SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Embattle]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFTy0bCE66A

 

[Scouse]

British TV ‘allowed monarchy to censor coverage of king’s coronation’

Royal spin doctors imposed ‘extraordinary restrictions’ on covering King Charles III’s accession, says ex-head of Sky News

www.theguardian.com

 

[Embattle]

I remember seeing this guy many years ago, seems his project is progressing well - The Ocean Cleanup

A video from a year ago :


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLcnJEMnlTs


System 03 is now in the ocean - System 03: A Beginner's Guide • Updates • The Ocean Cleanup

 

[TdC]

yeah I also remember him Emb. good to see what he's made of it. very inspiring tbh.

a mate's working in a startup building small autonomous devices that will eventually work to harvest microplastics. they're doing some really clever stuff to make sure they have the revenue to do what they actually intend to do, which uses the same device for another purpose. very awesome. I'm well jealous.

 

[Raven]

Spelling is important

Tube Girl: How Sabrina Bahsoon became TikTok's latest icon

Sabrina Bahsoon - aka Tube Girl - talks about becoming TikTok's dancing queen and inspiring others.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

I've been trying to avoid the Russel Brand shit because I always hated him tbh. Don't know what people saw in him really and now he's gone conspiracy nut I'm amazed people still bother.

However, I caught an interview with the 16 year old he was said to have knobbed, and she just said that it wasn't until she consented to sex at the time and it's not until she got much older that she changed her mind and she thinks that she couldn't have consented, because she was young.

That's really really horrible ground that the media companies are treading on. If there's a legal case to be made, we know where it should be made.

 

[Wij]

Weird how it’s always the people you most suspect of being predators.

 

[Raven]

I've been trying to avoid the Russel Brand shit because I always hated him tbh. Don't know what people saw in him really and now he's gone conspiracy nut I'm amazed people still bother.

However, I caught an interview with the 16 year old he was said to have knobbed, and she just said that it wasn't until she consented to sex at the time and it's not until she got much older that she changed her mind and she thinks that she couldn't have consented, because she was young.

That's really really horrible ground that the media companies are treading on. If there's a legal case to be made, we know where it should be made.

I think that's the one he got picked up from school in a chauffeur driven car and dropped off at his million pound private house.

 

[Scouse]

I think that's the one he got picked up from school in a chauffeur driven car and dropped off at his million pound private house.

So? Wouldn't be the first bird who wanted to fuck a millionaire.

Unless we're now going to raise the age of consent to 21 or put other limits on when women are deemed adult enough to be allowed to decide for themselves who to fuck and when they can fuck them?

 

[Wij]

So? Wouldn't be the first bird who wanted to fuck a millionaire.

Unless we're now going to raise the age of consent to 21 or put other limits on when women are deemed adult enough to be allowed to decide for themselves who to fuck and when they can fuck them?

She also said he forced his nob down her throat uninvited and she had to fight him off. Look at the whole picture.

 

[Scouse]

Weird how it’s always the people you most suspect of being predators.

If you were young, filthy rich and fancy free there's a good chance that you'd have indulged your sexual proclivities - within the law - quite rapaciously, no?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NTDEN4VZik


Laugh laugh laugh at the golden globes. Nobody there seems to have a problem with it, until we manufacture that problem.

We've a clear age of consent. That's when we've decided girls are old enough to fuck who they want to. And if they're old enough to do that, they're old enough to make mistakes, no? And if we grant them the ability to make their own mistakes then we also grant them the ability to feel stupid when they get older - but NOT the ability to turn around and say the man did something wrong.

It's horrible authoritarian moralising narrative that women are helpless and men are all predators. It's fucking bullshit. Women aren't powerless and yes, young people make mistakes (boys too, you know) but all this leads to is less freedom of choice for women about what's acceptable for them to do with their bodies, and who it's acceptable to do it with. It's infantilising.

 

[Scouse]

She also said he forced his nob down her throat uninvited and she had to fight him off. Look at the whole picture.

I've not watched it all so if she feels there was something criminal then she needs to go to the police, not media organisations.

 

[Wij]

I've not watched it all so if she feels there was something criminal then she needs to go to the police, not media organisations.

Fuck's sake, there's a reason these people do not go to the police. They are scared of the comeback from powerful men with influence. You can't just say police or fuck off. Where would that heave left Jimmy Savile's victims? Should we rehabilitate him from the woke mob now?

