The evidence that the coronavirus originated in a lab is now compelling, as is the evidence that the virus was spreading undetected all over the world by autumn 2019, with one blood sample from Lombardy found to be positive for both viral RNA and antibodies as early as September 12th 2019.
One crucial outstanding question is who knew what and when. In particular, what did the U.S. know about the virus before January 2020 and what did the Chinese Government know, and what part did each therefore play in driving forward the pandemic emergency?
Here I will argue that both the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) knew or suspected that an engineered virus was circulating from mid-November 2019, and that while the CCP was initially not worried about the virus, the U.S. biodefence network was much more concerned. The pandemic emergency was therefore largely created by the U.S. biodefence network, which used it as an opportunity to put into practice all the emergency protocols it had been preparing for two decades to respond to a biological attack or pandemic. While the virus quickly turned out to be mild, the emergency response continued largely because the train had already started running and the opportunity was too good to miss.
If the U.S. and its allies did know anything covertly before 2020, the most likely people who would know it are members of the intelligence and security networks. What, then, can we surmise about what they knew from what they were saying and doing in autumn and winter 2019-20 and from later reports?
Consider Dr. Michael Callahan, an ex-CIA agent who now runs the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and was the U.S. Government’s only confirmed point of contact in Wuhan in January 2020. Out of the blue, Dr. Callahan contacted mRNA vaccine expert Dr. Robert Malone on January 4th 2020 to tell him that (to quote Dr. Malone): “There was a novel coronavirus circulating in the Wuhan region, it was looking like a significant biothreat, and I should get ‘my team’ engaged in seeking ways to mitigate the risk of this new agent.”
Bear in mind that at this point nobody else was spreading alarm about the new virus, which according to the public record had only been sequenced and confirmed to be a novel SARS-like virus by the private Chinese company Vision Medicals on December 27th. Certainly the CCP was not spreading alarm. Prior to the Wuhan lockdown on January 23rd 2020, the CCP was playing down the threat from the virus, suppressing news of it and not making any concerted response. The videos supposedly showing people collapsing in the streets with the virus that went round social media at the time were promoted not by the CCP but by organisations opposed to the CCP, aiming to expose its cover-up of the virus. Most people in the West, too, were not treating the virus as a significant threat and it was barely registering on government agendas. Recall that in early January there were officially just a few people in hospital in Wuhan and no recorded deaths, so any notion that this virus was a major threat to global public health was purely hypothetical – or based on information not in the public domain.
However, Dr. Callahan was not alone in his early alarmism. Others from the U.S. biodefence network were conspicuously alarmist and actively trying to raise a sense of alarm in those around them right from the start of January.
In the White House, Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger was stoking up the terror. As Michael Senger notes: “Throughout January 2020, Pottinger unilaterally called White House meetings unbeknownst to those in attendance and breached protocol to ratchet up alarm about the new coronavirus based on information from his own sources in China, despite having no official intelligence to back up his alarmism.”
It was Pottinger who brought in fellow alarmist Deborah Birx as White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator at the end of February 2020, who was herself instrumental in pushing the alarmist agenda and bringing lockdowns to America.
The leaked ‘Red Dawn’ emails among U.S. Government officials and others in early 2020 show long-time lockdown proponent Dr. Carter Mecher of the Department of Veterans Affairs also pushing for strong responses from very early on. On January 28th, Mecher wrote: “Any way you cut it, this is going to be bad. You guys made fun of me screaming to close the schools. Now I’m screaming, close the colleges and universities.”
Dr. Mecher is an associate of Dr. Richard Hatchett, formerly of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) and now CEO of the Gates-funded pandemic vaccine organisation CEPI, with whom he wrote a paper in 2007 purporting to use the lessons of the 1918 pandemic to promote social distancing. A sister paper, also funded by the NIH, was produced at the same time by Imperial College’s Professor Neil Ferguson. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director (then and now) Dr. Anthony Fauci commented in 2007 that the two studies underline that “a primary lesson of the 1918 influenza pandemic is that it is critical to intervene early… Nonpharmaceutical interventions may buy valuable time at the beginning of a pandemic while a targeted vaccine is being produced”.
Richard Hatchett happened to be attending the World Economic Forum when China locked down Wuhan on January 23rd 2020. The following day he gave a press conference with Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust and a board member of CEPI, and Moderna’s CEO Stephane Bancel, backing China’s draconian response and making clear it was straight out of his own playbook.
