|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 17, 2023 10:33:53 GMT
I've not been able to fully buy his face turn, as it's been such a 180. I don't know the facts of the recent accusations, but right now, they seem a bit sus to me.
I believe that over the last few years, many people have woken up to the MSM being full of bullshit propaganda.
I strongly suspect this move will add to their ranks.
|
|
|
Post by bubba on Sept 17, 2023 18:27:44 GMT
My initial gut reaction is this is another Joe Rogan like attempt at a take down of someone shining a light on the MSM bullshit governmental mouthpiece agenda.
Not familiar with accusations nevermind there being anything concrete though he has said he DOES have evidence to the contrary though not taking that at face value yet. It would seem wholly against his being a crusader on a whole host moral and social issues. If it is just a contrived takedown atteempt then just the accusations like shit will stick and permanently damage his reputation, even if he were to prosecute and win for defamation, so in that respect they win even if they lose. There's nothing new under the Sun and things like this have long been used as part of the 3 letter agencies playbook.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 17, 2023 18:59:30 GMT
My initial gut reaction is this is another Joe Rogan like attempt at a take down of someone shining a light on the MSM bullshit governmental mouthpiece agenda.
Not familiar with accusations nevermind there being anything concrete though he has said he DOES have evidence to the contrary though not taking that at face value yet. It would seem wholly against his being a crusader on a whole host moral and social issues. If it is just a contrived takedown atteempt then just the accusations like shit will stick and permanently damage his reputation, even if he were to prosecute and win for defamation, so in that respect they win even if they lose. There's nothing new under the Sun and things like this have long been used as part of the 3 letter agencies playbook.
Of course they have. They are not our friends. No idea as to the truth of the matter, but my understanding is: 5 accusers. 4 anonymous, 1 an ex-girlfriend. All alleged incidents about 15 years old. None of whom have gone to the police (yet?), but all have in unison gone to the press. Actual facts: The MSM don't care for the competition. He's been anti-establishment, especially over the lurgy and the resultant billionaire's who now have our money, there's an election coming up.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 17, 2023 19:04:23 GMT
As for damage to reputation, I doubt it. Most people have become tribal. People who (now) don't like him (used to love him) will buy it. The people who now like him, and previously didn't, will require proof.
What I suspect is, without that proof, there may well be more people seeing through the MSM
|
|
|
Post by cnote on Sept 17, 2023 19:26:13 GMT
My initial gut reaction is this is another Joe Rogan like attempt at a take down of someone shining a light on the MSM bullshit governmental mouthpiece agenda.
Not familiar with accusations nevermind there being anything concrete though he has said he DOES have evidence to the contrary though not taking that at face value yet. It would seem wholly against his being a crusader on a whole host moral and social issues. If it is just a contrived takedown atteempt then just the accusations like shit will stick and permanently damage his reputation, even if he were to prosecute and win for defamation, so in that respect they win even if they lose. There's nothing new under the Sun and things like this have long been used as part of the 3 letter agencies playbook.
Of course they have. They are not our friends. No idea as to the truth of the matter, but my understanding is: 5 accusers. 4 anonymous, 1 an ex-girlfriend. All alleged incidents about 15 years old. None of whom have gone to the police (yet?), but all have in unison gone to the press. Actual facts: The MSM don't care for the competition. He's been anti-establishment, especially over the lurgy and the resultant billionaire's who now have our money, there's an election coming up. There’s a twitter post from an ex gf where she claims msm connected her too. She gave him a good reference but it wasn’t included in the attack on Russell Brand. At the mo I’m suspicious but I’ll wait to see how things pan out.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 17, 2023 19:28:47 GMT
Of course they have. They are not our friends. No idea as to the truth of the matter, but my understanding is: 5 accusers. 4 anonymous, 1 an ex-girlfriend. All alleged incidents about 15 years old. None of whom have gone to the police (yet?), but all have in unison gone to the press. Actual facts: The MSM don't care for the competition. He's been anti-establishment, especially over the lurgy and the resultant billionaire's who now have our money, there's an election coming up. There’s a twitter post from an ex gf where she claims msm connected her too. She gave him a good reference but it wasn’t included in the attack on Russell Brand. At the mo I’m suspicious but I’ll wait to see how things pan out. She's not gonna get paid for a story like that
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Sept 17, 2023 21:47:20 GMT
I find it fascinating that for some, people like Russell Brand and Dan Wootten they are victims of a takedown, and yet for others like Huw Edwards and Phillip Schofield are not.