 

[Wij]

Also, maybe watch it before judging.

 

[Scouse]

Fuck's sake, there's a reason these people do not go to the police.

So, that's a problem we have to solve (and I 100% agree that it's a big problem). But two wrongs don't make a right. We don't solve that problem by doing something else wrong - going to the media rather than the public body that we have decided is the gateway to deal with these sorts of allegations.

Also, maybe watch it before judging.

This makes me complicit in the court of public opinion - when any allegations she is making should be getting heard in a court room in front of a jury of her peers.

That's the process by which we decide what is true. I don't subscribe to the "believe women" bullshit. That's a recipe for huge institutional miscarriages of justice. Furthermore, those scales of justice rightly dictate that we'd rather criminals go free than innocent people be jailed.

Any other system erodes the very fabric of our society and is in effect mob rule.

 

[Embattle]

I dislike Brad and have never found him remotely funny, but as usual innocent until proven guilty.....in a court of LAW.

 

[Wij]

So, that's a problem we have to solve (and I 100% agree that it's a big problem). But two wrongs don't make a right. We don't solve that problem by doing something else wrong - going to the media rather than the public body that we have decided is the gateway to deal with these sorts of allegations.


This makes me complicit in the court of public opinion - when any allegations she is making should be getting heard in a court room in front of a jury of her peers.

That's the process by which we decide what is true. I don't subscribe to the "believe women" bullshit. That's a recipe for huge institutional miscarriages of justice. Furthermore, those scales of justice rightly dictate that we'd rather criminals go free than innocent people be jailed.

Any other system erodes the very fabric of our society and is in effect mob rule.

Getting journalists to thoroughly examine the evidence from several sources and make sure they have enough evidence to be able to protect themselves from libel is often the only way anything like this will EVER come to light and it can take years. Unless you just don't want them to.

And as to your other point do you want to have a guess on the ratio of unreported / unprosecuted rapes and sexual assaults vs false allegations?

 

[Wij]

I dislike Brad and have never found him remotely funny, but as usual innocent until proven guilty.....in a court of LAW.

Same for Savile?

 

[Scouse]

Getting journalists to thoroughly examine the evidence from several sources and make sure they have enough evidence to be able to protect themselves from libel is often the only way anything like this will EVER come to light and it can take years. Unless you just don't want them to.

I'm not against journalists examining evidence of criminal activity and blowing a whole shitshow open. But then the important next step is handing over their dossier to the authorities so criminal charges can be made.

If the people involved refuse to push criminal charges then I'm sorry, but there's no case to answer.

(On the libel point - it'd be really good if we had a 1st Amendment style freedom of speech law to which does such a good job of providing helicopter cover to journalists and news organisations in the United States regarding libel, which I've shown previously - is much harder to bring in the US than the UK, don't you think?)

And as to your other point do you want to have a guess on the ratio of unreported / unprosecuted rapes and sexual assaults vs false allegations?

I'm well aware of it. And I'm aware of the prosecution rate too. It doesn't nullify the point - which is why our system is weighted the way it is. It's a much bigger deal for the state to prosecute an innocent man and get it wrong than to let rapists go free in much bigger numbers. You might disagree with that, but I don't - and I don't see any real appetite to change that either. (Because when push comes to shove I believe most people think that's correct).

 

[Scouse]

Same for Savile?

He's dead. He can't be prosecuted.

The failure with Saville was the fact that they used to sing that he fucked corpses at LGI on the terraces of Leeds United in the 1970's. That in 1987 Jerry Sadowitz called out Jimmy Saville for being a fucking paedo.

Everybody knew. For decades. The authorities did nothing. They could have but they didn't.


View: https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1513095484633755648


We don't respond to the incompetence of the state and the problems with our system of justice by setting up a proxy system of mob rule. We fix our institutions.

 

[Wij]

I'm not against journalists examining evidence of criminal activity and blowing a whole shitshow open.

That's literally what they've done.

And I'm not arguing that Savile can be prosecuted. I'm arguing against double standards. If you go 'Courts or GTFO and media is mob rule' then by that standard you must still be giving Savile the benefit of the doubt. Are you?

 

[Bodhi]

Same for Savile?

A bit disingenuous as Saville was dead when the allegations were made.

You could say it was the same for Kevin Spacey also.

