Russell Brand: BBC and Channel 4 investigate allegations

[Woof999]

On 9/20/2023 at 1:09 PM, JonnyF said:

Funny how the cancellers are always left leaning.

Except when they are not. Bud Light. Gilette. Both companies have faced a significant backlash and calls for boycotting from many who would consider themselves right (of centre, not in ideology) because of the use of a transgender in an advert.

[Chomper Higgot]

On 9/20/2023 at 1:09 PM, JonnyF said:

Let's add the BBC and Channel 4 to YouTube.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12535315/Russell-Brand-removed-BBC-iPlayer-sex-assault-claims.html

 

Funny how the cancellers are always left leaning.

Except when it’s that bastion of ‘Free Speech’ GB News:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66940513.amp

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Except when it’s that bastion of ‘Free Speech’ GB News:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66940513.amp

Indeed. GB News does promote free speech. 

 

Somehow I'm not surprised at your pearl clutching at Fox's immature, unfunny joke. Maybe you could start a campaign to cancel him? Or better still, get GB News off the air? 

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/27/the-real-reason-they-hate-gb-news/

 

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Indeed. GB News does promote free speech. 

 

Somehow I'm not surprised at your pearl clutching at Fox's immature, unfunny joke. Maybe you could start a campaign to cancel him? Or better still, get GB News off the air? 

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/27/the-real-reason-they-hate-gb-news/

 

All of a sudden I’m the target of your attempt to avoid accepting the fact that rightwing GB News, self proclaimed home of free speech has cancelled Laurence Fox.

 

You could simply accept that your statement “Funny how the cancellers are always left leaning.” is demonstrably incorrect.

 

 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All of a sudden I’m the target of your attempt to avoid accepting the fact that rightwing GB News, self proclaimed home of free speech has cancelled Laurence Fox.

 

You could simply accept that your statement “Funny how the cancellers are always left leaning.” is demonstrably incorrect.

 

 

Disingenuous. Again. GBNews didn't "cancel" Fox. 

 

They simply condemned his comments. Correctly so, they were stupid. That is not cancellation. If they contacted other media companies like YouTube, Twitter etc. and demanded they ban Fox in order to prevent him earning a living, that would be cancellation. If they sent a GB News mob to his next public appearance to stop him getting on stage and demanding the show was stopped, that would be cancellation.

 

But you already knew that... 

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Disingenuous. Again. GBNews didn't "cancel" Fox. 

 

They simply condemned his comments. Correctly so, they were stupid. That is not cancellation. If they contacted other media companies like YouTube, Twitter etc. and demanded they ban Fox in order to prevent him earning a living, that would be cancellation. If they sent a GB News mob to his next public appearance to stop him getting on stage and demanding the show was stopped, that would be cancellation.

 

But you already knew that... 

Where would sophistry be without semantics?!

 

 

[JonnyF]

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where would sophistry be without semantics?!

 

 

Did you get that from one of your fridge magnets? ????

 

It has been noted that once again you don't have any salient points to counter my own... 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Did you get that from one of your fridge magnets? ????

 

It has been noted that once again you don't have any salient points to counter my own... 

the salient point is GB news, rightwing self proclaimed home of free speech has just canceled Laurence Fox, not a lefty in sight.

[JonnyF]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

the salient point is GB news, rightwing self proclaimed home of free speech has just canceled Laurence Fox, not a lefty in sight.

Why are you repeating this falsehood?

 

They condemned his comments. They haven't "cancelled" him. Stop with this disinformation. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Why are you repeating this falsehood?

 

They condemned his comments. They haven't "cancelled" him. Stop with this disinformation. 

“GB News has suspended the presenters Dan Wootton and Laurence Fox as the channel struggles to contain the fallout after misogynistic comments made on Wootton’s show.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/27/gb-news-suspends-dan-wootton-after-laurence-foxs-remarks-on-show

[JonnyF]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“GB News has suspended the presenters Dan Wootton and Laurence Fox as the channel struggles to contain the fallout after misogynistic comments made on Wootton’s show.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/27/gb-news-suspends-dan-wootton-after-laurence-foxs-remarks-on-show

Come on Chomper. Suspended. That is not cancelled. Even if they sacked him, that is not being cancelled. 

 

Being cancelled is when you are prevented from making a living elsewhere. For example if GBNews started a co-ordinated campaign to remove him from YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter etc. If GBNews called for any shows he was in to be boycotted. If GBNews demanded events he was working in to be shut down by protestors. 

 

Stop gaslighting. Suspending an employee for inappropriate conduct is not being cancelled.

 

But you knew that already...

[NextG]

On 9/23/2023 at 7:03 AM, norfolkandchance said:

Another nail.

A receptionist if I remember correctly. He got ‘told off’ for the way he was ringing a  bell and his reaction was to expose himself. 
The fact was simply that he knew of no other way to connect with women. His father took him to Asia whilst he was still at school and introduced him to prostitution. His own words were that he couldn’t wait to get back to tell his mates at school. 
I mentioned this earlier on the thread and the silence was deafening. 
I think you can extrapolate as to the why…

[NextG]

On 9/21/2023 at 12:49 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

A female. Why am I not surprised?

What’s your point? 
 

[NextG]

On 9/22/2023 at 6:42 AM, BritManToo said:

My opinion,

Biden groping the little girls was far worse, why hasn't his ability to earn been removed?

 

Perhaps you can show evidence of Biden ‘groping’ little girls. Whereas there is a wealth of evidence of Brand’ behaviour towards women. Regularly exposing himself and treating them like prostitutes, simply because that’s how he was brought up. 
Of course no one discusses it here because likely many are guilty of doing the same, using their money as the bait. 

