40 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

3 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Is it because he didn't get "red-pilled", whatever that means?

I never heard of getting "red-pilled" so I Googled it.

Very good explanation below, with its origin from The Matrix:

AI Overview

"Getting red-pilled" means "waking up" to a perceived harsh reality, often involving radicalization into far-right, anti-feminist, or extremist ideologies, particularly within online communities like the manosphere, where individuals believe society is controlled by deluded leftists, leading to views like white supremacy, misogyny, and anti-immigration, stemming from the metaphor in The Matrix.

 

Origin of the Metaphor 

• The Matrix: The term comes from the movie The Matrix, where Neo chooses the "red pill" to see the uncomfortable truth (reality) versus the "blue pill" to remain in blissful ignorance (illusion).

Just a few thoughtful posts on this thread, (and a deal of the usual rubbish), but Brand has been charged, which means there must be some significant evidence.

I think we should wait for the results of the Trials/Appeals . . .

Personally he appears to me to be a gross sleazebag and I always turned over/off if he appeared on my screens. But let Justice prevail.

13 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Why did no one come forward to accuse Jimmy Saville for decades?

They did, but weren't believed

• Earliest Allegation (1963): A male victim reported to Cheshire police that he had been raped by Savile in 1963, but the report states an officer told the victim to "forget about it".

• Earliest Incidents: The Metropolitan Police-led report (Giving Victims a Voice) recorded the earliest incidents of abuse dating back to 1955 in Manchester, with further recorded abuse starting at the BBC and hospitals in 1965.

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Personally, I cannot stand the bloke but his switch in political stance is clearly the cause of these ancient allegations.

It's he said, she said. He'll be found not guilty but as people in the UK are very much aware, the process is the punishment for those who defect from the leftist, Woke narrative as Brand has done.

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No, he threw it all away because he defected from the Woke cartel.

Now they're coming after him.

4 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It means moving from brainlessly parrotting fake news & lefty narratives like men can get pregnant....

Wow, the paranoid delusion is strong.

This right wing religious nutjob is a bore now but at least (before he found god) he owned Farridge on Question Time : “You’re just a Pound Shop Enoch”.

Whether he’s a sexual abuser? Well, we’ll find out later but until then he’s innocent.

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No, he threw it all away because he defected from the Woke cartel.

Now they're coming after him.

Is that truly all you got? Is it possible for you to reply with something interesting, or something with some actual content?

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

A fraction of the number of those aimed at Kevin Spacey who was later cleared.

I suspect this is a case of "throw enough mud and some will stick".

Agreed. Maybe he has a sex addiction and there has been so many, some may just be upset with him so making things up. Maybe they did kinky stuff with him and didn't really want to but because he was famous...when he moved on they got big resentment

19 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Broads?

Again, you are living in your fantasy land and dreaming up scenarios. Must be bliss in that head of yours.

I suspect a hellscape in there.

It does seem rather strange that a man accused of 3 counts of rape, 3 counts of sexual assault amd one of indecent assault should be able to appear in a video link from rhe United States.

How can the government prove a rape occurred 20 years after the incident, without physical evidence?

16 minutes ago, JAG said:

It does seem rather strange that a man accused of 3 counts of rape, 3 counts of sexual assault amd one of indecent assault should be able to appear in a video link from rhe United States.

I suspect America refused extradition.

As it's a politically motivated charge.

Maybe Starmer could have offered Andy in exchange ..........

30 minutes ago, JAG said:

It does seem rather strange that a man accused of 3 counts of rape, 3 counts of sexual assault amd one of indecent assault should be able to appear in a video link from rhe United States.

Not strange at all. The charges are BS. The lefty loony establishment have run Brand out of town, which together with the process is the punishment.

Cant stand the guy but he comes across as the mature one in this fiasco, unlike sir kier and his chums

46 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I suspect America refused extradition.

As it's a politically motivated charge.

Yeah, so you keep saying without offering any evidence or even logic.

In his autobiography he spoke of how he was a sex addict and an alcohol and drug addict. He went in to rehab more than once for his sex addiction. Perhaps, just maybe, he might have overstepped the mark when off his face on drugs.

But you're saying, since he became a conspiracy theorist and a Trump supporter (amazing how often those things go together) that Keir Starmer contacted all his past "conquests" and what - offered money to them to come out against him? Is that how it works? He's not denying having sexual encounters with them so they are real people.

You people are hilarious - you see conspiracies everywhere. If any right winger gets in to trouble it's a government conspiracy to "silence them". It's inconceivable that these might be actual claims that need looking at?

34 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Not strange at all. The charges are BS. The lefty loony establishment have run Brand out of town, which together with the process is the punishment.

Cant stand the guy but he comes across as the mature one in this fiasco, unlike sir kier and his chums

What has Sir Kier got to do with this exactly? Did he put a wig on and claim to be raped? Did he press charges? Has he bribed the judiciary to go after this Jesus wannabe washed up actor?

Ludicrous fantasies, but it gives me a laugh that you actually believe what you come out with. And you speak in cliches only, copying off JohnnyF mostly - "loony left", "the process is the punishment".

