EXCLUSIVE: Russell Brand’s last major television job in the UK ended with him being dropped after he was repeatedly accused of being a “sexual predator” during the recording of th…
He was regularly abused as a kid, so I’m certain he’s damaged quite severely, but I’d like more evidence before I bang the gavel, I’d suggest you do likewise.
He has had a number of days to organize his rebuttal and you know what he hasn’t done? He has never denied that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old when he was 37. He also apparently thinks that a ‘consensual relationship’ gives him free rein to do what he pleases - because he also has not said that these incidents never happened, just that the relationships were ‘consensual’.
So you know what? idgaf what his excuses are, I don’t care what he claims. And while I have sympathy for the abuse he’s gone through, you work through that on your own, in your twenties - you don’t take it out on other people in your late thirties. There’s a point where you move from abusee to abuser, and Brand has long since crossed that line.
Well, that kind of reductive thinking is massively helpful. Do all the abusees who are over thirty know about the rules you’ve made up? People don’t realise how simple the matter is!
I’m not even defending the guy, I’m asking for people to avoid tunnel vision and take in the full facts, when they are all available.
People are allowed to have opinions about cases that haven’t been fully investigated yet. Jimmy Savile never got convicted but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t innocent.
He probably would’ve been, had he been alive when the evidence came forward. At the same time, it probably only came to light because he was dead. Either way, it’s pretty weighty, but as you say, people are welcome to their doubts.
Mother Theresa thought suffering brought you closer to God - as such, many of her charges were kept in pain - that was her opinion. Let’s not pretend opinions can’t be dangerous. You, for example, are making passionate, prejudicial assertions in lieu of the full facts; out for blood, death by keyboard. Your ‘opinions’ and others like it are the papilloma pustule on the internet’s prick, infectious ooze from a massive wang.
Let’s see what comes out and draw conclusions in our turn and quit all this frothing at the gash.
I’m not out for blood, but if I was a woman working in the media I’d certainly not take any meetings with Russell Brand. That’s why it’s important to have this information out there even while it’s being investigated.
Yeah, no problem with any of that, but snarky schadenfreude propagated on a preemptive assumption of guilt should be avoided. At least, that’s my opinion.
And it’s not reductive to weigh the issue based solely on your circumstances?
There’s a weight of evidence to suggest a correlation. There’s evidence to the contrary, too, which should also be considered. I just wondered if anybody’s factoring it in at all, I certainly haven’t heard or read mentioned much in mainstream news.
I wasn’t mentioning it in that spirit, certainly not in his defence. I think there’s a difference between understanding and condonation that many (to wit, you) fail to appreciate.
Also, I don’t think advocating reason and due process should be stigmatised, whatever the motivation.
Because I don’t think it’s common knowledge, it goes some way to explaining (not excusing mind you, before you start salivating) what may or may not have happened. What’s more, I don’t think people want to know - or want others to know - because it muddies the waters and they just want good vs. bad.
I’m doing a great job sticking to my objectivity, it’s just that when all you’re surrounded by is half the story, anything contrary to the picture that that paints, looks like complete polar opposition.
He was regularly abused as a kid, so I’m certain he’s damaged quite severely, but I’d like more evidence before I bang the gavel, I’d suggest you do likewise.
He has had a number of days to organize his rebuttal and you know what he hasn’t done? He has never denied that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old when he was 37. He also apparently thinks that a ‘consensual relationship’ gives him free rein to do what he pleases - because he also has not said that these incidents never happened, just that the relationships were ‘consensual’.
So you know what? idgaf what his excuses are, I don’t care what he claims. And while I have sympathy for the abuse he’s gone through, you work through that on your own, in your twenties - you don’t take it out on other people in your late thirties. There’s a point where you move from abusee to abuser, and Brand has long since crossed that line.
Removed by mod
Well, that kind of reductive thinking is massively helpful. Do all the abusees who are over thirty know about the rules you’ve made up? People don’t realise how simple the matter is!
I’m not even defending the guy, I’m asking for people to avoid tunnel vision and take in the full facts, when they are all available.
I may not know the full facts, but I do know that Brand isn’t saying “These things never happened”, and that’s enough for me.
Enough for what, exactly? Keelhauling? Chemical castration? Written warning? What level of censure do you deem appropriate based on that fact?
People are allowed to have opinions about cases that haven’t been fully investigated yet. Jimmy Savile never got convicted but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t innocent.
He probably would’ve been, had he been alive when the evidence came forward. At the same time, it probably only came to light because he was dead. Either way, it’s pretty weighty, but as you say, people are welcome to their doubts.
Mother Theresa thought suffering brought you closer to God - as such, many of her charges were kept in pain - that was her opinion. Let’s not pretend opinions can’t be dangerous. You, for example, are making passionate, prejudicial assertions in lieu of the full facts; out for blood, death by keyboard. Your ‘opinions’ and others like it are the papilloma pustule on the internet’s prick, infectious ooze from a massive wang.
Let’s see what comes out and draw conclusions in our turn and quit all this frothing at the gash.
I’m not out for blood, but if I was a woman working in the media I’d certainly not take any meetings with Russell Brand. That’s why it’s important to have this information out there even while it’s being investigated.
Yeah, no problem with any of that, but snarky schadenfreude propagated on a preemptive assumption of guilt should be avoided. At least, that’s my opinion.
deleted by creator
And it’s not reductive to weigh the issue based solely on your circumstances?
There’s a weight of evidence to suggest a correlation. There’s evidence to the contrary, too, which should also be considered. I just wondered if anybody’s factoring it in at all, I certainly haven’t heard or read mentioned much in mainstream news.
deleted by creator
I wasn’t mentioning it in that spirit, certainly not in his defence. I think there’s a difference between understanding and condonation that many (to wit, you) fail to appreciate.
Also, I don’t think advocating reason and due process should be stigmatised, whatever the motivation.
deleted by creator
Because I don’t think it’s common knowledge, it goes some way to explaining (not excusing mind you, before you start salivating) what may or may not have happened. What’s more, I don’t think people want to know - or want others to know - because it muddies the waters and they just want good vs. bad.
I’m doing a great job sticking to my objectivity, it’s just that when all you’re surrounded by is half the story, anything contrary to the picture that that paints, looks like complete polar opposition.
deleted by creator
Oh, we’ve started with the belittling approach; trying to condescend your way out? How cheap.