One of the names he quoted , I wonder if Brand has gone by newspapers, if he has then he would realise that said newspaper had to pay a seven figure sum in compensation to that person as the story they ran many years back was untrue.
I'm not sure if anyone has found out the two names, but one suggested on a conspiracy forum is alleged to have let someone stay at his house while away filming.
A blog from about 7 years ago alluded to this and the name has been mentioned in a thread on this site,
One of the names he quoted , I wonder if Brand has gone by newspapers, if he has then he would realise that said newspaper had to pay a seven figure sum in compensation to that person as the story they ran many years back was untrue.
It isn't unknown for people to sue for libel even if the story is true - Jeffrey Archer and Johnathan Aitkin being two who won libel cases only to later go to prison for perjury.
As for this story - I believe the celeb in question was still trying to convince the world he was straight at the time, let alone entertaining rent boys, hence suing to save his career.
It isn't unknown for people to sue for libel even if the story is true - Jeffrey Archer and Johnathan Aitkin being two who won libel cases only to later go to prison for perjury.
As for this story - I believe the celeb in question was still trying to convince the world he was straight at the time, let alone entertaining rent boys,hence suing to save his career.
I'm not sure if anyone has found out the two names, but one suggested on a conspiracy forum is alleged to have let someone stay at his house while away filming.
A blog from about 7 years ago alluded to this and the name has been mentioned in a thread on this site,
Was that the person who was paid damages. ?
No its a different person, but that person you refer to was not involved though he did rent his hosue out whilst living elsewhere , one of the vitcims who gave evidience in court has spoken out that he was nothing to do with it and knew nothing on a website.
Anyone have a link to the 'Brand X' episode Russell Brand mentioned those two names in? Not sure if that episode has even been broadcast yet, or if they're even going keep that bit in.
According to the check I've just made on Twitter, it was a piano player with big glasses, and a man who had a little trouble in his swimming pool.
Okaaaay, as I say let's wait for the facts. Suffice to say this really isn't a surprise in Oz. I've lived there, have you? Despite the Murdochs the press in Oz isn't quite as open as it is here.
If there was a well known serious problem with a celebs behaviour I would expect something to mentioned on it somewhere like the Icke forums or elsewhere, I never saw anything about this celebrity before his arrest in November, and I can't find any old discussion anywhere on the net about it using obvious keywords . People's "reputation" can be subject to Chinese whispers, without any basis in actual fact.
He's been put under the category of "others" for this investigation.
And over the last 20/30/40 years it seems that no men have come forward and said they've been molested by any female "celebrities". Is it just a male thing to do?
IIRC men are less likely to come forward about this sort of thing generally. I'm somewhat surprised though too
That's the problem with this. We can't, for somewhat logical reasons, discuss things openly, so it causes confusion and could easily lead to people saying things which are untrue without meaning to.
According to the check I've just made on Twitter, it was a piano player with big glasses, and a man who had a little trouble in his swimming pool.
Well if that's the case, someone on another forum has named a celebrity who isn't these two. So I will not post any hints. It seems that the other one was away while 2 men used his place for evil doings.
Underage rent boys , thats why he received £1 million.
from a website
On February 25, 1987, The Sun printed a story that began, "(insert name of celeb) is at the center of a shocking drugs and vice scandal involving teen-age 'rent boys'
The morning of the scheduled trial The Sun carried a two-word headline: "Sorry (insert name of celeb) " The story said that The Sun had settled all the libel actions by paying Mr. (insert name of celeb) one million pounds in damages - about 1.7 million dollars - and about half as much again in lawyer's fees. The story said: "We are delighted that The Sun and (insert name of celeb) have become friends again, and we are sorry that we were lied to by a teenager living in a world of fantasy."
There were about 12 stories over two months and during this time The Sun were paying for the informant and his girlfriend to stay in Marbella, he eventually admitted he had never even met (insert name of celeb) and that he hated his music.
Well if that's the case, someone on another forum has named a celebrity who isn't these two. So I will not post any hints. It seems that the other one was away while 2 men used his place for evil doings.
If you're talking about Jubbly, that rumour's been around before. He was off filming (which obviously can be verified by lots of people) and let someone house-sit.
If you're talking about Jubbly, that rumour's been around before. He was off filming (which obviously can be verified by lots of people) and let someone house-sit.
Yes I was, but it makes you wonder how many allegations are true or people trying to make money with false claims. As with the musician.
Yes I was, but it makes you wonder how many allegations are true or people trying to make money with false claims. As with the musician.
That particular rumour seems to do the rounds every couple of weeks.
I don't think most allegations are people making false allegations at all. Only a few oddballs would do that.
There's also a massive difference between spreading rumours/gossip and going to the police and making an allegation. If you went to the police, you would be unlikely to talk about it to many people at all - certainly not until after any court cases.
If you're talking about Jubbly, that rumour's been around before. He was off filming (which obviously can be verified by lots of people) and let someone house-sit.
It was also verified by one of the victims who said he was nothing to do with it .
Where did I say I was okay with it? What I actually inferred was that I didn't think making jokes was as bad as committing sexual offences, if that is indeed the case.
