Celebrity Sexual Harassment Charge Sheet

[Brian Peacock]

The investigation has been going on for four years, so I don't think your qualms about the timing are borne out - unless you can say there's some particular reason the timing is significant, or maybe you have some ideas about when it would've been a better time to report the allegations?

[Cunt]

The investigation has been going on for four years, so I don't think your qualms about the timing are borne out - unless you can say there's some particular reason the timing is significant, or maybe you have some ideas about when it would've been a better time to report the allegations?

They aren't 'my qualms', just reading what Brand said about it so far.

I didn't see criminal allegations in the article, so maybe a thorough investigator can find evidence to bring charges. Or maybe it's just media outlets making chaos, for their funders and their agendas.

If it was a crime, wouldn't the best time to report it be immediately?

[Brian Peacock]

The investigation has been going on for four years, so I don't think your qualms about the timing are borne out - unless you can say there's some particular reason the timing is significant, or maybe you have some ideas about when it would've been a better time to report the allegations?

They aren't 'my qualms', just reading what Brand said about it so far.

I didn't see criminal allegations in the article, so maybe a thorough investigator can find evidence to bring charges. Or maybe it's just media outlets making chaos, for their funders and their agendas.

If it was a crime, wouldn't the best time to report it be immediately?

OK, so you don't know about the specifics of the allegations, but you're still happy to frame them as a 'Sudden Onset Media Smear' and question the timing. So what is it that's 'weird' about the timing, exactly, in you view?

Perhaps you need to furnish yourself with some info about the specific allegations before you continue.

You should probably also find out why most sexual assaults and rapes aren't reported to the police, why a very low number of those that are reported actually lead to charges being brought against someone, and why the conviction rate for those who are charged is also very low. Then you might gain some insight into why people, mostly women, don't report these types of crimes to the police immediately, if at all. Even so, whether a woman reports being a victim of a sexual assault immediately or later isn't really here-or-there, or any kind of point, is it?

[aufbahrung]

Looks like he's flying the full jimi saville colors if you ask me. Might be some naive to stand up for the guy but he's gone brand toxic. Couldn't keep his todger in his pants but no one noticed over thirty years being a joker supreme. Pays to belong to the top set I guess?

[Cunt]

If it was a crime, wouldn't the best time to report it be immediately?

OK, so you don't know about the specifics of the allegations, but you're still happy to frame them as a 'Sudden Onset Media Smear' and question the timing. So what is it that's 'weird' about the timing, exactly, in you view?

Perhaps you need to furnish yourself with some info about the specific allegations before you continue.

You should probably also find out why most sexual assaults and rapes aren't reported to the police, why a very low number of those that are reported actually lead to charges being brought against someone, and why the conviction rate for those who are charged is also very low. Then you might gain some insight into why people, mostly women, don't report these types of crimes to the police immediately, if at all. Even so, whether a woman reports being a victim of a sexual assault immediately or later isn't really here-or-there, or any kind of point, is it?
[/quote]
As to specific allegations, the article you posted didn't have them. It's ok though, I think I understand you.

If I do, you are saying that the victims sometimes wait to report those crimes.

But I still don't know your answer to my question.

What about all the other witnesses?

Again, isn't the best time to report immediately? Even if the victim cannot. Maybe ESPECIALLY if the victim cannot?

[Cunt]

Back before he was an alleged criminal of some kind, he said some very plain and clear things about the darling of the left - Big Pharma.

(when the FUCK did the left start loving Big Pharma???)



Anyway, if any of those smeared pharma companies are sponsors, they might just pull their advertising dollars.

Or who knows...they might have reason to take more affirmative action on behalf of their shareholders.

[aufbahrung]

Innocent or guilty it is clear his Jesus fantasy is coming to full fruition with his crucifiction before the braying mob. Be careful of the role models you identify with and follow is my take from this hideous sight of a motormouth comedian being nailed to a cross by the same or similar droves of women that apparently flocked to his todger not long before in awe and spiritual satisfaction.

[Tero]

Now do Trump. It's about time he is canceled.

[Brian Peacock]

If it was a crime, wouldn't the best time to report it be immediately?

OK, so you don't know about the specifics of the allegations, but you're still happy to frame them as a 'Sudden Onset Media Smear' and question the timing. So what is it that's 'weird' about the timing, exactly, in you view?

Perhaps you need to furnish yourself with some info about the specific allegations before you continue.

You should probably also find out why most sexual assaults and rapes aren't reported to the police, why a very low number of those that are reported actually lead to charges being brought against someone, and why the conviction rate for those who are charged is also very low. Then you might gain some insight into why people, mostly women, don't report these types of crimes to the police immediately, if at all. Even so, whether a woman reports being a victim of a sexual assault immediately or later isn't really here-or-there, or any kind of point, is it?

As to specific allegations, the article you posted didn't have them. It's ok though, I think I understand you.

Hmm. Not sure of that. You haven't explained what you think is 'weird' about the timing - regardless of the specifics of the allegations, which you admit to not knowing anything about? Hasn't stopped you making claims about it though has it? But maybe you're having trouble understanding the question, or remembering why you thought is was a good idea in the first place to say the timing was 'weird' and that this was most likely a smear campaign. Probably one or the other, eh?

If I do, you are saying that the victims sometimes wait to report those crimes.

