Russell Brand and why the allegations took so long to surface

[NextG]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Silly...

 

It’s always the usual suspects. Lost their unfair privileges and now feel that life is unfair. Yes, there are women who take advantage of the landscape, just as there were men who did and do. Be careful out there. 
But this woman hating only illustrates that you don’t understand ‘em, so don’t know how to control them. 
 

Edited September 28, 2023 by NextG

[youreavinalaff]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So a serial offender, as sex offenders often are, can avoid any of their victims being aware of an investigation other than the single victim filing a report.

 

Pointless in this case anyway since the press were on the allegations before the police were informed.

 

Oh, but you want to silence the press?

 

 

 

 

The law is the law and should be abided by. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

 

It's not right for innocent people to be persecuted. I'm sure you'll agree with that too.

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, NextG said:

It’s always the usual suspects. Lost their unfair privileges and now feel that life is unfair. Yes, there are women who take advantage of the landscape, just as there were men who did and do. Be careful out there. 
But this woman hating only illustrates that you don’t understand ‘em, so don’t know how to control them. 
 

Control them?

 

That's a form of abuse.

 

Your low opinion of so many people, based on here by sex and occupation, is shocking.

[NextG]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

Control them?

 

That's a form of abuse.

 

Your low opinion of so many people, based on here by sex and occupation, is shocking.

I wrote about the women haters. They cannot control them, so they ‘hate’ them. 
Read their posts. They despise the women from their own culture because they cannot control them. They keep the poorer women under control under the threat of removing their funding. 

[NextG]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Control them?

 

That's a form of abuse.

 

Your low opinion of so many people, based on here by sex and occupation, is shocking.

You are so desperately trying to smear me with your fetid mind, but falling flat on your face EVERY time. 

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, NextG said:

I wrote about the women haters. They cannot control them, so they ‘hate’ them. 
Read their posts. They despise the women from their own culture because they cannot control them. They keep the poorer women under control under the threat of removing their funding. 

No. This is what you wrote. You'veveven done it again the the above post.

 

"But this woman hating only illustrates that you don’t understand ‘em, so don’t know how to control them." 

 

"Them" clearly refers to women andvthe controlling of them. 

 

[youreavinalaff]

6 minutes ago, NextG said:

You are so desperately trying to smear me with your fetid mind, but falling flat on your face EVERY time. 

No. 

 

You clearly maintain that many occupations are low level and that women should be controlled.

 

It's there to see in your posts.

[NextG]

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. This is what you wrote. You'veveven done it again the the above post.

 

"But this woman hating only illustrates that you don’t understand ‘em, so don’t know how to control them." 

 

"Them" clearly refers to women andvthe controlling of them. 

 

 

Yes, the women haters who don’t understand them and cannot control them. ????

I understand it’s a complicated sentence for you. 
Those of us who don’t hate women, work with them in a way that the women haters cannot comprehend. 
Hope that clears it up for you. 
Of course I understand that ‘understanding’ is not your goal. You are just trying to score points… but instead find yourself desperately flailing. 

[NextG]

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. 

 

You clearly maintain that many occupations are low level and that women should be controlled.

 

It's there to see in your posts.

Again, of course you understood what I meant in the first place. That Russell Brand would not have exposed himself to any of his female bosses, but instead to ‘receptionists’ and ‘interns’ etc

But like all of your ilk, you have no cogent arguments, so instead try to deflect/go off at a tangent to something completely unrelated. 
But it’s always going to go back to the way he perceived women over who he imagined he had power. 

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The law is the law and should be abided by. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

 

It's not right for innocent people to be persecuted. I'm sure you'll agree with that too.

Thankfully that’s not the law that applies in England, and therefore sex offenders in England can’t hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

Though I do accept that it’s probably a good thing in the eyes of certain organizations in the North of Ireland. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. This is what you wrote. You'veveven done it again the the above post.

 

"But this woman hating only illustrates that you don’t understand ‘em, so don’t know how to control them." 

 

"Them" clearly refers to women andvthe controlling of them. 

 

 

I read that as ‘women haters trying to control them [them being the women they hate].

