Russell Brand denies 'serious criminal allegations' he claims are being made against him

a reply to: tanstaafl

No, you aren't.

Some are to be believed.

Oddly and disturbingly misogynist insinuation, there?

I'm going to say the same thing here that I said on the other Russell Brand thread.

I never understood why Russell Brand was 'a thing'.
He's not handsome.
He's not talented.
He's creepy and gross.
He treated his wife - Katy Perry - like crap.
Why did he 'make it' in the entertainment industry?
He's really got nothing going for him.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: tanstaafl

No, you aren't.

Some are to be believed.

Oddly and disturbingly misogynist insinuation, there?

So why is absolutley no one in the mainstream media saying that? Why are they all calling these women victims, even though brand has been charged eith absolutley nothing?

We already know that the Sunday mail manipulated a text message to make it sound like "no means no" was referring to brand having sex with this woman, when we now know thst was not what the text was about when you read the whole text!

Why did they lie?

a reply to: JumpTheGun76

Source please?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I'm going to say the same thing here that I said on the other Russell Brand thread.

I never understood why Russell Brand was 'a thing'.
He's not handsome.
He's not talented.
He's creepy and gross.
He treated his wife - Katy Perry - like crap.
Why did he 'make it' in the entertainment industry?
He's really got nothing going for him.

What does thst have to do with him being accused of rape? Sorry, but this is not about if you find him funny or not, or good looking or not!

a reply to: JumpTheGun76

Saying what?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: tanstaafl

No, you aren't.

Some are to be believed.

Oddly and disturbingly misogynist insinuation, there?

Not at all, this is what the vast majority of the radical left insist on and demand.

a reply to: JumpTheGun76

It was, according to you:

"Jesus christ! Russell brand is a comedian! You just have to watch him on TV to know ehat he is like! This interview proves zbsolutley nothing! "

a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry?

The radical left insist on misogynistic insinuations?

Since when?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JumpTheGun76

Source please?

Sure! link

""After this alleged incident, Brand is thought to have sent a seven-word apology. "I'm sorry. That was crazy and selfish," he penned, according to text messages from Brand's number, verified by The Times.""

They missed out most of tbe conversation! Which you see on the video link I sent you here here

It had nothing do do eith rape, but the fact he had sex with her without a condon! Ghst was why she was annoyed and said she may have to get tested!

Why did they miss that part out?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JumpTheGun76

It was, according to you:

"Jesus christ! Russell brand is a comedian! You just have to watch him on TV to know ehat he is like! This interview proves zbsolutley nothing! "

Jesus christ! Because you do not find him funny, means no one else does! Because you do not like him, does not mean no one likes him!

So him msking a joke eith a host about his sexual addiction means what exactly?

a reply to: JumpTheGun76

Why don't you mention the rest of the allegations instead of cherry picking?

a reply to: JumpTheGun76

Not my point. At all.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry?

The radical left insist on misogynistic insinuations?

Since when?

Since the last decade or so...

I guess you've been missing all of the sneak attacks on women, pushing to allow men to compete against womein in womens sports, use women's bathrooms and locker rooms, etc etc ad nauseum?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Oh here we go. The irrelevant obsession with your trans agenda?

Off topic.

originally posted by: JumpTheGun76

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JumpTheGun76

Source please?

Sure! link

""After this alleged incident, Brand is thought to have sent a seven-word apology. "I'm sorry. That was crazy and selfish," he penned, according to text messages from Brand's number, verified by The Times.""

They missed out most of tbe conversation! Which you see on the video link I sent you here here

It had nothing do do eith rape, but the fact he had sex with her without a condon! Ghst was why she was annoyed and said she may have to get tested!

Why did they miss that part out?

Having sex without a condom with someone, then having to apologize for it afterwards, shows what? It was not desired, it was not consensual, which begs the question where was the discussion beforehand for agreement and consent on the hows and whatfors. Which shows there was no discussion nor consent IMO.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: tanstaafl

Oh here we go. The irrelevant obsession with your trans agenda?

My trans agenda? Rotflmao!

Off topic.

You asked the question, I just answered it. But it really isn't OT, it is all related...

Here in the US we have a tort (legal action) called interference with contractual relations.

It's when a third party tries to interfere with another contract. Sometimes it's used against former employers to stop blacklisting.

Have anything like that in the UK? If you do, I'm guessing a certain person might be on the receiving end of legal action.

a reply to: tanstaafl

"And we all know that accusers never lie, and all women must be believed... am-i-rite?"

What does your misogynist comment have to do with any trans agenda?

a reply to: Daughter2

YouTube is not a third party.

Let's see if Brand actually sue's anyone?