Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 23 of 33 < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >

palace_in_frogland In a broken dream 22 Sep 23 9.06am
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. Ah, so it was you, was it?
Alert a moderator to this post

palace_in_frogland

In a broken dream 22 Sep 23 9.06am

Send a Private Message to palace_in_frogland

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.

Ah, so it was you, was it?

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 22 Sep 23 9.17am
Anyone else wondering why the BBC was funding Brand's personal life with taxis for his err cough "friends" I have often heard ex BBC employees complain that staff use and abuse this privilege far too often, this seems to be yet another example. Regardless of the age of the girl and issues around consent somebody should be asking why the Beeb was funding it. You may think this is a trivial point but I would argue that it shows the power of the celebs the same as Saville and Hall having private rooms at the BBC to carry out their sexual assaults. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 22 Sep 23 9.17am

Anyone else wondering why the BBC was funding Brand's personal life with taxis for his err cough "friends"

I have often heard ex BBC employees complain that staff use and abuse this privilege far too often, this seems to be yet another example. Regardless of the age of the girl and issues around consent somebody should be asking why the Beeb was funding it.

You may think this is a trivial point but I would argue that it shows the power of the celebs the same as Saville and Hall having private rooms at the BBC to carry out their sexual assaults.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 9.37am
Originally posted by Matov Up and until 48 hours ago, I would have agreed with you but given what has happened since, not so sure. One theory I have heard is that he is actually quite popular with women (irony upon irony) in terms of his political output. And that the powers-that-be who manipulate public opinion fear him because of that. Essentially women are far more likely to buy into all kinds of progressive BS than men. With Brand seen as a potential threat to that hence this attempt to knock him out of the game. Not 100% convinced but then again, I never got the entire schtick of him anyway and none of the women in my life ever paid him or his antics the slightest bit of interest either but perhaps there might be something to that? Not sad enough to check up the demographics of his current audience. Because otherwise, he remains a huge puzzle as to why he is now the target of this kind of level of interest? He was/is yesterdays man. Or maybe he is just a warning to other people who were previously mainstream and, at least politically, on-board with the Zeitgeist not to jump ship because this is what will happen to them? Edited by Matov (22 Sep 2023 6.18am) I think you’re ignoring how much of a sex pest he used to be, how many women he likely made feel like s*** and how many high profile female comedians have been on about him (anonymously) for years My sense is when Katherine Ryan dropped a massive hint in that interview with Theroux it peaked these journos interest, and blew the dust off something that had settled with that era, for a while. I’ve covered why the political angle is nothing more than convenient social fodder for the anti-elites brigade. He just isn’t big enough or influential enough to even be on their radar. Robinson, yes. Grey beard Jesus trying to rebrand himself as some sort of puritanical celibate politically flavoured wellness guru, not so much. The whole rebranding exercise is also another reason why it’s attractive to to after him considering his past. Public eye, fair game. Don’t try and repackage yourself as some sort of angelic poster boy when the reality is in fact extremely sordid and potentially disturbing. If there was nothing to find, or nothing of public interest or nothing to provoke such moral and social outrage, this story would never have made the light of day. This whole thing may not go anywhere, but at least the debate will have been had, and people reminded of the reality of that era and his past. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 9.37am

Originally posted by Matov

Up and until 48 hours ago, I would have agreed with you but given what has happened since, not so sure.

One theory I have heard is that he is actually quite popular with women (irony upon irony) in terms of his political output. And that the powers-that-be who manipulate public opinion fear him because of that.

Essentially women are far more likely to buy into all kinds of progressive BS than men. With Brand seen as a potential threat to that hence this attempt to knock him out of the game.

Not 100% convinced but then again, I never got the entire schtick of him anyway and none of the women in my life ever paid him or his antics the slightest bit of interest either but perhaps there might be something to that? Not sad enough to check up the demographics of his current audience.

Because otherwise, he remains a huge puzzle as to why he is now the target of this kind of level of interest? He was/is yesterdays man.

Or maybe he is just a warning to other people who were previously mainstream and, at least politically, on-board with the Zeitgeist not to jump ship because this is what will happen to them?

Edited by Matov (22 Sep 2023 6.18am)

I think you’re ignoring how much of a sex pest he used to be, how many women he likely made feel like s*** and how many high profile female comedians have been on about him (anonymously) for years

My sense is when Katherine Ryan dropped a massive hint in that interview with Theroux it peaked these journos interest, and blew the dust off something that had settled with that era, for a while.

I’ve covered why the political angle is nothing more than convenient social fodder for the anti-elites brigade. He just isn’t big enough or influential enough to even be on their radar. Robinson, yes. Grey beard Jesus trying to rebrand himself as some sort of puritanical celibate politically flavoured wellness guru, not so much. The whole rebranding exercise is also another reason why it’s attractive to to after him considering his past. Public eye, fair game. Don’t try and repackage yourself as some sort of angelic poster boy when the reality is in fact extremely sordid and potentially disturbing.

