Celebrity Sexual Harassment Charge Sheet

[Cunt]

In both cases girls spoke up. Nobody’s going to step up and say they raped kids on nightmare island.

This shit’s getting dumb.

Did they speak up? In both cases you mean?

I think both cases had victims speaking up.

What does the fact that 'girls spoke up' in both cases, have to do with anything?

Of course no-one is going to self-disclose. Except that Brand did, and the mystery list of Maxwell clients did not, overall.

The corporate media attention to the Brand case shows a sharp contrast to their attention to the Maxwell/Epstein case. Makes those news sources a 'hostile witness', in my opinion.

Knowing that, and knowing what charges there are, and where they have been laid. Who laid them. When the trial dates will be. All that should be weighed against their reportage, and used to identify that they are, to quote a famous reporter, 'dirty dirty smear merchants'.

The facts of the case will be the facts, but the biggest fact is that the reporters telling the story don't care one whit about abuse, except if it sells.

[Sean Hayden]

Huh, does it show a sharp contrast? How’d you figure that out? I guess you measured the responses somehow.

Me, I can’t see the difference. From here it looks like both stories have captured the public’s attention.

[Sean Hayden]

A quick --definitely not to be taken too seriously-- look at trends shows Brand's scandal is following a similar trajectory to that of Epstein's.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's like the Jimmy Saville thing never happened. As far as I can tell the mainstream media have given Brand's egotistical yapping far more play than it deserves. Gullible sorts have joined in the chorus because all the cool right-wing thought leaders have said it's the cause of the day.

[Cunt]

A quick --definitely not to be taken too seriously-- look at trends shows Brand's scandal is following a similar trajectory to that of Epstein's.

I hope not. Brand is merely accused. Epstein was convicted, then arrested again by an unexpected branch of the justice department after it seemed he got a sweetheart deal.


But enough about Brand. The next celeb should be embarrassing themselves by now...I'm hoping they go after a rap artist next. Or maybe a prominent classically trained oboeist.

[Brian Peacock]

What are you trying to prove here? What is the reason or motive for your participation?

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just saying what I thought in response to what Cunt posted. Why do you ask? What's your motivation for posting here?

Have they found more victims of Brand yet?

I hear that news rooms have been working hard at it. They surely can muster up more than this sad few stories. Unless they are busy, with bigger fish to fry...

You just can't help it can you? Here's an idea. Someone can be appalled by the allegations against Brand AND think that the men who benefitted from Epstein's services should be held to account. Why do you carry on with the assumption that the people who are appalled by the allegations against Brand are hypocrites for not being appalled by the activity of Epstein? Is it because the allegations have been politicised by Brand himself, or perhaps because you genuinely think there can be no legitimate or justifiable reason anybody would ever want to complain or criticise Brand or his behaviour?

Every time you peddle this nonsense you participate in downplaying the seriousness of the allegations and invalidating the testimony and experience of the alleged victims. Why would you think that's a good idea, and who ultimately benefits from propagation that kind of dickery?

[Animavore]

Heh. This is one of the pathetic arguments proffered by Brand's fanboys on the aforementioned Reddit sub too.

"Why do don't you care about Epstein?"

And of course all the answers say, "We do!"

There also seems to be a lot of confusion about whether he's a right-wing grifter or a left-wing grifter. I've always considered him left, despite the overlap, so the attempted argument that left-wing people don't care when left-wing people aren't bother when their side does it - which is essentially what the Epstein argument is badly attempting to make - doesn't hold water.

[Cunt]

I hear that news rooms have been working hard at it. They surely can muster up more than this sad few stories. Unless they are busy, with bigger fish to fry...

You just can't help it can you? Here's an idea. Someone can be appalled by the allegations against Brand AND think that the men who benefitted from Epstein's services should be held to account. Why do you carry on with the assumption that the people who are appalled by the allegations against Brand are hypocrites for not being appalled by the activity of Epstein?

There is our misunderstanding.

You think I'm talking about 'people', when really I'm talking about the journalists, the corporate media, who are showing their hypocrisy.

I have no problem saying that I think you are disgusted by both.


In the case of Brand, the media is treating the allegations as if they are convictions.

In the case of the Epstein convictions, the media is treating them as if they were unfounded allegations.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Mildly curious about how this fits into the 'Big Pharma and their leftist stooges are trying to take down Russell Brand' narrative.

'British Government Accused of Muzzling Media Coverage of Russell Brand'

The U.K. government's chief legal officer has been accused of trying to “curb investigative journalism” after a heavy-handed warning to newspaper editors to tread carefully in their coverage of sexual abuse and rape allegations against the comedian Russell Brand.

In contrast to the anything-goes world of U.S. journalism, where freedom of the press and free speech itself are constitutionally protected, British reporters have long had to contend with strict contempt of court laws designed to prevent news coverage prejudicing free trials.

But Attorney-General Victoria Prentis was accused of “shocking overreach” after sending out a Media Advisory Notice on Friday night warning editors that their coverage of the Brand allegations was being scrutinized.

“The Attorney General, the Rt Hon Victoria Prentis KC MP, wishes to amplify the importance of not publishing any material where there is a risk that it could prejudice any potential criminal investigation or prosecutions,” the notice said.

“Publishing this material could amount to contempt of court.”

