenagers, both male and female.
I have a 16 year old. They are CHILDREN. Saying girls mature before boys to suggest it's ok for 30yo men to sleep with them? Check your thinking. "Never move to the Netherlands, their AoC laws are quite liberal and may break your brain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. Girls mature before boys
No, I'm sorry. That is absolute guff. The 16-yr-olds I know still act like teenagers, both male and female.
I have a 16 year old. They are CHILDREN. Saying girls mature before boys to suggest it's ok for 30yo men to sleep with them? Check your thinking.
Never move to the Netherlands, their AoC laws are quite liberal and may break your brain.
"Pretty sure that though their aoc is lower ours, they have protections so that 30 year olds aren’t sleeping with children? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is strange that it happens now at the height of his fame, innocent until proven guilty as the saying goes.this is not the height of his fame though. Not in terms of his mainstream stuff, it's not the height of his fame. But in terms of influence on the peasants psyche and consciousness, he certainly is at the height. And also most powerful in ability to pick and dismantle the establishment. They want him gone. I'd encourage everybody to check out his YouTube channelI see. I thought that the alegations was more from the several women with the metoo campaign involved, but yes also from the establishment. I also watch his videos, they do want him gone too as he is going against the narrative. I like him, he is very informative too
I'm with you shagger, but I still respect and appreciate other people level of consciousness critical thinking and opinions
But our opinion is right and theirs are still wrong "That is right and so do I respect other options as well, yes ours are the right one too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. Girls mature before boys
No, I'm sorry. That is absolute guff. The 16-yr-olds I know still act like teenagers, both male and female.
I have a 16 year old. They are CHILDREN. Saying girls mature before boys to suggest it's ok for 30yo men to sleep with them? Check your thinking.
Never move to the Netherlands, their AoC laws are quite liberal and may break your brain.
"Regardless of what other varying laws are, there is sometimes a disconnect between what is moral and what is legal. It has been legal to own other human beings for servitude and it was the law to shop your neighbours if they were harbouring jews in Nazi-occupied territory. 16-yr-olds are kids. Again- two 16-yr-olds getting up to something is one thing behind closed doors where they're at the same maturity level, but having a preference for or going after one when you aren't a teenager yourself is all kinds of wrong IMO. I cannot understand how anyone in their twenties or thirties could possibly have a meaningful sexual or romantic connection to someone who was born in 2007 without there being a power advantage emotionally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. Girls mature before boys
No, I'm sorry. That is absolute guff. The 16-yr-olds I know still act like teenagers, both male and female.
I have a 16 year old. They are CHILDREN. Saying girls mature before boys to suggest it's ok for 30yo men to sleep with them? Check your thinking.
Never move to the Netherlands, their AoC laws are quite liberal and may break your brain.
Pretty sure that though their aoc is lower ours, they have protections so that 30 year olds aren’t sleeping with children? "Depends on if you are a puritanical Millenials with infantilism issues about childhood. And yes there are 29 year old who have relationships with 16 and 17 year olds in Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I've said enough. The people who have jumped to a guilty conclusion won't have their minds changed so its kinda pointless. I'd hate be in the dock with some posters in the jury. Makes judge Jeffrey's look like an amateur.
I think we have to assume that all posters would carry out jury service fairly.
You've never done jury service.For the majority the decision is a coin toss."It might be your perception based on the number of times you have done jury service but it wasn't a coin toss on any case during the two times I did it.. You simply are talking nonsense in claiming such.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. " I hear you but unless I missed them I've not seen anyone say these women are lying. Only thing we can be sure of is someone is lying. The overall view is it should be dealt with by the appropriate people and that's not a media team. Yes, conviction rates are very low but that's as much to do with lack of corroboration/evidence. They are extremely hard to prove due to the nature of the crime. If more women came forward there may be nothing that can be done but there would be a formal record of offences, I simply cannot condone kangaroo courts, that is my rationale for believing we need due process to take place. Do I think hes innocent? I'd say it's unlikely but if it were my son or brother then I'd want to be sure they are convicted on evidential proof before condemnation ruins their life. He may be lying, the women may be lying, only a proper investigation will find out who is and isnt...hopefully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. Girls mature before boys
No, I'm sorry. That is absolute guff. The 16-yr-olds I know still act like teenagers, both male and female.
