sadoldgit

GB News and Laurence Fox sink to a new low. https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/breaking-gb-news-issues-urgent-31036747.amp What is happening to this country? Rupert Murdoch might be standing down from his position as chief purveyor of crap to the public but his legacy lives on.

The dreadful woman has completely managed to trash the success of multiculturalism that led to her, the daughter of immigrants, rising to a senior cabinet position and serving a Prime Minister who is also the benefactor from immigration. She also managed to repeat the lie that asylum seekers have to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive at. No they do not and have not had to following the Refugee Convention in 1951. No doubt this is a grandstanding stunt aimed at currying favour with the gammons ahead of a leadership bid when Sunak gets kicked out.

I think that he was expressing a little annoyance. Anyway, the little annoyance I have today is the right wing media kicking off about Labour’s plan to apply 20% vat to private school fees. Don’t they tell us if you can’t afford children, don’t have them? Perhaps they should extend that argument to if you can’t afford to send your children to private school, then don’t?* *Unashamedly pinched from the James O’Brien LBC show this morning.

I would imagine it is to try and give justice to the parents and family of the child. If I was one of the parents of the babies that there was no verdict given, I would feel let down by the process. They wouldn’t bring another prosecution if they didn’t think that there was a reasonable chance of a verdict.

That’s the thing though egg, these types of allegations play out through social media all of the time. There were Phillip Schofield stories flying about on social media long before the news broke in the main stream. There is a social media site, not Mumsnet, mainly populated by women that carries loads of stories about celebs, politicians, sports stars, influencers etc daily. The current threads about Brand would make your toes curl. How much of it is true I have no idea but there are people there claiming to have sex with him or friends of people who have had sex with him washing their dirty linen in public. There was a lot of rumours about Dan Wooten behaviour on there months before the news broke in the mainstream. Some of this stuff goes back years. I’m amazed that the place hasn’t been sued out of existence given some of the stuff they publish from people. As for not being a sex addict, no me neither, which is just as well as I wouldn’t be able to do much about it!

This is the thing though egg, I get addiction although I don’t have an addictive personality myself thankfully. I know people addicted to smoking, drinking and gambling. What I don’t get is Brand’s particular brand of sex addiction which only seems to extend to exceptionally attractive women and excludes normal looking women or what Duckie would class as 9 pinters. Surely if you were addicted to sex you would take it where you would get it? His sex addiction seems to be more about feeding his own ego rather than just getting off, which he can do with porn or anybody but only seems to target a certain type of look to scratch his itch. Two are based in the US. One has just come forward from the UK and the girl who was 16 at the time is from the UK and was forced to have oral sex against her will which would count as sexual assault if they decide to prosecute.

I have only just seen this so although I have probably covered it in another post it is probably worth making my point yet again. I am sure that you understand that juries are human and prone to error. I have previously mentioned one of the biggest of all, OJ Simpson’s squirrel of double murder. You may have a strong case but if the prosecutor doesn’t make it well and the defence barrister manages to muddy the water enough to cast doubt in the juries minds you can easily not get the verdict. This has nothing to do with proper justice, it is part of the vagaries of what can never be a perfect system. You can protest someone’s innocence all you like because they got a favourable verdict in court but it doesn’t mean to say that they didn’t actually do what they were charged with. Defence lawyers might actually believe their client could be guilty but they have a job to defend them and to get them off. it is particularly difficult to get a verdict in a sexual assault case. Once upon a time the defendant just used to claim it wasn’t them. DNA and improved forensics have put paid to that. Now it is all about consent. The defence will go out of their way to destroy the reputation of the victim. She was willing. She has a history of this sort of thing. You get the picture. This was what happened in the second Evans trial when the “new evidence” provided had nothing to do with the case and argued, unsuccessfully by the CPS barrister, that it should not have been allowed. The CPS believed that both Evans and his chum were guilty of rape according to the law as it stands. The verdict of the second jury does not change anything other than the prosecutors were not able to effectively combat the “new evidence” effectively enough. I’ll remind you again that this evidence came about because Evans’s soon to be father in law put up a large sum of money for people to come forward with information that might help their case. The CPS believed that the two new witnesses were primed by the Evans’s and that the evidence was tainted. Not getting the verdict doesn’t mean that the prosecutors were wrong. A jury’s verdict is no more definitive than VAR and is liable to the same human error. If the system was a fail safe as you would like to believe there would never be any miscarriages of justice. If a jury told you that Nathan Jones was our best ever manager, according to you we would all have to agree. It is entirely possible to respect the system without agreeing with the final outcome. Of course Brand is innocent until found guilty if any of these cases go to court. It doesn’t mean that he hasn’t actually raped or sexually assaulted anyone though. The women who have come forward so far certainly believe that is what has happened to them.