What Prentis, the Tory MP for Banbury in Oxfordshire, omitted to mention was that none of the allegations against Brand—which include allegations of sexual assault from at least four women—would have come to light without the work of journalists on Channel 4’s Dispatches and The Times and Sunday Times, Rupert Murdoch's higher-brow U.K. newspapers.

More to the point, wrote veteran Times crime reporter Sean O’Neill in an op-ed column in the paper on Monday, the contempt of court rules cited by Prentis do not yet apply in the Brand case.

Does it mean that the government of the UK is standing up to Big Pharma, trying to shield Brand from its attack dogs?

[Cunt]

No, it means that Channel 4 was going looking for a story about Brand.

Probably for the 'public interest'.

Now lets see their investigative work on other known celeb sex stories! I hope they do a Brazilian star next. The puns will be baldly hilarious.

[Brian Peacock]

I hear that news rooms have been working hard at it. They surely can muster up more than this sad few stories. Unless they are busy, with bigger fish to fry...

You just can't help it can you? Here's an idea. Someone can be appalled by the allegations against Brand AND think that the men who benefitted from Epstein's services should be held to account. Why do you carry on with the assumption that the people who are appalled by the allegations against Brand are hypocrites for not being appalled by the activity of Epstein?

There is our misunderstanding.

You think I'm talking about 'people', when really I'm talking about the journalists, the corporate media, who are showing their hypocrisy.

I have no problem saying that I think you are disgusted by both.

In the case of Brand, the media is treating the allegations as if they are convictions.

In the case of the Epstein convictions, the media is treating them as if they were unfounded allegations.

Hmmm. Let's look at the whole post, so that we don't... erm... 'accidentally' forget the context by... erm... 'accidentally' failing to quote something relevant...

What are you trying to prove here? What is the reason or motive for your participation?

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just saying what I thought in response to what Cunt posted. Why do you ask? What's your motivation for posting here?

Have they found more victims of Brand yet?

I hear that news rooms have been working hard at it. They surely can muster up more than this sad few stories. Unless they are busy, with bigger fish to fry...

You just can't help it can you? Here's an idea. Someone can be appalled by the allegations against Brand AND think that the men who benefitted from Epstein's services should be held to account. Why do you carry on with the assumption that the people who are appalled by the allegations against Brand are hypocrites for not being appalled by the activity of Epstein? Is it because the allegations have been politicised by Brand himself, or perhaps because you genuinely think there can be no legitimate or justifiable reason anybody would ever want to complain or criticise Brand or his behaviour?

Every time you peddle this nonsense you participate in downplaying the seriousness of the allegations and invalidating the testimony and experience of the alleged victims. Why would you think that's a good idea, and who ultimately benefits from propagation that kind of dickery?

First, you chose a comment replying to someone else to post that image under, and now you've repeated its contents: claiming the people who are concerned about the Brand allegations gave Epstein an easy ride or weren't bothered/interest in what he was up to. You don't say which media outlets you are talking about of course: Who, what, when, where, how and why?

Second, the implication is clear - you singled a particular post out as a vehicle for making that claim, thus implying I am just like those people you claim weren't interested in what Epstein got up to.

Third, the context of all this is the allegations against Brand - allegation which you surmise are insufficient in number ("Have they found more victims of Brand yet? I hear that news rooms have been working hard at it. They surely can muster up more than this sad few stories.") to justify concern ("...the media is treating the allegations as if they are convictions. In the case of the Epstein convictions, the media is treating them as if they were unfounded allegations..").

Fourth, here's the point you're ignoring from my remarks: Every time you peddle this nonsense you participate in downplaying the seriousness of the allegations and invalidating the testimony and experience of the alleged victims. Why would you think that's a good idea, and who ultimately benefits from propagation that kind of dickery? On that, not a peep.

In light of what I've already posted about my views on sexual abuse, violence and rape, and those who indulge in those behaviours, the only reason I can think of for you to continue to pursue this line in response to my comments--to imply that people generally, but clearly me in particular, are hypocrites for expressing concerns about the Brand allegations--is to goad and bait me for you own amusement.

[Cunt]

Fourth, here's the point you're ignoring from my remarks: Every time you peddle this nonsense you participate in downplaying the seriousness of the allegations and invalidating the testimony and experience of the alleged victims. Why would you think that's a good idea, and who ultimately benefits from propagation that kind of dickery? On that, not a peep.

I'm treating Brand as if he is innocent.

Why is that such a problem for you?

Because the channel 4 people said he was guilty?

In light of what I've already posted about my views on sexual abuse, violence and rape, and those who indulge in those behaviours, the only reason I can think of for you to continue to pursue this line in response to my comments--to imply that people generally, but clearly me in particular, are hypocrites for expressing concerns about the Brand allegations--is to goad and bait me for you own amusement.

Not you, BP. The dirty smear merchants at channel 4. Those who fall for it should be angry at being misled by amoral corporate news-mongers.


I do wonder how you can keep citing them, when they have such a dramatically different moral sense than you do. I treat them as liars, motivated by their own goals and not by serving the public. Maybe I'm wrong, but they have been such consistently disgusting, I'm not going to worry about it much.

[Animavore]

Raping people just seems on Brand.

[Cunt]

Raping people just seems on Brand.

lol

He did say as much, depending on the jurisdiction's legal definition of rape.

But I'll still treat him as innocent for now. Seems the most civilized approach.

[pErvinalia]

You don't say which media outlets you are talking about of course: Who, what, when, where, how and why?

All of them, duh. Except Fox News, which is fair and balanced.