But I still don't know your answer to my question.

What about all the other witnesses?

Again, isn't the best time to report immediately? Even if the victim cannot. Maybe ESPECIALLY if the victim cannot?

Perhaps, in an ideal world. But the fact that they didn't talk to the police at the time does not invalidate what the alleged victims reported over the course of a four-year investigation, nor does it delegitimise placing the info in the public domain - particularly given the quite understandable reasons sexual assault and rape victims give for not reporting incidents to the police. Examining these issues from the perspective of alleged victims would probably be a more productive approach for you than assuming that there's nothing in it, because... 'weird timing and smears'.

[Cunt]

If it was a crime, wouldn't the best time to report it be immediately?

OK, so you don't know about the specifics of the allegations, but you're still happy to frame them as a 'Sudden Onset Media Smear' and question the timing. So what is it that's 'weird' about the timing, exactly, in you view?

Perhaps you need to furnish yourself with some info about the specific allegations before you continue.

You should probably also find out why most sexual assaults and rapes aren't reported to the police, why a very low number of those that are reported actually lead to charges being brought against someone, and why the conviction rate for those who are charged is also very low. Then you might gain some insight into why people, mostly women, don't report these types of crimes to the police immediately, if at all. Even so, whether a woman reports being a victim of a sexual assault immediately or later isn't really here-or-there, or any kind of point, is it?

As to specific allegations, the article you posted didn't have them. It's ok though, I think I understand you.

Hmm. Not sure of that. You haven't explained what you think is 'weird' about the timing - regardless of the specifics of the allegations, which you admit to not knowing anything about? Hasn't stopped you making claims about it though has it? But maybe you're having trouble understanding the question, or remembering why you thought is was a good idea in the first place to say the timing was 'weird' and that this was most likely a smear campaign. Probably one or the other, eh?

If I had said that, I could find it in my previous posts.

I did speculate about it being that, or a coincidence. I think those are the two reasonable options. Brand seems to think smear campaign.

If I do, you are saying that the victims sometimes wait to report those crimes.

But I still don't know your answer to my question.

What about all the other witnesses?

Again, isn't the best time to report immediately? Even if the victim cannot. Maybe ESPECIALLY if the victim cannot?

Perhaps, in an ideal world. But the fact that they didn't talk to the police at the time does not invalidate what the alleged victims reported over the course of a four-year investigation, nor does it delegitimise placing the info in the public domain - particularly given the quite understandable reasons sexual assault and rape victims give for not reporting incidents to the police. Examining these issues from the perspective of alleged victims would probably be a more productive approach for you than assuming that there's nothing in it, because... 'weird timing and smears'.

Forget the victims, what about everyone else who knew?

The suspicious part is so many media sources pouncing on these particular allegations, long after the incidents.

But I was going by the article you posted, and what Brand said. If you want to know where I stand, it's with two seeming facts that can be dusted off here:
1. The ones publishing the allegations will pay no price
2. Brand is a drug and sex addicted celebrity

Everything else appears to be conjecture or allegations, so far.

[Tero]

Clapton
https://www.cracked.com/article_35204_t ... hebag.html
that and more

[L'Emmerdeur]

So we have an unsupported assertion that 'Big Pharma' is the darling of the left. The 'left' here is not specified, but maybe it's the British left, which apparently influenced British media outlets to investigate Brand and publish a documentary on his sexually abusive practices, giving a voice to a number of women who've accused him. Alternately, it's the American left, whose world-wide tentacles have ensnared Brand via their strong influence over British media. One is driven to ask whether something of the sort is going on. It's all about the TIMING you see.

Or perhaps it's merely that a significant number of well-known right wing liars and scumbags are yalping loudly about how unfairly Brand is being treated, and some find themselves compelled to parrot such drivel.

[Brian Peacock]

... I was going by the article you posted, and what Brand said. If you want to know where I stand, it's with two seeming facts that can be dusted off here:
1. The ones publishing the allegations will pay no price
2. Brand is a drug and sex addicted celebrity

Everything else appears to be conjecture or allegations, so far.

You're right. The article I posted only represented Brand's side of things, reporting his refutation of the allegations - allegations he didn't specify or elaborate on in his statement.

1. The one's publishing the allegations will pay a heavy price in court if they turn out to be inaccurate, false, or downright malicious.
2. Brand claims to be cured of his drug and sex addictions now.

Now we've cleared that up. What do you think was 'weird' about the timing of the allegations?

[Cunt]

That everyone knew who Brand was for a long time, and NOW they start expressing their outrage. Right on cue when the corporate media tells them to.

I think the timing is weird.

The allegations have already cost Brand money (youtube demonitization) so do you think they'll pay him to make up for it? Or do they only have to pay if he proves he was innocent?

[Brian Peacock]

That everyone knew who Brand was for a long time, and NOW they start expressing their outrage. Right on cue when the corporate media tells them to.

I think the timing is weird.

The allegations have already cost Brand money (youtube demonitization) so do you think they'll pay him to make up for it? Or do they only have to pay if he proves he was innocent?

So the 'weird' thing about the timing is only that these allegations hadn't come to light earlier - because everyone already knew he was a sexual predator.

OK. When did you know he was a sexual predator who used his employers taxi service to collect his 16yo 'girlfriend' from school and drive her to his house - and why didn't you tell anyone about it at the time?