This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Another one bites the dust?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  georgenorman  21 Sep 23 11.25am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
So far as I am aware no data has actually been collected on the ethnicity of the gang members so all you are doing is parroting the assumptions made in the tabloid headlines. Likewise with the “blind-eye” assertion. That there were individual failures has been established but to suggest the police institutionally turned a blind eye has not. They seem to have been following a nationally devised softly softly approach. Which has since received criticism. Who should be held accountable, the police who had to deliver the policy or those who devised it? The labels don’t help anyone, including the victims or those trying to bring criminals to justice. They are completely irrelevant to the crimes. You can dismiss my personal observations if you wish. They were in another country but show that markedly different cultures can exist side by side and for friendly relations to develop on an individual level. The human spirit can always triumph over prejudice when allowed to. It is absurd for you to pretend that the majority of those convicted in the trials were not overwhelmingly of pakistani-heritage. Merely look at those convicted, for example, Huddersfield convictions in 2018: Amere Singh Dhaliwal
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
HKOwen  Hong Kong 21 Sep 23 11.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
GN, you are arguing with a brick wall. Much better IMHO to ignore something that is worthless and time wasting
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 21 Sep 23 11.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
GN, you are arguing with a brick wall. Much better IMHO to ignore something that is worthless and time wasting I'm just waiting for him to post that the rapists were all far-right white men who changed their names by deed poll.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 21 Sep 23 12.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If it's hilarious to you then at least you're laughing so there's some positive to come from it. I've already answered this point you make here, which SW19 previously made but you probably didn't read it so I'll repeat that here....Like him you may not accept it but I feel it's valid as you're implying that to suggest conspiracy for anything other than organic reasons is paranoid. Your first point is that he's not important enough to take down. Ok, here is my response to that. Brand has a larger Youtube viewing audience than many official media outlets. Name me an anti establishment figure of a similar size to Russell Brand that hasn't been taken down? Why on earth wouldn't they look to take them down? Your second point is that not many people are anti establishment and 'conspiratorial type stuff'. Really? Trump is supported by roughly half of America and people aren't into anti establishment 'conspiratorial type stuff'? In reality trust in institutions and government is declining and efforts to restrict 'misinformation' by the establishment is all happening in plain sight. Yet you seem to think that the establishment are just sitting on their hands doing nothing about it.....When all the evidence goes against that. You obviously have never read the many memoirs from former intelligence who also talk about the many underhands activities that go on. I'll also make the obvious and strongest point against your claims here is that the investigation against Brand is four years old. Well, Brand has been a celebrity for decades. Brand had been a shagging machine for most of that...maybe all. Brand's promiscuous behaviour had been commented about pretty much from the start....but while he was in the mainstream nothing. However, it's only been since he's become political against the mainstream that there's an interest in investigating him. It's nearly always the anti establishment figures that you get to hear about. But you think noticing that is childish....well ok, I guess I'll have to buy myself an action man. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Sep 2023 6.16pm) It's certainly a much bigger movement in America, but I don't think that's particularly relevant to this, unless we're now suggesting this is a takedown from the 'global establishment'. How many people do you know in 'real life' (ie. not online communities) who have any exposure to Brand? I'm talking family, friends, colleagues... I'd struggle to name anyone who knows what he's up to these days in any sort of detail. I think the last time I saw one of his videos was an interview with Candace Owens a good few years ago. I just don't buy that someone getting a few hundred thousand views on Youtube is worth anyone going after - I think it's far more likely these are credible allegations and a bloke with a seriously shady past is finally seeing that catch up with him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 21 Sep 23 12.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
And you think that's an appropriate line of questioning on a national radio show for a person who is alleging she was a victim of sexual abuse? You also seem far more comfortable with 30 year old men sleeping with children than I am - it may be legal but it's complete scumbag behaviour. As far as I'm aware, the woman who was 16 at the time is not alleging rape, so I'm not sure why you've spent so long rebutting that. Any thoughts on the women who are alleging rape? Long jail term, if proven, of course. As well as it being legal and not sexual abuse (where is the abuse?), Brand was not so old at the time as to be "that" adult and the girl not so young as to be "that" child. I am 58. If I was the man in the frame and she was 15, I would understand your point. But 30? Come on! He was practically a kid himself. A girl of legal age and (I will bet you anything you like) enough sexual experience, willingly gets into a car with the purpose of having it off cannot turn around a decade or so later and claim "abuse". It would be laughed out of any court at the time and now. And before we carry on, I am not one who thinks it appropriate to question rape victims on the length of their skirt etc. As I said, my wife is not a person to be trifled with on issues such as this, and on this I agree with her. This self-serving opportunist was given air time due to the celebrity of her consensual partner of many years ago. However, there are victims of genuine abuse and rape who are given no air time nor public support or funding to prosecute actual scum bags who are left free to walk our streets. So what is this really about? I am not talking about any genuine allegation of serious criminal misconduct (which this was not) but about what appears to be a new and worrying aspect of the woke witch hunt. Perhaps it is part of a movement to legally limit congress with e.g. someone born within 3 months of you?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 21 Sep 23 1.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
As a PS the "no smoke without fire" argument is classic witch hunt and I give it no credence. That said, I think it all but impossible that a bloke who has had an erection for as long as Brand has not had non-consensual coupling or committed other sexual offences with his innumerable partners. Likewise Charlie Sheen. There must have been instances where, at the very least, the line was blurred. Just not the woman they interviewed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
It is absurd for you to pretend that the majority of those convicted in the trials were not overwhelmingly of pakistani-heritage. Merely look at those convicted, for example, Huddersfield convictions in 2018: Amere Singh Dhaliwal
