Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by dirtydog

  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?
  12. Age of consent is 16 here, if you see it as wrong then that's a you problem. You're the one joining the pitchfork mob, led by the nose by the media who you apparently now suddenly trust.
  13. Not everything is some great orchestrated plan. Why is it so hard to believe there is a degree of chaos, that some anti-establishment figures are genuine and others are not. That some speak sense and others do not. Alex Jones is arguably one of the turds in the punchbowl who says things like Sandy Hook was a hoax, there were no dead kids and the parents are actors, in order to make money off gullible people (he is very wealthy). And/or to discredit the idea of even questioning any mainstream narrative because anyone who does so, then becomes associated with people like him. The current zeitgeist is to pursue men who have had sexual relations with women in the past, it's a new age of puritanism and witch hunts. Let thee who is without sin cast the first stone. None of Brand's or Weinstein's etc. accusers have squeaky clean always pure sexual histories and thoughts. That includes the general public. All of us. You too.
  14. Seriously? Do we just make up the most crazy accusations without evidence here now. You better hope he can't be bothered to set his lawyers on you.
  15. More details now. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12525673/Russell-Brand.html So they've waited between 10 and 17 years to come forward Now he'll have to prove his innocence or he's in trouble. That's how the legal system works nowadays with this sort of accusation. Probably he had relations with these people and won't deny that, but the rest will be his word against theirs.
  16. No idea. Bear in mind that two things can be true simultaneously: that he might be dodgy / fake or whatever, but that the accusations made against him in this programme later are trumped up. Just keep an open mind as I'm doing, that's all I suggest. Don't rush to judgement, as you would also wish others not to do against you if you were accused of things.
  17. He might not have been informed of the specific allegations and is waiting to see the programme. And/or he's wisely watching what he says in case of legal action where his words could be twisted and used against him. Whether he's the 'real deal' or not, even if he isn't, this could still be a stitch-up. Any man who has had sexual relations with women in the past, especially multiple casual encounters, is at risk nowadays of being accused of assault or rape, and with no real way to prove your innocence. In fact Harvey Weinstein for example, even HAD proof of his innocence in multiple of the cases he was nonetheless convicted for. He provided irrefutable evidence the women he had supposedly harmed were still continuing to be friends with him and have sex with him after the dates of the supposed criminal acts. But it didn't save him.
  18. From 32:50? I see nothing wrong there at all, the video is ridiculous, sorry. Trying to make something out of nothing.
  19. She has asked for permission to appeal her conviction. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66823777 This is a good write-up about the profound flaws in the prosecution. https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/11/lucy-letby-must-be-allowed-an-appeal/ Is this thread the best place to continue discussion of Lucy Letby moving forwards or is this forum only intended for newer news?
  20. There's a very serious allegation which I can't find any other mention of online. Can you give more info? What was that video you posted called / who made it? (I tried searching for the words in the URL and couldn't find any video related to it either). I don't know what to make of Brand exactly, or of the Dispatches story. On the one hand, I know that the 'powers that be' who control the mainstream media will always smear people who are a threat to them or who speak dangerous truths. On the other hand, Brand seems full of shit and to be a hypocrite and grifter. I say seems, I'm not completely dismissing him, but that's how he comes across. Pseudo intellectual who unnecessarily uses fancy words to appear cleverer than he is. 'Anti-capitalist' rich man who enjoys life of luxury only possible from the economic system he criticises. There are a lot of people like him and I tend to think they are false prophets. But I also try to keep an open mind in case I'm wrong.
  • Create New...