Can we talk about Laura Gallacher

Yes, it's not: he said she said.

It's: he said she said she said she said she said she said she said

I won’t be watching his YouTube channel but I fully believe you that he behaves that way towards his wife. Men like that gaslight women around them so easily and readily it’s like breathing to them. It’s their kids I feel most sorry for (other than his victims of course) as they will be growing up thinking this dynamic in a relationship is normal and so the cycle will continue. I really hope that once he is (hopefully) banged up for a long stretch Laura comes to her senses and protects her children.

Totally agree, his trial is still ongoing. Generally really inappropriate.

Why is it bonkers? Presumptuous to assume she doesn't leave the house or talk to anyone.

6 allegations...I think the statistically that's something like one in a million that he didn't do it. Don't fancy your chances...

Katy Perry who groped Justin Bieber when he was a teenager? No doubt she has got dirt on RB, but she’s hardly squeaky clean herself so there’s mutual convenience in not actually saying outright whatever it is

I thought similarly re her childhood... I'd be surprised if there wasn't someone then, that makes Brand feel familiar.

No it’s not. Hush now.

She’s either completely deluded and stupid or scared stiff of him. I do wish Katy Perry would spill the tea on him as well.

The thing to remember about a robust defence is that it’s part of what makes our adversarial criminal system one of the best in the world. Without proper defence lawyers we don’t have convictions.

Although it makes for uncomfortable listening in the case of complainants in sexual offences it is actually necessary for them to be challenged. The defence is not “gaslighting” someone by testing their evidence even though it can be very distressing for a victim of course.

Defence questioning in such cases has, as hard as it is to believe, moved on quite considerably in the last twenty years in not going quite as hard on complainants. Some of this is calculating - juries can take against a barrister who harangues a woman in a rape or other SA case.
Their sexual history as a whole can’t be brought in as of right. There are screens when giving evidence and more people are allowed to have recorded evidence adduced. Still a long way to go sadly.

Ahh that makes sense. Interesting - I wonder will happen next then. Thank you for the clarification :)

I suspect the defence will be gaslighting the women, saying they don’t remember, they wanted it. They’ll bring up inconsistencies in their stories to discredit what they’re saying. I’m keeping up with the trial on a podcast, but I’m actually dreading the defence. It’s going to make me so angry. The defence are cross-examining the women as they give their evidence for the prosecution. They won't be recalling them @blankittyblank . The defence don't actually have to produce any evidence - RB can choose not to testify and may well be advised not to. He doesn't have to prove anything - the defence may just give a closing speech saying the testimony of these women proves nothing.

She was fairly young when she first met him but much older when she actually got together with him and started a family and there’s no way anyone on earth could not know what he was like by then. He’d been very open about his addictions, his disgusting sexual practices and his attitude to women.

I think she totally believes all the Sunday service stuff and the social media stuff they do together. If he gets convicted and sent to prison she’ll see him as a martyr Jesus figure, it’ll be the equivalent of the crucifixion and I honestly think she’ll stand by him.

Poor kids though.

I think the underlying belief system is the same. That he is smarter than just about everyone and can produce something that the public want to buy into.

He’s the most phenomenal grifter. Before he decided to monetise his mish mash of Christianity - he was selling a repackaged twelve step recovery programme via a paid membership website.

This goes against the absolute fundamental tenets of twelve step recovery - that they are free to users and other recovered addicts give their time and guidance for free. He’s deeply odious.

I met him in 2023, at the festival they put on. He is a character. Larger than life and believes his own hype. I think he's probably different now to the earlier period of his fame.

Maybe.

But maybe not.

Last week, a Northern Irish politician who was found guilty of raping two young girls. His wife came across him doing the crime and ... closed the door.

Unfortunately, many of these men use as a cover the "family man" thing. Or, maybe they are family men and also that man. The wife/woman in the relationship does bear scrutiny as people try and injure out what was/is going on.

Edited for spelling.

He is so dead behind the eyes. He is chilling

and now his kids are appearing in the show.

What’s bonkers?

RB definitely bonkers. OP’s analysis is sound.

Though bothering to do the analysis is maybe a bit wacky!

I think most people are saying she’s been brainwashed and needs help

Exactly this and I hope that one of the jurors puts this to the room when they are deciding his fate.

I’ve done jury service, I think cases like this must be horrendous, really feel for them all.

Her sister has said something like shes keeping a close eye on her. Which feels like we know you know, but Laura doesn’t. Family sometimes hsve to tread carefully because otherwise they will me cut out for raising any concern.

i was a victim of domestic abuse. Hard to say that out loud. But I don’t see it until after he’d gone. Not on this scale, but it’s really possible shes been brainwashed and is in too deep for her to see it (3 kids, coercive controlling etc)

I hope they do silence him. His voice drives me mad. And he talks utter drivel.