You think that you can tell a person’s ethnicity from their name alone? Seriously? It’s not the point anyway. Just imagine you are a second generation British subject whose parents happen to have been born in pakistan. You didn’t plan that. You just got it. You went to school with other British kids whose parents were born here, and they are your friends. You watch British TV, absorb British culture and support a British football team. Your parents try to teach you about your heritage and to respect it, so you feel conflicted. Then you read headlines and comments about “pakistani grooming gangs” and feel as disgusted as every other decent person but know how some people now regard you, just because of your heritage and appearance. What impact is that going to have? What proportion of our population which has a pakistani heritage is involved with the grooming gangs? It must only be very very tiny, meaning that the overwhelming majority are not. Ostracising that majority by associating them with criminals does immense harm and drives wedges where bridges produce better outcomes. That’s why it’s unhelpful and counterproductive to use these labels, even if they are accurate, which they aren’t.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 1.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
GN, you are arguing with a brick wall. Much better IMHO to ignore something that is worthless and time wasting Debating this issue here is for me like trying to get reason out of of a whole street of brick walls.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 21 Sep 23 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
How many people do you know in 'real life' (ie. not online communities) who have any exposure to Brand? I'm talking family, friends, colleagues... I'd struggle to name anyone who knows what he's up to these days in any sort of detail. I think the last time I saw one of his videos was an interview with Candace Owens a good few years ago. I just don't buythat someone getting a few hundred thousand views on Youtube is worth anyone going after - I think it's far more likely these are credible allegations and a bloke with a seriously shady past is finally seeing that catch up with him. All of which I fully concur with. And if he gets convicted in a court of law, then yes, justice will be done. But at this stage, before the man has even been questioned by the police, let alone arrested or charged, the direct interference by an institution of Government by way of trying to demonintise him on a platform which did not even exist when these annoymous allegations were made? Come on. Put the politics aside. Is this right?
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 1.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
It's certainly a much bigger movement in America, but I don't think that's particularly relevant to this, unless we're now suggesting this is a takedown from the 'global establishment'. How many people do you know in 'real life' (ie. not online communities) who have any exposure to Brand? I'm talking family, friends, colleagues... I'd struggle to name anyone who knows what he's up to these days in any sort of detail. I think the last time I saw one of his videos was an interview with Candace Owens a good few years ago. I just don't buy that someone getting a few hundred thousand views on Youtube is worth anyone going after - I think it's far more likely these are credible allegations and a bloke with a seriously shady past is finally seeing that catch up with him. I had not seen any of Brand’s “comedy” before I watched the Dispatches episode on him. I just knew him to be the type of self opinionated presenter I dislike so avoided anything he got involved with. Then his videos started to be pushed under my nose and his attitudes became clearer. Watching the clips in Dispatches was enough. Whether what he did was legal or not doesn’t mean what he cannot deny he did is immune from criticism. The content of his “comedy” is disgusting. It’s demeaning, insulting and not at all funny. In my opinion, of course, which I am allowed to express and am grateful to Dispatches for enabling me to form. That more serious allegations have also been made is obviously more important but knowing the background behaviour helps put those allegations into context. There is a lot of smoke now surrounding Brand and evidence of a few smouldering embers. I hope this does get tested in Court but whatever happens there won’t change my opinion of him. I fail to see why anyone thinks it’s wise to defend him.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 21 Sep 23 1.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
Long jail term, if proven, of course. As well as it being legal and not sexual abuse (where is the abuse?), Brand was not so old at the time as to be "that" adult and the girl not so young as to be "that" child. I am 58. If I was the man in the frame and she was 15, I would understand your point. But 30? Come on! He was practically a kid himself. A girl of legal age and (I will bet you anything you like) enough sexual experience, willingly gets into a car with the purpose of having it off cannot turn around a decade or so later and claim "abuse". It would be laughed out of any court at the time and now. And before we carry on, I am not one who thinks it appropriate to question rape victims on the length of their skirt etc. As I said, my wife is not a person to be trifled with on issues such as this, and on this I agree with her. This self-serving opportunist was given air time due to the celebrity of her consensual partner of many years ago. However, there are victims of genuine abuse and rape who are given no air time nor public support or funding to prosecute actual scum bags who are left free to walk our streets. So what is this really about? I am not talking about any genuine allegation of serious criminal misconduct (which this was not) but about what appears to be a new and worrying aspect of the woke witch hunt. Perhaps it is part of a movement to legally limit congress with e.g. someone born within 3 months of you? And as I've said previously, our legal system clearly struggles to achieve convictions in this space - I don't have anywhere near the confidence others seem to in it. I am aged 30 currently and the thought of me, or any of my friends, shagging a 16 year old is absolutely disgusting. If one of my mates shared with the group he'd shagged a 16 year old, it would not go down well with anyone - I'm amazed you think that's normal, frankly. It's an adult and a child and should undoubtedly be illegal. You clearly do think it's appropriate to ask absurd questions given your first contribution was to suggest someone claiming to be a victim of sexual assault should be asked "did you enjoy it?" on a national radio show. How do you think the 'genuine' victims of abuse and rape feel when people like you tie yourself in knots to disbelieve every story that comes forward of this type of thing? You are also ignoring the numerous other allegations against Brand from numerous women - have you watched the Dispatches show?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 21 Sep 23 1.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
All of which I fully concur with. And if he gets convicted in a court of law, then yes, justice will be done. But at this stage, before the man has even been questioned by the police, let alone arrested or charged, the direct interference by an institution of Government by way of trying to demonintise him on a platform which did not even exist when these annoymous allegations were made? Come on. Put the politics aside. Is this right? For what it's worth, no I don't think it's right principally - but I also don't think it's proof of some big conspiracy. Equally, I don't extend much sympathy to a scumbag like Brand.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.