I have a 16 year old. They are CHILDREN. Saying girls mature before boys to suggest it's ok for 30yo men to sleep with them? Check your thinking.
Never move to the Netherlands, their AoC laws are quite liberal and may break your brain.
Pretty sure that though their aoc is lower ours, they have protections so that 30 year olds aren’t sleeping with children?
Depends on if you are a puritanical Millenials with infantilism issues about childhood.
And yes there are 29 year old who have relationships with 16 and 17 year olds in Europe.
"Puritanical? For objecting to adult men fucking children? I've read it all now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew. "Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have a 16 year old. They are CHILDREN. Saying girls mature before boys to suggest it's ok for 30yo men to sleep with them? Check your thinking.
Never move to the Netherlands, their AoC laws are quite liberal and may break your brain.
Pretty sure that though their aoc is lower ours, they have protections so that 30 year olds aren’t sleeping with children?
Depends on if you are a puritanical Millenials with infantilism issues about childhood.
And yes there are 29 year old who have relationships with 16 and 17 year olds in Europe.
"Jokes. I’m gen z.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were "I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This entire thing is interesting to me. The accounts that were heard in that documentary were horrible and though we don’t know what’s transpired I think the implication that these people are liars or that they aren’t to be believed or deserving of sympathy until a guilty verdict is returned is scary. Many victims of these crimes never ever get Justice. Many victims never even seek Justice because of the treatment and harassment they face as a result. What this does is it creates a society where women aren’t believed and where women are afraid to come forward about instances like this. Not factoring in the power imbalance in cases where accused is a celebrity. Absolutely this. Look at his past behaviour with women and the absolute disrespect OUTSIDE of these accusations- calling Andrew Sachs to brag about how he shagged his grand daughter live on air on the radio, or in his Playboy interview bragging about how he'd have an entourage of men out looking for women for sex. As for the 16-year-old- if you have sex with someone that young-legal or not- you're a wrong'un at 30-years-old. You'd be a wrong'un at the age of 20 for going there. These women could've gone to the police, yes. But he could also have sued channel 4 and dispatches as soon as he heard about this. You can both agree with his political views and also understand that he by his own admission does not have a healthy relationship with women and sex. These things have been by his own admission. Anybody who is not on fab, or a religious person could say we don't have a good relationship with sex. We scoure the Internet in pursuit of hedonism. I was 16 when I had sex with an older woman, does that make me, or her a wrongun, some people might say the fact I'm fuckimg a local 53 year old makes me a wrongun and I'm 28 At 28, you'll have had jobs, possible relationships, been independent and lived a life. At 16 and STILL at school you're a bairn with no maturity or life experience. I work with 16-year-olds. They're far different to 28-yr-olds, both in how they look and how they behave. Don't conflate the two. Nice kids to work with, but at 38 the idea of any romantic relationship with one of them brings on a feeling of revulsion. I'm old enough to be their dad and I have nothing in common with them. Two 16-yr-olds doing stuff together in private is fine. Anyone with an interest in 16-yr-olds beyond teens age themselves is absolutely not well. Girls mature before boys
No, I'm sorry. That is absolute guff. The 16-yr-olds I know still act like teenagers, both male and female.
I have a 16 year old. They are CHILDREN. Saying girls mature before boys to suggest it's ok for 30yo men to sleep with them? Check your thinking.
Never move to the Netherlands, their AoC laws are quite liberal and may break your brain.
Pretty sure that though their aoc is lower ours, they have protections so that 30 year olds aren’t sleeping with children?
Depends on if you are a puritanical Millenials with infantilism issues about childhood.
And yes there are 29 year old who have relationships with 16 and 17 year olds in Europe.
Puritanical? For objecting to adult men fucking children? I've read it all now. "See sexism as well, you are a broken record. Oh the idea that a 16 year old may know themselves and what they want, well fuck that YOU know better, hero of the Social Virtue Credit! Get your flag out! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Never move to the Netherlands, their AoC laws are quite liberal and may break your brain. Pretty sure that though their aoc is lower ours, they have protections so that 30 year olds aren’t sleeping with children? Depends on if you are a puritanical Millenials with infantilism issues about childhood. And yes there are 29 year old who have relationships with 16 and 17 year olds in Europe. Puritanical? For objecting to adult men fucking children? I've read it all now.
