[Kooli]

Originally Posted by MrStuffins

You're just so wrong about this!

Some of the biggest names in the industry made comments along the lines of 'I wish them both well. You can't judge someone else's relationship.'
I've had conversations with people where the first comment is 'I heard she hit him first'.

Even on this very thread we have a comment how it was 'just one or two punches'.

I'm just really struggling to understand why people find it so hard to condemn him

[baby and crumble]

Originally Posted by Kooli

I do agree with rehabilitation, of course. And I think this would feel different if his actions had been villified at the time and since, and there had been a stronger move in defense of Rihanna. But there wasn't. There was half-hearted comments about how it's 'between them', plus a lot of people trying to find reasons it might be Rihanna's fault.
And now he's welcome back with open arms as if he's not an abuser of women.

What was the actual rehabilitation? Because the passing of time doesn't qualify as rehabilitation if there was nothing else actually involved.

From wikipedia:

In 2008, Brown's musical setbacks were partially attributed to a domestic assault. He turned himself in to the Los Angeles Police Department's Wilshire station on February 8, 2009, and was booked on suspicion of making criminal threats, while under investigation for domestic violence charges, following an argument with an unidentified woman (Rihanna). Following his arrest, several of his commercial ads were suspended, his music was withdrawn from multiple radio stations, and he withdrew from public appearances, including one at the 2009 Grammy Awards.

On August 25, Brown was sentenced to five years of probation, one year of domestic violence counseling, and six months of community service; the judge retained a five-year restraining order on Brown, which requires him to remain 50 yards away from Rihanna, 10 yards at public events.

In June 2010, Brown's application for a visa to enter the UK was refused on the grounds of him "being guilty of a serious criminal offence."[95] Brown had been planning to do a tour of British cities as part of a European tour but Sony stated that due to "issues surrounding his work visa" the tour was to be postponed. The British Home Office confirmed that Brown was refused permission on the grounds of being guilty of a serious criminal offence – his assault on ex-girlfriend Rihanna.

Looks to me like 'the powers' that be' dealt with him appropriately at the time, and he is still facing the consequences in a legal capacity. Why do we as society feel the need to demand more?

[Kooli]

Originally Posted by MrStuffins

If you don't know this then you shouldn't be giving out about the case.

it's quite obvious you want Chris Brown to be punished, so tell me, what exactly is it you want to see done to him?

Actually no, it's not about what I want to see done to him. In fact, it's not really about him personally at all.

I'm just baffled by the public's response to him. The industry's response to him. This sends a very powerful message about how we see a man who beats up a woman.

Would everyone be so OK with a hero's welcome for the return of Gary Glitter?

[Stercus Accidit]

He beat the face off of a skinny girl half his strength, if even, his career should be over, BUT his target demographic are children and the less intelligent.

Even through my toughest times, tougher than a hit singer with wads of cash will ever see, I would never do something like that to a girlfriend nor would any sensible person, let alone beat the face off of her, I have seen the pictures.

You don't defend that, you let his career crumble into obscurity and move on. I am distressed to see two sides of the fence in this thread, I had a higher opinion of the sort who post on boards.ie. There is no serving your time, or repaying your debt to society for this, it takes a vicious spoiled coward to do what he did and he remains that in my eyes, only with very careful and expensive PR handling after the event, and it is that professional PR handling that is pointed to as to how he has changed in some way.

[Davyhal]

The world has changed... An artist's personal life used to be so important towards their music career, but that seems to all have changed. Not too long ago, a gay/lesbian/bisexual musician would have to hide their sexuality in order to maintain a successful career. Before that, musicians with husbands/wives/partners used have to pretend to be single in order to appear "eligible" to the fans. This was wrong, very wrong, and I would not be shocked to hear that it is still happening. But this is disgusting. I think a lot of people are won over because they like his music, but I do not believe that he should be forgiven until he has stood trial for his actions. And the way people are defending him saying "he hit her once 3 years ago", as if it were a mere slap. Did you not see the pictures of the bruises? She was battered!

I personally will never purchase any material that will lead to him living his life in the lap of luxury, when in my eyes he is scum. If he was supporting act for one of my favourite acts of all time, I still would not buy a ticket, cos even if one penny of that went to him, I would not be happy with myself.

Question for you people who are supporting him... If a partner of your 20 year old friend beat her, even just the once, would you be so forgiving 3 years later?

[MrStuffins]

Originally Posted by Kooli

Actually no, it's not about what I want to see done to him. In fact, it's not really about him personally at all.

I'm just baffled by the public's response to him. The industry's response to him. This sends a very powerful message about how we see a man who beats up a woman.

Would everyone be so OK with a hero's welcome for the return of Gary Glitter?

I was wondering how long it would take for you to lower your argument to child molestation

I was finding it hard already, but you've just completely ruined the credability of your argument by comparing what Chris Brown did to Gary Glitter!

Don't be so ridiculous!

[Kooli]

Originally Posted by baby and crumble

From wikipedia:



Looks to me like 'the powers' that be' dealt with him appropriately at the time, and he is still facing the consequences in a legal capacity. Why do we as society feel the need to demand more?

I'm not that bothered about how much punishment he gets from the legal system in America.

I AM bothered when he is lauded at an international awards ceremony as the prodigal son, staging his 'comeback', performing twice and picking up an award. I AM bothered about what that says about violence against women.