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[youreavinalaff]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Thankfully that’s not the law that applies in England, and therefore sex offenders in England can’t hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

Though I do accept that it’s probably a good thing in the eyes of certain organizations in the North of Ireland. 

 

Sex offenders?

 

Not until they've been charged with evidence to back the charge, in the eyes of the law. That's the whole point. 

 

I'm sure you'll agree it's wrong to call someone a sex offender when they are not.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[youreavinalaff]

33 minutes ago, NextG said:

Yes, the women haters who don’t understand them and cannot control them. ????

I understand it’s a complicated sentence for you. 
Those of us who don’t hate women, work with them in a way that the women haters cannot comprehend. 
Hope that clears it up for you. 
Of course I understand that ‘understanding’ is not your goal. You are just trying to score points… but instead find yourself desperately flailing. 

So, by understanding women it's possible and OK to control them.

 

I disagree.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Sex offenders?

 

Not until they've been charged with evidence to back the charge, in the eyes of the law. That's the whole point. 

 

I'm sure you'll agree it's wrong to call someone a sex offender when they are not.

 

 

The logic of my observation does not relate to any trial or guilty verdict.

 

I chose my words with care.

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[youreavinalaff]

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I read that as ‘women haters trying to control them [them being the women they hate].

 

 

But those that don't hate women can control them.

 

With that, I disagree.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

But those that don't hate women can control them.

 

With that, I disagree.

 That’s a non sequitur.

 

[NextG]

10 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So, by understanding women it's possible and OK to control them.

 

I disagree.

You don’t even appear to understand what is written here ????
In this case I think any kind of normal relationship with a woman will be beyond you. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by NextG

[NextG]

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Sex offenders?

 

Not until they've been charged with evidence to back the charge, in the eyes of the law. That's the whole point. 

 

I'm sure you'll agree it's wrong to call someone a sex offender when they are not.

 

 

Do you need the law to tell you that exposing yourself to an unwilling and unrelated woman is a sex offence?

[Nick Carter icp]

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Sex offenders?

 

Not until they've been charged with evidence to back the charge, in the eyes of the law. That's the whole point. 

 

I'm sure you'll agree it's wrong to call someone a sex offender when they are not.

 

 

Getting you knob out in public without taking a pee  is a sexual offence  , its quite clear that he did do that and he committed a sexual offence , he just hasnt been to Court yet 

[Chomper Higgot]

Let’s just nail down this ‘anonymity for those accused but not charged with sex offenses’.

 

So if allegations of serious sexual offenses are made against your next door neighbor or a teacher of your children do you:

 

A. Want to be informed as soon as the allegations are notified to the police,

 

B. Happy to take the risk and wait until formal charges are brought.

 

And

 

If you want to be informed as soon as allegations are informed to the police, would you accept being gagged by the law from telling other neighbors/parents?

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

23 minutes ago, NextG said:

You don’t even appear to understand what is written here ????
In this case I think any kind of normal relationship with a woman will be beyond you. 

That's funny, considering I've been very happily married for over 23 years.

 

You seem to be quite judgemental. By judging me incorrectly you've proved your judgements stand for nothing.

[youreavinalaff]

20 minutes ago, NextG said:

Do you need the law to tell you that exposing yourself to an unwilling and unrelated woman is a sex offence?

I would never do such a thing. Your question is, therefore, inane.

 

The link I posted is regarding the anonymity for someone who has been accused but, as yet, not charged.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I would never do such a thing. Your question is, therefore, inane.

 

The link I posted is regarding the anonymity for someone who has been accused but, as yet, not charged.

But I’m guessing if your neighbor or a teacher of your children were accused of sex crimes you would want to be informed as soon as the allegations came to light.

[youreavinalaff]

Let’s just nail down this ‘anonymity for those accused but not charged with sex offenses’.

 

So if allegations of serious sexual offenses are made against you. Would you....

 

A. Want to all your neighbours, aquaintences, work colleagues informed as soon as the allegations are notified to the police,

 

B. Hope the authorities wait until formal charges are brought.

 

And

 

If you want everyone above to be informed as soon as allegations are made against you are informed to the police, would you expect them to be gagged by the law from telling other neighbors/parents?