I agree that, legally, as it stands at the moment, he has not been found guilty of rape or sexual assault in a court of law. That doesn’t minimise the experiences of the woman who have given testimony so far and the new ones who have come forward. It could well be that none of these accusations go to court but that doesn’t mean that he actually has not raped or sexually assaulted anyone. Given the low rates of rape and sexual assault cases that either make it to court in the first place or end up with a successful prosecution, there are many rapists and sexual assault perpetrators walking the streets today that have managed to avoid justice. I need to back track on my original posts. When the story first broke as the main news event on the BBC the other night I was of the opinion that Brand was no longer a major player and the story should have been further down the news order. What I didn’t realise was that he is still around and has 6.6m followers on YouTube. I didn’t realise that he has now shifted to the right and is peddling the anti Pharma conspiracy theories to his fan base and has the likes of Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate and now Katie Hopkins coming out in support (MLT soon no doubt). Their narrative is that the establishment want him silenced because of his views. Forget about these alleged victims of sexual assault, he and they would have us believe it is part of the big conspiracy. Hogwash. This about his alleged conduct with these women,possible criminal behaviour and the BBC were right to make a big deal about it as it falls right into the same area in the way that Savile was left to also operate “in plain sight” because he was famous and a big media personality. No one is untouchable no matter how big their egos. Even if it goes to court and he is found not guilty on all counts, there is another issue here of abuse of power and influence. We have seen it with Weinstein, to a lesser extent with Schofield, with Spacey and now Brand. People with massive egos who use their position to hit on people for sex or groom starstruck individuals for their own needs. No, it isn’t illegal if they have consent, but even when they don’t they have the money and lawyer power to shut people down with gagging orders of threats of legal action. As has been mentioned, the “talent” (that is the golden geese) need to be pandered to and no one else matters. He is already playing the victim and has passed off his behaviour as “addictions”. It doesn’t mean it is okay mate. You are a grown man and you have choices. Before you excuse him again Duckie, perhaps listen to the testimony of 16 year old school girl who he orally raped. There is a victim of his behaviour right there. And while I am on my soap box, your constant referral to Ched Evans shows up your mind set. As the current law of the land stands, if you are incapacitated through drink or drugs you are not capable to consent to sex. Just as you cannot consent to sex if you are under the age of 16. Anyone having sex with someone who falls within these categories is committing rape. In the Evans case with his mate, the victim was proven to be incapacitated through drink/drugs and therefore not in a legally defined state to consent to sexual activity. Perhaps fair game in your mind, but not according to the law. I will leave you with this final thought (a point I have made before). If you walked into a kebab shop and found a single woman there clearly the worse for drink/drugs, would you - a) call a taxi and make sure that she gets home safely or b) call a taxi, take her to a pre booked hotel room, have sex with her, call a mate round who also has sex with her whilst being filmed by other mates at the window, disappear down the fire escape leaving her to her own devices having had your fun and not said a word to her through the whole process? Russell Brand has exactly the same disregard for women as Evans and his mate and it is very depressing to see so many other men (and some women) making excuses for this behaviour. But in Duckie’s view he is somehow a “victim”.

It appears that we have a new law to sit alongside Godwin’s Law. It is called Duckhunter’s Law and it states that any thread that contains a theme of rape or sexual assault must contain a reference to Ched Evans. As you have brought him up, yet again, Ched Evans wasn’t the one who woke up alone and confused in a hotel room with no idea how he got there or what happened to him after being sexually molested by two complete strangers whilst their buddies film them through the hotel room window. Kevin Spacey is clearly a sexual predator and the last thing anyone who listened to the evidence against him would describe him as a “victim”. Tell that to the men he has hit on with unsolicited advances. You don’t seem to have a problem with sexual predators but given that you rate women by the number of pints you would need to drink before you decided to have sex with them, perhaps that shouldn’t come as a surprise. I am no fan of either Owen Jones or Russell Brand so the chances of me having read that article are zero. Back to Brand. I watched the Dispatches programme this afternoon. Not a great watch. The bloke is clearly a sexual predator and uses multiple women for his own gratification (no Duckie, that doesn’t make him a victim). The clips from his stand up routine show how he used his grooming technique and his spit fetish for laughs. Classy. His sucking up to Jimmy Savile was also unpleasant. Clearly both cut from the same cloth. Still, all is well because everything was “consensual” and anyway, he is a sex addict so that makes it okay because he can’t help himself. Whether he is guilty of sexual offences or not, he comes across as a very unpleasant human being who has turned his worse personality traits into a career.

