Dispatches . Russel brand .

[fabmaccawhackythumbsaloft]

I actually like Russel brand . And I don't think he's ever hidden what he used to be in his heyday. He's always been very open about his drug use, and promiscuity.

I read his first book . I watch his videos on fb , and while I don't always agree with him, he seems to have totally overhauled his lifestyle, attitudes, is into yoga, self care, seems to be a decent husband and father .

Is this newsworthy ? Young famous comedian in heyday slept with lots and lots of women , consensually he says ?

Hes never hidden it.

On drug misuse I alWays had time for his views that it should be dealt with as a medical issue not a criminal one

What's the news story ?
I always feel like there is much glee and salivating before the media try and knock someone down.
I don't think this is a huw edwards where people would be shocked at him trying to pick up young women behind his wife's back

It seems that brand has settled down , lives a fairly mundane lifestyle and is happy with his choices .

Or am I completely missing something?

Nope.

Been in her position

Asked the same questions by a barrister.

He walked free. I know what I'm talking about

Lesley Douglas is now at Universal Music

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/lesley-douglas-69b46427

Ffs it stops being consensual when the recipient says stop!,,,,

Or makes it clear that they want it to stop! Teach your kids that ! Starting doesn't mean it has to finish .

Presumably you can appreciate that something can be rape, but not possible or incredibly difficult to prove in court? You seem to be delighting in how a girl wouldn't be beleived because of the circumstances of her sexual assualt.

To repeat again, if someone changes their mind during a sexual act, and you continue, that is sexual assault.

It's my kind of work too , when consent is withdrawn its rape

@RedToothBrush Already its being talked about how the BBC and Channel 4 are likely to have to face a Parliamentary Select Committee hearing to justify why no action was taken over multiple complaints.

I'll answer you that question: because BBC and channel 4 were more preoccupied with creating a great news entertainment piece and tarnishing a mans reputation (who they had a decade long personal vendetta with) than taking the actual man through the proper legal justice system knowing the case would had zero legs to stand on.

My *line of work I mean

'I was sat up in the bed up against the headboard, and he forced his penis down my throat and I couldn't breathe. It was just choking me and I couldn't breathe, and I was pushing him away and he wasn't backing off at all,'

She did say it was forced though, are you thick?

Matt Morgan has a podcast. No I've never heard of him either

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Morgan_(comedian)

Yes. Some pp seem to be struggling with the legalities or even understanding basic consent.

Quite. I ran a sexual consent workshop for freshers and they were perfectly able to appreciate that they should be looking for continued enthusiastic consent from their partner.

We are far beyond the point of someone being able to have plausible deniability because "she didn't say no"

Good luck proving it twenty years later without any witnesses...

It really doesn't matter what we think on here, you know?

Absolutely this. The 44,000 complaints made by the public who heard the Sachs call compared to the deafening silence from everyone when Brand offered up his female colleague to perform a naked massage on Jimmy Savile, and told his audience he wanted to fuck the female news anchor under her desk. I felt as sick at the hypocrisy and clear disregard for the women - but an old man gets mildly embarrassed and all of a sudden Brand becomes a problem.

It was as sickening as hearing about the rape and oral rape.

The legalities rarely support the tenets of consent ime

Hot also has no concept of Investigative Journalism it is NOT trial by media.

Again I raise the point of why will Brand fail in any legal action taken against C4 or The Times?

Its the really important point to make in terms of anyone who says 'trial by media'. The media's JOB is to build cases like this.

In a liberal democracy we have checks and balances over power.

When the legal system fails the check and balance is DESIGNED to be the media. In this case, thats whats happening. The media is filling that space where a failure of the justice system / normal institutions who should protect the public has occurred.

This isn't an accident. Its quite deliberate. It is the role of the media to do this.

Its funny seeing someone seeing someone throw their toys out of their pram because journalists have done their actual job for once rather than rewriting a press release or doing a puff piece to gain brownie points and access.

STOP talking to me.

Cannot believe what I'm reading.

Consent can be withdrawn at any time and that's not only a thing on mumsnet.

The fact that these cases often don't get to court (because there is often so little evidence due to the nature of the crime) does not change the fact that if you continue when someone wants to stop you are raping them. Something being hard to prove doesn't change that fact that it's illegal.

The fact you think that her consenting to be in his bed means she consented to anything he wanted to do is genuinely terrifying.

You can argue you don't believe it happened if you want but you can't argue the legality of forcing your penis into someone's mouth after they've made it clear they don't want it. That's not up for debate.

Or are you of the opinion that if you murder someone but leave behind no evidence then it's not illegal either?

Absolutely disgusting.

I feel really sorry for his wife and daughters as well as the victims. Their lives have been completely shattered.

Much was made of the former sixteen year old who was his girlfriend, and while seedy in the extreme nothing illegal appears to have occurred in that instance.

Nothing illegal except for him raping her you mean @HotSince82? Forcing your penis into someone's mouth is rape fwiw.

@HotSince82

When did it stop being consensual, you ask?

'I was sat up in the bed up against the headboard, and he forced his penis down my throat and I couldn't breathe. It was just choking me and I couldn't breathe, and I was pushing him away and he wasn't backing off at all,'

Seriously?! Pick one of the points above from 'forced' onwards. Or if that's not enough, 'I couldn't breathe' or if that's not enough 'it was choking me' or if that's not enough 'I was pushing him away'.

HTH.

Yawn.

Men who use prostitutes show that they feel entitled to sex and aren't particularly concerned about whether the person they are doing sex to is into it. So why wouldn't they rape someone? It's cheaper than paying after all

That's really not fair comment. I have no admiration for men who would pay for a prostitute, but saying they're one step away from being a rapist is outrageous.

Prove it.

It's apparently 'heresay'

@HotSince82

The legalities rarely support the tenets of consent ime

But you didn't just say the courts might not view the circumstances as non consensual.

You asked when it became non consensual and pointed out she had consented previously. That she got into his bed willingly. That she chose to be there, so when did it become non consensual?

You asked those questions and framed the situation as consensual. You did. Repeatedly.

That is what people have taken issue with.