Dan Yeah, the amount of people he’s had sex with must by in the thousands I would guess. You would expect many more to come out now if he’s a wrong cock.

    mono-stereo Rape and sexual assault.

    I don’t get your comment - are you saying it’s not possible to have sex with lots of people unless you’re committing sexual assault?

        Mad_Cyril True, it’s also worth pointing out that going to the police often dosn’t end in justice for rape complainants.

            hugopal I was commenting on two possible differences between a shagger and a (problematic) sex pest.

                mono-stereo I was commenting on two possible differences between a shagger and a (problematic) sex pest.

                That doesn’t really answer the question - neither of those examples define someone who is merely a shagger for instance.

                Also, being flirty as Brand appears to be in the video alistair shared above is not committing sexual assault.

                By your own comment you say you think Brand has probably got with women in the thousands - it hardly seems likely he’ll have done that by committing thousands of cases of assault. And when he’s getting with so many then why would he even need to commit assault? He comes across as flirty and provocative, but not violent.

                How do you think someone should behave if they’re out with someone they want to invite back to theirs - say they’re currently struggling with a tax return and ask if they happen to be a chartered accountant?!

                    mono-stereo
                    Yep, same for DV.

                    Not sure all the sensationalism helps though - that extract from the times was one step away from having stage directions.

                    If all the energy burnt on sensationalism and internet ‘justice’ could be focussed on resolving the myriad issues in the Justice system, would be far more beneficial to the victims.

                        hugopal How do you think someone should behave if they’re out with someone they want to invite back to theirs - say they’re currently struggling with a tax return and ask if they happen to be a chartered accountant?!

                        Let me show you how incum tax works

                            Old-Dutch careful now, that’s starting to sound too much like it could potentially be flirting - can’t be having that, it’s basically the same thing as assault don’t you know?!

                              This is incredible:

                              https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/accusations-russell-brand-tv-documentary-comic

                              “…..the arrival on the cultural and current affairs landscape of popular internet pundits such as him and Tate, and in America, Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro, has become a serious challenge to public faith in careful journalism and in the more experienced, educated voices of comment. And that is exactly what was intended."

                              The absolute fucking state of that. Lol

                                hugopal That doesn’t really answer the question - neither of those examples define someone who is merely a shagger for instance.

                                It was a simple point that everyone else seemed to get. There is nothing wrong with consenual sex with lots of people “ie a shagger”. There is obviously somthing wrong if said shagger rapes and sexually assaults people, you might call them a sex pest. I’m not gonna repeat myself again so don’t bother asking me.

                                hugopal He comes across as flirty and provocative, but not violent.

                                Based on what? Has he fucked you? Was he a caring lover?

                                      Mad_Cyril If all the energy burnt on sensationalism and internet ‘justice’ could be focussed on resolving the myriad issues in the Justice system, would be far more beneficial to the victims.

                                      Yup. completely agree.

                                        Old-Dutch there’s so much bollocks in that article it’s difficult to know where to begin, but I also found this part very amusing:

                                        “The shows put out by Brand give his fans the chance to imagine themselves part of his circle. It is a byproduct of social media that sociologists are watching with interest and which can function almost like a traditional cult. A leader draws viewers in with the lure of promised intimacy, or at least of a sense of “community”, which coincidentally is the name of the “wellness” festival that Brand stages in the countryside each year.”.

                                        Meanwhile… at the Guardian you can pay to become a “Patron”, where:

                                        “By becoming a Guardian Patron, you can receive exclusive access to our work. Guardian Patrons are a close community of supporters who are invited to enjoy unique back-stage access to the Guardian’s journalism, history and future. They are invited to Patron-only events, with the opportunity to meet and discuss the issues of the day with our journalists”.

                                        Sounds like the Guardian is also painting itself as functioning “almost like a traditional cult”.

                                        https://amp.theguardian.com/membership/2018/aug/07/support-the-guardian-how-to-make-the-most

                                          mono-stereo There is obviously somthing wrong if said shagger rapes and sexually assaults people, you might call them a sex pest

                                          But @alistair already said that supposedly Brand has “always been a sex pest” - so to use your confused definition, that would indicate that it was supposedly already known that Brand was someone who has always committed sexual assault. In which case, why didn’t you or alistair already comment prior to these stories that Brand had committed sexual assault?

                                          And also, if someone was a rapist or had committed sexual assault, why would you not instead simply refer to them as being a rapist or someone who had committed sexual assault? Again, your use of the term seems very unclear, vague and confused.

                                              hugopal As usual you’re tying yourself up in knots. I said you might refair to the latter a sex pest, I wasn’t talking in absolutles. Feel free to replace the term with anything you like, the only person who’s confused here is you.

                                              hugopal And also, if someone was a rapist or had committed sexual assault, why would you not instead simply refer to them as being a rapist or someone who had committed sexual assault?

                                              Well Spock, because that’s not the way language works. See above.