This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 22 Sep 23 1.03pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
What percentage of people who are named Mohammed do you think are non-muslims? what percentage ? is it close to the percentage of those fellas who are comfortable to see their sister ( or female cousins) dating an Englishman ? now THERE is a community that defo would not allow Russell Brand to chase after their women with his Langer in his hand..... Edited by PalazioVecchio (22 Sep 2023 1.06pm)
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Matov  22 Sep 23 1.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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
But lets go with you this notion of him being a high volume sex-pest. This was a 4 year investigation. Top-down. The journalist involved when looking for the accusations. As far I am aware, not a single accusation was made to the police (and happy to be corrected on this) prior to this show/allegations being aired. Only with several high profile female going on record to state that Brand had very much known that 'no means no'. I fully understand why people would see Brand as a degenerate for being 30 years of age and having a relationship with a 16 year old. Utterly loathesome. But surely you must, even if only by the law of averages, accept that if Brand really had this serial element to his depraved behaviour around the volumes of women claimed (and even one of his accusors vouched for the fact that he might have sex with 5 different women in a single day) then the notion that this could have gone on unchecked for that amount of time beggars belief. A 4-year investigation came up with 4 allegations. And 2 of them not even in the UK. For a supposedly serial sex-offender like Brand, and the resources clearly poured into this, a pretty poor return. And even less justification for the prominence it has been given. Brand was literally just a 2 dimensonal presence on our screens. Famous for being famous. And an abject w***er at that, a position held by all reasonable people. That is it. He just aint worthy of that level of time and effort by an investigative team of that (supposed) calibre.
"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 |
|
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 1.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
But lets go with you this notion of him being a high volume sex-pest. This was a 4 year investigation. Top-down. The journalist involved when looking for the accusations. As far I am aware, not a single accusation was made to the police (and happy to be corrected on this) prior to this show/allegations being aired. Only with several high profile female going on record to state that Brand had very much known that 'no means no'. I fully understand why people would see Brand as a degenerate for being 30 years of age and having a relationship with a 16 year old. Utterly loathesome. But surely you must, even if only by the law of averages, accept that if Brand really had this serial element to his depraved behaviour around the volumes of women claimed (and even one of his accusors vouched for the fact that he might have sex with 5 different women in a single day) then the notion that this could have gone on unchecked for that amount of time beggars belief. A 4-year investigation came up with 4 allegations. And 2 of them not even in the UK. For a supposedly serial sex-offender like Brand, and the resources clearly poured into this, a pretty poor return. And even less justification for the prominence it has been given. Brand was literally just a 2 dimensonal presence on our screens. Famous for being famous. And an abject w***er at that, a position held by all reasonable people. That is it. He just aint worthy of that level of time and effort by an investigative team of that (supposed) calibre. It's not a notion, he's slept with hundreds of women. Sex pest is a fair description. Sex addict probably more PC The rape accusations lead but are not the whole story. My earlier point is he is in the limelight also due to the moral and social outrage to the current replaying and highlighting of his general behaviour at the time. He doesn't have to have broken the law for this to expose the reality of his character and behaviour vs. what he'd managed to bury and try to jazz hands people away from over the last few years. You only have to look at history to understand that the statement 'the not on that this could have gone on unchecked for that amount of time beggars belief'. And it didn't as it's coming to light now, isn't it! Ultimately it appears to be worthy, simply from the interest it's generating. This would go away if the public weren't interested and there was no credibility to the reporting. So – the notion that it's a political sting for someone so politically ineffectual just doesn't work. Again, Robinson, sure. Gandalf, not so much.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  22 Sep 23 1.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
It's not a notion, he's slept with hundreds of women. Sex pest is a fair description. Sex addict probably more PC The rape accusations lead but are not the whole story. My earlier point is he is in the limelight also due to the moral and social outrage to the current replaying and highlighting of his general behaviour at the time. He doesn't have to have broken the law for this to expose the reality of his character and behaviour vs. what he'd managed to bury and try to jazz hands people away from over the last few years. You only have to look at history to understand that the statement 'the not on that this could have gone on unchecked for that amount of time beggars belief'. And it didn't as it's coming to light now, isn't it! Ultimately it appears to be worthy, simply from the interest it's generating. This would go away if the public weren't interested and there was no credibility to the reporting. So – the notion that it's a political sting for someone so politically ineffectual just doesn't work. Again, Robinson, sure. Gandalf, not so much. As far as his consensual liaisons go who cares how many partners he had? Is there a quota he should have kept to? Disapproving of his sex life is all a bit Mary Whitehouse and of course it interests the public; prurience kept the Sunday tabloids going for decades.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 22 Sep 23 1.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
As far as his consensual liaisons go who cares how many partners he had? Is there a quota he should have kept to? Disapproving of his sex life is all a bit Mary Whitehouse and of course it interests the public; prurience kept the Sunday tabloids going for decades. The majority of the country would agree with Mary on this.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Sep 23 1.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
I'm sorry, but not for the first time, you are talking out of your backside. Would you not expect him to be awarded costs if he won a defamation case? If so, why? No one who is defamed should be expected to carry their own costs of proving it. If he doesn't bring a case surely that indicates he isn't confident of winning it. Some seem to think that would only be because the law is biased against people in his situation. I don't. I think it would be more likely to be that a legal adviser would explain the law to him and that his case would not succeed.
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 22 Sep 23 1.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
No, no...by Wisbech's perverted logic, anyone who doesn't sue for defamation must be guilty!! Untrue. You might decide not to sue for a variety of reasons. To avoid further publicity being one. Being unsure that you will be able to meet the high bar required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt is another. Proving defamation is not the same as establishing the guilt of the original accusations.
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 22 Sep 23 1.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CrazyBadger
Don't forget Settling out of court. If you Settle out of court you're guilty too No. It means neither side is confident of winning so agree on a compromise, without an admission of guilt.
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 22 Sep 23 1.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
What percentage of people who are named Mohammed do you think are non-muslims? Very few. They aren't all pakistani though. Or with pakistani heritage.
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 |
|
| Teddy Eagle 22 Sep 23 2.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No. It means neither side is confident of winning so agree on a compromise, without an admission of guilt. Or someone with more money has paid the other party off.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 22 Sep 23 2.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Very few. They aren't all pakistani though. Or with pakistani heritage. The BBC reporting of the Huddersfield rape-gang, that we are discussing, states that: "The men, who are all British Asians mainly of pakistani heritage, groomed girls by making them feel special, then plying them with alcohol, cannabis and other drugs. They then used violence and threats to control them, on one occasion threatening to bomb a girl's family home. The victims were often taken to parties where they were given drink and drugs and forced to have sex with men who were sometimes decades older than them." Edited by georgenorman (22 Sep 2023 2.15pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 22 Sep 23 2.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
As far as his consensual liaisons go who cares how many partners he had? Is there a quota he should have kept to? Disapproving of his sex life is all a bit Mary Whitehouse and of course it interests the public; prurience kept the Sunday tabloids going for decades. He was a major public figure. I see no issue on being able to reappraise his status in light of footage and content from the time, along with these new allegations. Also in public. Moral, ethical and social judgement – absolutely. Being held to account is the absolute minimum for any public figure
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| 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.