SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Overdriven]

I got the blessing to go after Jensen's soon to be ex..

"Why would she pick you?" :'(

#EmotionalDamage

 

[Embattle]

Seems the celeb trying to block some news organisations from revealing some stories about him has finally been named:

‘It wasn’t long until he asked me if I’d ever had sex before’: David Walliams accused of preying on young women for sex

Comedian and former Britain’s Got Talent judge alleged to have groomed fans he met when they were as young as 15 and harassed women in the workplace over a number of years. He denies the allegations

www.theguardian.com

 

[caLLous]

Walliams sexually assaulted people live on stage, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to assume his name would come back up.

 

[georgie]

Seems the celeb trying to block some news organisations from revealing some stories about him has finally been named:

‘It wasn’t long until he asked me if I’d ever had sex before’: David Walliams accused of preying on young women for sex

Comedian and former Britain’s Got Talent judge alleged to have groomed fans he met when they were as young as 15 and harassed women in the workplace over a number of years. He denies the allegations

www.theguardian.com

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Do I need a /s there?

 

[Embattle]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vIBijzg4w

 

[caLLous]

Jonathan Ross 'horrified' by Walliams allegations and Brand conviction

The TV presenter says he was once "friendly" with both David Walliams and Russell Brand, but was "genuinely unaware of their conduct".

www.bbc.com

Also Jonathan Ross, in 2004:

James Spiro (@JamesSpiro) on X

Jonathan Ross: “The comedy awards is 15 years old… and like most 15-year-olds, it's drunk, it's unpredictable, and it's probably going home with David Walliams.” Everyone knew. Just like they did with Russell Brand.

x.com

 

[DaGaffer]

Jonathan Ross 'horrified' by Walliams allegations and Brand conviction

The TV presenter says he was once "friendly" with both David Walliams and Russell Brand, but was "genuinely unaware of their conduct".

www.bbc.com

Also Jonathan Ross, in 2004:

James Spiro (@JamesSpiro) on X

Jonathan Ross: “The comedy awards is 15 years old… and like most 15-year-olds, it's drunk, it's unpredictable, and it's probably going home with David Walliams.” Everyone knew. Just like they did with Russell Brand.

x.com

The Rest is Entertainment tying themselves in knots trying to claim just how much nobody knew until 2018 was quite an eye-opening episode. I knew, and I hadn't worked in the media for years by the time Brand became a thing. And when the rumours of someone trying to get a lifetime gagging order broke a few weeks ago, even my wife, who's never worked in media in her life and isn't even British said "I assume that's David Walliams?"

 

[Scouse]

Also Jonathan Ross, in 2004:

He said the joke was written by the comedy awards writers?


Of course, the allegations of the then 15 year old should go straight to the police. 100%.

However, my o/h brought up some of the other allegations this morning (a bit much to literally wake up to whilst she's sat reading the phone, stroking the cat (but whatever)):

One of the allegations is that a couple of 18 year old girls, went to an expensive spa day with him, went back to his, started drinking, he tried it on, was rebuffed, then they slept at his (separate rooms) and were friendly the next day. Then, eleven years later they're complaining about how he's creepy and should be looking for women in his own age range.

This is women punching at women using men as a scapegoat isn't it? Or maybe to put it another way - the argument removes young women's agency whilst at the same time insisting they're an adult. If you're an adult, then maybe don't accept the rich bloke's offer of a spa and then "back to his"? And if the obvious happens, you rebuff him, and it ends there, you stay at his house, and are OK then next day then basically this is how adult interaction can happen.

Finding it distasteful years later and actually moaning about that to a paper means you're a bit of a cunt IMO.

Older men are attracted to younger women. If they're of age then the only issue is our moral 'distaste' for older men acting like that. But what is absent is a narrative that if you're a woman, you have agency, and maybe don't launch yourself at the rich?

Feeling shame about how you acted when you were 18 doesn't mean it was his "fault" - if there's a problem in the future, and fault to assign - then the fault was yours. Your reassessment of your past and a realisation of how dumb you acted is on you, not him. Nothing criminal happened - and when you were rebuffed, at that point he acted how men should - allowed you to stay safe in his home until you'd sobered up, woken up, left the house.

Women are absolutely allowed to reinterpret their past experiences - but that doesn't mean there's a moral obligation on everyone else to condemn the man.