If there was nothing to find, or nothing of public interest or nothing to provoke such moral and social outrage, this story would never have made the light of day.

This whole thing may not go anywhere, but at least the debate will have been had, and people reminded of the reality of that era and his past.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Sep 23 10.56am
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC I think you’re ignoring how much of a sex pest he used to be, how many women he likely made feel like s*** and how many high profile female comedians have been on about him (anonymously) for years My sense is when Katherine Ryan dropped a massive hint in that interview with Theroux it peaked these journos interest, and blew the dust off something that had settled with that era, for a while. I’ve covered why the political angle is nothing more than convenient social fodder for the anti-elites brigade. He just isn’t big enough or influential enough to even be on their radar. Robinson, yes. Grey beard Jesus trying to rebrand himself as some sort of puritanical celibate politically flavoured wellness guru, not so much. The whole rebranding exercise is also another reason why it’s attractive to to after him considering his past. Public eye, fair game. Don’t try and repackage yourself as some sort of angelic poster boy when the reality is in fact extremely sordid and potentially disturbing. If there was nothing to find, or nothing of public interest or nothing to provoke such moral and social outrage, this story would never have made the light of day. This whole thing may not go anywhere, but at least the debate will have been had, and people reminded of the reality of that era and his past. I'd hardly listen to Katherine Ryan for a balanced viewpoint. She routinely has a go at all men for even existing. It's like asking a vegan if they like beef. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Sep 23 10.56am

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

I think you’re ignoring how much of a sex pest he used to be, how many women he likely made feel like s*** and how many high profile female comedians have been on about him (anonymously) for years

My sense is when Katherine Ryan dropped a massive hint in that interview with Theroux it peaked these journos interest, and blew the dust off something that had settled with that era, for a while.

If there was nothing to find, or nothing of public interest or nothing to provoke such moral and social outrage, this story would never have made the light of day.

This whole thing may not go anywhere, but at least the debate will have been had, and people reminded of the reality of that era and his past.

I'd hardly listen to Katherine Ryan for a balanced viewpoint. She routinely has a go at all men for even existing. It's like asking a vegan if they like beef.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 22 Sep 23 11.25am
Originally posted by silvertop I thought I made it quite clear I was not. I was referring to the one isolated case. And a question as clearly times have changed. You and all your friends would never have sex with anyone under 30, 26, 22... I have no idea. Where is your bench mark? The law is content with 16 but 30 year olds clearly have different standards. Of course people would have sex below their own age, but 16 is a literal child - personally I'd set my bar somewhere in the early 20s. One of my friends recently slept with a 19 year old and even that was seen as a bit rogue by most of the group. I don't know why people keep reminding me of the law, I'm very aware of it, I just disagree with it - I think 16-18 should be it's own category and my view would be broadly not to allow people over 18 to engage with people under it. That obviously would mean a couple who were 17 and 19, for example, would not legally be allowed to have sex, which feels harsh, but I think it's a better solution than our current laws.
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 22 Sep 23 11.25am

Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow

Originally posted by silvertop

I thought I made it quite clear I was not.

I was referring to the one isolated case.

And a question as clearly times have changed. You and all your friends would never have sex with anyone under 30, 26, 22...
I have no idea. Where is your bench mark? The law is content with 16 but 30 year olds clearly have different standards.

Of course people would have sex below their own age, but 16 is a literal child - personally I'd set my bar somewhere in the early 20s. One of my friends recently slept with a 19 year old and even that was seen as a bit rogue by most of the group.

I don't know why people keep reminding me of the law, I'm very aware of it, I just disagree with it - I think 16-18 should be it's own category and my view would be broadly not to allow people over 18 to engage with people under it.

That obviously would mean a couple who were 17 and 19, for example, would not legally be allowed to have sex, which feels harsh, but I think it's a better solution than our current laws.

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 22 Sep 23 11.28am
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC I think you’re ignoring how much of a sex pest he used to be, how many women he likely made feel like s* and how many high profile female comedians have been on about him (anonymously) for years My sense is when Katherine Ryan dropped a massive hint in that interview with Theroux it peaked these journos interest, and blew the dust off something that had settled with that era, for a while. I’ve covered why the political angle is nothing more than convenient social fodder for the anti-elites brigade. He just isn’t big enough or influential enough to even be on their radar. Robinson, yes. Grey beard Jesus trying to rebrand himself as some sort of puritanical celibate politically flavoured wellness guru, not so much. The whole rebranding exercise is also another reason why it’s attractive to to after him considering his past. Public eye, fair game. Don’t try and repackage yourself as some sort of angelic poster boy when the reality is in fact extremely sordid and potentially disturbing.** If there was nothing to find, or nothing of public interest or nothing to provoke such moral and social outrage, this story would never have made the light of day. This whole thing may not go anywhere, but at least the debate will have been had, and people reminded of the reality of that era and his past. The cynic in me can't help but think the whole rebranding he's undergone over the last few years was done purely with something like this in mind - he's not stupid and in this kind of climate he must have known his conduct was always likely to lead to allegations somewhere down the line... the anti-establishment image he's created for himself gives him the perfect deflection to say he's being silenced for his views and as evidenced on here, many will buy it.
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 22 Sep 23 11.28am

