Comedian Russell Brand has been accused of rape, sexual assaults and emotionally abusing four women during the height of his fame.
The alleged assaults occurred between 2006 and 2013, while he was a presenter for BBC Radio 2 and Channel 4, and include an assault on a 16-year-old girl.
He vehemently denied the “very serious criminal allegations” ahead of a Sunday Times article and an expected expose to be aired by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme tonight.
The allegations include crew members on his Big Brother spin-off being made to feel they were working as a “pimp” by approaching young women on his behalf, and that he raped a woman at his Los Angeles home.
Well, given that your common sense has failed you here, maybe it’s worth asking yourself where else it could fail?
Are you sure about that?
Because your rape apologia is pretty obvious to everyone else, or do you think we haven’t paid attention when apologists like you ran with the same excuses for years?
Are you confusing me for somebody else?
The only statement I’ve made is that he’s been accused of heinous wrong-doing and the court room is the right place to decide on his guilt.
How else would you do it?
Nope, you’re the moron who is thinking you can apologize for some dipshit rapist and that the rest of us won’t just dismiss you and what you have to say on its face.
It’s been known since 2006 when Dannii Minogue spilled the beans on him in an interview.
Now stop defending rapists, you clown.
Please will you tell me how to decide on his guilt?
By shutting up
So the presumption of innocence, and that people shouldn’t be condemned without due process of law, a foundation of the British constitution since Magna Carta, is rape apologia?
It is when it’s pretty blatantly just an excuse to defend a rapist.
If you’re gonna motte-and-bailey a rapist out of consequences you could at least be more subtle about it