 

[Scouse]

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

 

[caLLous]

So, that's about the idea (more a running joke on the internet) that DiCaprio has or had a cut-off age for his partners (25), not about him getting 15-year-olds drunk and taking them home.

The whole point is that everybody knew that about DiCaprio. Can you imagine Gervais turning around now and pretending it was just some joke that someone handed him and he had no idea it was real? That's what Ross is doing above with a much more pointed "joke" about much more serious allegations than "he has a thing for women in their early-mid 20s".

 

[Deebs]

a bit much to literally wake up to whilst she's sat reading the phone, stroking the cat (but whatever)

Fucking hell, imagine the smile on your face if you replaced cat with pussy

 

[Scouse]

That's what Ross is doing above with a much more pointed "joke" about much more serious allegations than "he has a thing for women in their early-mid 20s".

Like I said - Ross didn't write the joke.

And, according to all reports - Walliams hasn't had sex with anyone under age.

Now, did he act in a creepy manner? Certainly by my standards. But do we move to a position where we lock up creepy old men? We'd have to lock up all the rock stars. And the other questions - considering there's a single (not established of criminal) allegation against him of impropriety - the rest appear to be about women of legal age or adults (and firmly adults in the example from the Guardian I gave).

Do women have no agency? Shall we continue to infantilise them?

When women reassess the stupid things they did when they were young, should we vilify the men involved, or should we all collectively shrug and put that down to life?

Should we make being a groupie illegal? Or are we just wanting to criminalise men who accept offers of sex from girls who idolise them?

Fucking hell, imagine the smile on your face if you replaced cat with pussy

I actually wrote the joke, but deleted it before posting as it's a relatively serious subject

 

[gunner440]

Feeling shame about how you acted when you were 18 doesn't mean it was his "fault" - if there's a problem in the future, and fault to assign - then the fault was yours. Your reassessment of your past and a realisation of how dumb you acted is on you, not him. Nothing criminal happened - and when you were rebuffed, at that point he acted how men should - allowed you to stay safe in his home until you'd sobered up, woken up, left the house.

Women are absolutely allowed to reinterpret their past experiences - but that doesn't mean there's a moral obligation on everyone else to condemn the man.

Where I live (Marbella) it's as common as anything. You see the young ones fling themselves at people with a rented lamborghini. The 15 year olds look 20 and the 25 year olds dress like they're 20.

Whores the lot of them. The main difference is that some of them are up front with their intentions and price tag.

Had a friend get arrested because he found out his now ex-wife was cheating on him and she knew she was going to get nothing so apparently she turned up at the police station all bruised.

We're just guilty for being men.

 

[DaGaffer]

He said the joke was written by the comedy awards writers?


Of course, the allegations of the then 15 year old should go straight to the police. 100%.

However, my o/h brought up some of the other allegations this morning (a bit much to literally wake up to whilst she's sat reading the phone, stroking the cat (but whatever)):

One of the allegations is that a couple of 18 year old girls, went to an expensive spa day with him, went back to his, started drinking, he tried it on, was rebuffed, then they slept at his (separate rooms) and were friendly the next day. Then, eleven years later they're complaining about how he's creepy and should be looking for women in his own age range.

This is women punching at women using men as a scapegoat isn't it? Or maybe to put it another way - the argument removes young women's agency whilst at the same time insisting they're an adult. If you're an adult, then maybe don't accept the rich bloke's offer of a spa and then "back to his"? And if the obvious happens, you rebuff him, and it ends there, you stay at his house, and are OK then next day then basically this is how adult interaction can happen.

Finding it distasteful years later and actually moaning about that to a paper means you're a bit of a cunt IMO.

Older men are attracted to younger women. If they're of age then the only issue is our moral 'distaste' for older men acting like that. But what is absent is a narrative that if you're a woman, you have agency, and maybe don't launch yourself at the rich?

Feeling shame about how you acted when you were 18 doesn't mean it was his "fault" - if there's a problem in the future, and fault to assign - then the fault was yours. Your reassessment of your past and a realisation of how dumb you acted is on you, not him. Nothing criminal happened - and when you were rebuffed, at that point he acted how men should - allowed you to stay safe in his home until you'd sobered up, woken up, left the house.

Women are absolutely allowed to reinterpret their past experiences - but that doesn't mean there's a moral obligation on everyone else to condemn the man.

This is door-opening. The way it works with these investigations is that the journos involved have a ton of stuff but they can't get the real victims to come forward, so these stories are the warm up act. Same thing happened with Brand, including one woman who still has a lifetime injunction against her brought by Brand and his then girlfriend Jemima Goldsmith, who's now come out and said Brand assaulted her.

