This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 PalazioVecchio  south pole 21 Sep 23 6.07pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
.....stripped naked and took part in mutual oral sex (69). However when he penetrated her she withdraw consent.
welcome to the frustrating twenty-first Century. Not the first and probably not the last. Lots of fellas know what it is to be teased & frustrated.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Stirlingsays  21 Sep 23 6.08pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Any law which has an age requirement will always have this problem. The LA police made a big deal about finding a p*** magazine at MJ's house called Barely Legal which of course meant it was legal. Michael Jackson wanted to be Willy Wonka without the sweets. I jest, personally I don't think he was into the kids but was weird.....but I could be wrong. I tend to go with Macaulay Culkin opinion on it as he was a kid at the time and had no financial aspect to gain. Still, no family should be sending their kids to a millionaire's mansion where they sleep in his bed......massive and obvious red flag.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 Sep 23 6.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
There's a lot of focus about illegality here as though if nothing has been proven to be illegal, then move on, nothing to see here. Savile would be delighted. I'd argue that public social and moral critique of a public figure held up to be some sort of past national treasure is just as valid and note that this can quite rightly lead to various individuals and institutions creating distance between someone without any illegality needing to be involved. If I'm a brand (of the corporate type) and the sordid details of someone I pay to be associated with sleeping with hundreds of women, some borderline children come out in the papers without legal challenge, along with everything else plus actual factual reminders of how cringe and creepy I used to actually be come to light, I think I'd know what I'd do. He has right to reply – give an interview. Follow up statement. Get the lawyers involved if untrue. I'm afraid all I hear so far is... silence. I kind of have some sympathy with this view. But what do you do?....Brand seems to be, or have been seedy but probably legal. I think the consensus is that Savile wasn't. I think there's a lot of political tribalism around the situation....which is mainly what I'm reacting against. However, if claims have been made that he's broken the law raped and/or shagged kids then sure, that definitely should be investigated...But he's innocent until proven otherwise.....Similarly if these claims are found to be untrue then something should be done about that.....making false claims with no consequences isn't good either. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Sep 2023 6.16pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 21 Sep 23 6.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
There's a lot of focus about illegality here as though if nothing has been proven to be illegal, then move on, nothing to see here. Savile would be delighted. I'd argue that public social and moral critique of a public figure held up to be some sort of past national treasure is just as valid and note that this can quite rightly lead to various individuals and institutions creating distance between someone without any illegality needing to be involved. If I'm a brand (of the corporate type) and the sordid details of someone I pay to be associated with sleeping with hundreds of women, some borderline children come out in the papers without legal challenge, along with everything else plus actual factual reminders of how cringe and creepy I used to actually be come to light, I think I'd know what I'd do. He has right to reply – give an interview. Follow up statement. Get the lawyers involved if untrue. He has replied, hasn't he? He's said that he's done nothing illegal. You (and many others) assume that anyone who is wrongly accused of something must inevitably instruct m'learned friends. Do you have any idea how much it costs to sue the likes of The Times and Channel 4? Millions. Then months and months of legal process, with no certainty of a good outcome and - as I pointed out to Wisbech, but inevitably he knew better - damages in UK defamation cases are notoriously low. A far more pragmatic - and realistic - approach would be to continue to deny all accusations and say "so sue me" or "so charge me".
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 6.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Nothing is relevant to you except your pathological need to post utter nonsense. As your comment is indisputably irrelevant to the subject of the thread who is actually posting nonsense?
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 |
|
 georgenorman 21 Sep 23 6.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
He has replied, hasn't he? He's said that he's done nothing illegal. You (and many others) assume that anyone who is wrongly accused of something must inevitably instruct m'learned friends. Do you have any idea how much it costs to sue the likes of The Times and Channel 4? Millions. Then months and months of legal process, with no certainty of a good outcome and - as I pointed out to Wisbech, but inevitably he knew better - damages in UK defamation cases are notoriously low. A far more pragmatic - and realistic - approach would be to continue to deny all accusations and say "so sue me" or "so charge me". I'm just surprised that Wisbech accepts that it is Russell Brand. He doesn't think names mean anything or that photographs of people represent them; he doesn't think that acts proven to be perpetrated by people mean that they actually perpetrated those acts.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  21 Sep 23 6.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
welcome to the frustrating twenty-first Century. Not the first and probably not the last. Lots of fellas know what it is to be teased & frustrated. Doesn't sound as frustrating as the 1970s when a fumble at a bus stop was the height of ambition.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 6.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
He has replied, hasn't he? He's said that he's done nothing illegal. You (and many others) assume that anyone who is wrongly accused of something must inevitably instruct m'learned friends. Do you have any idea how much it costs to sue the likes of The Times and Channel 4? Millions. Then months and months of legal process, with no certainty of a good outcome and - as I pointed out to Wisbech, but inevitably he knew better - damages in UK defamation cases are notoriously low. A far more pragmatic - and realistic - approach would be to continue to deny all accusations and say "so sue me" or "so charge me". If he was certain that these claims are untrue and that defamation could be proved he would have no worries about the costs of bringing an action. They would be sure to be awarded to him, alongside the damages.
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 |
|
eagleman13  On The Road To Hell & Alicante 21 Sep 23 6.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As your comment is indisputably irrelevant to the subject of the thread who is actually posting nonsense? He is right tho.
This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 21 Sep 23 6.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
He has replied, hasn't he? He's said that he's done nothing illegal. You (and many others) assume that anyone who is wrongly accused of something must inevitably instruct m'learned friends. Do you have any idea how much it costs to sue the likes of The Times and Channel 4? Millions. Then months and months of legal process, with no certainty of a good outcome and - as I pointed out to Wisbech, but inevitably he knew better - damages in UK defamation cases are notoriously low. A far more pragmatic - and realistic - approach would be to continue to deny all accusations and say "so sue me" or "so charge me". 'Nothing illegal' is fine, but isn't exactly the best line of defence now is it. He put out a statement to get ahead of what was going to be published. There's since been a great deal more released and plenty that wasn't covered in the original retort. Silence. Brand makes 1million a year from Youtube alone, has a reported 16m net worth, and can make up to £80k a post on Rumble. I don't think that money is an issue for him, and it certainly won't be if there's a case to be had, as the alternative is much worse. My point about the general right to valid social and moral critique still stands.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eagleman13 On The Road To Hell & Alicante 21 Sep 23 6.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Doesn't sound as frustrating as the 1970s when a fumble at a bus stop was the height of ambition.
This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 6.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
I'm just surprised that Wisbech accepts that it is Russell Brand. He doesn't think names mean anything or that photographs of people represent them; he doesn't think that acts proven to be perpetrated by people mean that they actually perpetrated those acts. You are being ridiculous again. Of course I accept that people can be identified by their names and their photographs. What I don’t accept is that you can determine anyone’s ethnicity just by reading a name or looking at a photograph.
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 |
|
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.