Dispatches channel 4 expose **Read Opening Post before posting**

SEPT 23 1989

Yeah a court of law that’s where he will be found guilty

not a television station

Snooker Loopy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131700#Comment_121131700

It's very relevant as the right-wing conspiracy world has demonstrated that it's prepared to completely dismiss extremely credible and serious allegations of rape against one of its heroes, instead choosing to shout "conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!"

This is a demonstration that the whole movement is absolutely sodden through with the worst sort of misogyny and openly tolerates rape within its ranks. It's a prima facie demonstration that the movement Brand has chosen to be a part of is an extremely dangerous fascist cult in which facts mean nothing. This is integral to the story.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131728#Comment_121131728

If Brand thinks he has been defamed by a "television station" (of course it is much more than that) he can take to a court of law himself and sue for damages and to vindicate his reputation. In such a trial he has the benefit of the doubt and the onus is on C4 and The Times to justify their claims.

Serious accusations have been made from credible sources.

He doesnt have to be found guilty in a criminal trial for people to form an opinion based on the information available. That is not and never has been the standard of civil society.

Have you never formed a view on an accusation of criminal behaviour or do you have no opinion other than the verdict of a jury?

SEPT 23 1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131783#Comment_121131783

I have formed an opinion before on people

but in this case I wonder why now?

I have no time for men who mess women up as a son husband and a father of women

Water John

they have been working on this story for a couple of years. Presume they went ahead with publishing and broadcasting when all the legal inspections were done.

Shelga

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131700#Comment_121131700

It’s not about his political views. I doubt he has any genuine political views whatsoever. It’s his extremely suspiciously timed pivot into the world of conspiracy theorists, right around the time he was called a sexual predator on a comedy show and disappeared from the UK tv circuit. Now he has a ready-made gang of gullible fools who are ready to defend him to the hilt.

K-9

Why now?

The question I'd be more concerned about is, why it took until now for this open secret in the industry to finally get out?

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131819#Comment_121131819

You could pretty much say why now in relation to any historical sex crimes coming to light? I'm guessing it's largely because the rumours had been known for years so an investigation was opened into their credibility. And this very much so appears to have been an open secret.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131819#Comment_121131819

Someone mentioned earlier on the thread Brand threatened legal action against one of the accusers prior to this investigation. Thats chilling effect to an ordinary citizen without expensive legal backing.

Look at Weinstein case. Why did that take so long?

Things like this need momentum and a champion.

Theres no dount Brand has messed women about. The question is whether it crossed the threshold into criminal conduct. Establishing that in a criminal.trial where it comes down to one persons word against another is a high bar.

Brand has the means to seek recourse in the courts. In my eyes it will be damning if he does not.

There is no indication Brand sought an injunction either to prevent the allegations from being aired. This has been done before iirc.

Water John

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131834#Comment_121131834

The libel laws, simply. Sean Locke and Katherine Ryan went as far as they could.

Xander10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131834#Comment_121131834

It's an industry wide question, not just this case.

Seems everyone knew about Jimmy Saville, TOTPs djs for years etc.

The real question is, these cases must be used as a basis to ensure media outlets have a zero tolerance of anyone abusing a position of power

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131776#Comment_121131776

Thanks for making my point.

About as rational a response as: Harvey Weinstein started to sexually assault women in the early 90s, around the same time he started to contribute to the Democratic party. His activities were well known within Hollywood and political circles but were ignored for decades because of his commercial success. He started donating to the Clintons in 1995 and was invited to lots of events by them. This continued right though the Obama years, he was a large donor to the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. This demonstrates that the US Democratic party is absolutely sodden through with the worst sort of misogyny and openly tolerates rape in it's ranks.

The above is clearly nonsense, as is your similar rant. Those supporting Brand or condemning Brand because of his current political views are idiots, and have no bearing whatsoever on whether he is guilty or not of the crimes he is alleged to have committed in 2006-2013.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131832#Comment_121131832

Yes, he never seemed to have any interest in politics prior to the alt right / conspiracy theory crank version of himself emerging. It was a strange departure.

BorneTobyWilde

Danny Masterson got 30 years for crimes committed 20 years ago, testimony of his victims was enough to convince a jury, without a smoking gun, I dunno if things work differently in a UK court, but in the Masterson case the jury found the victims stories credible, and found Masterson guilty. Additionally, a report by journalist Tony Ortega, which elaborated on the rape accounts of the three women, gave weight to the case, and while Masterson's lawyer argued that there was no evidence against Masterson, the jury nonetheless found him guilty on the testimonies of the two victims.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131278#Comment_121131278

Was waiting to see when Roman Polanski would voice his support as well.

Snooker Loopy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131903#Comment_121131903

You don't get to decide what's relevant based on your own personal biases - the relevant angles are obvious.

It was liberal left who championed the #metoo movement which emerged in the wake of Weinstein. That was motivated by a desire for truth and justice.

The conspiracist right wing and indeed much of the mainstream right wing sought to deny that truth and justice at that time. Their concern was for the predators, not the victims.

It's the conspiracist right wing including the main opinion formers in that movement, Elon Musk, Tuckers Carlson, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Alex Jones etc. who are now championing the idea that any rape allegation against one of their own is automatically a conspiracy, ie. they're motivated by a desire to deny truth and justice.

Right-wing conspiracists of course want to quash discussion of these issues because it makes them look abominable, because they are abominable people.

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131832#Comment_121131832

Brand started his pivot to the right in 2016 when he essentially supported Trump in that year's US election, referring to the Russian collusion story as a Democratic party conspiracy. The sexual predator allegation was in 2018, so he would have been quite prescient in 2016 to anticipate this. I wouldn't grant him that level of intelligence.

