(Merged) Russell Brand

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t understand why they have gone to the media first. 

It's the modern soshul meeja way.

[sadoldgit]

31 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It's the modern soshul meeja way.

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!

[whelk]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

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. 

You were talking as if he had vanished since doing the Ross prank. His films came after that.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Of course he has denied the allegations. What would you expect. Watch now as he tries to become the victim in this.

 

Of course 😂
 

If he’s innocent, then he is indeed a victim. Just like Ched Evans & Kevin Spacey were. A jury will decide and he’s quite entitled to protest his innocence.
 

As for your claims that you’ve not hear a peep from him since him & Ross’ shenanigans, I’m surprised an avid Guardista has forgotten this little gem. 
 

 

[The Kraken]

The geezer has hardly been hiding under a bush. As stated in the Despatches programme he’s got something like 27 million followers worldwide, including 11m on his Twitter and 6m subscribers to his YouTube channel. Quite frankly I don’t think he’s going to be “loving the publicity, good or bad” just because it “puts him back on a major stage again”, he’s already (somehow) got a huge audience of smitten kittens with the likes of weird Elon going in to bat for him.

 

Edited 18 September, 2023 by The Kraken

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

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!

The 2 x allegations in this jurisdiction are with women (albeit 1 only 16 years old - morally wrong, but not unlawful) who both seemingly had consensual relationships with him. Whether Brand's behaviour falls into the new control and coercive behaviour categories I don't know, but I'm not sure what else he could potentially be tried for over here. It seems that the alleged rape and sexual assaults were in the states. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

The geezer has hardly been hiding under a bush. As stated in the Despatches programme he’s got something like 27 million followers worldwide, including 11m on his Twitter and 6m subscribers to his YouTube channel. Quite frankly I don’t think he’s going to be “loving the publicity, good or bad” just because it “puts him back on a major stage again”, he’s already (somehow) got a huge audience of smitten kittens with the likes of weird Elon going in to bat for him.

 

Yep. And he's also never hidden what he is. In the launch material for his Recovery book he said "I am an addict, addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex, money, love and fame". He's also described himself as a predator. The rape allegation though is particularly nasty, and it's hard to see how people loyal to him can look past that. 

[The Kraken]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. And he's also never hidden what he is. In the launch material for his Recovery book he said "I am an addict, addicted to drugs, alcohol, sex, money, love and fame". He's also described himself as a predator. The rape allegation though is particularly nasty, and it's hard to see how people loyal to him can look past that. 

I know he’s been open but I think he’s previously tried to portray himself as just a bit of a lad and a top shagger who can pick and choose women at will. I only caught the last of half of the programme last night, but I started with the girl’s story that she was 16 and in school and he’d send round a car to pick her up and bring her to his flat. He was 30 at the time.  Then it covered a sexual assault which sounded utterly grim and, according to the victim, there were people outside who heard her screaming and didn’t come in to stop it (one apologised to her years after for it).

I said earlier I think this is merely the tip of the iceberg and there will be many more horrendous stories coming out of the woodwork. Good job for him he makes his money from YouTube and such like because I think it’s going to be a terrible look for him once it all starts unravelling.

[sadoldgit]

6 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Of course 😂
 

If he’s innocent, then he is indeed a victim. Just like Ched Evans & Kevin Spacey were. A jury will decide and he’s quite entitled to protest his innocence.
 

As for your claims that you’ve not hear a peep from him since him & Ross’ shenanigans, I’m surprised an avid Guardista has forgotten this little gem. 
 

 

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.

[egg]

34 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

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 get that SoG, but Brand will not be tried in any court in any country for legal but immoral behaviour, legal but unpleasant behaviour, pursuing woman and then having consensual sexual relations, being an addict, being a shit comedian, or for being the general toerag that he seems to be. Let's see what happens in terms of any alleged criminal act - ultimately that's where all this seems to be leading. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Clearly both cut from the same cloth.

 

 

Id be careful about throwing accusations like that around if I were you. 
 

