Shelly 👹👻👽⚽️🔥

I mean, do men normally ask consent to do something during the sex act? ‘Can I please do you doggy style’. ‘Can you please give me a blow job’. ‘Can I please touch your breasts’ I think you get the picture. I mean I always thought consensual sex was spontaneous, you just go with the flow and wherever it takes you and a man isn’t having to ask a hundred and one questions during it. It seems that men will now have to seek consent for every little thing they do or want to do. Maybe men are just best off settling for their right hand, or left whatever the case may be.

Just noticed that Roy Keane decided not to wear the poppy yesterday on Remembrance Sunday for the Manchester United match. Quite disappointing for a man who owes his entire career to the UK and English sport. I think it should be made a rule for broadcasters around the country that on Remembrance Sunday, all pundits should be asked to wear the poppy; if they choose not to wear it, then they have to sit out that weekend. Extremely disrespectful to those paying his wages...

I got to say if Russell Brand was facing trial in the United States for so-called rape and sexual assault he would be found not guilty. Its nothing but hearsay and no evidence of DNA whatsoever. I am happy that I live in the United States where we have a high standard of reasonable doubt. #Russellbrand #notguilty #uk #usa #Andersonuntilprovenguilty #America

Russell Brand won’t see your tweets supporting him But everyone else can see you supporting a rapist

I’m sorry, but I feel like I need to make this post. Both my parents suffered sexual abuse. My mother was abused by her stepfather. My father was raped as a child in a care home for orphans. I have a friend who was raped repeatedly by her father telling her how much he loved her and that she reminded him of her dead mother, and another friend raped by her very own uncle. So watching people on 𝕏 defend a convicted rapist and blame the women who came forward genuinely disgusts me. It also makes me question whether they understand the meaning of consent. This isn’t a joke to me. It disgusts me. Before claiming Russell Brand was “set up by the system”, perhaps take five minutes to research the evidence that convicted him. In 2009, Brand met a 21-year-old woman at a comedy show. She subsequently went to his home. Their sexual encounter initially began consensually. But consent to one act is NOT consent to another. She described being subjected to anal rape, leaving her with physical and psychological injuries. She disclosed what happened shortly afterwards. The jury heard evidence from people she told at the time, including family and friends. Medical records and a nurse’s statement also supported her account of seeking medical attention and reporting what happened. This wasn’t simply an allegation invented 17 years later. And the investigation went considerably further. According to the Metropolitan Police: • Over 100 witnesses traced and interviewed. • More than 400 witness statements taken. • Over 1,400 documents reviewed. • Historical photographs, floor plans and timelines examined. • Hundreds of hours of Brand’s interviews, television appearances and performances reviewed. Police also reported that Brand initially claimed not to recognise the women involved, before his account changed as the case approached trial. These figures cover the entire investigation, not just the rape conviction. The jury also heard evidence concerning three other women. Brand was convicted of sexually assaulting an MTV worker, a Choice FM employee and a Channel 4 worker. The jury also ACQUITTED him of three other charges. Think about that before claiming the jury simply convicted him because he was famous or unpopular. They considered separate allegations and returned different verdicts. Brand himself admitted in court to using his fame to facilitate sexual access, while maintaining that his encounters were consensual. But being famous, having a sexual relationship with someone or having previously obtained consent gives nobody the right to sexually assault them. And finally, to those arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed to prosecute historical sexual offences because too much time has passed: As I said yesterday in a previous post. Would you tell a 32-year-old who was raped by their uncle at 12 that they’ve missed their opportunity for justice? Would you say the same to someone who finally found the courage to speak up at 50? Of course, every defendant deserves a fair trial. But victims deserve access to justice too. Russell Brand received a four-week trial. The jury heard the evidence and unanimously convicted him of rape and three sexual assaults. He has not been targeted by the matrix as Andrew Tate likes to put it. You are entitled to question a verdict or support an appeal. But stop blaming victims, dismissing evidence you haven’t examined and pretending that the passage of time makes rape somehow acceptable. Rape doesn’t have an expiry date. Justice shouldn’t either. Very few have done any research on this website. They immediately jump to defend Russell Brand who is now a convicted rapist. And I am adamant many more will come forward now. I might mute the word Russell and brand so I can now move on with my day. I guess having two daughters makes me feel quite emotional about this, as well as what happened to both of my parents and some of my friends. T

#RussellBrand was found guilty, therefore in law he is guilty. Takeaway jury unconscious bias, him being a very disliked man, a misogynistic egomaniac (my opinion only), the question I pose is this, should we have a statute of limitations on historical sex offences? We must consider, in the vast majority of cases the only evidence is the word of the complainant, maybe some third party statements with a indictment period over a vast period of time for one alleged offence.

The system is fundamentally unfair & needs reform. Russell Brand's trial has increased public distrust in the process. I suggest mostly removing accuser anonymity (as in the US) & introducing a statute of limitations for most cases voluntarily not reported to the police.

Why is Russell Brand the only one found guilty when there are entire grooming gangs who have faced zero prosecution?! 🇬🇧

If your ok With Russell Brand Being away from his Kids and His wife and his Kids now Have to go to A Jail to visit him. check Your Soul. Russell son has Heart issues. No Dad Or mother should be ok with this. @5DPigeon @seanbwparker #FreeRussellBrand

The Crown vs Russell Brand I've spent the last couple of days thinking through all sides in this matter. And I do have a personal conflict of interest that could be said, sways my opinion - but I have painstakingly tried to assess this as objectively as possible. Where I think this case is most unfair, is that the accuser gets to stay anonymous. If a person is going to make allegations that we are to believe, allegations that have the potential to put Brand behind bars for over a decade of his life, then she should be made to face him and front court too - without the vale of anonymity. Why is she given anonymity? What are the reasons? So she's not shamed, right? Yet, that's just it - she should feel ashamed for her part in this. She should feel very, bloody ashamed for her own behaviour. And getting to escape all personal responsibility and putting the blame on someone else, means this trial is simply, not fair. It's not weighted equally and it sets a very bad precedent for all other 'He Said/She Said' matters in the past and in the future.

It' truly terrifying how a woman's lies can ruin a man's EVERYTHING!

"Praise the brave women who came forward". And how about "Jail the women who lied and of whom he was found Not Guilty". Balance media, please, as you write your cheques for interviews.