Russell Brand - In Plain Sight

[hk blues]

22 hours ago, WATTOO said:

Did the complainant not withdraw their complaint ?

If so, it's on them as much as anyone else as presumably they've happily taken the cash to keep quiet which just undermines future cases and let's the guy away with it to do it again to someone else.

I also find it strange that Man Utd haven't been hounded by everyone including sponsors / supporters / media  etc etc for their original stance which was 100% supportive of Greenwood despite them knowing EXACTLY what he'd done.

Man Utd themselves withdrew all Greenwood merchandise and swapped already purchased shirts; Nike withdrew its sponsorship immediately he was arrested; several of his team-mates removed him from social media. He was still being paid but that isn't unusual in such cases.  I think those involved got it more or less right in their original stance.  The real poor judgement came after the case was dropped when Utd dilly dallied and fucked around rather than just doing the right thing.  I'm not even sure sending him off to Getafe on loan is sending the right message.

 

 

 

 

[Derry Alli]

The media are running with Greenwood having a quiet debut in an uneventful game. Lauding his winning of a corner which resulted in the winning goal.

Totally ignoring the fact Osasuna fans were chanting for him to die.

It's like they're looking for the little English kid to come good again.

['WellDel]

5 minutes ago, hk blues said:

Man Utd themselves withdrew all Greenwood merchandise and swapped already purchased shirts; Nike withdrew its sponsorship immediately he was arrested; several of his team-mates removed him from social media. He was still being paid but that isn't unusual in such cases.  I think those involved got it more or less right in their original stance.  The real poor judgement came after the case was dropped when Utd dilly dallied and fucked around rather than just doing the right thing.  I'm not even sure sending him off to Getafe on loan is sending the right message.

 

 

 

 

They obviously still viewed him as a sizeable financial asset, so balked at the potential of losing out on a transfer fee, or having to offer him a huge amount to terminate his contract. Loaning him to Getafe presumably covers a chunk of his wages so they've gone with that as a way of getting him out of the club and lessening the financial hit, although it's definitely not sending the right message or the right thing being done.

Clubs need to get more savvy in the smallprint when signing players, and every single one should state clearly and explicitly that, on any such behaviour occurring, the club can terminate the contract immediately without payment of any outstanding sums. Might help keep a few of the disgusting cnuts in check if they know their lavish lifestyles depend on decent behaviour, and can be swept from under their feet in an instant.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 minutes ago, 'WellDel said:

They obviously still viewed him as a sizeable financial asset, so balked at the potential of losing out on a transfer fee, or having to offer him a huge amount to terminate his contract. Loaning him to Getafe presumably covers a chunk of his wages so they've gone with that as a way of getting him out of the club and lessening the financial hit, although it's definitely not sending the right message or the right thing being done.

Clubs need to get more savvy in the smallprint when signing players, and every single one should state clearly and explicitly that, on any such behaviour occurring, the club can terminate the contract immediately without payment of any outstanding sums. Might help keep a few of the disgusting cnuts in check if they know their lavish lifestyles depend on decent behaviour, and can be swept from under their feet in an instant.

Tifo have covered Man United's decision making process in some depth.

 

 

[hk blues]

3 minutes ago, 'WellDel said:

They obviously still viewed him as a sizeable financial asset, so balked at the potential of losing out on a transfer fee, or having to offer him a huge amount to terminate his contract. Loaning him to Getafe presumably covers a chunk of his wages so they've gone with that as a way of getting him out of the club and lessening the financial hit, although it's definitely not sending the right message or the right thing being done.

Clubs need to get more savvy in the smallprint when signing players, and every single one should state clearly and explicitly that, on any such behaviour occurring, the club can terminate the contract immediately without payment of any outstanding sums. Might help keep a few of the disgusting cnuts in check if they know their lavish lifestyles depend on decent behaviour, and can be swept from under their feet in an instant.

As far as I've read Getafe are contributing only a small amount of the wage so Utd are obviously on the hook for the bulk of it.  The real crunch will come when his contract expires - as things stand I cannot see any other outcome than him becoming a free agent and Utd losing a chunk of change.  Benjamin Mendy's case may not be the same but his contract was not renewed when it expired in the summer even he was found not guilty of the charges against him.

[Squeaks Snowy Bicycle]

[ICTChris]

3 hours ago, resk said:

Brand's da sounds the vandetta klaxon:

"The comedian’s father intervention comes as MPs said on Monday a criminal investigation should take place over allegations first reported by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 on Saturday.

