Russell Brand

[Wassapp]

AIBU to think... 'here we go again?'

Anyone watching? I've always said 'innocent until proven guilty' but also 'there is no smoke without fire'.

Having been sexually assaulted myself, one of the stories seem so similar to mine.

What's your thoughts?

This is the most confusing post, I know. I just don't know how I feel.

I find it all too likely that he's guilty, he's already had issues with the BBC over his talking about the daughter of a BBC actor so this must be very unpleasant for her. In a similar way we used to call Savile a perv and never watched him.

If 16 year olds are supposed to be too young to make their own choices, isn’t marrying one worse than seeing/dating one?

@Zebdya what a load of bollocks!
It was 17 years ago! Not the fucking 1970’s!

You’d be surprised how different attitudes were even just a couple of decades ago. Myself and my friends personally had experiences which would be reported to police nowadays.

I'm 47. So 17 years ago I'd have been 30. A man my age sending a taxi to a school to pick up a 16 year old to have sex with would not have been in any way considered normal or acceptable. And that's without the grooming and rape.

I'd say marrying an older man is worse than having sex with one a few times. Teenage Diana (Charles hung around with her and her sister when she was 16 and he in his 30s) was used by Charles and the RF because she was a beautiful, innocent, wealthy virgin teenager. They needed these characteristics to create beautiful heirs. Diana was forced into a loveless marriage and used as a breeding machine at a young age. She even had to undergo gynae exams prior to marriage.

Aaron Johnson was groomed at 17 by 40 something Samantha who produced the film he was acting in. She was in a position of trust. Again, marriage and children - a beautiful young adult.

Totally not excusing Brand. So many celebs need to be called out. Why just single out Brand? I thought Dispatches was going to discuss more than one person.

Depends on what circles you moved in I suppose. I agree that would have been unacceptable in middle class circles. But it would have been largely overlooked if you were lower class. A fact which is borne out by my own experience.

So the whole 'biggest story of the year' social media heads up.... was it some PR weird attempt at hyping this thing up so that once people find out what it's actually about they end up saying 'what?! t'is just RB being a womaniser, no bi deal'?

@Anotherrname
Personally this is my take, there's a lot of them exactly the same as Brand, all hiding under an open secret. But since Brand has turned anti-MSM and isn't following by their rules anymore they've decided to expose him right back, maybe that sounds crazy, but it's rather convinient.

Walliams is another example... if you know you know!

Awful abhorrent creeps, burn them all at the stake

Agree with this, 16 year olds weren’t considered to be children the way they seem to be now. Obviously it’s young, and I think people would find the age gap sleazy, but the question would be are they over the age of consent. More people used to move out of home at 16 and get a flat. The attitude was more – at 16 you can join the army, you can get a full time job, you can have sex.

The mood in the country nowadays seems to be that 16 is too young to consent to sex with someone older.
(The language of paedophelia – grooming etc. – is used about 16 and 17 year olds in a way that it wasn’t 20 years ago – this was an era when a national newspaper did a count down for 15-year- old Charlotte Church turning 16.)
Maybe there should be a law change to reflect changing attitudes.

All of that said, the really disturbing bits in the programme were the allegations of coercion and non-consent.

This.

I was 10 years old 17 years ago. When I was in secondary school, I knew 14-15 year olds who dated men in their 20s. I don't think anyone did anything. It is really gross though.

The mood in the country nowadays seems to be that 16 is too young to consent to sex with someone older.
Look at all this stuff about Ashton Kutcher, who was filmed saying that everyone was waiting for certain girls to turn 16. People are shocked, but this attitude of 16yo being fair game was very common, even just a couple of decades ago.

I believe the women in the dispatches program last night 100% and I understand why they haven’t gone to the police. This is just musing, but why now? Why did they start investigating now - what was the trigger? I wonder if there is more on more people.

Can't stand Russell Brand. But the most annoying thing about him is his annoying faux put on accent.

Not hard to believe that he was very promiscuous as he said. But some of the promiscuity crossed the line into rape, sexual assault and other forms of harassment.

Didn't the sun have a countdown for Emma Watson turning 16 so she was then 'fair game'?

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that consent was thought about differently. If you were over 16 and didn’t say no that was deemed to be consent, and therefore not criminal behaviour. Imbalances of power and age were largely irrelevant. Thankfully we seem to have moved on from that.

Well I think most mothers would have taken a different view, even 17 years ago

If you read the newspaper article, the woman said that the taxi driver begged her not to go in and said he would drive her home free of charge, so it wasn't 'just accepted' then by everyone. It was normalised in the media ( and in The Times' sister paper, the Sun, celebrated) but in the general public, it was questionable behaviour. This story is about media organisations letting their 'stars get away with whatever they wanted because they didn't feel their duty of care to ordinary staff members like runners, newsreaders, assistants etc. was as important as keeping the 'talent' happy.

The closing ‘got a story’ type email address before the closing credits jumped out at me. Though always on such programmes my first thought in this one is for others to send in something related to this particular episode.

It totally was – once someone was over 16 it was considered fair game. That was the only question – are you over 16. And like another poster above, many girls at my school dated men in their 20s when they were 14 or 15.

At Uni I had a friend who was 18 who was going out with a 30 year old. That was all considered fine, and if anything his friends were impressed that he’d got someone that age.

In Peep Show, Mark has sex with a ‘teenager’ and has an inner dialogue reminding himself that this would be considered the dream. (Obviously ‘teenage’ can include 18 and 19 year olds too)

OT but I think the law needs to be changed so that consent is only consent for a 16 or 17 year old if they hare having sex with someone no more than 3 or 4 years older than them. Any older than that then no.

I’m not saying it’s right, of course it’s not. But “over 16 and didn’t say no” was deemed to be consent. Imbalances of age and power weren’t really considered.

Maybe because he challenges the establishment and the way the world is run and calls out large corporations - is it a big surprise there’s a story to discredit him. Do you really believe everything you’re told to without question??

TBH I gave up watching about half way through.Really sickening .Yet another entitled male doing what he wants! The young lady of around 16 at the time is just awful