As egg has said, a jury of his peers will determine whether he’s broken the law. He is innocent until proven guilty and it’s a bit worrying that an ex CPS employee doesn’t seem to respect this fundamental part of our legal system.

[rallyboy]

While we must await the proper due process of multiple investigations it's still fair to point out that when the valley is full of smoke, you can be pretty sure that there's a fire out there somewhere.

You can barely see Brand for smoke at the moment so if anyone wants to offer him their full support, you have to admire their brave and courageous loyalty to the man, and then wait to see where this stance eventually leaves them.

Standing up against alleged rape victims could be considered an odd hill to die on.

[The Kraken]

19 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Good job for him he makes his money from YouTube and such like because I think it’s going to be a terrible look for him once it all starts unravelling.

Oops. Dropped from YouTube’s ad payouts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66851698

 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

While we must await the proper due process of multiple investigations it's still fair to point out that when the valley is full of smoke, you can be pretty sure that there's a fire out there somewhere.

You can barely see Brand for smoke at the moment so if anyone wants to offer him their full support, you have to admire their brave and courageous loyalty to the man, and then wait to see where this stance eventually leaves them.

Standing up against alleged rape victims could be considered an odd hill to die on.

The text exchange with girl who went to rape crisis centre the next day is pretty damning. Notice some hack from GB News taking side of Brand. Fuck the evidence eh

[whelk]

Actually she calls Brand a hero. Fair play to Andrew Pierce who isn’t someone I generally like

 

 

Edited 19 September, 2023 by whelk

[sadoldgit]

16 hours ago, egg said:

I get that SoG, but Brand will not be tried in any court in any country for legal but immoral behaviour, legal but unpleasant behaviour, pursuing woman and then having consensual sexual relations, being an addict, being a shit comedian, or for being the general toerag that he seems to be. Let's see what happens in terms of any alleged criminal act - ultimately that's where all this seems to be leading. 

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”.

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

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.

It's odd that someone who has been on the receiving end of this kind of experience would have this opinion.

[Weston Super Saint]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

 

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. 

 

For someone who has spent time in The Priory, this is also an odd opinion to hold when it comes to addictions.

[egg]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

The text exchange with girl who went to rape crisis centre the next day is pretty damning. Notice some hack from GB News taking side of Brand. Fuck the evidence eh

Yep. It doesn't look good at all. There seems to be a case to answer there. 

[Hatch]

met him once about 20 years ago and disliked him immensely within about 30 seconds of meeting him. He was an arrogant odious twat and I've never understood how women are impressed by that.  

[egg]

53 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

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”.

I CBA to get into this with you SoG. I haven't mentioned Evans and have no interest in other cases. If you want a tussle with Duckie about what he's said, have it with him. 

I will say this though. You plainly have no understanding of addiction and how it manifests itself. An addict, by definition of the illness, has lost the power of choice. That said, if Brand has crossed the line and done anything non consensual or otherwise illegal then he must face the music. However, being a sex addict (consensually) isn't a matter that he should be judged on. 

[CB Fry]

There are plenty of things I could do at work and be sacked for, that aren't in any way illegal.

People rabbiting on about "tried by a jury of his peers" and all that shite, like that's the only moral guidance there is in this country. If you're not convicted by a court you're "innocent" and can do whatever the fuck you like to whoever you like whenever you like.

Sorry lads, not so.

If people really want to talk about the sanctity of the justice system, then on the other side of it is the libel courts. It's all made up by evil journalists and these girls are all liars. Fine, Russell Brand can have his moment in court and win a libel action. Being that he's, like, the hero of the story and the real victim here, he'll win no problemo.

 

[whelk]

Do sex addicts go to mixed therapy classes?

[egg]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Do sex addicts go to mixed therapy classes?

Dunno...I think there's a dedicated 12 step programme...kind of like AA but for sex addicts.

[egg]

19 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

Id be careful about throwing accusations like that around if I were you. 
 

As egg has said, a jury of his peers will determine whether he’s broken the law. He is innocent until proven guilty and it’s a bit worrying that an ex CPS employee doesn’t seem to respect this fundamental part of our legal system.