I do agree his political views are not genuine, he has always been in the business of shock jock entertainment and making money off his dirtbag lifestyle.

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131940#Comment_121131940

You don't get to decide what's relevant either, especially as you are the main poster who is dragging the thread into nonsensical and irrelevant political point scoring. If you want to discuss left versus right US culture wars then go to the Trump or Biden threads. As for the #metoo movement, it isn't all positive news, plenty lives have been destroyed by false claims. Leftists tend not to care about those victims though.

Answer the question. What is the relevance of Brand's current political views to whether he is guilty or not of crimes allegedly committed in 2006 - 2013?

If these cases go to trial it will be a jury deciding guilt or non guilt, not left or right loons on social media.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131903#Comment_121131903

The thing is, I don't think most are basing their conclusions about the rapes on his political leanings, it's the accounts and contemporary evidence. We are considering the audience he's targeting by claiming it's a conspiracy against him for his political views but that's because of him. I would have the exact same view of the accounts ten years ago.

The people defending him tend to lean heavily right or are conspiracy theorists. We've had numerous defenders on the thread who have defended because of his political views.

Snooker Loopy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131983#Comment_121131983

I didn't decide the right wing conspiracy world's arrogant dismissal of extremely credible rape allegations is relevant to the discussion, it is obviously deeply relevant - that's why I'm discussing it.

Water John

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132001#Comment_121132001

No it isn't obvious. It's mainly a distraction.

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121131994#Comment_121131994

Quote a post where anyone has defended rape, maybe I've missed it but all I've seen are posters stating that he should be granted the presumption of innocence unless found guilty in a court of law.

geospatial

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132001#Comment_121132001

But you've already decided he is guilty, so you are not credible. There are all kinds of potential reasons for these claims, they could be true or partially true, they could be faulty memories, it could be regret at getting sexually involved with a dirtbag, revenge, etc. Unless the claims are investigated by the police, charges filed, and a jury gets to decided based on the evidence, anyone claiming he is guilty or not guilty is speculating.

All we know for sure is that Brand was a self proclaimed dirtbag for an extended period, and those getting involved in relationships with him or having casual sex with him were well aware of this.

Snooker Loopy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132016#Comment_121132016

Some cases throw up connected issues which are of massive significance to society and give the case a much greater wider significance than it would otherwise have. The Weinstein case was one because led to other women being encouraged to seek justice. The Barry Bennell case was similar because it opened the floodgates as victims of sexual abuse in football came forward and led to a string of convictions of other paedophiles. The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard case was significant because it demonstrated how the cult of celebrity worship could undermine justice and lead to a bizarre and perverse verdict. This case is important because it lays bare the bottomless depth of the right wing conspiracy world's contempt for women.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132001#Comment_121132001

Did you feel the same way when Frédéric Mitterrand, Bernard Kouchner and other senior members of the Socialist Party of France defended Roman Polanski when he was arrested in 2009 for having sex with a 13-year-old girl?

You're trying to make out that a certain slice of political opinion is uniquely toxic.

Yet it seems that bad behaviour and lame defences of it cut across political lines.

Juanita Broaddrick maintains to this day that Bill Clinton raped her. What do you think about how Clinton's supporters responded to her?

A former professor from the University of Arkansas claimed Bill Clinton had groped a female student and tried to trap her in his office when he was a professor. Two other people backed up this allegation.

Read all about it:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/hillary-clinton-bill-clintons-accusers-dont-fit-into-metoo/

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132017#Comment_121132017

There's been multiple posters who have said it's a political hit job... Outside here we've got the likes of Andrew Tate and Elon Musk defending him. The former has also claimed he's personally being politically targeted...

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132017#Comment_121132017

Theres been lots of accusations to discredit the sources - either the women or the media outlets are in it for money or profile.

Immediate disbelief of the accusations without regard to the evidence.

Does not acknowledge that there are many many more rapes actually occurring than ever make it to trial or conviction.

Does not acknowledge the difficulty of proving 'date rape'.

Or implying the women couldnt have been raped because they were on a date or because the man is popular with women so why would he need to rape.

Insinuations the allegations are part of a mainstream agenda to discredit X and it is happening now because of Xs views.

You can replace X with Brand.

No one comes right out and defends rape but in muddying the waters, it is giving space for rapists to operate and creates a chilling environment for victims to come forward.

Posters who credit the accusations have been quite clear that in a criminal trial there Brand is entitled to presumption of innocence due to the penalties attached.

Bur a criminal case is not required for people to form an opinion as to whether the accusations are credible and likely to be true.

Brand can also vindicate his reputation in a court case. It will be telling if he does not.

Snooker Loopy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132043#Comment_121132043

I believe the women. You say I'm not credible because of that. You're therefore saying that anybody who believes the women is not credible. That is a judgement that the only credible opinion is that Brand didn't do it.

Your position as far as I'm concerned is both not credible and deeply reprehensible.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132067#Comment_121132067

It seems to be inseperable from your agenda as a political hack since you mainly want to discuss Brand's alleged crimes in light of the political views he went on to adopt afterwards or other celebrities not condemning or defending him. That makes your credibility suspect.

Lots of cautious ordinary people like boards posters are keeping their cards close to their chest and playing wait-and-see. How is that reprehensible? There have been false accusations against Cliff Richards, Conor McGregor, Alex Salmond and others. There's no moral imperative to make a quick judgement - people can just wait for the story to unfold.

Snooker Loopy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132054#Comment_121132054

You're whatabouting.

Polanski is a child sex abuser and any effort to rehabilitate him no matter from what source is reprehensible.

Juanita Broaddrick testified under oath that she hadn't been raped. A lot of people here are on about due process and that was due process.

There's a default reaction on the right to automatically dismiss credible allegations of rape against right wing figures which simply doesn't exist on the liberal left.