See sexism as well, you are a broken record.
Oh the idea that a 16 year old may know themselves and what they want, well fuck that YOU know better, hero of the Social Virtue Credit! Get your flag out!"Ew ew ew! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also agree with others on the smear campaign front. He has exposed a hell of a lot of dark stuff that goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream media etc. That could also be the reason for all of this. He really isn't important enough that "the establishment" needs to smear him or "shut him down". He's literally a has-been actor who spouts dross on youtube. I don't know if he's guilty - that will need to be tested in a court - but I in no way think this is some kind of deep-state conspiracy... 6.1million people is quite a big following on his yt alone, not including his other socials. Government does not want this kind of information, been directly sent to 6.1 millions peoples phones instantly "If" the government wanted to close down his social media channels it could do so quite easily. Believing this is some government conspiracy to silence him is a real stretch. They did try to close his social, he just moved platforms to one that allows free speech What is it he's saying that makes the government want to silence him? Just look at his YouTube channel search his name, click on his profile and look from most recent to oldest find something that peaks your interest and expand your consciousness mayyynnnn. He exposes one thing after a other deep dives into things that people wouldn't care to question. Because most people life in fear, are riddled with anxiety, or just think the latest iPhone is more important, or dumbing their brains with unlimited tiktoks It really is the end of days stuff when Russell Brand is considered a thought leader. Mind you, that nice Alex Jones made some good points too. Haha Alex Jones class, well he did expose the bohemian grove Did it need exposing? Google tells me it has been around since 1878 and has a website...(not since 1878, but perhaps it did, and they just kept the internet a secret for over a hundred years...) It was more to do with the children being taken in and also the deities they was worshipping satanic etc not the location or establishment in itself the ongoing's and workings of the core of that establishment was the issue not its existence That's BIG news. I'd like to read more. Can you send me links to the details of those who were prosecuted for the child trafficking/abuse? That's awful. Well that's probably what epstine would have exposed if he was not killed in prison, oh I mean if he hadn't killed himself" I've nearly completed my conspiracy bingo card now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were "I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though ""Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable." This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were "It's not just about being emotionally stunted it's about how a 16-yr-old looks, which in the majority of cases is very, very young even if you're a girl who knows to put on make-up. It's about how life experience has meant that most will not have been in work, could still be in school, and do not know what life is like in the outside world yet and have relied on their parents and guardians to navigate their lives up to that point. If you're in your twenties or thirties you will have had life experience, possibly bought houses, had multiple jobs and multiple adult relationships. Why on earth would someone without those experiences, who is still a child appeal?! Absolute madness defending this. I thought of myself as a mature 16-yr-old. I wasn't daft, was pretty independent and knew how to speak up for myself, but would I behave now the way I did then? Absolutely not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop. "What's your take on an 18 year old woman and a 55+ man? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop.
What's your take on an 18 year old woman and a 55+ man?"A likely recipe for disaster imho | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop.
What's your take on an 18 year old woman and a 55+ man?"Good question. This I want to see the New Americanist Puritans twist around. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop.
What's your take on an 18 year old woman and a 55+ man?
A likely recipe for disaster imho"But not vomit inducing? 24 months makes that large a difference? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop.
What's your take on an 18 year old woman and a 55+ man?