I guess so. It seems odd though because you would think that the defence would argue that it effects their client’s right to a “ fair trial”. I see that the likes of Andrew Tait, Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox and Michael Barrymore have come out in support of Brand. That doesn’t bode well for him!

My point is that characters like him love publicity, good or bad. They thrive on it and he will love being back on a major stage again. Of course he has denied the allegations. What would you expect. Watch now as he tries to become the victim in this. Is being married to Katy Perry something that you put on your CV? How long ago was that? Hollywood? When was the last time he made a movie? Perhaps recently but I can’t remember the last time he had a major film out. He hasn’t been charged with any offence yet. It is time for the accusers to go to the police. I don’t understand why they have gone to the media first.

Back in 2008 he and Jonathan Ross were on his Radio 2 programme and left a number of unsavoury messages on Andrew Sach’s answerphone whilst broadcasting. Brand had briefly dated Sach’s grand daughter and references were made by both of them about the sexual nature of the relationship. Ross was suspended without pay for 12 weeks and Brand resigned after the outrage. It became known as Sachsgate. He vanished from the mainstream but has it seems still had a career, sadly. I don’t know if he is a conspiracy nutter. I have always found him deeply irritating and tend to switch off when he appears. The BBC led with the story again on the early evening news. I get that they need to report on it given some of these alleged incidents happened when he was employed by them, but I would say that the situation in Libya is currently a bigger story. If he is a sexual predator, maybe these news reports will encourage others to come forward. The downside is though that he will get the oxygen of publicity again, will be back all over mainstream media for a while and has already started to milk it.

Has anyone actually called him the Messiah?

I can’t forget the “prank” phone calls he and Jonathan Ross made to Andre Sachs about his granddaughter. I don’t know whether he has mental health issues or is just a nasty piece of work, but I did find it odd that the BBC went with it as the main news story last night. He is hardly a major celebrity anymore but you would think it was Rishi Sunak the way they went at it. It was also strange to see so much of the prosecution evidence being given screen time before the trial has started. He is another who thinks that the sun shines out of his backside and probably believes that no woman/girl in their right mind would ever say no to him, but the BBC should have run the story further down the programme and just reported on the charges rather than play a succession of prosecution evidence. There will be plenty of time for that during the trial Mrs SOGs best mate is a big Brand fan and they are coming round next Saturday night for a curry, so the conversation could be interesting!

The whole “right wing” thing comes from the xenophobic, Little England, flag shagging mentality. The type of people who still believe it was a good thing despite the obvious evidence otherwise. It is dressed up as Nationalism but is basic tribalism and an unwarranted superiority complex based on the way the world was under the British Empire. Yes, there were “lefties” who voted to leave and had other agendas, but when you listen to the countless people interviewed who supported Brexit the usual lines trotted out were about immigration and getting the country back. You know the stuff only too well as it is meat and drink to your lot. What you ignore is the fact that you wouldn’t win the vote if happened now. The simple reason for that is more and more people have realised that they were duped and that we are not better off outside the EU. I suppose the only upside for others is that any EU country thinking about leaving before will look at the unholy mess we are in and realise things are much better where they are.

Two massive own goals this week. The first belongs to poor old, beleaguered, Harry Maguire. He had the chance to step up on the international stage and start to rebuild his reputation, only to, literally, score an own goal The second was even bigger. I have just seen Turkish’s new avatar which I am guessing is an attempt to show a level of self-awareness and self- depreciation, to show us that he can use irony to laugh at himself. Sadly all it does is reinforce the image that, in his own sense of reality, it really is ALL about him. It is a bit like Boris Johnson seeing himself as “King of the World” or Donald Trump with his many statements that he can do what he likes and get away with it because he is special. I have to tell you Turkish, telling us what we already know doesn’t make it any less unpleasant or any more palatable.

