JAM See
Well-Known Member
Please god, not Alan Bennett. Woody Allen and St. John Peel was bad enough.
Please not the last one of the understated holy trinity.
Please god, not Alan Bennett. Woody Allen and St. John Peel was bad enough.Heard some stuff about Fielding too. David Jason is a real shame.
The journalists and production teams that put together these reports are often working totally separate from the institutions that have sadly been found to be protecting these people.If you go back to the Saville affair and then the revelations about corporations burying the behaviour of their ‘stars’ I think you would be reasonable to suggest that bodies like the BBC and Channel 4 are not to be trusted even if they do these exposes.
If you have that much evidence to produce these programs - give it straight to the police and get these perpetrators behind bars, safe in the knowledge that you as an organisation acted with integrity at all times.
The journalists and production teams that put together these reports are often working totally separate from the institutions that have sadly been found to be protecting these people.
Publishing an expose like this can often be much more impactful than just quietly giving the same info to the police.
he's already doing the 'its the main stream media out to get me' thing and his followers are lapping it up. will probably be presenting on GB News before you know it
Got to say it was pretty disturbing. Some of it can be “oh he’s just a cheeky chappy” then he’s straight up raping women and spitting in his 16 year old GFs mouth and making her swallow it. The responses from the organisations around him (not C4/BBC etc) all seem to suggest a very tight legal protection around him.
Inappropriate yes, disturbing yes, criminal ? From what I saw (most but not all of it) it was that one incident of alleged rape which he could be in trouble for.
Some of the other stuff they padded it out with was very questionable. The story of him with his cock out in the changing room sounded disturbing until same girl admitted she then started dating/sleeping with him. Lots of talk about ‘grooming’ but all were adults. Production teams said girls would call up crying after he’d slept with them… but then said this was because he hadn’t called them back after promising to go on a date. A lot of this stuff dilutes what could potentially be predatory/genuinely criminal behaviour.
The two situations that obviously didn’t sit well were the 16 year old girlfriend and the alleged rape. The 16 year old situation did sound consensual though, even if that’s just weird in my book.
The problem for Brand is he’s obviously slept with a lot of women (probably 1000s) and likely to do some weird shit in the bedroom (the spitting is strange) so it’s likely there will be plenty more accusations to come, some of which could be serious
There was the assault on the 16 year old, the rape of the woman where other heard her screaming, the rape of his “friend” and I think one other.
There was a production company that decided not to use women on his show just to be safe.
Hes very clearly a predator mate.
Complain all you like that the program/article was too long, but to say that it “dilutes” a credible accusation of rape is an insane thing to say.This is the problem with offering an alternative view though shmmeee. I’ve not said some of its not predatory, I’m saying some of the stuff in the show wasn’t which dilutes the serious stuff
Complain all you like that the program/article was too long, but to say that it “dilutes” a credible accusation of rape is an insane thing to say.
This is the problem with offering an alternative view though shmmeee. I’ve not said some of its not predatory, I’m saying some of the stuff in the show wasn’t which dilutes the serious stuff
It’s a television program, not a court case.Maybe the wrong use of words by me and I wasn’t saying it dilutes the rape claim itself but the serious stuff from the wider programme. why put the other behaviour that isn’t necessarily predatory along side a potential rape accusation ? At one end you’ve potentially got a serious crime which should be investigated by the police and at the other some women upset he didn’t call them for a date after having sex. They shouldn’t be in the same programme but that’s just my view
Oh yeah sure. I said that myself. Some of it was creepy but not illegal. Some of it was just being a shagger. But the core allegations are as solid as they get and fucking disgusting. What interested me was multiple women saying his eyes glaze over at a point. Sex addiction isn’t real from what I understand, but some kind of personality shift where all that matters is getting sex sounds a lot like the mind of a rapist to me TBH.
It’s a television program, not a court case.
If you can’t tell the difference between various degrees of predatory and problematic behaviour, to the point you start to question whether rape accusations are even criminal, then that’s on you, not the program makers.
Wooooh, who questioned whether rape is criminal ?! That’s just a ridiculous comment.
Is having consensual sex with woman and then not calling her for a date predatory or problematic behaviour ? It was irrelevant to the programme.
??? It’s the very first thing you said about the documentaryWooooh, who questioned whether rape is criminal ?! That’s just a ridiculous comment.
Inappropriate yes, disturbing yes, criminal ?
Only watched 3 of the top 20May derail the thread a little but have just seen this and thought it was interesting
View attachment 31785
Only watched 3 of the top 20
Band of BrothersI really hope The Wire and Band of Brothers are two of those three.
I was saying excluding the alleged rape was his behaviour criminal ? The whole paragraph??? It’s the very first thing you said about the documentary
JesusI was saying excluding the alleged rape was his behaviour criminal ?
??? It’s the very first thing you said about the documentary
Jesus
It’s a meaningless attempt to split hairs in the light of a rape accusation that we’ve already established is in no way “diluted” by other claims.In terms of the programme. You’re taking what I’m saying out of context. I said the alleged rape is extremely serious and said it should be investigated by the police. There was also various incidents that weren’t relevant or they were conflating what was consensual and non consensual which I didn’t like
Edit - I also said in original post
‘A lot of this stuff dilutes what could potentially be predatory/genuinely criminal behaviour’ as in the programme throwing legal/consensual incidents in with criminal incidents takes the focus away from the serious allegations
Jesus
Yeah if I have one complaint it’s there was a lot of needless character assassination stuff that IMO watered down the serious allegations. The Andrew Sachs stuff for example. I get you’re trying to paint a picture of a sex obsessed guy, but it felt trivial at points.
Shouldnt take away from a very brave and dedicated piece of journalism though.
Yup. You would expect them to throw the booky wook at him.So when is he getting arrested?
The next Mike Flanagan Netflix horror series looks good
Just starting the second series of your honor
Not started the second series yet. Loved the first though. Was disappointed to see HBO have cancelled any future series thoughFun series.
Just onto second series of Winning Time : Rise of the lakers dynasty. Love it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?