A likely recipe for disaster imho"Surprising how many 55+ men on Fab are looking for 18 year old women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few things here. For him - He’s taking on and exposing big tech and the establishment by bringing the left and the right together. Why are the girls not going to the police rather then talk on camera. Against him - This story is 4 years in the making. Other celebraties are coming forward. What next - The girls need to go to the police. The person who sent the car to the school needs arresting to see what the score is. (Forget the morale argument I take it dating a 16 year old is not illegal here ) Arrest the driver to see what he says under caution. Once again tho the celebrity world knows and are hiding it. How vile must they be wa t fame and the status to keep quiet. " He's not 'taking on' anybody, he's cottoned on to how many gullible people there are post the pandemic so like any grifter is happy to exploit that market.. He's watched others like Alex Jones make millions so he's simply doing that.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few things here. For him - He’s taking on and exposing big tech and the establishment by bringing the left and the right together. Why are the girls not going to the police rather then talk on camera. Against him - This story is 4 years in the making. Other celebraties are coming forward. What next - The girls need to go to the police. The person who sent the car to the school needs arresting to see what the score is. (Forget the morale argument I take it dating a 16 year old is not illegal here ) Arrest the driver to see what he says under caution. Once again tho the celebrity world knows and are hiding it. How vile must they be wa t fame and the status to keep quiet. He's not 'taking on' anybody, he's cottoned on to how many gullible people there are post the pandemic so like any grifter is happy to exploit that market.. He's watched others like Alex Jones make millions so he's simply doing that.." What part is wrong what he’s saying ? Funny no one will debate it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conspiracy stuff is too funny. Could this be yet another instance of a famous man taking advantage of his fame and wealth to abuse women? Something we've seen happen over and over again? No, he must be being set up because he has a mildly successful youtube channel! That hasn't actually had any actual influence on the real world. " The claims are historical. He’s got 6 million people watching him. More than most news channels. Ask yourself why no one will debate him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conspiracy stuff is too funny. Could this be yet another instance of a famous man taking advantage of his fame and wealth to abuse women? Something we've seen happen over and over again? No, he must be being set up because he has a mildly successful youtube channel! That hasn't actually had any actual influence on the real world. " The collective Consciousness is forever being shaped and formed our psyche is always changing and we may not even know it, to say he's had no influence when his alternative media outlet, has overtaken sky news in followers that stands for something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conspiracy stuff is too funny. Could this be yet another instance of a famous man taking advantage of his fame and wealth to abuse women? Something we've seen happen over and over again? No, he must be being set up because he has a mildly successful youtube channel! That hasn't actually had any actual influence on the real world. The collective Consciousness is forever being shaped and formed our psyche is always changing and we may not even know it, to say he's had no influence when his alternative media outlet, has overtaken sky news in followers that stands for something." Him having more influence than sky news on yt will scare the establishment to the core. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conspiracy stuff is too funny. Could this be yet another instance of a famous man taking advantage of his fame and wealth to abuse women? Something we've seen happen over and over again? No, he must be being set up because he has a mildly successful youtube channel! That hasn't actually had any actual influence on the real world. The collective Consciousness is forever being shaped and formed our psyche is always changing and we may not even know it, to say he's had no influence when his alternative media outlet, has overtaken sky news in followers that stands for something. Him having more influence than sky news on yt will scare the establishment to the core." Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conspiracy stuff is too funny. Could this be yet another instance of a famous man taking advantage of his fame and wealth to abuse women? Something we've seen happen over and over again? No, he must be being set up because he has a mildly successful youtube channel! That hasn't actually had any actual influence on the real world. The claims are historical. He’s got 6 million people watching him. More than most news channels. Ask yourself why no one will debate him. " It's entertainment that makes him money. It's no more a threat to the establishment than EastEnders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop.
What's your take on an 18 year old woman and a 55+ man?
A likely recipe for disaster imho
Surprising how many 55+ men on Fab are looking for 18 year old women."Then they're gonna be very disappointed eh?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story "Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few things here. For him - He’s taking on and exposing big tech and the establishment by bringing the left and the right together. Why are the girls not going to the police rather then talk on camera. Against him - This story is 4 years in the making. Other celebraties are coming forward. What next - The girls need to go to the police. The person who sent the car to the school needs arresting to see what the score is. (Forget the morale argument I take it dating a 16 year old is not illegal here ) Arrest the driver to see what he says under caution. Once again tho the celebrity world knows and are hiding it. How vile must they be wa t fame and the status to keep quiet. He's not 'taking on' anybody, he's cottoned on to how many gullible people there are post the pandemic so like any grifter is happy to exploit that market.. He's watched others like Alex Jones make millions so he's simply doing that.." Very much this. I've watched a few of his YouTube videos. He talks abject nonsense. The gullible drink it in like nectar. And his bank account keeps going kerching. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop.
What's your take on an 18 year old woman and a 55+ man?
A likely recipe for disaster imho
Surprising how many 55+ men on Fab are looking for 18 year old women.
