For consent?
I think I was just trying to highlight the jumbled up nature of the laws. In terms of child protection I think the CAs specify 16/17 year olds are still children.
It won’t stop youngsters that fool around with each other, but if it protects youngsters from preying adults that are much older than them then maybe it’s worth exploring.
Its an odd thing really
When I was 19 I was working away from Uni for a while and I ended up in this "relationship" with a woman at work
She was not massively older - probably 8 - 10 years and married
However, it became obvious from the start she clearly was a bit disturbed. I tried to end it and then a chain of reasons came out to stop me. Either pity or threats. So she'd kill herself, she'd tell her husband, she'd tell people I forced her etc
So it carried on. She would buy presents then attack me it was not great.
I was on my own there and it was just not a pleasant experience. Then she announced that she was leaving her husband and getting her own place and that she had arranged for me to get a full time job there and quit uni
Honestly I just would have done it but someone at work finally stepped in and helped me put a stop to it
So if a 19 year old man get get coerced and targeted it seems insane that a young girl can make a sound judgement
The absurdity of all this is highlighted when a year later I had a same sex relationship with someone and I guess I was 21 and he was 20 at some point in that which I guess at the time meant I was having sex with a minor which was utterly ridiculous.
Looks like this guy is the next in line to be cancelled by society. As it currently stands there has been a 4 year investigation in to him and apparently all they have is 4 unnamed witnesses who wish to remain anonymous but the witch hunt is well and truly on.
Isn’t cancelled an overused and misused term. If people, institutions, sponsors etc don’t want to be associated with someone whether the reason is they’re a talentless grifter or of questionable character (both apply here) then surely in a truly free society that is their choice. Unless ironically you want to cancel their free choice. What are you expecting exactly? A forced showing of Russel Brand on TV? People marched at gunpoint to a ticket office to buy tickets for his shows then marched to their seats? We don’t live in Russia or North Korea. Companies have a free choice of who they want to be associated with, media has a choice on who they promote and journalists have freedom to investigate people with a public persona regardless of how much you agree with them. Some people need to grow up.
I’ve never liked brand, but that is irrelevant. Anyway what I’m uncomfortable with is this new trend of people jumping on the bandwagon because it’s fashionable or popular to hate someone because of the supposed crimes that have not yet been proven. It’s like we are being dragged back 350 years when it was popular to hang witches because of the mob rule.Isn’t cancelled an overused and misused term. If people, institutions, sponsors etc don’t want to be associated with someone whether the reason is they’re a talentless grifter or of questionable character (both apply here) then surely in a truly free society that is their choice. Unless ironically you want to cancel their free choice. What are you expecting exactly? A forced showing of Russel Brand on TV? People marched at gunpoint to a ticket office to buy tickets for his shows then marched to their seats? We don’t live in Russia or North Korea. Companies have a free choice of who they want to be associated with, media has a choice on who they promote and journalists have freedom to investigate people with a public persona regardless of how much you agree with them. Some people need to grow up.
Who's burner account was this again?I’ve never liked brand, but that is irrelevant. Anyway what I’m uncomfortable with is this new trend of people jumping on the bandwagon because it’s fashionable or popular to hate someone because of the supposed crimes that have not yet been proven. It’s like we are being dragged back 350 years when it was popular to hang witches because of the mob rule.
The problem now it’s trial by media and social media. People should be careful what they cheer for because one day it might be them.
The creepy stalker is backWho's burner account was this again?
Or even prosecuted and found guilty with?I am going to wait and see what he is charged with.
Russell Brand?The creepy stalker is back
You fit the profileRussell Brand?
Says the man defending Mason Greenwood and Russell Brand?You fit the profile
Look Derek, it doesn’t seem like your tiny brain can compute what I am saying. You are the part of the problem, you cannot compute that you have no idea what’s going on in these cases but you decided by what information has been put out to you by social media and the media that they must have committed the crimes. They may well have done what is accused, but what I’m saying is the public has no clue as to what’s going on in these cases but they believe they are all so intelligent and entitled that the accused should be cancelled without fair trial.Says the man defending Mason Greenwood and Russell Brand?
Ok mate
They are more intelligent that you K, still if the audio recording in the Greenwood case isn't enough or the fact other comedians were dropping hints about what Brand was like then I pity you. By your logic you think Saville was hard down by.Look Derek, it doesn’t seem like your tiny brain can compute what I am saying. You are the part of the problem, you cannot compute that you have no idea what’s going on in these cases but you decided by what information has been put out to you by social media and the media that they must have committed the crimes. They may well have done what is accused, but what I’m saying is the public has no clue as to what’s going on in these cases but they believe they are all so intelligent and entitled that the accused should be cancelled without fair trial.
Go and watch the film Idocracy, it’s you.They are more intelligent that you K, still if the audio recording in the Greenwood case isn't enough or the fact other comedians were dropping hints about what Brand was like then I pity you. By your logic you think Saville was hard down by.
No wonder you use a burner account to post this shit
You really didn't understand that film did youGo and watch the film Idocracy, it’s you.
The problem with robots like you is you cannot think for yourself.You really didn't understand that film did you
The film uses similar themes the Wells and Huxley, guess you didn't pick up on that.The problem with robots like you is you cannot think for yourself.
The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond. Immediately the lemmings jump on it and Condem, cancel and vilify that individual. That’s all I’m not comfortable with and society is going down a bad path with this.It's a tricky one. There is no definitive answer I don't think. People should be allowed their day in court before everyone proclaims them guilty, but at the same time, if you had a venue and were about to stage a Russell Brand gig tonight and you hear that he's probably a rapist, how comfortable would you be with the gig going ahead?
It's not clear cut. I don't like to see anyone condemned without fair trial, but like with Mason Greenwood, would you want him playing for your club?
I honestly don't think there is a black and white answer.
I started reading that then completely zoned outThe film uses similar themes the Wells and Huxley, guess you didn't pick up on that.
You are this close to going into a full on "sheeple" rant.
well you are stupid so I expected thatI started reading that then completely zoned out
The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond. Immediately the lemmings jump on it and Condem, cancel and vilify that individual. That’s all I’m not comfortable with and society is going down a bad path with this.
Super easyThe problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond.
Super easy
The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond. Immediately the lemmings jump on it and Condem, cancel and vilify that individual. That’s all I’m not comfortable with and society is going down a bad path with this.
What does that even mean?View attachment 31921
What an absolute scumbag. The fact he got to fuck Billie Piper is proof there’s no God.
What does that even mean?
It means that shmmeee’s belief system hinges on the absence of an interventionist god, who chooses to intervene primarily on the issue of who gets to shag Billie PiperWhat does that even mean?
It means that shmmeee’s belief system hinges on the absence of an interventionist god, who chooses to intervene primarily on the issue of who gets to shag Billie Piper
The problem now is any media company can do an investigation on somebody, publish it on tv and social media without that person even having a chance to respond. Immediately the lemmings jump on it and Condem, cancel and vilify that individual. That’s all I’m not comfortable with and society is going down a bad path with this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?