Man who acts like a creep turns out to be a creep. News at 11.
Lazy. That's not the story.
Sometimes if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck, it's just a duck.
Russel Brand is a rapist and sex abuser. I'm thinking about his victims and the bravery of the women who told their story so this vile man could be put behind bars. He wasn't targeted for his political speech, he was targeting women to abuse them. He wasn't railroaded, he was exposed as a predator. Some of the testimony that was presented by the prosecution was truly horrific. Now he is in prison, maybe he will learn what consent actually means.
Well.....yes...and no.He wasn't targeted for his political speech, he was targeting women to abuse them.
There's currently a lot of gloating going on and I get the impression that it's masquerading as "feeling for the victims" and "it's about time this monster gets what he deserves".
It's in the additional comments "he's always been a creep or a weirdo (or whatever)" that tells me they're judging him for being exactly that, and the rape allegations/convictions are merely covenient tools to punish this "outrageous person".
I'm not defending Russell Brand I'm just saying that there's a strong undercurrent of hands-wringing and pearls-clutching hypocrisy in these comments, a sense of satisfaction in the "I told you so!" regardless of how informed they actually are.
I mean, for exactly the same reasons people are inclined to support the accused criminal who has a pleasant and level-headed profile.
"Burn the witch!" was never about eliminating danger & disaster, it was about that bitch they hated.
I really have not detected any gloating over Russell Brand's conviction, I think the reaction is more one of shame and embarrassment of previously finding this guy entertaining, even though he used to boast about past lewd behaviour.Well.....yes...and no.
There's currently a lot of gloating going on and I get the impression that it's masquerading as "feeling for the victims" and "it's about time this monster gets what he deserves".
It's in the additional comments "he's always been a creep or a weirdo (or whatever)" that tells me they're judging him for being exactly that, and the rape allegations/convictions are merely covenient tools to punish this "outrageous person".
I'm not defending Russell Brand I'm just saying that there's a strong undercurrent of hands-wringing and pearls-clutching hypocrisy in these comments, a sense of satisfaction in the "I told you so!" regardless of how informed they actually are.
I mean, for exactly the same reasons people are inclined to support the accused criminal who has a pleasant and level-headed profile.
"Burn the witch!" was never about eliminating danger & disaster, it was about that bitch they hated.
I really have not detected any gloating over Russell Brand's conviction, I think the reaction is more one of shame and embarrassment of previously finding this guy entertaining, even though he used to boast about past lewd behaviour.
I also detect there is a significant section of people, almost exclusively men, who are choosing to defend or mitigate his actions and to question the credibility of the women he abused. Even saying people are judging him for being a weirdo is doing that, when people are actually judging him for being a rapist and sex abuser who just happens to be weird. Similarly, people saying they wanted to get him for rape to punish him for his political commentary when nobody takes his political views seriously as they are are a bigger joke than his old stand up routines.
Sometimes the evidence is straightforward and overwhelming: Russell Grant is an odious rapist who has been found out. There is nomitigation, there are no excuses and he deserves to be in prision.
That simply is not true. The strength of the case against Brand is that one of the victims told her father and friends of what happened at the time which provided contemporary corroboration of her recollections. His victims independently describes a similar pattern of behaviour. The testimony of many of the women was very consistent over the course of the investigation and trial, they did not change their stories "on demand". So it was much more than a case of "he said, she said."Even some observers who don't like Brand, and dismiss his explanations of being targeted for his political commentary, have observed that the case was "he-said/she-said" and that the judge seemed biased throughout the entire trial. And that he was over-sentenced.
And some of the women have changed their stories over time on demand.
This is what a public hit job looks like. But it's far too easy to get indignant, ignorant fools (who think they're not) to chase Frankenstein's monster up the hill with a bunch of torches. Especially after he pulls a young girl out of a lake -- which, admittedly, looks kind of bad.
That simply is not true. The strength of the case against Brand is that one of the victims told her father and friends of what happened at the time which provided contemporary corroboration of her recollections. His victims independently describes a similar pattern of behaviour. The testimony of many of the women was very consistent over the course of the investigation and trial, they did not change their stories "on demand". So it was much more than a case of "he said, she said."
Rape and sexual abuse cases are notoriously difficult for the Crown Prosecution Service to secure a guilty court verdict (I think it's only about 4%) and the fact that was was the outcome in this case shows the strength of the evidence presented against Brand.
How about YOU tell us more?Tell us more...!