It’s almost uncanny
|
|
|
Post by cnote on Sept 17, 2023 22:19:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 22:51:05 GMT
I find it fascinating that for some, people like Russell Brand and Dan Wootten they are victims of a takedown, and yet for others like Huw Edwards and Phillip Schofield are not. It’s almost uncanny I have never liked Brand, Wootten or Schofield and hardly ever watched the BBC so can't comment on Edwards. Here's my opinion, there could be some truth to it, but it's not the medias job to be judge, jury and executor. I didn't bother watching the documentary. As for Wootton he was ITV through and through at one point and now he pretends to rail against the mainstream Really this is for the police to investigate and decide whether there's going to be charges or not
|
|
|
Post by cnote on Sept 17, 2023 23:01:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Sept 18, 2023 12:10:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 15:45:28 GMT
Certainly didn't put 'em off
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 15:47:31 GMT
Was he going for rustling the most establishment feathers on MSM, within 3 mins ?
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 15:56:57 GMT
I find it fascinating that for some, people like Russell Brand and Dan Wootten they are victims of a takedown, and yet for others like Huw Edwards and Phillip Schofield are not. It’s almost uncanny I have never liked Brand, Wootten or Schofield and hardly ever watched the BBC so can't comment on Edwards. Here's my opinion, there could be some truth to it, but it's not the medias job to be judge, jury and executor. I didn't bother watching the documentary. As for Wootton he was ITV through and through at one point and now he pretends to rail against the mainstream Really this is for the police to investigate and decide whether there's going to be charges or not And Brand used to be a full on commie, plus he has over six and a half million subscribers on YouTube, which makes me suspect controlled opposition. Best not to bite with the whatabouteries. Still, there's a massive difference between Edwards and Scholfield, where everyone at their work knew about them, and their employers tried to cover it up, and the MSM specifically targeting someone, and making a whole programme about it, based on SOME women's say so. Brand - I don't know, obviously. Clearly a hit job, whether true or not. Personally, I think 10 - 15 years ago, he wasn't exactly stuck for fanny, and these accusers, whoever they are, haven't been screaming rape from the rooftops, so I'm guessing their motive is more financial benefit than revenge.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Sept 18, 2023 17:32:25 GMT
I still don't get what Schofield actually did wrong apart from not telling the blonde sidekick what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 17:45:15 GMT
I still don't get what Schofield actually did wrong apart from not telling the blonde sidekick what was going on. I'd say she knew. Meets some kid when the kid was 15. Got him a job when he was twenty, and only after then started banging him.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Sept 18, 2023 17:47:36 GMT
I still don't get what Schofield actually did wrong apart from not telling the blonde sidekick what was going on. I'd say she knew. Meets some kid when the kid was 15. Got him a job when he was twenty, and only after then started banging him. So what's his crime. When will he be arrested and charged?
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 18:10:14 GMT
I'd say she knew. Meets some kid when the kid was 15. Got him a job when he was twenty, and only after then started banging him. So what's his crime. When will he be arrested and charged? I'd say not everyone buys that version of events. In any event, if some fifty odd year old married man, took a shine to your 15 year old son / daughter, and a few years later you found out he was banging him / her, are you fine with that ?
|
|
|
Post by choc on Sept 18, 2023 19:44:40 GMT
I think the main reason for the outrage for some is the fact that he is gay.
There is no evidence of grooming and the other bloke in the relationship was quite happy about it all.
I'm no fan of Schofield but why should he loose his livelihood over a consensual relationship.
Hung by MSM and so called friends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2023 19:48:26 GMT
I think the main reason for the outrage for some is the fact that he is gay. There is no evidence of grooming and the other bloke in the relationship was quite happy about it all. I'm no fan of Schofield but why should he loose his livelihood over a consensual relationship. Hung by MSM and so called friends. Edwards and Schofield while what they done wasn't illegal the bad publicity for the show is enough to say that they have brought BBC/ITV into disrepute. Schofield at very best was an egotistical sod.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 20:03:48 GMT
Anyhow. Getting back to Brand, yet to be verified (to me), I'm hearing the at the time 16 year old works for Channel 4, where she met him. If so, had a career decision to make.
