Making the news today....

[openspaceman]

39 minutes ago, doobin said:

How long before they come for Neil Oliver, I wonder?

 

This whole thing is daft. Women are attracted to high status men, and Brand in his prime was a perfect example. Now that his name has been dragged through the mud by his stance on COVID, he's not so attractive and a few have decided that actually they never really liked him. Or been tempted by the chance of a payout, whether a bung from an as yet unknown third party or damages as part of a 'me too' class action.

As a fellow misogynist I agree

[Steven P]

1 hour ago, doobin said:

How long before they come for Neil Oliver, I wonder?

 

This whole thing is daft. Women are attracted to high status men, and Brand in his prime was a perfect example. Now that his name has been dragged through the mud by his stance on COVID, he's not so attractive and a few have decided that actually they never really liked him. Or been tempted by the chance of a payout, whether a bung from an as yet unknown third party or damages as part of a 'me too' class action.

 

 

That kind of emphasises a point I made earlier, those who are rich and famous are protected because of this attitude "they are only reporting this to go after their cash". The victims are often put off reporting what happened because of that attitude. Mentioned earlier that the courts should decide guilt but the victims should be able to report any crimes without fear or prejudice. Any guilty verdicts and then the victims should be able to chase for a payout.

 

To me making a payout is almost an admission of guilt - why make a payment if there is nothing to defend yourself from?

 

Noting that there was a report to the police about Brand (not from someone in the documentary) - shows that the program has shown other victims that they weren't the only ones.

 

Of course, writing here as if he is guilty, he could be found to be innocent of specific charges in a court of law if it gets that far

[Johnsond]

52 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

 

That kind of emphasises a point I made earlier, those who are rich and famous are protected because of this attitude "they are only reporting this to go after their cash". The victims are often put off reporting what happened because of that attitude. Mentioned earlier that the courts should decide guilt but the victims should be able to report any crimes without fear or prejudice. Any guilty verdicts and then the victims should be able to chase for a payout.

 

To me making a payout is almost an admission of guilt - why make a payment if there is nothing to defend yourself from?

 

Noting that there was a report to the police about Brand (not from someone in the documentary) - shows that the program has shown other victims that they weren't the only ones.

 

Of course, writing here as if he is guilty, he could be found to be innocent of specific charges in a court of law if it gets that far

And if it doesn’t get that far !! As other now infamous cases didn’t due to our amazing CPS. Is he therefore as your pal stated “ a sexual predator “ for life. 

[Mike Hill]

"To me making a payout is almost an admission of guilt - why make a payment if there is nothing to defend yourself from?"

 

Because sometimes it's just the lesser of two evils. I had to buy my website off my former business partner who stiffed me for at least 200 grand, I also had to pay him a gratuity in order to take over the company despite him being investigated for fraud.

 

I could have dug my heals in and rightly demanded it all for free, or tried to apply the principles of fair play. Unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.

[Steven P]

Slight difference Mike, you were paying out to buy the complete business which I guess was a shared asset you and the business partner - sucks though that you being the good guy had to pay out to the bad guy. You were never accused of anything - so any payment you made wasn't to make allegations against you vanish.

 

In the cases where the accused makes a payment and the threat of court action vanishes, the payment is the lesser of the 2 evils, the greater of the 2 is the victim having their day in court. The analogy here would be you taking your old business partner to court and them saying "here is the business, website et al and also £50k to make the court side of things go away". The greater of the 2 evils is only greater if you won't walk away from the court proceedings with an apology from the accuser.

[Johnsond]

It would appear old knee bender is busy over the channel 🤔

Britain touted as future ‘associate member’ of EU

APPLE.NEWS

---

France and Germany propose four-tiered system under which UK would be governed by European...

The corporate employment agency that  is the EU just doesn’t ever seem happy unless it’s getting ever more powerful. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Johnsond

[Mike Hill]

40 minutes ago, Steven P said:

Slight difference Mike, you were paying out to buy the complete business which I guess was a shared asset you and the business partner - sucks though that you being the good guy had to pay out to the bad guy. You were never accused of anything - so any payment you made wasn't to make allegations against you vanish.

 

In the cases where the accused makes a payment and the threat of court action vanishes, the payment is the lesser of the 2 evils, the greater of the 2 is the victim having their day in court. The analogy here would be you taking your old business partner to court and them saying "here is the business, website et al and also £50k to make the court side of things go away". The greater of the 2 evils is only greater if you won't walk away from the court proceedings with an apology from the accuser.

You are right.

 

He was jailed for fraud,I and he were under investigation although my innocence was proven early on,I still had to pay the twat out.

 

My lawyer compared it to performing a sex act upon another man. 

[Steven P]

There is a joke in there but pretty sure writing it down would ruin it.

[Doug Tait]

I find it quite believable that a junkie sex addict with a big profile and even bigger ego, would take the opportunity to treat people like trinkets for his gratification.

 

If anyone has known a junkie before it's not news that they're selfish, nasty individuals that can't be trusted and have no thought for anyone but themselves. They're on a mission in life to please themselves in the moment however it suits them. Add in the self confessed sex pest part of his personality and I'd think it likely he's treated a lot of people badly.

 

As for letting the courts decide rather than MSM, that's exactly what will happen. But apparently it takes MSM to see a story worth running, then commit resources to investigative journalism and gather evidence, before the police get involved in the first place.

[Mick Dempsey]

I have to laugh at all the conspiracy theorists intimating the ‘man’ is framing Brand to shut him up.

The internet is chock full of people talking and writing about covid and other controversial subjects 24/7, are they going to get them all?

Right Said Fred get caught putting the wrong plastic in the recycling bin?

Matt Le Tissier filmed not picking up his dog’s shit?

 

You read it here first!