|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 17, 2023 11:22:47 GMT
Don’t discuss with anyone on Twitter! It doesn’t work at all. It’s a an awful place for debate because no one there has an open mind nor is willing to listen the other person. It’s just about “me” (and, of course, too many trolls!)
Deadline just published that the UK police is asking victims to formally accuse him even if the events were old. But they also are saying they haven’t received any report yet.
The woman abused in America has medical records, messages and even her underwear of the day frozen. Apparently a lot of physical evidence! I really hope she decides to do the formal accusation now that she knows she isn’t the only one. I don’t know. I can imagine he would have much less power in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by jbc12 on Sept 17, 2023 11:32:04 GMT
Deadline just published that the UK police is asking victims to formally accuse him even if the events were old. But they also are saying they haven’t received any report yet. It's only been a day so maybe they'll start getting reports. Still, it's going to be intimidating for victims to come forward when the court of public opinion is already favouring Brand. How can any victim take the risk of being dragged while he gets applauded and branded a "hero"? The woman abused in America has medical records, messages and even her underwear of the day frozen. Apparently a lot of physical evidence! I really hope she decides to do the formal accusation now that she knows she isn’t the only one. I don’t know. I can imagine he would have much less power in the USA. He's powerful enough in America to silence people imo, but there's also the issue of the laws being different. In England, there's no time limit to report sexual offences but, I don't think that is the case for the US. Maybe it varies by state? I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Sept 17, 2023 12:48:22 GMT
jbc12 I think you should change your settings on twitter so as to not see that kind of posts. That tweet is from a woman who has a show on GB News. What do you expect?
I don't use the app because using a browser permits me to add extensions -in this case Better Twitter and Control Panel for Twitter- that block blue ticks and a lot more.
I did see that tweet but this way:
And it's not surprising he got a standing ovation. Those are his followers, not random people.
|
|
|
Post by jbc12 on Sept 17, 2023 13:09:12 GMT
I don't use the app because using a browser permits me to add extensions -in this case Better Twitter and Control Panel for Twitter- that block blue ticks and a lot more. Thank you so much Magda! I'll install now. And it's not surprising he got a standing ovation. Those are his followers, not random people I just hoped that people would stand on the side of right, regardless of whether or not they are his fans. It's not about how much you adore a celeb, it's about a crime being committed. I hoped that people would review their stance but they blindly dug their heels in. It's a true shame. It's also notable how differently the fans are treating Brand vs. Huw. Huw paid for services and broke lockdown rules, but the person he paid has come out and said this is his career, he was not coerced or forced to be with Huw in any way. He was earning money from his OF. Still, Huw has lost his career, had a mental health episode, and has people still upset that he hasn't "faced justice"- for what exactly, I'm uncertain, since there has been an investigation clearing him and the young man is clear he was no "victim". And then we have Brand, with evidence of crimes and offences committed, multiple people saying they were forced against their will and were terrified, production executives literally removing women on the crew to avoid "tempting trouble", and somehow his fans rally? How? It's a wild double-standard and a sad state of affairs. Edit clarity + Better Twitter is great! Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 17, 2023 14:09:38 GMT
I saw people comparing Drew Barrymore to Brand! That’s how ridiculous it’s! But that’s the issue. Some people on social media treat frivolous news like Barrymore doing her talk show without writers as if they were major crimes. Or ambiguous situations like Huw Edwards as if they were similar to rape or pedophilia. Then an actually strong accusation with actual allegations of a crime happens and the culprit could easy argue that journalism and feminism are broken and that there is a hidden agenda behind their accusations.
I, of course, understand that it’s extremely difficult to make a formal accusation but that’s the only way to give legitimacy to their allegations. If they don’t do that then it shouldn’t be a surprise that he get away with it and that ideologues use them for their own agendas. That’s the awful truth!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 18, 2023 11:37:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jbc12 on Sept 18, 2023 17:59:31 GMT
This is shaping up to be much bigger. I just hope that people don't start speculating and throwing names around for fun. Let the police look into it. Source (archived because Daily Fail): linkSpeaking of police, from the same article:
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 18, 2023 22:22:04 GMT
They should indeed be very careful with those kind of lists. Remember how the bad men in media list ended, well, really bad! For starters, they mixed rapists with not nice men and then there were multiple allegations that weren't verified by anyone. At the end, the creator of the list was revealed and she had to make a deal with one of the accused man, a famous writer, so he retired the defamation lawsuit against her.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 19, 2023 10:55:18 GMT
Talking about The Guardian, they published this vile piece, www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2009/jan/26/celebrityIt’s by one of their biggest star, by the way! She had attacked BC for being a posh actor and wanting to “educate” working classes with some very liberal political opinions! You know, the kind of opinions The Guardian used to have before “progressives” become synonymous of “puritans”. Somehow because it was him, she thought it was an imposition to others. In her case, I guess, it’s her job to give some very stupid opinions so no one else should do it! Anyway, I have seen a lot of people acclaiming her on Twitter as the greatest writer ever but she clearly is an idiot and an hypocritical as their paper. They just scream whatever is politically accepted at the time and then accuse others of their own sins just to look like the good guys when things change. EDITED, She just wrote a column kinda apologizing but also blaming the culture in general, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-victims-russell-brand-misogyny-deserve-full-supportOf course, it wasn’t just her but that’s also the case with the others! Actually, sometimes they go for total innocent people just because some out of context stuff that they intentionally interpret in the worst way possible! Still, see how nicely it’s her piece received on Twitter! How “brave” is she! Talking about tribalism! And yeah, I agreed with her that he was defended then by the left because he was a very left wing guy. Now he is defended by the the crazy right wingers! They are both, no very different. EDITED 2: I congratulate her for not exactly apologizing but, at least admitting, her role in the old scandal but the brave thing to do would had been to post a link to her original piece. I mean, I just saw someone who thinks she is apologizing for staying silent but no! She wasn’t silent! She actively attacked the victim of his nasty prank! And again, that was part of certain quarters culture then: being nasty about the famous and rich. Or who they perceived as such. Brand, like today, was considered the anti-establishment figure. The guy who scandalized the bourgeoisie! So yeah, at the time there were people unhappy with his behavior but Hyde is a nasty writer and The Guardian is very into identity politics. Both are! So they will always attack those who they identify as the privileged, the “other” or the uncool no matter who is the real culprit. They judge people for what they are, not for what they do and that’s their issue. That’s why they get things wrong!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Sept 19, 2023 12:46:49 GMT
I’m vehemently against trial by media. I think let the proper authorities investigate and due process be applied before guilt or innocence is decided. Russel Brand was undoubtedly an extremely promiscuous and polarising character. Does that mean the allegations being made about him are true? I simply don’t know. And neither does 99.99 % of those pontificating in mainstream and social media. Which is why I find the current trend of leaping instantly from accusation to conviction via media before any kind of due process has taken place to be very problematic.
|
|