The bar for women to get justice from the wealthy men with lots of lawyers is massively high, so the approach is to send in the brave ones first, but there will be more they know are coming, they just needed someone else to make the first move.

 

[Scouse]

I don't disagree with this @DaGaffer. But still: Uncomfortable.

Remember that story about the New Jersey state insurance fraud sting?

Fake bus crash. 15 fake participants. The bus was "hit" from behind by a car travelling at less than 10mph. Before the police arrived seventeen additional unrelated people had got on the bus to claim compensation.

And when you add into this mix that memory is reconstructive, not reproductive - when people read stuff / experience stuff and then recall stuff that happened to them a long time ago, the brain incorporates this new information and memory physically changes.

We can make people remember stuff differently. We can make people's memories of a happy, uncontroversial, event become emotionally coloured by sadness, regret or even trauma.


Whilst I absolutely want to lock up rapists, I find this sort of stuff really very dodgy indeed. We can't rely on people's recollections from 20 years ago - especially people who've lived through what has happened culturally in the last 20 years. Memory is inherently unreliable.

And when we're publishing stuff in the press saying "this guy is really fucking dodgy" - then a small proportion of the, presumably many, girls who've shagged or simply non-sexually interacted with him in the past could well very clearly remember a very different interaction than what happened.


None of this makes me comfortable. And none of the moralising - the "dirty old man" stuff - is OK. This is a major news organisation smearing someone in an effort to open that door. And absolutely the narrative is that "we don't like" how he acted - even if those interactions were not criminal. That older men, famous men, should recurse themselves from having sex with girls who are supposed to be adult enough to make their own decisions.

Are they? Or are they not?

 

[BloodOmen]

View: https://youtu.be/9hXlMbSMHeU

 

[Raven]

Ross always came accross as the type, too.

 

[Tom]

stroking the cat

 

[DaGaffer]

This is a major news organisation smearing someone in an effort to open that door. And absolutely the narrative is that "we don't like" how he acted - even if those interactions were not criminal.

You haven't read what I've said at all. There is more to follow and the journalists have it. But they need the women to allow their names to be publicly attached to it. It's a process.

You're coming from the (not unfair given the evidence of...British tabloid journalism since forever) perspective that the press smearing someone is the point. In this case it isn't.

 

[Scouse]

You haven't read what I've said at all. There is more to follow and the journalists have it. But they need the women to allow their names to be publicly attached to it. It's a process.

Ah. I didn't follow that.

How come you appear to know?

 

[Raven]

/Fishwife gossip mode. Apparantly there is another one about to come out. The BBC will have to shut down Iplayer at this rate, due to lack of content.

 

[gunner440]

I don't disagree with this @DaGaffer. But still: Uncomfortable.

Remember that story about the New Jersey state insurance fraud sting?

Fake bus crash. 15 fake participants. The bus was "hit" from behind by a car travelling at less than 10mph. Before the police arrived seventeen additional unrelated people had got on the bus to claim compensation.

And when you add into this mix that memory is reconstructive, not reproductive - when people read stuff / experience stuff and then recall stuff that happened to them a long time ago, the brain incorporates this new information and memory physically changes.

We can make people remember stuff differently. We can make people's memories of a happy, uncontroversial, event become emotionally coloured by sadness, regret or even trauma.


Whilst I absolutely want to lock up rapists, I find this sort of stuff really very dodgy indeed. We can't rely on people's recollections from 20 years ago - especially people who've lived through what has happened culturally in the last 20 years. Memory is inherently unreliable.

And when we're publishing stuff in the press saying "this guy is really fucking dodgy" - then a small proportion of the, presumably many, girls who've shagged or simply non-sexually interacted with him in the past could well very clearly remember a very different interaction than what happened.

This is what i still don’t get. Are the institutions so scared of potential harm to their reputation where they’re able to skip the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing or just accept a memory from 10-20 years ago which to me would be classed below hearsay.

A bunch of them coming forward doesn’t make it more plausible either to me as the quality of evidence is still trash.

What are they supposed to remember from that long ago that would be admissible as evidence or be able to be proven? If they were raped 10 years ago how do we know it wasn’t someone else that wasn’t as famous?

