Russell Brand - the latest sex pest?

Sluffy wrote:

There's a big difference between a 30 odd year old having sex with willing partners and having sex with women who say no and a 16 year old school girl.

I doubt the Times and C4 have gone public with all this unless they are 100% sure of their facts - particularly after that recent shambles by The Sun in respect of a similar story about Huw Edwards.

Whitesince63 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

There's a big difference between a 30 odd year old having sex with willing partners and having sex with women who say no and a 16 year old school girl.

I doubt the Times and C4 have gone public with all this unless they are 100% sure of their facts - particularly after that recent shambles by The Sun in respect of a similar story about Huw Edwards.

So you know all the facts do you? A 16 year old schoolgirl is legally able to have sex last time I looked and frankly some 16 year olds look and act much older anyway. I’m not saying it’s right but it’s not illegal. As for being raped, how do you know it wasn’t consensual? This is what a court will have to decide not you and I and the other usual jumpers on to things like this. He might well be guilty and a despicable character but in this country you’re innocent until proved guilty so let’s at least give the guy a chance to defend himself.

karlypants wrote:I have to say that I was a little confused at the same post you have pulled up 63 on.

It would have helped if you had made it a bit clearer for people on the 16 year old schoolgirl.

Sluffy wrote:A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship.

The woman who said she was 16 when she first came into contact with Brand told the Times: "Russell engaged in the behaviours of a groomer, looking back, but I didn't even know what that was then, or what that looked like."

The woman who said she was 16 at the time she met Brand told the Times she took her allegations to his literary agent Angharad Wood, the co-founder of Tavistock Wood, owned by Curtis Brown, in 2020.

Tavistock Wood told the BBC: "Russell Brand categorically and vehemently denied the allegation made in 2020, but we now believe we were horribly misled by him. Tavistock Wood has terminated all professional ties to Brand."

Sluffy wrote:

karlypants wrote:I have to say that I was a little confused at the same post you have pulled up 63 on.

It would have helped if you had made it a bit clearer for people on the 16 year old schoolgirl.

???

But I had done so already - the very first post on the thread!!! -

Sluffy wrote:A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship.

The woman who said she was 16 when she first came into contact with Brand told the Times: "Russell engaged in the behaviours of a groomer, looking back, but I didn't even know what that was then, or what that looked like."

The woman who said she was 16 at the time she met Brand told the Times she took her allegations to his literary agent Angharad Wood, the co-founder of Tavistock Wood, owned by Curtis Brown, in 2020.

Tavistock Wood told the BBC: "Russell Brand categorically and vehemently denied the allegation made in 2020, but we now believe we were horribly misled by him. Tavistock Wood has terminated all professional ties to Brand."

Tavistock Wood obviously believed her...!!!

karlypants wrote:

Fair enough!

Sluffy wrote:I thought the following was a very interesting article and although it relates directly to Brand it actually gives a wider picture to what actual happens on social media in general - how it works and why the likes of Brand doesn't necessarily says his real views but the ones the earns him the most money!

It's a long article but briefly it explains how Brand's initial social media following was in social media terms, relatively puny - around 100,000 followers.

It all changed when he mentioned in passing a conspiracy theory story, the effect was instantaneous - that video received a million followers.

He noticed that and in his next video mention the conspiracy theory again but deliberately so this time - he got three million viewers this time!

From then on he's deliberately talked about all sorts of wacko stuff and his viewing figures are now well over six million a view.

Why has he done this, it's simple, he gets paid on viewing figures, which in turn beings advertisers flocking to sponsor him - kerching, kerching!!!

He's earning more for an hours video than what he gets from his 'comedy' tours if viewed on a hourly basis!

That is what social media is about and how it really works.

You go on to social media, your mates tell you about what someone tweeted or put out on youtube and you watch it and follow it because that's the sort of stuff you like and believe in.

Your social media company sees what you follow and flags up similar stuff that you may like, you go and watch that too.

After a while that is all you watch and follow, you don't look or believe in anything to the contrary, you may even start to pay folks like Brand for additional exclusive videos that non subscribers can see.

You become 'Confirmation Biased', you believe what you are fed because everyone else you know or follow, believes the same stuff too!

Honestly the article is well worth a read, well worth a few minutes of your time.

Russell Brand: How the comedian built his YouTube audience on half-truths

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630

Whitesince63 wrote:
Sounds a bit like net zero Sluffy. Tell the lie big enough, for long enough  and bingo, confirmation bias and the mugs believe it.

boltonbonce wrote:He should have been dropped by everyone after his appalling treatment of Andrew Sachs.

I Forgot about the shitbag doing this at him and quite agree.

The chance was missed.

In passing, can someone explain to me his attraction? He looks like a scrotum with dentures.

Whitesince63 wrote:Sounds a bit like net zero Sluffy. Tell the lie big enough, for long enough  and bingo, confirmation bias and the mugs believe it.