One thing that is important to understand, is that when you don’t have treatments and you don’t have vaccines, non-pharmaceutical interventions are literally the only thing that you have, and it’s a combination of isolation, containment, infection prevention and control and then these social distancing interventions.
There is historical precedent for their use. We looked intensively and did an historical analysis of the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions in U.S. cities in 1918 and what we found was that cities that introduced multiple interventions, early in an epidemic, had much better outcomes.
The ‘we’ of course here refers to Neil Ferguson and Carter Mecher, as per the above.
Further possible evidence of the involvement of the U.S. intelligence community and biodefence network is that the messages of the ‘whistleblower’ doctor Li Wenliang in Wuhan were initially promoted in English by an organisation funded by the U.S. Government. The flooding of social media with messages promoting lockdown in 2020 was also seen in 2014 with Ebola in Sierra Leone, where it was clearly the work of outside agents. It is also of significance that the same New York Times reporter, Donald McNeil, wrote almost identical articles praising the extreme interventions in both 2014 and 2020.
Anywhere you look in early 2020, amidst the sea of general calm, any source of alarm will invariably be found connected with someone associated with the biodefence network of the U.S. and its allies – people such as Michael Callahan, Matt Pottinger, Deborah Birx, Richard Hatchett, Carter Mecher and Neil Ferguson.
It comes as no surprise then to learn that in the U.S. the virus was treated, not as a matter of public health, but of national security. This approach, already evident in the high level of activity from the biodefence network, was made official in March 2020 when the responsibility for policy in the pandemic was given, as Debbie Lerman has pointed out, not to the public health bodies but to the National Security Council and its agencies. The policy document that the ensuing policy decisions were based on has never been published.
Why would a virus that has as yet done very little be a national security matter? The most likely explanation is because it was known or suspected to be a non-natural, engineered agent. This likely conclusion is supported by other evidence, in particular by what intelligence reports suggest both the U.S. and CCP knew about the virus in November 2019.
A recent report from the U.S. Senate showed that the CCP made a major safety intervention at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) on November 12th 2019 to address the “complex and grave situation facing [bio]security work”. The Senate report also implied that around the same time the WIV must have begun work on a vaccine for the new coronavirus – deduced from the fact that Yusen Zhou (who mysteriously died shortly afterwards) applied for a vaccine patent on February 24th 2020. These facts indicate that the CCP became aware that a leaked virus was circulating in mid-November, presumably because it noticed people falling ill and, via testing, traced it back to the WIV (while there is no direct evidence of this, U.S. intelligence reports have noted WIV workers falling ill with a Covid-like illness in November).
The CCP’s response to discovering this appears to have been to address safety issues at the WIV and to begin working on a vaccine, but otherwise to suppress information about the virus and not treat it as a major threat. The CCP does not appear to have alerted its health services during November or December as medics in Wuhan had to discover it for themselves. This play-it-down and suppress policy continued even once doctors in Wuhan spotted the novel virus in their patients and obtained the near-complete sequence from a private lab on December 27th. The CCP then continued to insist for weeks that the virus wasn’t spreading between humans, aggressively suppressed any suggestion it came from a lab and pushed the scarcely plausible theory that it had jumped from animals in the wet market. The sharing of the full virus sequence on January 11th only happened because a Chinese scientist breached protocol to do so, and was disciplined for it. Even once the CCP abandoned its play-it-down policy and initiated aggressive non-pharmaceutical interventions on January 23rd it continued to frustrate efforts to investigate the WIV and its virus data. It’s clear then, that up to January 23rd the CCP showed no sign of being worried about the virus, but every sign of worrying that the virus’s origins would be discovered.
Separately, the U.S. intelligence community has let it be known that it was aware of a new virus circulating in China from mid-November. As an Israeli news website reported: “In the second week of November, U.S. intelligence recognised that a disease with new characteristics was developing in Wuhan, China. They followed its spread, when at that stage this classified information was not known to the media and did not come out of the Chinese regime either.”
This intelligence is said to have come “in the form of communications intercepts and overhead images showing increased activity at health facilities”. The U.S. military “then alerted NATO and the [Israeli] IDF of the outbreak precisely at the end of November”.
