Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted
1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Never particularly liked the fella, but, if someone has alleged something, he has every right to defend himself.

If necessary, go to court and sue them.

I don't watch his stuff, and no idea what he does, but that piece alone is just him defending himself.

Others may have said "conspiracy" etc but he just seemed annoyed. 

I would suggest though, he gets off social media. Just warps folks' minds.

He'll never leave social media because it feeds his ego, earns him his salary, and provides him with hundreds of thousands of sycophants who believe his every word

Posted
2 hours ago, royal white said:

Russel Brand making out the MSM are after him.

 

Just look at some of those comments. Fkin nutters 

 

 

Narcissistic twat.

How far up your own arse do you have to be to believe you’re ‘important’ enough to have the weight of the ‘msm’ pile in against you for nowt.

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Whitestar said:

Tell you another who i Have heard of and i know who he is but wouldn't give him house space,,,

 

That Eddie izzard?????

Is he supposed to be funny like or what?

 

Maybe its above me but fook!!!

Stop the world. I wanna get off🤮

Someone wished Pink happy birthday on twatter this week and posted a photo of Edward in a pink frock. 

That was entertaining for a while as pink defended herself and at the same time enraged the trans movement. 

  • Site Supporter
Posted
20 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

He'll never leave social media because it feeds his ego, earns him his salary, and provides him with hundreds of thousands of sycophants who believe his every word

Therein is the issue. Those same sycophants, are potential not-rights, loons and twatspatulae.

Whole thing is a mind warping shit show. Digital zombies living in false world.

  • Site Supporter
Posted
16 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Narcissistic twat.

How far up your own arse do you have to be to believe you’re ‘important’ enough to have the weight of the ‘msm’ pile in against you for nowt.

 

 

 

Whether that's accurate or not with regards to his character, the presence of a letter and email is either a fact or a lie.

If true, then he still has the right to defend himself, if the details within the letter are false. It may end up with action being taken.

If the author of the letter believes the details are accurate, then it may end up in an action being taken.

If there is no correspondence, and it's all a concocted story to keep himself in the public eye, then he's a loon.

  • Members
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/russell-brand-allegations-dispatches-channel-4-latest-news-b2412805.html

In fairness to him, these are serious allegations. 

Nowt to do with narcissistic tendencies (though he may possess them), but a right to reply.

One of them is bullshitting. 

Well, either one of them or four of them

Posted

The same people backing RB are saying why are these victims only coming out now when it happened years ago. It’s obviously a witch hunt. 
 

The same people also post about the Prince Andrew allegations which also happened years ago 🤷🏻‍♂️

  • Moderators
Posted

Russell Brand was so far up his own arse it wouldn't surprise me if he thought he could do whatever he wanted with whoever he wanted 

 he was very funny in Forgetting Sarah Marshall though to the point I liked him for a bit afterwards 

Then he did get me to the Greek and he was a cunt again

  • Moderators
Posted
1 hour ago, mickbrown said:

Narcissistic twat.

How far up your own arse do you have to be to believe you’re ‘important’ enough to have the weight of the ‘msm’ pile in against you for nowt.

 

 

 

To be fair he's just got too close to the truth 

And when you do that 

They accuse you of rape 

Fucking msm

  • Site Supporter
Posted

Trial be media here.

Twat or not, if posters have already decided his guilt, then he's unlikely to be able to receive a fair trial, if one ever happens.

Surely, with the evidence they have, the papers and channel 4 should go to the police first?

It's not a matter of taking sides, or believing one over the other, it is about ensuring due process under the laws of the land thus trying to ensure a guilty person gets punished, or an innocent one is cleared.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Trial be media here.

Twat or not, if posters have already decided his guilt, then he's unlikely to be able to receive a fair trial, if one ever happens.

Surely, with the evidence they have, the papers and channel 4 should go to the police first?

It's not a matter of taking sides, or believing one over the other, it is about ensuring due process under the laws of the land thus trying to ensure a guilty person gets punished, or an innocent one is cleared.

Same with Jimmy Savile 👀

Posted
41 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Trial be media here.

Twat or not, if posters have already decided his guilt, then he's unlikely to be able to receive a fair trial, if one ever happens.

Surely, with the evidence they have, the papers and channel 4 should go to the police first?

It's not a matter of taking sides, or believing one over the other, it is about ensuring due process under the laws of the land thus trying to ensure a guilty person gets punished, or an innocent one is cleared.

He’s loaded and ‘lawyered’ up to fuck. 
 

Let’s see if he sues them. 
 

The Times and Channel 4 obviously think they are legally on solid ground. 

  • Site Supporter
Posted
5 hours ago, mickbrown said:

He’s loaded and ‘lawyered’ up to fuck. 
 

Let’s see if he sues them. 
 

The Times and Channel 4 obviously think they are legally on solid ground. 

Let's see indeed.

More importantly, let's see if any police involvement occurs.

 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not sure what your point is; as he got dead before any action was brought.

If it had, he could have pled guilty or gone to court. No one knows.

But as per your post, twat or not he’s already been found guilty by many. He would have never got a fair trial. 

  • Site Supporter
Posted

He’s certainly guilty of being a tinfoil hatted, pontificating, loquacious bellend who can’t keep his facehole shut.

But I’d say allegations like that should be dealt with by the bogeys, not channel 4

  • Site Supporter
Posted
22 minutes ago, royal white said:

But as per your post, twat or not he’s already been found guilty by many. He would have never got a fair trial. 

He would at the time, as his crimes weren't openly discussed on social media as they are now.

Had he been alive now, and accusations been made in the public domain, then it would be difficult to ensure a fair jury.

Others of that era have been prosecuted so it can be done, but again was there the same level of open discussion without proven facts?

 

  • Site Supporter
Posted
15 minutes ago, Spider said:

He’s certainly guilty of being a tinfoil hatted, pontificating, loquacious bellend who can’t keep his facehole shut.

But I’d say allegations like that should be dealt with by the bogeys, not channel 4

Bogeys?

A new one on me.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.