The point I made in response to SoG was that the stuff he's done and said which marks him out as a toe rag, isn't stuff that will be determined in court. It doesn't stop us forming a view about the bloke though. The stuff with the 16 year old, even if only partly true, ain't illegal but it crosses the line for most people you'd imagine.

On the rape and criminal stuff, I've seen enough criminal cases in real life to be able to say that when the case looks overwhelming, that things are often very different when the evidence is tested. Whilst it looks bad for Brand on the face of it, that stuff needs to play out. 

[cloggy saint]

2 hours ago, Hatch said:

met him once about 20 years ago and disliked him immensely within about 30 seconds of meeting him. He was an arrogant odious twat and I've never understood how women are impressed by that.  

I've never met him (thankfully) and also think he's an arrogant odious twat.

[sadoldgit]

21 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

Id be careful about throwing accusations like that around if I were you. 
 

As egg has said, a jury of his peers will determine whether he’s broken the law. He is innocent until proven guilty and it’s a bit worrying that an ex CPS employee doesn’t seem to respect this fundamental part of our legal system.

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.

[Lord Duckhunter]

[buctootim]

I know the basics but havent really followed it closely. Is he not still living in the US and are the victims not US based? 

[sadoldgit]

16 hours ago, egg said:

I CBA to get into this with you SoG. I haven't mentioned Evans and have no interest in other cases. If you want a tussle with Duckie about what he's said, have it with him. 

I will say this though. You plainly have no understanding of addiction and how it manifests itself. An addict, by definition of the illness, has lost the power of choice. That said, if Brand has crossed the line and done anything non consensual or otherwise illegal then he must face the music. However, being a sex addict (consensually) isn't a matter that he should be judged on. 

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.

Edited 20 September, 2023 by sadoldgit
Add text

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

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.

How on earth do you know this?

I believe the women involved with the accusations haven't been named or had their pictures splashed all over the papers yet.  They might be absolute munters for all you know.

Sadly, you've delved into the realms of making shit up again to suit your agenda. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

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.

I can't comment SoG as I'm not a sex addict and wouldn't want to join in the speculation. All I know is that he admits to having been very promiscuous and predatory, so I can't see that there's anything salacious in stories about him having lots of sex and pursuing women for consensual sex. Sure, his approach looks wrong when assessed through 'normal' eyes, but in the same way that a gambler doesn't bet normally, and an alcoholic doesn't drink normally, a sex addict won't have a normal relationship with sex. 

Addiction though can't possibly excuse the alleged stuff with that kid though, and the other serious allegations which he denies. Those allegations need to play out in the correct way, not via the media/social media/etc. 

[OldNick]

We are his accomplishes, our idiot society allowed him to get into the position so that he could take advantage of his fame, so that women could be picked out of audiences to satisfy his lust. He would not be the first, I doubt there are many pop stars or celebs who haven't done the same. 

We (not me) found him hilarious that he was given shows, we are as guilty as he is because we still promote absolute bell ends, due to shows like Big Brother, Love Island etc etc etc who get their moment of fame and the top brass at tv companies don't act

 

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, OldNick said:

We are his accomplishes, our idiot society allowed him to get into the position so that he could take advantage of his fame, so that women could be picked out of audiences to satisfy his lust. He would not be the first, I doubt there are many pop stars or celebs who haven't done the same. 

We (not me) found him hilarious that he was given shows, we are as guilty as he is because we still promote absolute bell ends, due to shows like Big Brother, Love Island etc etc etc who get their moment of fame and the top brass at tv companies don't act

 

Can honestly say I never liked him. Gave me that unwashed heroin junkie vibe from the outset. 

[sadoldgit]

8 hours ago, egg said:

I can't comment SoG as I'm not a sex addict and wouldn't want to join in the speculation. All I know is that he admits to having been very promiscuous and predatory, so I can't see that there's anything salacious in stories about him having lots of sex and pursuing women for consensual sex. Sure, his approach looks wrong when assessed through 'normal' eyes, but in the same way that a gambler doesn't bet normally, and an alcoholic doesn't drink normally, a sex addict won't have a normal relationship with sex. 