So we know the U.S. had intelligence on the virus circulating in mid-November. I think we have to assume this intel was linked to the CCP safety intervention at the WIV via intercepted communications, and thus that like the CCP, U.S. intelligence knew or suspected it was lab-engineered from that point. But if so, no one appears to have told Dr. Fauci and his associates – Fauci’s FOI emails reveal him and his colleagues (Jeremy Farrar, Kristian Anderson etc.) to be figuring out that it was likely engineered (and that they funded it) at the end of January. On February 1st, Fauci initiated an urgent cover-up operation, designed to discredit the idea of a lab leak as a baseless conspiracy theory, telling his associates: “You will have tasks today that must be done.” It is not clear whether Fauci orchestrated this cover-up on his own initiative or, more likely, after being instructed or pre-primed to do so by others in the biodefence network. The motive in any case was the same: to point the finger away from the U.S.’s funding of the implicated virus research and to avoid discrediting the field.
It thus appears that from November 2019, both the CCP and the intelligence community of the U.S. and its allies were watching the leaked outbreak to see what would happen and whether, as they hoped, it would fizzle out. Chinese President Xi Jinping and the CCP were keen to ignore it and suppress any alarm, as well as any hint of a lab leak. The biodefence network, on the other hand, appears to have been much more nervous about the new virus. As soon as word began to get out it amplified the news, spread alarm, pressed for strong interventions and activated biosecurity protocols, putting its members in charge wherever possible.
Despite this alarmist mode, however, members of the biodefence network consistently backed the natural origins and wet market theory and suppressed the lab leak theory. This is very telling, not least because they knew the wet market story to be false as they had been tracking the outbreak since November. There is also no way they could have known at that early point it was not of lab origin, and as we know there was plenty of evidence to suggest it was, not least what we presume they knew about the Chinese intervention at the WIV. If we assume for a moment they did not suspect it was lab-engineered it is very hard to account for their high degree of alarm about the new virus or activation of biodefence protocols and treating it as a national security matter at a time when officially it had not yet killed anyone and there were few hospital patients.
Furthermore, publicly endorsing the lab leak theory or at least keeping it in play would clearly have been helpful to them as it would have added to the cause for alarm, reinforced their narrative of exposing the CCP’s virus cover-up and unambiguously made it a national security matter. The choice instead to back the CCP’s implausible version of events and suppress the lab leak theory thus betrays that a lab leak must have been seriously inconvenient for them in another way, namely that it implicated them and risked discrediting their research.
It is also telling in this regard that when some in the U.S. Government did start pushing the lab leak theory, the Chinese responded not by denying it but by trying to blame the U.S. for the leak. This feels like a warning shot: don’t expose us on this or we’ll expose you.
As is well known, the CCP’s play-it-down strategy came to an abrupt end on January 23rd 2020, when the CCP caved in to the alarmist calls for lockdowns and NPIs (which actually have a long history in China). Thereafter the country embraced its new policy with zeal, turning itself into a showcase for the extreme pandemic response measures, joining in the promotion of them around the world and really making them their own.
Thus we find that the pandemic emergency was largely a creation of the U.S. biodefence network, with China coming on board after January 23rd. U.S. intelligence officials had been following the virus (which they, like the CCP, knew or suspected was lab-engineered) from mid-November, and the biodefence network made sure news of the virus got out once doctors noticed it, spreading alarm before there was anything really to be alarmed about and treating it immediately as a biosecurity threat. I believe they did this initially, in part, out of genuine concern about the engineered virus, but also partly because they were itching to try out all the biosecurity protocols they’d been preparing for decades – not least the warp speed rollout of an mRNA vaccine. This latter motive also helps explain why it all carried on once it was obvious the virus was not a major threat to human life and the extreme responses were not justified. It was, in other words, a kind of trial run for a biological attack orchestrated by the biodefence network of the U.S. and its allies, with the CCP playing a belated supporting role.
If true, this certainly helps to make sense of it all. But it is hardly a comforting thought, because it reinforces that they’re not done with us yet, but are just getting ready to do it again, and who can stop them?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is silly celebrity gossip for tabloids. I hope we are not going to start with this kind of crap on this website
You might be missing the point.
Russell Brand is constantly criticising establishment narratives and has a huge following.
He is someone who for better or worse stirs the public up and turns them against authority.
It is being suggested that he is going to be taken down for that with spurious allegations.
As they have done with others like Assange (rape), Bridgen (anti-semitism), Trump (insurrection).
Others they debank, like Farage or Toby Young.
And Tommy Robinson!