Will admit I'm a bit torn - Brand has always been a Grade A knobhead and he hasn't got any better recently with his conspiracy woo, however trials by media always make me very uncomfortable, no matter who it is.

Whilst it was bang on with Saville and Rolf, it was the complete opposite for Cliff Richard and Spacey, hence why these things normally go to court.

I do wish the papers would stop referring to him as a comedian though. Mostly as they are usually funny, however a couple of stand ups have pointed out he wasn't exactly prolific on the stand up circuit.

 

[Wij]

A bit disingenuous as Saville was dead when the allegations were made.

Point still stands, do you consider Savile innocent cos it never made court?

The other side of it is that obviously not all the allegations were criminal. However, if they have enough evidence that they happened to be confident that they could stand a libel suit then what is the objection to publishing? Some things that journalists report on are not criminal. In this case much of it is just evidence of being a shitty human being. Should we never report that?

 

[Bodhi]

Point still stands, do you consider Savile innocent cos it never made court?

The other side of it is that obviously not all the allegations were criminal. However, if they have enough evidence that they happened to be confident that they could stand a libel suit then what is the objection to publishing? Some things that journalists report on are not criminal. In this case much of it is just evidence of being a shitty human being. Should we never report that?

No I don't consider Saville innocent. I do consider Kevin Spacey and Cliff Richard not guilty, however.

 

[Wij]

No I don't consider Saville innocent. I do consider Kevin Spacey and Cliff Richard not guilty, however.

Which is fine.

Also, there's only one l in Savile. Please give appropriate respect to Sir Jim'll.

 

[Bodhi]

Which is fine.

Also, there's only one l in Savile. Please give appropriate respect to Sir Jim'll.

Considering his rap sheet and the fact I didn't like him even back in the day, I'd rather not use any brain cycles on how to spell the cunts name.

And being honest I don't have much more time for Brand, but I do have time for due process. It proved some allegations entirely correct (Rolf, Weinstein), and some to be hot air.

I think due process is just as important for people I don't like as for those I do.

 

[Scouse]

That's literally what they've done.

Interesting to see what gets into court then. And then I can form an opinion (other than I don't like him) on the guilt or otherwise of Brand.

And I'm not arguing that Savile can be prosecuted. I'm arguing against double standards. If you go 'Courts or GTFO and media is mob rule' then by that standard you must still be giving Savile the benefit of the doubt. Are you?

It's not a double standard. Saville (two l's) doesn't need any benefit of the doubt, he's dead. But I'd have given it to him until he went to court if they could have got him (which they really really should have - see above) before he popped it.

You don't need to give dead men the benefit of anything - they're dead. It doesn't matter whether you think he's guilty or innocent or anything in between. These things only apply to the living. I my personal opinion you can speculate all you like about the dead - they won't care.

Edit: In Brand's case, bringing up Saville is like bringing up Hitler. There's a guilt being assumed here by association - and that's wrong.

 

[DaGaffer]

Weird how it’s always the people you most suspect of being predators.

Yeah, but in this particular situation isn't that at least partly the point? What woman, in her right fucking mind in the early 2000s, would consent to sex with Russell Brand? Self-confessed druggie and sex-addict? There comes a point where you have to say, well he said what he was like (in public and repeatedly), he said what he was going to do and had done with others, and you said yes? Soo....

That's why I find the comparison with say, Jimmy Saville incorrect; you really can't say you didn't know what to expect with Russell Brand ffs. Now, if he was violent after consent or consent was withdrawn, that's fair enough, but post hoc "oh I didn't mean it" or "I couldn't have given consent because that doesn't make sense to me now", really? With that guy?

 

[Wij]

Yeah, but in this particular situation isn't that at least partly the point? What woman, in her right fucking mind in the early 2000s, would consent to sex with Russell Brand? Self-confessed druggie and sex-addict?

Well in at least the case we were talking about it wasn’t a woman in her right mind. It was a schoolgirl with mental problems, including anorexia.

Even if that part wasn’t criminal it was disgusting, by him and the BBC if they facilitated it. That deserves to be reported and he deserves to be judged.

And if she had to fight to get his cock out of her mouth the police should press charges.

 

[Wij]

I think due process is just as important for people I don't like as for those I do.

Not disagreeing and hopefully some will get to court. We can still read well sourced facts about him in the meantime and make whatever judgement we want.