Duckhunters’s post proves my point. Farage, Johnson and Rees-Mogg didn’t have to break sweat in order to manipulate the Little Englanders to the point that some of them still believe that nonsense. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Remind me again how things have become so much better in the UK for all of us since we left. Go and round up some fisherman from around the coast and ask them how they are doing. Speak to musicians who used to tour Europe and ask them. Ask farmers. Ask small businesses. There is a very large list of people who would laugh in your face if they knew you are still supporting the stupid decision to leave and the true test is how would the vote go now given that we have had a taste of what it means. You know as well as I do that you would lose.

I don’t believe that Remainers think that. Certainly basic nationalism and immigration played a big part and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to back that up. Farage and UKIP played on the “fear” of immigration by pretending that we would be flooded with migrants from Turkey should they join the EU. Another major issue was “getting our country back” (from “foreigners” I assume) and the supposed regaling of “sovereignty”. But we never actually lost sovereignty. We still had a Queen as head of state. We still had a democratically elected government and Prime Minister. We provided democratically elected representatives to the EU. We retained the right to veto policies that we were not happy with. The reason remainers call people who still believe that Brexit was a good thing thick is because it has clearly been disaster out for this country. It has done untold damage to our economy and our standing in the world stage. To opt out of the second biggest market place that is also right on our doorstep is the single biggest act of self harm we could have done bar launching nukes on Russia. If the referendum was to be held again today it is pretty obvious that the vote would go the other way. Why? Because it was a mistake and more people see that it was because of what has happened since. We were lied to by people like Johnson who only supported leave because he saw that as a career opportunity. The lies were obvious. You had to be pretty dense to fall for his and others like Rees-Mogg’s rhetoric. The way forward is to work more closely with the EU and you would have to be pretty thick not to understand that. I also believe eventually that we will either rejoin the EU or end up with a soft Brexit to the point that we are members in all but name. As a rule of thumb, anything that rattles the cages of people like Farage is a good thing and those, like him, who still profess that the harder the Brexit the better, should be regarded as “thick”.

Bless you both. No surprise that the two forum playground bullies are cosying up to each other. No surprise either that neither ever call each other out. Birds of a feather and all that. Sorry to disappoint you Turkish but I haven’t had my hair cut by a Muslim barber for a number of years. The person who cuts my hair now is white and female. I cannot confirm her religion, if she has any, but I am pretty sure that she is not a Muslim, nor, sadly, Jewish. I am desperate to find a Jewish friend so I can dangle him/her in front of the pile on crowd who insist that I am anti-Semitic. 😉 I only mentioned my previous barber because hypo insisted that I couldn’t have an opinion about Muslims because I didn’t actually know any 😂. That is the level you guys work at. Call it horseshit all you like but your strange obsession about me having you on ignore (really, who gives a shit?), the way in which you react when someone knocks you off of your self perceived pedestal or when you are called out for your behaviour is text book narcissism. You constantly call other people out for things that you do, constantly, yourself. Again, pure entitlement with zero self awareness. Text book narcissism. As someone said earlier, the truth hurts. The trouble is that it will not make the slightest bit of difference to your behaviour as you can’t see what many of the rest of us can. That is why you still behave here the same way you behaved on TUI. Anyone with a shred of self awareness would try and moderate their behaviour, but not you. And why should you? You have your little group of enablers who continue to prop you up and you feed off the daily attention you receive, good or bad. Psychologists call it narcissistic supply. You fished in the Ugly Inside for your supply until they had enough of you and kicked you out. You are now doing the same thing here. Anyone who knows or has been in a relationship with someone who has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder will recognise the various behavioural traits. Ever wondered why you find so called “woke” people such a target? It is because you have no empathy and do not understand the mindset of people who do. You label it as self righteousness. It isn’t. It is just about not being an asshole and having a level of understanding about others. You draw similar people to you like a magnet which is probably why you and Weston pick on the same targets. I know that you will dismiss this just as you will dismiss anything I or those who criticise you post, but I post it anyway in the hope that others will see you for what you are. 👋