Then they're gonna be very disappointed eh?"Hopefully so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story
Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum "Can I even add, in that case my comments about the tabloids even related to the fact the tabloids were told prior to publication that what they were printing was false. How is that equivalent to this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I'd want my 16 year-old kids to be kicking a ball around or playing GrandTheftAuto not being pursued by Middle aged adults. But if that's 'puritanical' it's a fair cop.
What's your take on an 18 year old woman and a 55+ man?
A likely recipe for disaster imho
But not vomit inducing?
24 months makes that large a difference?
"Actually, yes, 16 to 18 is a huge transition. It's child to adult in the vast majority of cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conspiracy stuff is too funny. Could this be yet another instance of a famous man taking advantage of his fame and wealth to abuse women? Something we've seen happen over and over again? No, he must be being set up because he has a mildly successful youtube channel! That hasn't actually had any actual influence on the real world. The claims are historical. He’s got 6 million people watching him. More than most news channels. Ask yourself why no one will debate him. It's entertainment that makes him money. It's no more a threat to the establishment than EastEnders. " Mark my words, EastEnders' days are numbered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know if defending someone in his 30’s having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old and having a car pick her up from school is the hill I would want to die on…… If you think about it… yes 16 is the age on consent… but if she was a few months younger you would all be using the word groomer! He isn’t denying the relationships he is just saying they were all consensual… but I am guessing if that was your 16 year old and you were aware of a 30 ish year old man around making advances… you’d all go … for want of a better word… apeshit! " Whether you like it or not. If it’s consensual and legal then there’s nothing that can me done. If she got in the car against her will then the driver , who organises the car and brand need to be arrested. Questions also need to be asked. What were her parents doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The conspiracy stuff is too funny. Could this be yet another instance of a famous man taking advantage of his fame and wealth to abuse women? Something we've seen happen over and over again? No, he must be being set up because he has a mildly successful youtube channel! That hasn't actually had any actual influence on the real world. The claims are historical. He’s got 6 million people watching him. More than most news channels. Ask yourself why no one will debate him. " Because it's mostly puerile nonsense he spouts, fodder for the tinfoil hat brigade. We have a government who can't even organise a covert wine + cheese party much less some sinister control agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story
Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum
Can I even add, in that case my comments about the tabloids even related to the fact the tabloids were told prior to publication that what they were printing was false. How is that equivalent to this? "The 'victims' family said no such thing, they insisted he was 17. It's equivalent because these people are roughly the same age. All you have is a journalists word, remember these are 'anonymous sources' and you treat both cases completely different, yet they've been reported in a similar manner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story
Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum
Can I even add, in that case my comments about the tabloids even related to the fact the tabloids were told prior to publication that what they were printing was false. How is that equivalent to this?
The 'victims' family said no such thing, they insisted he was 17.
It's equivalent because these people are roughly the same age. All you have is a journalists word, remember these are 'anonymous sources' and you treat both cases completely different, yet they've been reported in a similar manner. "https://amp.theguardian.com/media/live/2023/jul/10/bbc-investigation-suspended-presenter-police-latest-updates If the person was a child then for the avoidance of doubt my stance will change. That’s what my comment was based on. Reading information like this. In this case, having watched the documentary, not sure if you have seen as you said you hadn’t earlier, the victim themself says they were 16. So it’s completely different. Having sex with a 16 year old when you’re 30+ is gross. My stance in that won’t change. And if the information I had about Huw Edwards was false, he’s gross too. Though I never stated anything about Huw, just that the tabloids had lied for clicks which the family lawyer says and says the sun were aware before publication. Good attempt to catch someone out on this but sorry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story
Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum
Can I even add, in that case my comments about the tabloids even related to the fact the tabloids were told prior to publication that what they were printing was false. How is that equivalent to this?
The 'victims' family said no such thing, they insisted he was 17.
It's equivalent because these people are roughly the same age. All you have is a journalists word, remember these are 'anonymous sources' and you treat both cases completely different, yet they've been reported in a similar manner. "Besides, I wasn't really talking about age. More that you immediately jumped to Huw is guilty and Russell is guilty without knowing the full facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story
Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum
Can I even add, in that case my comments about the tabloids even related to the fact the tabloids were told prior to publication that what they were printing was false. How is that equivalent to this?
The 'victims' family said no such thing, they insisted he was 17.
It's equivalent because these people are roughly the same age. All you have is a journalists word, remember these are 'anonymous sources' and you treat both cases completely different, yet they've been reported in a similar manner.