Do you have any thoughts of your own?

10 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Has he bribed the judiciary to go after this Jesus wannabe washed up actor?

Guilty of the same "crimes" as Tommy. Which is being white, male, born in England and speaks out against the woke establishment. I believe your sir kier literally introduced a seperate tier of "justice" for these people. Whereas blade merchant dingy sailors can go around raping native kids willynilly. Its a mad old world in woke politics

3 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Guilty of the same "crimes" as Tommy.

Nope, for all his ugliness I don't think Yaxley-Lennon has ever been accused of rape or indecent assault, although lots of his buddies have been convicted for it and for child porn.

He does though have convictions for:

- assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault with intent to resist arrest

- a separate conviction of assault for headbutting a man
- using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, for leading a group of Luton Town F.C. supporters into a brawl
- entering the US illegally on a false passport.
- mortgage fraud
- contempt of court (twice)
- stalking and intimidation
- libel.

So no, not guilty of the same crimes is he.

Which is being white, male, born in England and speaks out against the woke establishment.

Nope, see above for his crimes. Again, more meaningless cliches that have no basis in fact. Just nonsense in your head.

I believe your sir kier literally introduced a seperate tier of "justice" for these people.

For which people? Rapists? Or thugs, fraudsters and liars?

Anyway, he didn't. Just more nonsense with nothing to back it up. Where do you read this stuff? Or do you just copy what Johnny says? It's clear you have no clue about the UK, the justice system, or even Yaxley-Lennon.

Whereas blade merchant dingy sailors can go around raping native kids willynilly. Its a mad old world in woke politics

Ok, you're losing it now. What are you on about??

14 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

This guy had everything he ever wanted and needed, fame, fortune, good looks, popularity, and recognition, and he threw it all away because he just did not seem to be able to handle the word NO. Despite the fact that thousands of gorgeous women were literally throwing themselves at him. That's what I call the very definition of a psychopathic super freak.

Why do you assume he's guilty?

11 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Just a few thoughtful posts on this thread, (and a deal of the usual rubbish), but Brand has been charged, which means there must be some significant evidence.

I think we should wait for the results of the Trials/Appeals . . .

Personally he appears to me to be a gross sleazebag and I always turned over/off if he appeared on my screens. But let Justice prevail.

You think in this age a woman walking into a police station accusing any man of tape is asked for "substantial evidence?"

Sid - no I don't.

11 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

But you're saying, since he became a conspiracy theorist and a Trump supporter (amazing how often those things go together) that Keir Starmer contacted all his past "conquests" and what - offered money to them to come out against him? Is that how it works? He's not denying having sexual encounters with them so they are real people.

I don't think I said that at all, more likely Starmer instructed the DPP to treat any accusations as 'valid'.

He seems to go after 'comedians', Graham Linehan, Katie Hopkins, Russel Brand ,,,,,,,,,

9 hours ago, sidjameson said:

Why do you assume he's guilty?

Not always but typically where there's a hell of a lot of smoke there's fire, the charges against this man have been multitudinous and have taken place over a vast period of time

9 hours ago, sidjameson said:

20 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Just a few thoughtful posts on this thread, (and a deal of the usual rubbish), but Brand has been charged, which means there must be some significant evidence.

I think we should wait for the results of the Trials/Appeals . . .

Personally he appears to me to be a gross sleazebag and I always turned over/off if he appeared on my screens. But let Justice prevail.

Will you keep your thoughts to yourself please.

Sensible comments interfere with the flow of delusional conspiracy theory being spouted by self-pitying, grievance stricken right-wingers.

18 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

How can the government prove a rape occurred 20 years after the incident, without physical evidence?

It will be a case of 'he said' / 'she said'.

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I don't think I said that at all, more likely Starmer instructed the DPP to treat any accusations as 'valid'.

He seems to go after 'comedians', Graham Linehan, Katie Hopkins, Russel Brand ,,,,,,,,,

Katie Hopkins is a comedian ????

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I don't think I said that at all, more likely Starmer instructed the DPP to treat any accusations as 'valid'.

He seems to go after 'comedians', Graham Linehan, Katie Hopkins, Russel Brand ,,,,,,,,,

More conspiracy.

11 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I don't think I said that at all, more likely Starmer instructed the DPP to treat any accusations as 'valid'.

He seems to go after 'comedians', Graham Linehan, Katie Hopkins, Russel Brand ,,,,,,,,,

Has he gone after any leftie comedians? Does such a thing even exist? Is hate and rage amusing at all? Rosie O'Donnell probably the closest but as funny as stage 4 cancer.

10 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Katie Hopkins is a comedian ????

You don't take her seriously, do you?

8 hours ago, RayC said:

You don't take her seriously, do you?

Good point!

On 1/21/2026 at 11:16 AM, BritManToo said:

Starmer wants to shut him up.

Nothing more.

It's unlikely that the charges will result in any convictions, but as they like to say in the UK these days,

"the process is the punishment".

What has Starmer got to do with it?