Celebrity Scandals

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

To the nearest 5, how many times do you think people have told you there is no trial?

 

 

To the nearest 5 how many silly unfunny sarcastic comments do you make a day like this? Im being generous with the 5 by the way.

There is no trial right now because obviously there is no arrest now but do you know there wont be one in 12 months time? 

How do you know he wont be arrested tomorrow next week or the week after? Or another date in time? Which may lead to a trial

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Demitri_C

[Oaks]

I dont really get the argument on what was the bigger news, or for how long. The scholfield one went on quite a bit, the Huw Edwards story was bigger for a while mainly based on speculation when the full story came out it went quite quickly. But i guess its sometimes your own perception of the story and the news agenda as this net zero story will drop the Brand story way down the news agenda. 

 

Sometimes stories just last longer because there's no other major stories coming along.

[Paddywhack]

This thread has a lot of “I’m not at all defending Brand or excusing his actions here, but…” followed by lots of defence for Brand and lots of excuses for his actions.

[foreveryoung]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Schofield got so many nonce comments. More than Brand based on what I’ve seen. 

Are you waiting for someone to say "it's because he was gay and it was a young boy", so you can open another heated debate.

[chrisp65]

13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

To the nearest 5 how many silly unfunny sarcastic comments do you make a day like this? Im being generous with the 5 by the way.

There is no trial right now because obviously there is no arrest now but do you know there wont be one in 12 months time? 

How do you know he wont be arrested tomorrow next week or the week after? Or another date in time? Which may lead to a trial

 

4?

[foreveryoung]

4 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

This thread has a lot of “I’m not at all defending Brand or excusing his actions here, but…” followed by lots of defence for Brand and lots of excuses for his actions.

Maybe because in reality it's all alledged, an he has not yet officially been found guilty of anything.

[Paddywhack]

3 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Are you waiting for someone to say "it's because he was gay and it was a young boy", so you can open another heated debate.

You’d never say something to start a heated debate would you?

[foreveryoung]

3 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

You’d never say something to start a heated debate would you?

I guess it's just ashame people can't have there own opinions without people trying to fight it out of them.

For example. 

" I'm just not sure on this Brand case, especially that 16 year old, she was legal and dated him for months".

@******   "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, HE'S A WORD REMOVED, OBVIOUSLY GUILTY OF EVERYTHING A FEMALE SAYS".

Does get a bit boring having any alternate input lately.

[StefanAVFC]

17 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Are you waiting for someone to say "it's because he was gay and it was a young boy", so you can open another heated debate.

Err what

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I guess it's just ashame people can't have there own opinions without people trying to fight it out of them.

For example. 

" I'm just not sure on this Brand case, especially that 16 year old, she was legal and dated him for months".

@******   "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, HE'S A WORD REMOVED, OBVIOUSLY GUILTY OF EVERYTHING A FEMALE SAYS".

Does get a bit boring having any alternate input lately.

Can you please quote where someone said this? 

[Paddywhack]

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

I guess it's just ashame people can't have there own opinions without people trying to fight it out of them.

For example. 

" I'm just not sure on this Brand case, especially that 16 year old, she was legal and dated him for months".

@******   "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, HE'S A WORD REMOVED, OBVIOUSLY GUILTY OF EVERYTHING A FEMALE SAYS".

Does get a bit boring having any alternate input lately.

No, no. What’s boring is when you post and opinion and when someone posts their opinion in reply, you cry about not being able to have an opinion.

[StefanAVFC]

I think @foreveryoung may not understand the point of a forum. It isn’t a place where people just post what they think and everyone has to agree with them. 

 

and generally it’s a place where if you present an opinion, you should expect a challenge on it and not be offended if it’s challenged. 
 

also one for @Demitri_C, if you somebody asks you a direct question in response to your post, it’s usually good forum manners to reply. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by StefanAVFC

[TheAuthority]

2 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

No, no. What’s boring is when you post and opinion and when someone posts their opinion in reply, you cry about not being able to have an opinion.

I disagree with you and if you disagree I'm gonna cry.

[leemond2008]

30 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

This thread has a lot of “I’m not at all defending Brand or excusing his actions here, but…” followed by lots of defence for Brand and lots of excuses for his actions.

I have made a few posts that I had to follow up with "I'm not defending Brand but...." and none of it has been a "defence for him" or an "excuse for his actions" 

At the end of the day there are an awful lot of people on Twatter, Reddit and wherever else who are putting across an alternate opinion as to why they may believe he isn't guilty.

As grim as the topic is, I enjoy these kind of conversations where people are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum, I think that the problem here is that if anyone does say anything for the sake of furthering the conversation or to try and hear someones points of view on something then they get jumped on or mocked, that's why I have to try and stress that what I am saying is coming from a point of view that isn't my own..

I raised a question a few pages ago about the few positive things that have been said about Brand and how much (if at all) it would have changed the public opinion on him if they were included in the Dispatches program (after all this is trial by media at the moment) the responses I got were "I'm sure the person he raped is glad that he was nice to one or two women" and comments about Jimmy Saville taking kids skydiving etc, pretty much no one wanting to engage in the conversation, which I think was an interesting one.