The fact that the arrest was made in connection with Operation Yewtree very strongly suggests that the alleged crime is child sex abuse. Perhaps you genuinely do think that making a sick joke is worse than raping a child, but if that's the case I suggest you check your own moral compass first.
You did after all say in clear terms 'They're certainly much sicker and nastier than those at whose expense they're getting their pathetic kicks.'
Unless you're privy to some information that the rest of us are not, I wonder what makes you feel qualified to make that judgement call. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable stating that I definitively knew an internet commenter was 'much sicker and nastier' than someone who has seemingly being arrested for alleged child sex offences.
Whoa! Nothing was said on here, with reference to the tweets, anything about child rape. That's making a leap of judgement regarding the potential alleged offences. Of course child rape would be worse than a few sick tweets but I honestly don't think Lexi or anyone on here would genuinely disagree. However, we don't even know what said person has been accused of and yet these tweeters are spreading malice without regard.
I knew well- and have mentioned before on here- several times- about a family friend who was falsely and maliciously accused of molesting a baby (innocence proven!). He had a breakdown and eventually killed himself due to the stress of it all and was, for the remainder of his short life, tainted with the 'no smoke without fire' assumption even though it was absolutely made clear he couldn't have committed said offence and whose accusers were 'caught out' telling bare-faced lies. I do despise people who get off on and seem to 'enjoy' the 'drama' of such accusations, despite being quite violently sexually assaulted myself, aged 10.
Personally, I find those tweeters thoroughly nasty in that they have already assumed guilt. Didn't one of them say that he has 3 friends who 'know where he lives' or something? If that isn't a veiled threat, I don't know what is (even if they are just mouthing off).
Didn't one of them say that he has 3 friends who 'know where he lives' or something? If that isn't a veiled threat, I don't know what is (even if they are just mouthing off).
Even I know where he lives - it's a nice riverside spot popular with celebrities, you can get a boat tour where they point out everybody's houses (including a former home of the popular singer also mentioned here).
I highly doubt that the police would arrest him twice based solely on rumours.
He wasn't arrested twice, he was questioned last year and arrested this year.
Now did they need more time to investigate or have the CPS told them to go ahead with the case, as they did with a certain soap star, now if they are finding people who geuinely need arresting all well and good, if the CPS is scared of being accused of preferential treatment and saying "go ahead , arrest , charge and let a jury decide that way we cannot be accused of covering up " in cases where they would not normally then thats wrong
Whoa! Nothing was said on here, with reference to the tweets, anything about child rape. That's making a leap of judgement regarding the potential alleged offences. Of course child rape would be worse than a few sick tweets but I honestly don't think Lexi or anyone on here would genuinely disagree. However, we don't even know what said person has been accused of and yet these tweeters are spreading malice without regard.
I knew well- and have mentioned before on here- several times- about a family friend who was falsely and maliciously accused of molesting a baby (innocence proven!). He had a breakdown and eventually killed himself due to the stress of it all and was, for the remainder of his short life, tainted with the 'no smoke without fire' assumption even though it was absolutely made clear he couldn't have committed said offence and whose accusers were 'caught out' telling bare-faced lies. I do despise people who get off on and seem to 'enjoy' the 'drama' of such accusations, despite being quite violently sexually assaulted myself, aged 10.
Personally, I find those tweeters thoroughly nasty in that they have already assumed guilt. Didn't one of them say that he has 3 friends who 'know where he lives' or something? If that isn't a veiled threat, I don't know what is (even if they are just mouthing off).
Actually, Dory, I think what they've done is far worse because I don't think they give a crap about abuse victims or whether or not he's guilty, they're just in it for the thrill and the chase. Why let justice get in the way of a good day's blood-letting, eh.
I don't think they've given a moment's thought to whether he's guilty or not, it's enough that they have a new target to feed their pathetic appetites.
I'd say vultures but vultures at least wait until someone's dead.
Elm House abuse scandal: 'Chance to investigate VIP B&B paedophile ring was missed 12 years ago'
Allegations on an internet forum about boys being molested at Elm House B&B led to the current probe – despite them first surfacing in 2001.
If somebody sued someone for saying they did something & they didnt & won the case, if it was proved later that they did actually do it, could the person that was sued sue the other person for their own defamnation of character?
If somebody sued someone for saying they did something & they didnt & won the case, if it was proved later that they did actually do it, could the person that was sued sue the other person for their own defamnation of character?
Jeffrey Archer was forced to repay the Daily Star the money he won in a libel case when it was later found he had lied he won £500,000 but ended up paying back £500,000 plus about £1 million in legal, recovery costs and interest ( they had been claiming £2.2 million)
Comments
I'm not sure if anyone has found out the two names, but one suggested on a conspiracy forum is alleged to have let someone stay at his house while away filming.
A blog from about 7 years ago alluded to this and the name has been mentioned in a thread on this site,
Was that the person who was paid damages. ?
It isn't unknown for people to sue for libel even if the story is true - Jeffrey Archer and Johnathan Aitkin being two who won libel cases only to later go to prison for perjury.