Addiction though can't possibly excuse the alleged stuff with that kid though, and the other serious allegations which he denies. Those allegations need to play out in the correct way, not via the media/social media/etc. 

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! 

Edited 20 September, 2023 by sadoldgit
Added text

[egg]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

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! 

Ha!! Ditto! 

[whelk]

Sorry to come across old school but don’t think sex can be a true addiction. Libidos vary and some may need far more validation than others. Happy to meet a fit female addict to convince me otherwise. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Sorry to come across old school but don’t think sex can be a true addiction. Libidos vary and some may need far more validation than others. Happy to meet a fit female addict to convince me otherwise. 

It’s a fair point. Libidos vary massively, then you’ve got the top shagger lads, lads, lads sort of people who would shag anything that moves. Presumably if you’re addicted to a sex then you’re also always wanking because it’s not like you can smash one into the office bike in the bogs, or even worse if you’re on a building site and get the horn. I’m not really qualified to speak on addictions but it all does seem a bit like a convenient excuse for being not being able to keep your cock in your pants. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It’s a fair point. Libidos vary massively, then you’ve got the top shagger lads, lads, lads sort of people who would shag anything that moves. Presumably if you’re addicted to a sex then you’re also always wanking because it’s not like you can smash one into the office bike in the bogs, or even worse if you’re on a building site and get the horn. I’m not really qualified to speak on addictions but it all does seem a bit like a convenient excuse for being not being able to keep your cock in your pants. 

I've got a mate who's a recovering sex addict. He would wank loads and loads. It's a proper addiction - read all about here https://saauk.info/our-addiction-our-program/

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

I've got a mate who's a recovering sex addict. He would wank loads and loads. It's a proper addiction - read all about here https://saauk.info/our-addiction-our-program/

Interesting stuff. What's the end game with this then? With drugs, booze, gambling it seems to be totally to give it. is that the same with this? Never wank again? Not being facetious here, is total abstenance the way to control it like other addictions?

[egg]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Interesting stuff. What's the end game with this then? With drugs, booze, gambling it seems to be totally to give it. is that the same with this? Never wank again? Not being facetious here, is total abstenance the way to control it like other addictions?

Not sure. Drugs, booze, gambling programmes are all about abstinence and avoiding the first line/drink/bet. I can't imagine this is about avoiding the first sexual act. 

[Weston Super Saint]

16 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Interesting stuff. What's the end game with this then? With drugs, booze, gambling it seems to be totally to give it. is that the same with this? Never wank again? Not being facetious here, is total abstenance the way to control it like other addictions?

If they are grown men, they have choices so can easily chose not to be a sex addict, apparently....

[Lord Duckhunter]

46 minutes ago, egg said:

I can't imagine this is about avoiding the first sexual act. 

I think it’s about not getting caught. 
 

Id imagine most “sex addicts” are just blokes who got caught doing something they shouldn’t. 

[Lighthouse]

I heard someone say addicts aren’t addicts because they need something but because they’re missing something else. No idea to what extent that’s true and I’m sure it’s too generic to explain everything but it does raise an interesting point. You see plenty of retired footballers fall into various addictions, trying to replicate the thrill of professional football in front of a big crowd. I remember Merse on Soccer Saturday saying, “there’s no feeling in the world like scoring a goal, and I’ve tried everything.”

Mick Hucknall was famously a ‘sex addict’. He claimed he was that way because he was trying to fill the void left by a lack of love from his mother, which is kind of a sad and messed up way for a guy to feel.

[The Kraken]

11 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I heard someone say addicts aren’t addicts because they need something but because they’re missing something else. No idea to what extent that’s true and I’m sure it’s too generic to explain everything but it does raise an interesting point. You see plenty of retired footballers fall into various addictions, trying to replicate the thrill of professional football in front of a big crowd. I remember Merse on Soccer Saturday saying, “there’s no feeling in the world like scoring a goal, and I’ve tried everything.”

Mick Hucknall was famously a ‘sex addict’. He claimed he was that way because he was trying to fill the void left by a lack of love from his mother, which is kind of a sad and messed up way for a guy to feel.