I expect RB has some unsavory history, up 20 years ago, but at the time of these accusations, the sort of period when he was working for Channel 4, they didn't seem to have any problem with his behaviour (which seems to have improved considerably)
My view is, they wouldn't have cared if he was still calling Nigel Farage a Nazi, and not telling everyone the MSM has hoodwinked them over covid.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Sept 18, 2023 20:08:22 GMT
Yes 'Bad publicity' that's what it's really all about.
Tony highlighted Schofields age. That's interesting. So a male or female rock star, actor, can have a young companion on their arm. But the bloke down my street is nothing more than a dirty old bastard.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 20:15:16 GMT
Yes 'Bad publicity' that's what it's really all about. Tony highlighted Schofields age. That's interesting. So a male or female rock star, actor, can have a young companion on their arm. But the bloke down my street is nothing more than a dirty old bastard. I don't think fifty odd year old men should be tuning into fifteen year olds, especially when married. I very much doubt he merely kept him on the back burner for five years. If you'd be fine with your 20 year old daughter banging some mid fifties married guy, then I would say you have an unusual attitude. No fcuking way did he get the sack because he likes shagging men. This is actively promoted if anything.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Sept 18, 2023 20:16:06 GMT
I love that the explanation is that The Times knew all about this in 2013, but held onto it in case Brand became an antivaxxer for a virus that didn't exist yet.
They then waited two years past the point when that vaccine was most crucial to use that information.
Its almost like if you spend you life immersed in batshit mental YouTube videos your logic and reasoning become even more batshit. Funny that
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 20:24:35 GMT
I love that the explanation is that The Times knew all about this in 2013, but held onto it in case Brand became an antivaxxer for a virus that didn't exist yet. They then waited two years past the point when that vaccine was most crucial to use that information. Its almost like if you spend you life immersed in batshit mental YouTube videos your logic and reasoning become even more batshit. Funny that Who came up with that explanation / who is the you, you are referring to, and is Brand an anti vax, or just doesn't trust one in particular ?
|
|
|
Post by Professor Frink on Sept 18, 2023 20:29:27 GMT
Oh he ticks all the right boxes alright. It’s almost as if grifters like him and Andrew Tate have spotted the opportunity to get a cult like following to defend their every move.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Sept 18, 2023 20:40:10 GMT
Yes 'Bad publicity' that's what it's really all about. Tony highlighted Schofields age. That's interesting. So a male or female rock star, actor, can have a young companion on their arm. But the bloke down my street is nothing more than a dirty old bastard. I don't think fifty odd year old men should be tuning into fifteen year olds, especially when married. I very much doubt he merely kept him on the back burner for five years. If you'd be fine with your 20 year old daughter banging some mid fifties married guy, then I would say you have an unusual attitude. No fcuking way did he get the sack because he likes shagging men. This is actively promoted if anything. First of all he's separated from his wife. Secondly it doesn't matter what you or I think about a 20 year old banging a 50 year old. It happens and it always will. It's not illegal and it never will be illegal.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 20:54:33 GMT
I don't think fifty odd year old men should be tuning into fifteen year olds, especially when married. I very much doubt he merely kept him on the back burner for five years. If you'd be fine with your 20 year old daughter banging some mid fifties married guy, then I would say you have an unusual attitude. No fcuking way did he get the sack because he likes shagging men. This is actively promoted if anything. First of all he's separated from his wife. Secondly it doesn't matter what you or I think about a 20 year old banging a 50 year old. It happens and it always will. It's not illegal and it never will be illegal. fcuk me, he was shagging him before they seperated, I'd guess he was from the off, as opposed he only started fancying him after 5 years of friendship. I'm not claiming shagging 20 year olds is illegal, I'm saying that most people, not you apparently, find his actions immoral, and thus he ended up having to resign. None of which is relevant to the thread.
|
|
|
Post by choc on Sept 18, 2023 21:00:57 GMT
So if we all had a 20 year old daughter. What age would be the cutoff point for the bloke or girl she wants to shag.
I think most blokes are uncomfortable with the thought of her shagging anyone, but our son...... Well that's my boy😉👌
|
|
|
Post by tonyhancock on Sept 18, 2023 21:07:08 GMT
So if we all had a 20 year old daughter. What age would be the cutoff point for the bloke or girl she wants to shag. I think most blokes are uncomfortable with the thought of her shagging anyone, but our son...... Well that's my boy😉👌 Fine. PS got himself a young bit of cock, and was a fool to resign. Back to the Russell Brand situation.
|
|