It felt like the first few replies to that question were just glib comments to rubbish it and put it to bed without actually addressing what was raised. 

I've no doubt that this will probably get pounced on by someone as well but there we go, that's my reasoning for clarifying that I am not supporting Brand anyways

[StefanAVFC]

13 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I guess it's just ashame people can't have there own opinions without people trying to fight it out of them.

For example. 

" I'm just not sure on this Brand case, especially that 16 year old, she was legal and dated him for months".

@******   "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, HE'S A WORD REMOVED, OBVIOUSLY GUILTY OF EVERYTHING A FEMALE SAYS".

Does get a bit boring having any alternate input lately.

Also literally nobody said that having a relationship with a 16 year old is illegal and makes him guilty. It’s dodgy behaviour but not illegal. The alleged sexual assault with the 16 year old is the issue here. 

[StefanAVFC]

‘Someone said this’

’please quote the post where someone said this’

’omg I can’t even have my opinion’

or

’posts something’

’that’s not true, this is why’

’cant have an opinion’

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by StefanAVFC

[ml1dch]

5 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Schofield never received this level of scrutiny. When brand was a left winger i dont recall him ever being ever being criticised until when he became more right wing. With his conspiracies.

Schofield and edwards have done some dodgy things and why were they not cancelled? Brans been cancelled even though he hasnt been charged with anything. I just want to see consistency.

Something that I can't help but feel you're overlooking here is that what they've all been accused of aren't equivalent acts. 

You seem convinced that people are judging Brand more critically because of who he is. But I'd bet a lot of money that if it were Schofield or Edwards who had been accused of a series of violent sexual assaults and Brand who had been accused of a morally dubious but ultimately legal relationship, peoples' responses might well be reversed as well.

No?

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, leemond2008 said:

I have made a few posts that I had to follow up with "I'm not defending Brand but...." and none of it has been a "defence for him" or an "excuse for his actions" 

At the end of the day there are an awful lot of people on Twatter, Reddit and wherever else who are putting across an alternate opinion as to why they may believe he isn't guilty.

As grim as the topic is, I enjoy these kind of conversations where people are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum, I think that the problem here is that if anyone does say anything for the sake of furthering the conversation or to try and hear someones points of view on something then they get jumped on or mocked, that's why I have to try and stress that what I am saying is coming from a point of view that isn't my own..

I raised a question a few pages ago about the few positive things that have been said about Brand and how much (if at all) it would have changed the public opinion on him if they were included in the Dispatches program (after all this is trial by media at the moment) the responses I got were "I'm sure the person he raped is glad that he was nice to one or two women" and comments about Jimmy Saville taking kids skydiving etc, pretty much no one wanting to engage in the conversation, which I think was an interesting one.

It felt like the first few replies to that question were just glib comments to rubbish it and put it to bed without actually addressing what was raised. 

I've no doubt that this will probably get pounced on by someone as well but there we go, that's my reasoning for clarifying that I am not supporting Brand anyways

I can only speak for myself, I felt your posts have come over as conversational.

Unfortunately, for a lot of us there’s a Roger Rabbit instinct to spot a joke and go for it. I wouldn’t take that as a deliberate close down of a point, if nothing else it proves people read it. I’m sure Brand has been nice to the vast majority of people he’s met along the way, I’d presume he’s chucked far more money at good causes than I have and helped promote charities.  

But this doesn’t excuse bad behaviour towards some and it doesn’t prove anything in the case of others. I’m sure that’s the point that was being made. You can be nice to your wife and kids but a bastard to some woman in work. That you don’t punch people all week is no trade off for fighting on a Saturday. It’s not like accruing goal difference. He can’t say I was nice to 4 and bad to 1 so I’m on +3.

What I haven’t felt you’ve done, is ignore a point already addressed the first ten times you made it. You also haven’t dipped in with a juvenile point of controversy and then complained when someone has taken the bait.

But overall, I think it would be quite an odd piece of journalism for the Times and Despatches to list out all the good references to give a sense of ‘balance’. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one investigation that’s ever used that format on any subject. 

We can’t know yet if the allegations are true, I suspect a large part of the point of the programme was to stir the pot and see what surfaces. What I would suspect, is that the legal teams behind Channel 4 and The Times Newspaper would not have said the case looks thin and contrived, but let’s stitch him up anyway.

I guess at the end of the day, he also has recourse to the courts and could go for a libel / defamation case.

[maqroll]

Im trying to sort out the controversy here. Brand has been credibly accused by someone of sexual abuse which has triggered additional accusations of similar criminal acts.

It has been noted here that despite the compelling evidence, Brand enjoys vocal support from an array of notorious right wing conspiracy theorists and misogynists, at least one of whom is charged with rape and human trafficking. 

So why the running argument in this thread? 

Brand is a scumbag and he is being supported by scumbags. 

End of.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Schofield got so many nonce comments. More than Brand based on what I’ve seen. 

He obviously did because there was a suggestion that he’d known the person since he was eleven iirc and there was a suggestion that he was groomed, which is again hard to prove if the key witness is uncooperative