Besides, I wasn't really talking about age.
More that you immediately jumped to Huw is guilty and Russell is guilty without knowing the full facts. "In all My comments I’ve based it on what victims have said and I’ve never said RB is guilty of anything other than what we know to be true. The disputable fact of whether he really has a relationship with a 16 year old is only thing he could refute but witnesses have confirmed that did so we’ll see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story
Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum
Can I even add, in that case my comments about the tabloids even related to the fact the tabloids were told prior to publication that what they were printing was false. How is that equivalent to this?
The 'victims' family said no such thing, they insisted he was 17.
It's equivalent because these people are roughly the same age. All you have is a journalists word, remember these are 'anonymous sources' and you treat both cases completely different, yet they've been reported in a similar manner.
Besides, I wasn't really talking about age.
More that you immediately jumped to Huw is guilty and Russell is guilty without knowing the full facts.
In all My comments I’ve based it on what victims have said and I’ve never said RB is guilty of anything other than what we know to be true. The disputable fact of whether he really has a relationship with a 16 year old is only thing he could refute but witnesses have confirmed that did so we’ll see. "What do we know to be true? That's the whole point, we don't actually know anything to be true from anonymous sources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story
Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum
Can I even add, in that case my comments about the tabloids even related to the fact the tabloids were told prior to publication that what they were printing was false. How is that equivalent to this?
The 'victims' family said no such thing, they insisted he was 17.
It's equivalent because these people are roughly the same age. All you have is a journalists word, remember these are 'anonymous sources' and you treat both cases completely different, yet they've been reported in a similar manner.
Besides, I wasn't really talking about age.
More that you immediately jumped to Huw is guilty and Russell is guilty without knowing the full facts.
In all My comments I’ve based it on what victims have said and I’ve never said RB is guilty of anything other than what we know to be true. The disputable fact of whether he really has a relationship with a 16 year old is only thing he could refute but witnesses have confirmed that did so we’ll see.
What do we know to be true?
That's the whole point, we don't actually know anything to be true from anonymous sources. "I’ve shared an opinion on people defending relationships with 16 year olds, I shared a clip that’s in the doc and I made comments about victims not being believed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread was proudly sponsored by Butterkist "My man | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry can’t believe people are defending having relationships with sixteen year olds. Ew ew ew ew.
Sorry cannot believe people are projecting their own issues around being infantalised to try stereotype all 16 year old as emotionally stunted as they were
I wasn’t emotionally stunted. I was a child though
"Tabloid journalists cannot keep getting away with possibly just lying for clicks and to sell papers. It’s unbelievable."
This is what your stance was on the Huw Edwards story. Quite different to your response to this story
Because at the time what I had read the victim and his family said that the tabloids were lying about age. In this case the person is saying they were 16. I also feel like 16 is too young and evidence of grooming in multiple other cases. Like shamima begum
Can I even add, in that case my comments about the tabloids even related to the fact the tabloids were told prior to publication that what they were printing was false. How is that equivalent to this?
The 'victims' family said no such thing, they insisted he was 17.
It's equivalent because these people are roughly the same age. All you have is a journalists word, remember these are 'anonymous sources' and you treat both cases completely different, yet they've been reported in a similar manner.
Besides, I wasn't really talking about age.
More that you immediately jumped to Huw is guilty and Russell is guilty without knowing the full facts.
In all My comments I’ve based it on what victims have said and I’ve never said RB is guilty of anything other than what we know to be true. The disputable fact of whether he really has a relationship with a 16 year old is only thing he could refute but witnesses have confirmed that did so we’ll see.
What do we know to be true?
That's the whole point, we don't actually know anything to be true from anonymous sources. I’ve shared an opinion on people defending relationships with 16 year olds, I shared a clip that’s in the doc and I made comments about victims not being believed. "You've shared way more than that but tbh I can't be arsed to go look for them so we'll leave it there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That's the whole point, we don't actually know anything to be true from anonymous sources. I’ve shared an opinion on people defending relationships with 16 year olds, I shared a clip that’s in the doc and I made comments about victims not being believed. You've shared way more than that but tbh I can't be arsed to go look for them so we'll leave it there. " Everyone can go and see in the thread what I’ve said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