Edited September 28, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

Let’s just nail down this ‘anonymity for those accused but not charged with sex offenses’.

 

So if allegations of serious sexual offenses are made against you. Would you....

 

A. Want to all your neighbours, aquaintences, work colleagues informed as soon as the allegations are notified to the police,

 

B. Hope the authorities wait until formal charges are brought.

 

And

 

If you want everyone above to be informed as soon as allegations are informed to the police, would you accept them being gagged by the law from telling other neighbors/parents?

Go back and answer the question I asked you.

 

Or maybe you really would not want to know that someone accused of serious sex crimes was living next door to you or teaching your kids until the police decide whether or not to charge.

 

Difficult as that is to believe, it is a remote possibility. 

 

 

[NextG]

22 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I would never do such a thing. Your question is, therefore, inane.

 

The link I posted is regarding the anonymity for someone who has been accused but, as yet, not charged.

Puerile. I pity your wife. A sex offender is a sex offender. Russell Brand appears to be a sex offender. We don’t need the law to tell us that. Exposing yourself to unwilling and unrelated women is a sex offence to anyone who still has a moral compass. 

[youreavinalaff]

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go back and answer the question I asked you.

 

Or maybe you really would not want to know that someone accused of serious sex crimes was living next door to you or teaching your kids until the police decide whether or not to charge.

 

Difficult as that is to believe, it is a remote possibility. 

 

 

Until the police decide to charge? What would enable them to decide? 

 

Evidence? Confession?

 

If neither are present, the accusations would be deemed false. The accused, innocent.

 

Meanwhile he's had to move himself and possibly his family because of the persecution he and they would have been subjected to.

 

Is that something you would accept yourself if you were wrongly accused of such crimes?

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[youreavinalaff]

48 minutes ago, NextG said:

Puerile. I pity your wife. A sex offender is a sex offender. Russell Brand appears to be a sex offender. We don’t need the law to tell us that. Exposing yourself to unwilling and unrelated women is a sex offence to anyone who still has a moral compass. 

"Appears" being the vital word. One cannot be charged or convicted for appearing to be something.

 

My wife says no need to pity her. She is more than happy with her life choices. 

 

It's a shame you feel the need to try, and fail, to belittle other just because they disagree with you. 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[NextG]

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

"Appears" being the vital word. One cannot be charged or convicted for appearing to be something.

 

My wife says no need to pity her. She is more than happy with her life choices. 

 

It's a shame you feel the need to try, and fail, to belittle other just because they disagree with you. 

 

 

What has charged and convicted to do with being guilty?

We know that he exposed himself to this woman. He even talks about it with his guest. Though he probably didn’t want it brought up, but his guest put him in a corner. 
I think it has been you would tried and FAILED to belittle. Now you are crying like a little baby because all of your attempts have backfired. Now go to lick your wounds and contemplate what it’s like to openly support a sex offender. 

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Until the police decide to charge? What would enable them to decide? 

 

Evidence? Confession?

 

If neither are present, the accusations would be deemed false. The accused, innocent.

 

Meanwhile he's had to move himself and possibly his family because of the persecution he and they would have been subjected to.

 

Is that something you would accept yourself if you were wrongly accused of such crimes?

 

 

As a father and a husband I much prefer information of who is accused of serious sex crimes not to be kept secret.

 

If it came to a choice between that meaning I was identified despite being innocent or a member of my family being left at risk or worse because a suspect’s reputation has been protected, I’ll take my own risk above any to members of my family.

 

Brand is English, he lives in England. In parents have a right to know if someone is accused of heinous crimes, victims have a right to know if someone has nee accused of heinous crimes.

 

There is no law to protect Brand’s reputation from knowledge of these accusations, that’s a trade off but protecting people against sex offenders is far more important than protecting people against being identified as a suspect.

 

Free speech and all that.

 

Do I agree that their should be consequences for people and media making a direct accusation of Brand being a rapist, yes I do, but that cannot be used to protect anyone against accusations by victims.