Well perhaps you should go read the Mailonline . They have twenty articles on this cretin today
What’s silly is you not seeing the bigger picture…
Yep I see bigger pictures and you might and might not have noticed that in other comments I make. ———My point here is that I don’t want the Daily Sceptic to turn into the Mailonline, with celebrity gossip as the main headlines.
Looks like for a change I am suffering a heavy defeat on this one. Well you can’t win them all huh? But I don’t feel the need to support a cretinous goon just because he is supposedly perceived as some kind of anti establishment hero. I can find plenty of non cretinous goons to support.
Judging by the number of downticks you’ve gathered not everyone agrees with you! I must be in the minority as I agree that a scrote like Brand is not worthy of the DS.
Those downtickers should watch those cornflakes they are munching on this morning. I think they might be a bit tainted. ——-But then again it’s all down to personal taste what?
That’s freedom of speech in our democracy. You can say anything you want so long as no one is paying attention to you.
However, say something the establishment doesn’t like and you have a large audience, get ready to be taken down.
Anti-semetism and sexual abuse,are the goto methods of attack.
Let’s see what they’ve concocted for Brand.
Bang on! But like trump, this may backfire and make him even more popular! Here’s hoping
Yes – I hope so.
Trouble is, the sheeple glued to MSM will only remember him for the Andrew Sachs business donkey’s years ago, and lap up whatever C4 have scraped together.
I think we have to leave the sheeple grazing in the field of ignorance. They aim’t coming with us.
You mean misremember him for the Andrew Sachs business. Russell Brand was entirely blameless, it was actually all Jonathan Ross’s fault AND the BBC editors who allowed the programme to be broadcast without editing out the bits that were offensive to Andrew Sachs and his daughter.
It was not a live programme, so if it was so offensive, why did the BBC allow it to be broadcast twice?
Didn’t know the broadcast wasn’t live and I have only a vague recollection of the incident (as will thousands of others). If you are correct, then of course the BBC and JR must take their share of the blame.
Commenting on Sunday pm, it seems Sachsgate forms only a small part of this hit piece; all allegations and trial by social media.
RB has a past and it has come back to bite him on the bum, but I believe he has changed along with his ditching the booze and drugs. He’s certainly highlighted some journalism that MSM wouldn’t touch, and that makes him a prime target.
I think we can guess.
Many of the big ‘awake’ accounts who oppose the forthcoming transnational bio-digital-environmental tyranny are now calling for revolution as disenchantment in the ballot box grows.
Russell Brand is charismatic, honest and articulate with a loyal following far greater than C4, The Times and BBC News channel combined – he is the perfect focal point for the leadership of a revolutionary movement.
It has been decided that he has become too powerful and therefore must go.
Matrix attack…
Marxtrix attack…
Maastricht atteck
Corporatrix attack!
Not dissimilar to Che Guevara!
Che Guevera said this “Youth should learn to think and act as a mass. It is criminal to think as individuals!”
Would Mr Brand agree with that.
I think he has more of a Jesus type vibe to him these days.
They won’t be able to get away with this attack as easily as they have done with others in the past. I believe that Russel Brand’s supporters will push back relentlessly – as indeed will Brand himself.
This reminds me of that old saying that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Can’t you find a non moron to lead your revolution?
This is so transparent though isn’t it? Russell Brand has had a target on his back for ages now because he’s intelligent and fearless in his approach to challenging the official narratives and establishment, ergo he’s clearly a threat to TPTB, especially given his huge audience. What’s happening to him is also further confirmation that we don’t really have free speech at all ( hence the net of online censorship continually tightening around our activity, even on this site ) and democracy is an illusion.
What I will say though, if any of these allegations turn out to be sexual assault then I will be *seriously* p*ssed off because that significantly undermines the plight of genuine victims of this crime and to think that ‘TPTB’ would sink so low as to fabricate some BS accusations with zero evidence, just to go all out in a coordinated character assassination and with the intent of destroying Russell’s reputation is incredibly sick and low. However, he has such a loyal following that nobody’s going to believe a thing that emerges and it all just smacks of desperation.
Is this the threat so many politicians, business leaders etc face today? Subscribe and pay homage to the narrative, do as we say, or expect to have your life destroyed?
These allegations are of events some ten years ago, why now? I believe we can be sure that had Brand not made crystal clear to millions the absurd, in our face, lying duplicity that passes for politics and news these days or interviewed those they sought to exclude and silence such as Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson, he would not be facing these allegations today,
ALEX BELFIELD , anyone ???.. add him to the list , as stated on here by Stewart , if you get too big an audience telling plausible truths against tptb you will be besmirched or worse !
