Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dirtydog last won the day on August 28 2023

dirtydog had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

dirtydog's Achievements



  1. The justice system seems to believe people are like robots, you can have them sit as jurors for ten long excruciatingly boring months listening to testimony which would make most of us lose the will to live, so tedious it would be day after day after day. But that they would also pay keen attention to every word, every day, and reach a fair and reliable conclusion. Who would believe that? But we're supposed to. By the time the defence had the chance to put its case on, the jury would have already resented the hell out of being there. She's obviously guilty, let's just get on with deciding the verdict. Oh what's this? Oh no, now we have to listen for months more while the defence puts on its case. ZZZZzzzz... I am not listening. I want to go home. The thing that is preventing me going home is..... Lucy Letby and her defence. Blah blah blah. Most people have the attention span of a gnat. Consciously or unconsciously some of the jury at least are going to vote to convict just because they are fed up of being there for so long. Lucy Letby is why they had to endure such an ordeal, and now they have the chance to punish her. Guilty.
  2. Russell Brand's lawyers will be coming for you if you keep falsely claiming he 'raped a child'. And it will be richly deserved. Your continued use of disinformation and emotive language ('child'), 'rape' and 'survivor' is very interesting. Yes she survived because she consented and didn't complain for 18 years or whatever it is. I don't know if you've led a very sheltered life but when I was at school and I don't suppose it's got any different since, girls were having sex from 11-12 quite often, and 16 very commonly. Including with adults who would drive them to / pick them up from school in their cars. Hard for us boys to compete with older experienced men with money and a car, that's for sure. I bet she was starstruck and probably even boasted to her mates. Young teens can be very sexually active and promiscuous. They might later when they grow up feel some shame and then look to blame someone, anyone else, for the decisions they themselves freely made at the time. It shouldn't be taken seriously though.
  3. Or it means nothing at all. You can find patterns anywhere if you look for them and if you want to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia It's a pretty obvious logical fallacy. Sometimes Occam's razor applies, the most simplest explanations are the right ones. Brand is being attacked because he stepped out of line one too many times with regards to upsetting the people at the top. And it's also part of the ongoing war against men, where any man can be accused of sexual misdeeds for spurious reasons. Sexual harassment or controlling behaviour etc. are extremely broad and vaguely defined, intentionally so. It means if they want to find a way to make you guilty of something, they can do. If you've ever flirted with or asked a woman out, especially at work but it could be anywhere, then the law could easily make a case that you have committed sexual harassment, if your advances were unwanted (and how do you find out if they're wanted, without asking?). Furthermore, even if the woman consents, she can withdraw consent later, even years later, and claim she was 'coerced'. This can happen to any man in the West now and there are men sitting in prison today because of it.
  4. So what. What is your purpose here, dog piling on Russell Brand which is easy right now. The establishment will give you a cookie.
  5. Some women can be perfectly enthusiastically willing to do what might be very surprising to you. When you learn more about human sexuality it will be less surprising, or no surprise at all.
  6. In the UK we don't need unanimous verdicts. Lucy Letby was convicted 10-1.
  7. Perhaps there needs to be a statute of limitations on cases like this. Unless it's clear cut cases of stranger rape where the person has no idea who did it, and sometimes those are solved many many years later with DNA evidence - those are legitimate to have no time limit. But cases like this where the women knew exactly who the man was who had sex with them but they wait until years later before complaining - those should just be dismissed in most if not all cases. No conviction on such a basis can be safe, and just because a load of women come forward when prompted, doesn't make the case any stronger. It is well known that a woman scorned is a terrible thing to be on the receiving end of, and every celebrity male, especially good looking ones like Russell Brand, will have a string of 'conquests' and some of those women will feel aggrieved that they didn't become Mrs Russell Brand.
  8. You are a good example of why the jury system is flawed. People like you can be on a jury and you just make up a narrative which ignores the law altogether. Women have sex (and yes a 16-year-old is a young woman capable of consenting to sex including oral sex) and then later change their mind, maybe years later they think 'I feel dirty that I chose to do that thing of my own free will, I feel angry that the celebrity I chose to have sex with didn't want to keep seeing me. I want to get back at him. I have now, 10 years or more later, decided it was 'rape' and I am going to get him.' These women know they will always have an army of simps and holier than thou types to bat for them.
  9. IIRC her mother knew and approved, but regardless, what does secret mean? Should he have taken out an ad in the paper? The ones who make the most noise about being pure and holier than thou are usually the ones with the most to hide. Maybe the police should look at your hard drive.
  10. aka it confirms my biases. You now suddenly trust the word of habitual lifelong proven liars. Innocent until proven guilty.
  11. As you said yourself: don't think that users on this forum won't notice the way you are re-framing this. Having sex with a 16 year old is not illegal nor immoral either. He isn't being accused of having underage sex, you are over-egging the pudding, why is that?
  • Create New...