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

I think you’re ignoring how much of a sex pest he used to be, how many women he likely made feel like s*** and how many high profile female comedians have been on about him (anonymously) for years

My sense is when Katherine Ryan dropped a massive hint in that interview with Theroux it peaked these journos interest, and blew the dust off something that had settled with that era, for a while.

I’ve covered why the political angle is nothing more than convenient social fodder for the anti-elites brigade. He just isn’t big enough or influential enough to even be on their radar. Robinson, yes. Grey beard Jesus trying to rebrand himself as some sort of puritanical celibate politically flavoured wellness guru, not so much. The whole rebranding exercise is also another reason why it’s attractive to to after him considering his past. Public eye, fair game. Don’t try and repackage yourself as some sort of angelic poster boy when the reality is in fact extremely sordid and potentially disturbing.

If there was nothing to find, or nothing of public interest or nothing to provoke such moral and social outrage, this story would never have made the light of day.

This whole thing may not go anywhere, but at least the debate will have been had, and people reminded of the reality of that era and his past.

The cynic in me can't help but think the whole rebranding he's undergone over the last few years was done purely with something like this in mind - he's not stupid and in this kind of climate he must have known his conduct was always likely to lead to allegations somewhere down the line... the anti-establishment image he's created for himself gives him the perfect deflection to say he's being silenced for his views and as evidenced on here, many will buy it.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 22 Sep 23 11.39am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle 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. I'm sorry, but not for the first time, you are talking out of your backside. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 22 Sep 23 11.39am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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.

I'm sorry, but not for the first time, you are talking out of your backside.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 22 Sep 23 11.44am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays If we take the position that Brand is innocent then if I had to give advice....obviously being a complete layman....but nevertheless....I'd advise him against going to the courts. Our justice system is inherently liberalised and full of 'right ons'.....We only have to look at what happened to Johnny Depp here to see that. He would probably be wasting a huge chunk of his money. No, no...by Wisbech's perverted logic, anyone who doesn't sue for defamation must be guilty!! Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 22 Sep 23 11.44am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

If we take the position that Brand is innocent then if I had to give advice....obviously being a complete layman....but nevertheless....I'd advise him against going to the courts.

Our justice system is inherently liberalised and full of 'right ons'.....We only have to look at what happened to Johnny Depp here to see that.

He would probably be wasting a huge chunk of his money.

No, no...by Wisbech's perverted logic, anyone who doesn't sue for defamation must be guilty!!

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger Ware 22 Sep 23 11.56am
Originally posted by YT No, no...by Wisbech's perverted logic, anyone who doesn't sue for defamation must be guilty!! Don't forget Settling out of court. If you Settle out of court you're guilty too "It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"
Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger

Ware 22 Sep 23 11.56am

Originally posted by YT

No, no...by Wisbech's perverted logic, anyone who doesn't sue for defamation must be guilty!!

Don't forget Settling out of court. If you Settle out of court you're guilty too

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 22 Sep 23 12.28pm
Originally posted by YT No, no...by Wisbech's perverted logic, anyone who doesn't sue for defamation must be guilty!! more fool you for reading his boring lefty drivel. I have him on 'ignore' ---------------------------------- Russell Brand spoke out against big Pharma, and got nailed for it. Discuss Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 22 Sep 23 12.28pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by YT

No, no...by Wisbech's perverted logic, anyone who doesn't sue for defamation must be guilty!!

more fool you for reading his boring lefty drivel. I have him on 'ignore'

----------------------------------

Russell Brand spoke out against big Pharma, and got nailed for it.

Discuss

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 22 Sep 23 12.39pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle 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. What percentage of people who are named Mohammed do you think are non-muslims?
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

22 Sep 23 12.39pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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.

What percentage of people who are named Mohammed do you think are non-muslims?

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 22 Sep 23 12.43pm
Leaving specific cases aside the communications from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, whoever they are, feels a little sinister. Denying anyone the opportunity to earn a living before they've even been charged, let alone convicted is a Draconian step. How can the individual involved appeal the decision before their guilt or innocence has been established?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

22 Sep 23 12.43pm

Leaving specific cases aside the communications from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, whoever they are, feels a little sinister. Denying anyone the opportunity to earn a living before they've even been charged, let alone convicted is a Draconian step.
How can the individual involved appeal the decision before their guilt or innocence has been established?

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 23 of 33 < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Another one bites the dust?

Site Map

Sponsors