| Brand found guilty on 21:37 - Nov 9 | Swansea_Blue |
| Brand found guilty on 19:58 - Nov 9 by Churchman |
Yes, rape is wrong. But that thing never gave a monkeys about that or the consequences to his victims. Life changing consequences. It’s them a care about. If, to paraphrase Shawshank Redemption, he is cast down with the s0domites, I couldn’t care a less.
Brand’s ’human rights’? He has forfeited those. If I had my way he’d be just a number working and paying for his existence - and certainly never released. |
No, he still has rights. If someone attacks him in prison, he’ll still be protected by law. The only human right he’s lost is his freedom. It’s for the courts to decide the punishment, not inmates or vigilantes. If we want to retain some humanity ourselves that’s the way it has to be, as difficult as it is to come to terms with that.
He’s an utter sh*t though; no doubt about it. Obviously the rape is heinous, but the manipulation and control is very chilling too imo. I’m expecting plenty more to come from this. The ones we know about so far won’t be his only victims. |  |
|  |
| Brand found guilty on 23:21 - Nov 9 | Leaky |
| Brand found guilty on 15:26 - Nov 9 by Zx1988 |
My understanding is that he'll be able to request housing within a Vulnerable Prisoners Unit or a specialist prison housing sexual offenders; his profile will add clout to any request.
Unless his higher profile makes him a more inviting target for some of his more unhinged co-detainees, I'd imagine that the nature of his offences will probably keep him from going the same way as Ian Watkins and similar. |
At a rough guess he will be sent HMP Littlehey it's near where I live, it's where Max Clifford served his time. Think it's known locally as HMP Nonce |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 07:27 - Nov 10 | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Brand found guilty on 16:11 - Nov 9 by MattinLondon |
As much of a heinous and vile person that he undoubtedly is, as a matter of principle I think that he should be safe from physical harm whilst in prison. |
What about psychological harm? He could be made to watch his back catalogue of ‘comedy’ on loop.
It’s always the ones you most suspect isn’t it. |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 08:02 - Nov 10 | Mullet |
| Brand found guilty on 21:37 - Nov 9 by Swansea_Blue |
No, he still has rights. If someone attacks him in prison, he’ll still be protected by law. The only human right he’s lost is his freedom. It’s for the courts to decide the punishment, not inmates or vigilantes. If we want to retain some humanity ourselves that’s the way it has to be, as difficult as it is to come to terms with that.
He’s an utter sh*t though; no doubt about it. Obviously the rape is heinous, but the manipulation and control is very chilling too imo. I’m expecting plenty more to come from this. The ones we know about so far won’t be his only victims. |
I also hope anyone else involved in helping him either by ignoring victims, giving him work or even committing similar behaviour is dealt with properly too.
One of the reasons men like him get defended is not just the conspiracy stuff but as a way to make him the sacrificial figure and others to slip away from justice. The Epstein files and #metoo being a big scale example. |  |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 08:10 - Nov 10 | MattinLondon |
| Brand found guilty on 08:02 - Nov 10 by Mullet |
I also hope anyone else involved in helping him either by ignoring victims, giving him work or even committing similar behaviour is dealt with properly too.
One of the reasons men like him get defended is not just the conspiracy stuff but as a way to make him the sacrificial figure and others to slip away from justice. The Epstein files and #metoo being a big scale example. |
The main reason men like Brand are able to get away with such behaviour is that they are expert at manipulating people around them. That’s what predators do and despite what many seem to be saying, most people had no idea what he was.
If his inner circle knew then yes, there should be an investigation into their behaviour. But if proving rape is difficult, I would imagine that proving that others knew would be just (if not more) as hard. |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 09:10 - Nov 10 | GlasgowBlue |
| Brand found guilty on 08:02 - Nov 10 by Mullet |
I also hope anyone else involved in helping him either by ignoring victims, giving him work or even committing similar behaviour is dealt with properly too.
One of the reasons men like him get defended is not just the conspiracy stuff but as a way to make him the sacrificial figure and others to slip away from justice. The Epstein files and #metoo being a big scale example. |
Something that I hope comes out if this is that our politicians stop turning a blind eye to people who engage in problematic behaviour.
Thatcher with Jimmy Savile, Miliband and a host of so called sensible grown up people with Brand, courted and indulged those two vile specimens. Either for political gain or to ride on their coat tails of popularity.
Even before the full scale of what the scumbags were up to was revealed, it was pretty obvious they were morally bankrupt misogynists at best. But too many people were prepared to put that to one side for their own advantage.
That also goes for their friends, often in the same business, who had a good idea what they were about, but cosied up to them because it was good for their careers and publicity.
Another thing in this age of the internet, Gary Glitter was completely finished as a performing and recording artist. He gets little to no radio airplay (although he earned a few quid from the Joker movie). Brand will pick up where he left off. He’ll continue with his YouTube grift. There are plenty of cult followers out there claiming he was brought down by an establishment conspiracy. He’ll keep that audience. No doubt he’ll find a way to get a book published. There needs to be a way to stop this happening. [Post edited 10 Nov 9:14]
|  |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 09:22 - Nov 10 | Mullet |
| Brand found guilty on 09:10 - Nov 10 by GlasgowBlue |
Something that I hope comes out if this is that our politicians stop turning a blind eye to people who engage in problematic behaviour.