Yes you are closing ranks. The original post was not aimed at you and had nothing to do with you until you, as usual, tried to make it all about you. It doesn’t matter what any thread is about, you always end up “going Turkish” on them. It is what you do. If his jokey post was “unnecessary” why was your pointless and unwarranted post on Dr.Who’s Great North Run thread, having a pop at Geordies, “necessary”? It was a thread about a poster and his daughter running a half marathon to raise money for the charity, MIND, but you managed to “go Turkish” and brought your own prejudices to play, yet again. At least his joke was funny and pertinent. Your “unnecessary” comment was crass, prejudicial and displayed your usual arrogance and sense of self importance. What makes you or anybody else superior to Geordies? Or was it just a “joke”? Either way the thread was about a fellow poster who was raising money for a charity close to his heart, but you felt the need to use it as a platform to dig out some northern folk. Necessary? Not really was it. You accuse me of ruining threads yet do the same yourself, all the time. As I have often said, zero self awareness (a classic symptom of narcissistic personality disorder). It appears that we can now add ‘hypocrite’ to your growing list of unpleasant personal character traits as you have pulled someone up for doing something you do yourself. You constantly find spurious reasons to go after other posters. You did it on the Ugly Inside forum, which is why you were banned there, and you do it here. Then you get all self righteous about other posters spoiling threads. I see also that you edited out your childish comment about my use of the ignore function from the above post. Hopefully this means that you have finally managed to understand how the function works. Well done.

Ah, bless. It’’s quite sweet the way that you lot close ranks and support each other. Don’t you think he can look after himself? It was actually a funny remark and I bet you would have made it against someone else under different circumstances if you had been smart enough to think of it. And before you kick off again, no one is wishing a serious medical problem on anyone. Oh, and yes, to save you a post, I still have you on ignore but chose to read this post as I sensed you were going to go all “Turkish” on here again. I wasn’t disappointed. 😉

Hi Nick, sorry to hear that but glad that you are being taken care of. Dont bother with social media, listen to your doctor. I have had a heart condition for 12 years now which is controlled by meds. I was concerned about the vaccine and the boosters so asked my doctor for his advice which was that I was better off taking them than not. All meds have possible side effects for certain people but you have to weigh up the risks. I am allergic to penicillin. Mrs SOG can’t take a certain type of pain killer. Look in any packet of meds and you will find a list of possible side effects as long as your arm. My brother has the same condition as I do. He has spent his career working for big pharma companies and for the last few years works for a company who run audits on the manufacturing process of meds, so he gets the inside info. He is happy to have the vaccines and for his family to have them too. I have had the whole course so far and the only side effects have been a sore arm. I did have some palpitations a week or so after the last one for a while. Whether that was due to the vaccine or not we never really got to the bottom of, but a few months later my condition worsened and it turned out that my basic meds needed changing. No problems since and it may well be that my system was just no longer responding to the original meds and needed a change. I expect that conspiracy theorists would just assume the vaccine was to blame. I assume that you are now taking blood thinners? That will reduce the threat of clots anyway. Your consultant and GP are there for your care and well being. Better to listen to their advice than some scare mongerers on the internet.

It’s never a good look to call someone amazingly stupid when you have just been amazingly stupid yourself. I suggest that you go back and read his post again, but this time engage your brain.

It is a relatively small forum, set up by an ex poster from here a few years back and joined by a few migrants (I am not sure of the colour of their skin, Duckie) from the Lounge. Sadly the legend that is Bearsy transferred over there too (the forum’s funniest and best poster by far), although I don’t think he posts there anymore. It deals mainly in general bloke’s chat with a side order of football. It was also home to another internet forum legend (for different reasons), Barry Sanchez, who has the distinction of being banned from there twice, I believe. Barry could start an argument in an empty room. He appeared briefly in the Ugly but don’t know where he posts now, if at all. Being mostly exiled SaintsWeb posters they knew/know the forum well. Back in the day the creator, pap, tried to lure a few over from TSW. Some went, tried it for a bit and left. The trouble with it being a small pool of posters when things kick off, as they invariably do on these forums, in can become quite unpleasant, especially as they didn’t used to have an ignore function. Pap also used to be against the idea of banning troublesome posters, but made an exception in Barry Sanchez’s case, so if you didn’t like certain posters you were stuck with them. I pop back occasionally to see how things are going and see who is still around. Like most of these forums though it suffers from lack of diversity. The few women that were there left after a while and it is just left to the ruminations of, mainly, white middle aged and old white blokes - and we all know how that pans out. And yes Whelk, I used to post there frequently, in fact I have been talking bollocks on several different types of forums going back to the 90’s! 😉

Daft? So you don’t think that thread was overly populated by repetitive negative Alpine flavoured posts from certain posters? Fair enough. If you removed all of the daft posts from this forum most threads would be a lot shorter. Oh, and it was supposed to be a bit daft.