As for this story - I believe the celeb in question was still trying to convince the world he was straight at the time, let alone entertaining rent boys, hence suing to save his career.
the story was underage and they were not
No its a different person, but that person you refer to was not involved though he did rent his hosue out whilst living elsewhere , one of the vitcims who gave evidience in court has spoken out that he was nothing to do with it and knew nothing on a website.
'rent boys' was the term used at the time.
I assume we're talking about the same celeb?
According to the check I've just made on Twitter, it was a piano player with big glasses, and a man who had a little trouble in his swimming pool.
IIRC men are less likely to come forward about this sort of thing generally. I'm somewhat surprised though too
That's the problem with this. We can't, for somewhat logical reasons, discuss things openly, so it causes confusion and could easily lead to people saying things which are untrue without meaning to.
Well if that's the case, someone on another forum has named a celebrity who isn't these two. So I will not post any hints. It seems that the other one was away while 2 men used his place for evil doings.
Underage rent boys , thats why he received £1 million.
from a website
On February 25, 1987, The Sun printed a story that began, "(insert name of celeb) is at the center of a shocking drugs and vice scandal involving teen-age 'rent boys'
The morning of the scheduled trial The Sun carried a two-word headline: "Sorry (insert name of celeb) " The story said that The Sun had settled all the libel actions by paying Mr. (insert name of celeb) one million pounds in damages - about 1.7 million dollars - and about half as much again in lawyer's fees. The story said: "We are delighted that The Sun and (insert name of celeb) have become friends again, and we are sorry that we were lied to by a teenager living in a world of fantasy."
There were about 12 stories over two months and during this time The Sun were paying for the informant and his girlfriend to stay in Marbella, he eventually admitted he had never even met (insert name of celeb) and that he hated his music.
If you're talking about Jubbly, that rumour's been around before. He was off filming (which obviously can be verified by lots of people) and let someone house-sit.
Yes I was, but it makes you wonder how many allegations are true or people trying to make money with false claims. As with the musician.
That particular rumour seems to do the rounds every couple of weeks.
I don't think most allegations are people making false allegations at all. Only a few oddballs would do that.
There's also a massive difference between spreading rumours/gossip and going to the police and making an allegation. If you went to the police, you would be unlikely to talk about it to many people at all - certainly not until after any court cases.
It was also verified by one of the victims who said he was nothing to do with it .
Whoa! Nothing was said on here, with reference to the tweets, anything about child rape. That's making a leap of judgement regarding the potential alleged offences. Of course child rape would be worse than a few sick tweets but I honestly don't think Lexi or anyone on here would genuinely disagree. However, we don't even know what said person has been accused of and yet these tweeters are spreading malice without regard.
I knew well- and have mentioned before on here- several times- about a family friend who was falsely and maliciously accused of molesting a baby (innocence proven!). He had a breakdown and eventually killed himself due to the stress of it all and was, for the remainder of his short life, tainted with the 'no smoke without fire' assumption even though it was absolutely made clear he couldn't have committed said offence and whose accusers were 'caught out' telling bare-faced lies. I do despise people who get off on and seem to 'enjoy' the 'drama' of such accusations, despite being quite violently sexually assaulted myself, aged 10.
Personally, I find those tweeters thoroughly nasty in that they have already assumed guilt. Didn't one of them say that he has 3 friends who 'know where he lives' or something? If that isn't a veiled threat, I don't know what is (even if they are just mouthing off).
Even I know where he lives - it's a nice riverside spot popular with celebrities, you can get a boat tour where they point out everybody's houses (including a former home of the popular singer also mentioned here).
no there will be alot more to come, as i said watch this space
He wasn't arrested twice, he was questioned last year and arrested this year.
Now did they need more time to investigate or have the CPS told them to go ahead with the case, as they did with a certain soap star, now if they are finding people who geuinely need arresting all well and good, if the CPS is scared of being accused of preferential treatment and saying "go ahead , arrest , charge and let a jury decide that way we cannot be accused of covering up " in cases where they would not normally then thats wrong
But only time will tell.
http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/3713210-74/demmink-netherlands-justice?showmobile=false#axzz2P9WvCasM
Interesting parallels with Fernbridge.
Actually, Dory, I think what they've done is far worse because I don't think they give a crap about abuse victims or whether or not he's guilty, they're just in it for the thrill and the chase. Why let justice get in the way of a good day's blood-letting, eh.
I don't think they've given a moment's thought to whether he's guilty or not, it's enough that they have a new target to feed their pathetic appetites.
I'd say vultures but vultures at least wait until someone's dead.
Allegations on an internet forum about boys being molested at Elm House B&B led to the current probe – despite them first surfacing in 2001.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elm-house-scandal-chance-investigate-1795675#.UVkiikh00ew.twitter
If somebody sued someone for saying they did something & they didnt & won the case, if it was proved later that they did actually do it, could the person that was sued sue the other person for their own defamnation of character?
Jeffrey Archer was forced to repay the Daily Star the money he won in a libel case when it was later found he had lied he won £500,000 but ended up paying back £500,000 plus about £1 million in legal, recovery costs and interest ( they had been claiming £2.2 million)