Thatcher with Jimmy Savile, Miliband and a host of so called sensible grown up people with Brand, courted and indulged those two vile specimens. Either for political gain or to ride on their coat tails of popularity.
Even before the full scale of what the scumbags were up to was revealed, it was pretty obvious they were morally bankrupt misogynists at best. But too many people were prepared to put that to one side for their own advantage.
That also goes for their friends, often in the same business, who had a good idea what they were about, but cosied up to them because it was good for their careers and publicity.
Another thing in this age of the internet, Gary Glitter was completely finished as a performing and recording artist. He gets little to no radio airplay (although he earned a few quid from the Joker movie). Brand will pick up where he left off. He’ll continue with his YouTube grift. There are plenty of cult followers out there claiming he was brought down by an establishment conspiracy. He’ll keep that audience. No doubt he’ll find a way to get a book published. There needs to be a way to stop this happening. [Post edited 10 Nov 9:14]
|
Not sure Thatcher equates with Milliband at all here given she covered up several high profile paedophiles over decades. Not that it makes Milliband blameless by comparison. | |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 09:26 - Nov 10 | Mullet |
| Brand found guilty on 08:10 - Nov 10 by MattinLondon |
The main reason men like Brand are able to get away with such behaviour is that they are expert at manipulating people around them. That’s what predators do and despite what many seem to be saying, most people had no idea what he was.
If his inner circle knew then yes, there should be an investigation into their behaviour. But if proving rape is difficult, I would imagine that proving that others knew would be just (if not more) as hard. |
I think it’s been shown that in several places execs “turned a blind eye” to complaints and concerns as far back as the early 00s | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Brand found guilty on 09:46 - Nov 10 | GlasgowBlue |
| Brand found guilty on 09:22 - Nov 10 by Mullet |
Not sure Thatcher equates with Milliband at all here given she covered up several high profile paedophiles over decades. Not that it makes Milliband blameless by comparison. |
It’s not about the personalities involved, it’s about the principle. The reason I used those two politicians was to create balance, rather than be left open to accusations of going for one side.
Too many rapists, paedophiles, perpetrators of domestic abuse etc are often indulged by the great and the good when their star is shining bright. The true extent of their crimes may not be known at the time but there is enough in the public domain to keep them at arms length. This needs to stop.
Brand, as it’s a thread about him, was never a serious person and his public treatment of women was deplorable. But he was on question time, in Parliament, received a late night visit by the leader of the opposition on the eve of an election as if he was Gandhi, edited the New Statesman (the Last Supper photo shoot from that is utter cringe) etc.
Sensible people were intoxicated by him and what being associated with him could bring them. He’s not the first and sadly he won’t be the last. [Post edited 10 Nov 9:55]
| |
| |
| Brand found guilty on 13:53 - Nov 10 | BloomBlue |
| Brand found guilty on 09:46 - Nov 10 by GlasgowBlue |
It’s not about the personalities involved, it’s about the principle. The reason I used those two politicians was to create balance, rather than be left open to accusations of going for one side.
Too many rapists, paedophiles, perpetrators of domestic abuse etc are often indulged by the great and the good when their star is shining bright. The true extent of their crimes may not be known at the time but there is enough in the public domain to keep them at arms length. This needs to stop.
Brand, as it’s a thread about him, was never a serious person and his public treatment of women was deplorable. But he was on question time, in Parliament, received a late night visit by the leader of the opposition on the eve of an election as if he was Gandhi, edited the New Statesman (the Last Supper photo shoot from that is utter cringe) etc.
Sensible people were intoxicated by him and what being associated with him could bring them. He’s not the first and sadly he won’t be the last. [Post edited 10 Nov 9:55]
|
People like Brand are experts on how they manipulate others, and their persona is often used for others personal gain.
Miliband wanted to use Brand assuming he appealed to a certain section of the voting public, and ignored the rumours about Brand. The Guardian newspaper continued to allow him to write columns even after he was kicked out of the BBC after the disgusting Jonathan Ross prank call.
The darling of the left Owen Jones lauded Brand, ignoring the rumours.
This is the problem too many are happy to ignore the rumours for the benefits these individuals could offer. |  | | |
| Brand found guilty on 16:39 - Nov 10 | Churchman |
| Brand found guilty on 20:53 - Nov 9 by bartyg |
Where is the line between criminal and subhuman?
The ability to manipulate and abuse others is within all of us, it's important to recognise that so you can correct that behaviour within yourself and those you know. Realising we're just rehashing the death penalty debate again.
Also the quote you've added is rank. |
The quote is from a film. Maybe you’ve not seen it or switched off at that point. Anyway, the point is that my thoughts are with his victims and I don’t give a hoot what happens to him.
If you are suggesting what the likes of Brand did is within all of us, then I disagree. It isn’t within me. It has never crossed my mind to do the kind of things he did so whilst correcting that behaviour is something you might have had to have done, I certainly haven’t.
If you wish categorise, that’s fine: to me he’s sub human as are all who prey in that way, but I’ve made it perfectly clear I’m not in favour of the death penalty so there’s no debate to be had on that from my perspective.
The only debate is how long he’s kept away from decent people, permanently in my view, and who pays his upkeep.
That’s my last post on this. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