[BritManToo]

4 minutes ago, NextG said:

Perhaps you can show evidence of Biden ‘groping’ little girls. Whereas there is a wealth of evidence of Brand’ behaviour towards women. Regularly exposing himself and treating them like prostitutes, simply because that’s how he was brought up. 
Of course no one discusses it here because likely many are guilty of doing the same, using their money as the bait. 

If I can use money as bait then they're prostitutes. If I can use fame as bait that makes them groupies. If they're offering sex for future advantage, they're gold-diggers.

 

Neither method of banging women is a crime or morally wrong, hence no guilt.

[NextG]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

If I can use money as bait then they're prostitutes. If I can use fame as bait that makes them groupies.

Name calling doesn’t hide the abuse. Abuse is abuse. Taking advantage of the desperate, needy and vulnerable is despicable behaviour. He treated women like dogs because that’s what his father showed him. 
That all you needed to do was pay or to utilise your fame in order to coerce some women into an abusive environment. 
He even talks about it himself about how difficult it was to do with intelligent women. 
So it would be receptionists and low level workers on set etc

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Why are you repeating this falsehood?

 

They condemned his comments. They haven't "cancelled" him. Stop with this disinformation. 

Perhaps he subscribes to the notion that if one tells a lie often enough, people will believe it.

I wonder who originally said that? ( rhetorical question )

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, NextG said:

Name calling doesn’t hide the abuse. Abuse is abuse. Taking advantage of the desperate, needy and vulnerable is despicable behaviour. He treated women like dogs because that’s what his father showed him. 
That all you needed to do was pay or to utilise your fame in order to coerce some women into an abusive environment. 
He even talks about it himself about how difficult it was to do with intelligent women. 
So it would be receptionists and low level workers on set etc

You're suggesting men should only have sex with women of the same educational, social, wealth, intelligence and occupation?

 

Do you view Bob Geldof as a sexual predator? Paula Yates was an office girl at the BBC.

 

What about all the doctors that married nurses? Sexual predators?

 

 

 

[NextG]

Just now, BritManToo said:

You're suggesting men should only have sex with women of the same educational, social, wealth, intelligence and occupation?

 

 

 

I’m suggesting that exposing yourself and forcing yourself on women is unacceptable behaviour. Now it’s come back to bite him and he’s squealing like a pig. 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Did you get that from one of your fridge magnets? ????

 

It has been noted that once again you don't have any salient points to counter my own... 

He's very good at "fridge magnet" comments.

[youreavinalaff]

6 minutes ago, NextG said:

So it would be receptionists and low level workers on set etc

That's not abuse? I'm sure receptionists around the world would love being labled "low level". 

 

So, what other occupations would you, oh so high in society, call "low level"?

[NextG]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

That's not abuse? I'm sure receptionists around the world would love being labled "low level". 

 

So, what other occupations would you, oh so high in society, call "low level"?

It’s abuse. He exposed himself to receptionists, as opposed to his bosses. Get it?

[NextG]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He's very good at "fridge magnet" comments.

and you are good at what?

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, NextG said:

It’s abuse. He exposed himself to receptionists, as opposed to his bosses. Get it?

You've not read my whole post. 

 

I guess that is your privilege, being holier-than-thou and all that.

 

 

[JonnyF]

28 minutes ago, NextG said:

Perhaps you can show evidence of Biden ‘groping’ little girls.

Since you asked.

 

Take a look at her face as he touches her and tries to kiss her.

 

 

[NextG]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You've not read my whole post. 

 

I guess that is your privilege, being holier-than-thou and all that.

 

 

Oh dear… attempting to attack me because you really have no argument of substance. 
The topic is Russell Brand and his behaviour, not my level of education or quality of upbringing. 
Are you suggesting that only knuckle-dragged can apply to comment on this thread? Not unlike Mr Fox who had to resort to commenting on a woman’s looks because he simply couldn’t match her on an intellectual level. Even more pathetic when we actually have the bigger brains. 

[NextG]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Since you asked.

 

Take a look at her face as he touches her and tries to kiss her.

 

 

Weirdo..creepy and disgusting. 

[youreavinalaff]

6 minutes ago, NextG said:

Oh dear… attempting to attack me because you really have no argument of substance. 
The topic is Russell Brand and his behaviour, not my level of education or quality of upbringing. 
Are you suggesting that only knuckle-dragged can apply to comment on this thread? Not unlike Mr Fox who had to resort to commenting on a woman’s looks because he simply couldn’t match her on an intellectual level. Even more pathetic when we actually have the bigger brains. 

The subject is abuse of women. Whether it's sexual, physical, mental, financial, verbal....etc, it's wrong.

 

What gives anyone the right to suggest receptionists and other, unnamed occupations, are "low level"?

 

Would you call a woman, or any worker for that matter, "low level" to their face?

[NextG]

24 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You're suggesting men should only have sex with women of the same educational, social, wealth, intelligence and occupation?

 

Do you view Bob Geldof as a sexual predator? Paula Yates was an office girl at the BBC.

 

What about all the doctors that married nurses? Sexual predators?

 

 

 

Married… not exposing yourself on a first meeting or dragging them off to toilet cubicles. 

[NextG]

53 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The subject is abuse of women. Whether it's sexual, physical, mental, financial, verbal....etc, it's wrong.

 

What gives anyone the right to suggest receptionists and other, unnamed occupations, are "low level"?

 

Would you call a woman, or any worker for that matter, "low level" to their face?

If you didn’t understand that ‘low level’ clearly meant that they have far less power to complain or to be believed, then we are obviously on completely different intellectual levels. 
Come back when you are able to discuss seriously without your ‘so very obvious’ attempts at deflection. 
The subject is Russell Brand.