[Kooli]

Originally Posted by MrStuffins

I was wondering how long it would take for you to lower your argument to child molestation

I was finding it hard already, but you've just completely ruined the credability of your argument by comparing what Chris Brown did to Gary Glitter!

Don't be so ridiculous!

Actually the reason I made the comparison was to discredit those who were making the 'rehabilitation' argument.

If the argument was about 'rehabilitation' or 'giving someone a second chance', then fine.

But the fact that you react so strongly to my Gary Glitter comparison shows the nature of the crime is what is important here. We should only give second chances and warm comeback welcomes to people who have commited 'less serious' offences. Like, you know, beating up women.

[Davyhal]

I agree that what Gary Glitter did was disgusting, and is a more serious crime than beating a woman, but that does not make beating a woman any less deplorable.

Unfortunately, I think the reason why Chris Brown is back and so easily forgiven by the public is because he is young, good looking and current. It is easy for the public to hate a creepy old man who was big 30 years. If Chris Brown beat up his partner when he was 50 and his music career was effectively long dead and buried, would he have gotten off so easily and would people still be so quick to forgive his crimes?

[Kooli]

OK I don't want to come off like I'm trying to be a Mod, I'm not. But this is the Ladies Lounge, and I'm trying to talk from the perspective of a woman about what it means to me (as a woman) when I see how an abuser of women is treated by the media and by the music industry.

Luckily I've never been abused, but if I had, this would be a very difficult thread to read.

This might be a huge assumption on my part, but are most of the posters telling me I'm overreacting men?

[bluewolf]

doesn't cheryl cole have an assault conviction too?

i think b&c's quote on what happened to him was punishment - and if anyone feels more strongly about it they can boycott his stuff
and he is still banned from the UK
i dont think that's nothing

[Stercus Accidit]

Originally Posted by Kooli

Actually the reason I made the comparison was to discredit those who were making the 'rehabilitation' argument.

If the argument was about 'rehabilitation' or 'giving someone a second chance', then fine.

But the fact that you react so strongly to my Gary Glitter comparison shows the nature of the crime is what is important here. We should only give second chances and warm comeback welcomes to people who have commited 'less serious' offences. Like, you know, beating up women.

I agree;

The main thing to remember is that his 'rehabilitation' was the only outcome that his record company and PR handlers would ever have allowed, he is a multi-million dollar product, and the whole rehabilitation thing was done to allow him to earn money again. This guy had everything to lose (mainly money) as did countless others involved with him by doing anything other than profusely apologize, do good works and donate money. None of it was done for any other reason than his actions were a PR disaster for his image and the bottom line of his investors. Anyone would say sorry too if millions of dollars were on the line.

What we can see for a fact is that behind closed doors and away from prying eyes this spoiled little coward beat his girlfriends face in, anything since then has been a carefully managed act.

[baby and crumble]

I think it's entirely erroneous to assume that those of us who are disagreeing with you are male. That does a huge disservice to the men who post on this board, and men in general. And also to the rest of the women.

As regards your point re: Gary Glitter. If Gary Glitter had served his time and wanted to reignite his career, then why not? You can't demonise a person forever one act they committed.

Violence towards anyone is abhorrent. No-one here is saying otherwise. but I think a lot of people here are simply saying that if you have done the time, and made an effort to rehabilitate yourself, why shouldn't that person be given another chance?

[MrStuffins]

Originally Posted by Kooli

Actually the reason I made the comparison was to discredit those who were making the 'rehabilitation' argument.

If the argument was about 'rehabilitation' or 'giving someone a second chance', then fine.

But the fact that you react so strongly to my Gary Glitter comparison shows the nature of the crime is what is important here. We should only give second chances and warm comeback welcomes to people who have commited 'less serious' offences. Like, you know, beating up women.

I was wondering how long it would take yout o stoop to mentioning Child Molestation.

Are you actually saying that Gary Glitter contributing to an International ring of perverts to kidnapped and raped children in front of cameras for the gratification of scumbags all over the world, Gary Glitter "buying" children in the Fat East in order to have sex with them, and the countless other disgusting things Glitter is guilty of............... is the same as Chris Brown hitting Rihanna?

I'm getting out of this thread before I say something I get banned for

[Kooli]

Originally Posted by MrStuffins

I was wondering how long it would take yout o stoop to mentioning Child Molestation.

Are you actually saying that Gary Glitter contributing to an International ring of perverts to kidnapped and raped children in front of cameras for the gratification of scumbags all over the world, Gary Glitter "buying" children in the Fat East in order to have sex with them, and the countless other disgusting things Glitter is guilty of............... is the same as Chris Brown hitting Rihanna?

I'm getting out of this thread before I say something I get banned for

Em...NO!! That's exactly what I'm NOT saying!!

I'll try to be clearer:

1) When I object to the triumphant return of Chris Brown, people respond by saying that he has paid the price, done his time, everyone deserves a second chance, don't I believe in rehabilitation.

2) Hmmmm....I don't think people believe in rehabilitation and second chances across the board. To verify this, I mention Gary Glitter

3) Confirmed. People don't believe in rehabilitation or second chances across the board because (quite rightly), what Gary Glitter did was disgusting and despicable

4) OK Can we now move on from a blanket argument that people who have done a crime have the right to rehabilitation, and move on to discussing the nature of what he actually did, and why the public's response to that (even three years later) is actually important and sends a clear message to women about what happens to abusers. (i.e. we're still pretty much OK with them)