The Merson analogy perhaps isn’t the best being as he was bang into booze and coke while he was still playing. Gascoigne the same. I get the sentiment but the nature of genuine addictions are that they are just deep down and always there.

Edited 20 September, 2023 by The Kraken

[Turkish]

Sean Lock called it

 

[egg]

2 hours ago, The Kraken said:

The Merson analogy perhaps isn’t the best being as he was bang into booze and coke while he was still playing. Gascoigne the same. I get the sentiment but the nature of genuine addictions are that they are just deep down and always there.

Yep, plenty of others too. At its simplest, addiction is an illness. The problem is that people see the fall out of it and judge addicts on their actions, and usually wrongly believing that people choose to be that way. Nobody chooses any illness. 

Paul Walsh was another who's alcohol addiction got him while he was still playing. He's very open about it and this podcast is a decent listen. There's a summary in the link too, and it touches upon the link between sport and addiction which someone mentioned above. 

https://www.priorygroup.com/blog/sporting-highs-and-lows-podcast-episode-one-with-paul-walsh

There's a great line where he says he "got his comeuppance and had to go to Portsmouth" 😂

Edited 20 September, 2023 by egg

[Turkish]

14 hours ago, egg said:

Yep, plenty of others too. At its simplest, addiction is an illness. The problem is that people see the fall out of it and judge addicts on their actions, and usually wrongly believing that people choose to be that way. Nobody chooses any illness. 

Paul Walsh was another who's alcohol addiction got him while he was still playing. He's very open about it and this podcast is a decent listen. There's a summary in the link too, and it touches upon the link between sport and addiction which someone mentioned above. 

https://www.priorygroup.com/blog/sporting-highs-and-lows-podcast-episode-one-with-paul-walsh

There's a great line where he says he "got his comeuppance and had to go to Portsmouth" 😂

There is something in their make up that makes them like that. I listen to a podcast regularly from one of the best CrossFit coaches in the world who says the top athletes are addicted to it, they aren’t normal. They’ll find a weakness in their performance and become obsessive about fixing it. Nothing else in their life matters and everythng is about the next work out. It’s what makes them great athletes but also is not really the sort of mindset you would want as an everyday person where literally nothing else matters. Kind of see the same kind of mentality with an addict of booze or drugs for example, it becomes an obsession where nothing else matters. swap next workout for next drink or fix and there is something similar going on, just one person is addicted to something good for them. You can see why so many sportsmen fall into it once their career ends. 
As they say there is a fine line between being a genius and being crazy. 

Edited 21 September, 2023 by Turkish

[benjii]

21 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I heard someone say addicts aren’t addicts because they need something but because they’re missing something else. No idea to what extent that’s true and I’m sure it’s too generic to explain everything but it does raise an interesting point. You see plenty of retired footballers fall into various addictions, trying to replicate the thrill of professional football in front of a big crowd. I remember Merse on Soccer Saturday saying, “there’s no feeling in the world like scoring a goal, and I’ve tried everything.”

Mick Hucknall was famously a ‘sex addict’. He claimed he was that way because he was trying to fill the void left by a lack of love from his mother, which is kind of a sad and messed up way for a guy to feel.

Should have gone full Saville and fucked his dead mum to get it out of his system.

 

But, yes, I agree with you. It seems to me that any sort of pathological behaviour usually derives from some sort of longing or loss that is deeper than the sensation of the experience itself.

Edited 21 September, 2023 by benjii

[Lighthouse]

22 hours ago, The Kraken said:

The Merson analogy perhaps isn’t the best being as he was bang into booze and coke while he was still playing. Gascoigne the same. I get the sentiment but the nature of genuine addictions are that they are just deep down and always there.

Merse I don’t know about but Gazza has always been affected by his mate’s death as a child and his ADHD, among other things. It didn’t helped that many of his teammates just saw his eccentric behaviour as being ‘a bit of a character’ whilst they were out getting smashed with him. I think for him the booze is more of a pain numbing coping mechanism.