I saw this thing a few years ago where university students in the US were filming themselves giving consent before sleeping together just to protect themselves. WTF

 

[Tom]

View attachment rapidsave.com_absolute_cinematic_reality_we_live_right_now-fs7jtcrdh31i1.mp4

 

[Tom]

What are they supposed to remember from that long ago that would be admissible as evidence or be able to be proven? If they were raped 10 years ago how do we know it wasn’t someone else that wasn’t as famous?

Fortunately we have long court cases where evidence from multiple sources is presented in those cases, to a jury of peers. I'll remind you that Brand was found not guilty of more charges than he was found guilty for. And that his jury was mostly men.

You're casting doubt on a case which we all have very little knowledge of compared to the jury, who sat through it all and debated it for many hours. And tbh, if any of us had been abused, I think we'd maintain very, very strong recollections of what happened.

 

[Scouse]

Fortunately we have long court cases where evidence from multiple sources is presented in those cases, to a jury of peers.

But they decide on the evidence.

Neuroscience casts very real and serious doubts over our process (and this isn't news in the highest levels of our judiciary). Yet we appear, whether through inertia or fear (or something else) to be reluctant to face up to what this means for our system of justice.

Ostriches with our heads in the sand.

This is why in the Walliams case, and our newly censorious, morally conservative / metoo cultural environment - where peoples lives are trashed in the public space regardless of whether it gets to court, I'm incredibly uncomfortable.

The example I gave above, with the 18 year olds, straight from the guardian "hit piece" - that's an example of good behaviour being used to attack Walliams.

We don't even need our memories coloured the decades - we're not assessing what is right in front of us, today, correctly.

 

[gunner440]

where peoples lives are trashed in the public space regardless of whether it gets to court, I'm incredibly uncomfortable.

I think you expressed it better than my attempts.

The topic hits close to home though and for those not fortunate enough to have the resources that the celebs have that allow them to recover relatively quickly.

One of the few cases I've experienced here personally... I knew this 16 year old kid who worked summers at a friend's business. He was incredibly sweet but dumb. I mean thick as hell but a good worker.

It kicked off because after one weekend this girl from the same school reported him to the police saying she was raped by him at a party held during the weekend. He got kicked out of school and terrorised by everyone just on her words. She went to a doctor to have some tests done (I didn't know you could have tests done to see if you had been raped) and they all came back negative and the doctor found no indication that anything she had said had happened.

It didn't stop the school kicking him out, or all the girl's friends throwing stones at his house. It didn't stop the threats.

They ended up finding his body near one of the mountain areas with evidence pointing to suicide even though further information wasn't disclosed.

The reason I mentioned he was thick earlier was that I feel that maybe celebrities have a legal and PR team to call upon not to mention years of media training. This guy was a lot more simple...

Meanwhile the girl in question continued to live her best life blabla. No, she didn't kill him by letter of the law but her words definitely had some effect.

 

[Scouse]

That's really sad.

Maybe what needed to happen there was they both received levels of anonymity whilst it went through court?

 

[gunner440]

That's really sad.

Maybe what needed to happen there was they both received levels of anonymity whilst it went through court?

That's the theory.

My issue is that everyone in and around just took the girl's words as gospel. She said he raped her = he did rape her regardless of what the facts say.

The worst part allegedly is that according to him they didn't even have actual sex.

Another big(ish) one here was when these 5 guys had sex with a woman at a fair (quite traditional in the south of Spain) and filmed it. Heavily summarising things, she came out saying she was raped and all 5 guys had their lives ruined. Fired from their jobs and made unemployable forever, houses and cars damaged as well as those of any friends or family that housed them.

It happened around the time where the feminist movement was getting huge traction here so they lapped it up.

Fast forward a few years (3-4?) and the woman came out saying that she couldn't take it any longer and felt guilty because she was the one up for it as it was a turn on for her but that at the time she didn't want to say it to save face in front of family.

I'm not saying those guys are saints but that's 5 lives ruined 'cos her parents raised a ...

 

[Tom]

This is why in the Walliams case, and our newly censorious, morally conservative / metoo cultural environment - where peoples lives are trashed in the public space regardless of whether it gets to court, I'm incredibly uncomfortable.

There doesn't appear to be a case, just a lot of people agreeing that someone in their 30s hanging around with a 16 year old is creepy as fuck. If you want to hang around with girls of that age, fair enough - but don't act all Pikachu Surprise Face when a lot of people don't like it, and say so.

 

[BloodOmen]

View: https://youtu.be/5QQbrupsOlM