According to The Times, more women have now made contact over Brand’s behaviour since the claims emerged.

On the 80-year-old’s Facebook page, Mr Brand wrote: “Is this seriously the most important thing happening in the World? Immigrants? Cost of Living? 10s of thousands killed in Ukraine? Who is Prioritising at BBC News? Who is really driving this vandetta?

In a separate post he added: “With many Struggling to pay bills. The unproven accusations of 15 Years ago take lead on BBC News?” The Telegraph has approached Mr Brand for further comment."

It would be a massive oversimplification of the auld dick's argument to frame it as "food is expensive, so rape is okay", but I'm going to do it anyway.  

Ron Brand walked out on Russell and his mother when Russell was six months old and was only sporadically invovled in his life after that.  In his books Russell Brand wrote that when he was on partental visits his dad would stick pornography on the television for young Russell to watch while he would 'entertain' women in the bedroom.  He took Russell on holiday to Thailand when he was 15 and hired prostitutes for both of them.

Not entirely sure he is the best person to be pontificating about sexual misconuct.

[Jeff Venom]

2 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Ron Brand walked out on Russell and his mother when Russell was six months old and was only sporadically invovled in his life after that.  In his books Russell Brand wrote that when he was on partental visits his dad would stick pornography on the television for young Russell to watch while he would 'entertain' women in the bedroom.  He took Russell on holiday to Thailand when he was 15 and hired prostitutes for both of them.

Not entirely sure he is the best person to be pontificating about sexual misconuct.

Fucking hell. Nature/nurture stuff right there. 

[Cheese]

The sins of the father.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

16 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I thought the C4 documentary was a bit lopsided.  

The major revelations were at the start - the pretty solid sounding rape allegations from America, and the situation regarding the 16 year old girl in London.  There were other serious allegations of sexual assault later too.

I thought though, that too much time was spent on his already well documented promiscuity.  I get why it's part of the story, because it says unedifying things about him, some of those round him, and the wider industry.  However, I think there's a danger of conflating promiscuity with sexual offending.  This allows him to construct a defence of sorts, and deflects from the gruesome stuff.

 

Yeah it felt like there had been a decision made to lead with the most watertight accusations and then discuss the broader industry and cultural environment that enabled them. Not sure it worked better than if they'd interspersed them throughout or something.

[scottsdad]

It's threads like this where Wokesoft is missed the most. He'd have been all over this thread, telling us what he would do if he was the head of the BBC, or the Director of Channel 4.

Most likely involving publicly shouting at Brand in front of all the other employees so they knew it wouldn't be tolerated. Then, a few pages later, telling us that he's innocent until proven guilty and deserves a fair hearing. 

[ICTChris]

Was it him that wrote a huge pornographic story and posted it on the site?

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Was it him that wrote a huge pornographic story and posted it on the site?

Not sure about huge, but it was written for women who were all gagging to read it apparently, so it wasn't at all creepy.

[carpetmonster]

17 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

It's threads like this where Wokesoft is missed the most. 

 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

56 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Was it him that wrote a huge pornographic story and posted it on the site?

Think that was Oaksoft tbh,

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

58 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Was it him that wrote a huge pornographic story and posted it on the site?

Was that the boy that shagged his inflatable girlfriend or the lad that shagged the hunchback?

['WellDel]

5 minutes ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said:

Was that the boy that shagged his inflatable girlfriend or the lad that shagged the hunchback?

YHYH, as they say.

 

(Although I think I'd pass on both tbqhy).

[doulikefish]

That's the met involved now.Sexual assault against brand from 2003 been reported to them 

[Rugster]

24 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

Worst comeback ever. Just answer the man properly like a grown adult. 

He sniffs womens hair in nightclubs mate, think that ship has sailed.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I think the promiscuity and his act are linked to what he’s accused of. Behaving in highly sexualised ways in inappropriate places is a way for abusers to groom those around them, as well as their victims. “Oh that’s just Russell” etc. Stuff like having sex with junior staff members, exposing himself to employees, getting runners to get the phone numbers of audience members, is all part of this process. It’s something you see in abuse cases all the time, the abuser tipping boundaries and normalising behaviour.

Yeah, that's probably fair.

The two are related. However, so public was his sleazy behaviour that much of that aspect of the programme lacked impact.

it is relevant.  However, it was dwarfed by the other allegations, yet seemed to get similar weighting.