I think we should perhaps wait to see what the programme contains before getting too outraged.
If brand has to pre-defend himself ,then its not going to be anything good!
He has more than hinted about that in the video, by saying that he has been promiscuous in the past, but that all of his sexual encounters have been completely consensual.
I’ve never had much time for Brand; I don’t find him remotely funny, rather irritating, in fact. I’ve watched a few of his interviews with people I’m interested in, where he usually turns off the babble and listens.
Nevertheless, many others do like him; he’s got over 11 million followers on Twitter, well over 6 million on YouTube, and well over a million on Rumble. He spends his time challenging the mono-narrative. This paints a target on his back.
Lo and behold, arch-establishment defender of the progressive elites, Channel 4, and arch-establishment defender of the technocratic centre, the ToL, are apparently going to launch a full-scale assault on him later today.
Now, it’s entirely possible he is guilty of sexual offences; Twitter tells me that such allegations may have swirled around him for years, so we have to wait and see what they have. However, I am slightly puzzled as to why, if there is clear evidence, he has not been arrested and questioned and/or prosecuted for them in the past.
Something seems very off when Channel 4 go to the length of making a 90-minute programme about him to air their allegations. Why have they not gone straight to the police/CPS? Maybe they will, or the police will take an interest after making what I anticipate will be a full-on hatchet job and personality attack to undermine his message and poison public sentiment towards him.
Meanwhile, Epstein’s clients walk around, untroubled by any significant legacy media investigations. Strange, that.
Your first sentence describes exactly how I’ve always thought about Brand, I never understood the appeal. But then I just ignored him, never considered he should be cancelled or taken down, many other people clearly did like him.
I do know that he’s been showing some serious cajones in the past few years bucking the narrative, and by and large I’d probably agree with him (only saw a couple of minutes here and there). But exactly what you said – if any of these allegations are true, waiting till now just means they are out to get him, not that they care about any alleged victims or something as humdrum as the law. A mistake, I think it will fire up more people, if even someone like me who does not particularly care for him thinks this is very, very wrong and is already prepared to side with Brand. Let’s see if his colleagues have the balls to support him.
I’m curious to see who else is in the firing line, apparently it’s not just about him. I wonder if they’ll be going after Neil Oliver or Laurence Fox? Never thought I would be living in a 21st century version of Soviet Russia and Stalinist persecution, particularly in countries like the UK and the US.
Agreed but, ‘cojones’. ‘Cajones’ are drawers.
I know. You can only edit a post within a few minutes, and there’s no need to correct it in a separate reply, as some schoolmarm will come along to do it for you.
I am guilty sometimes of putting yours instead of your’s, but by the time I notice it it’s too late. ——-But like you I have never had much time for the likes of Brand. Just because he is seen as anti the authorities, people on here seem to sweep his despicable behaviours under the carpet. I can think of better people than this to listen to as my anti-establishment hero.
MSM want to shut Brand down, I think they will have the opposite effect
Maybe time to do a Huw and go into the Priory until it all dies down.
Has he come out yet?
I saw Brand live last year – not a big fan, but went along with a chum who has a major crush on him. I was struck, not so much with his edginess or comedy (although enjoyed the anti-establishment stream of consciousness thing he does), but by his almost painful personal transparency: he’s more open about his life and past transgressions than I am about my weekly shopping bill. He’s had a target on his back for a long time, and it looks like C4 drew the short straw for this particular hatchet job. They may well be taking on far more than they realise given the amount of global support Brand has – and I hope they reap their just rewards for doing so.
For those of a religious persuasion (as he is), a prayer or two in his direction wouldn’t go amiss.
You’re making a very good point – reality is chaotic, not algorithmic. No matter what the intentions of the PTB may be in humiliating him, this can go in all sorts of unpredictable ways. And as it happens, I feel that it just might.
Russell has been very vocal in his criticism of the ‘narrative’ and it has been very refreshing watching a ‘lefty’ slowly, or quickly realising there is some pretty bad stuff going on in the name of ‘being kind’ or ‘saving lives’ or ‘saving the planet’. Therefore the ‘Politburo’ are moving to de-person him. What were the chances of this happening?
Given Brand’s very serious, even disturbing, entanglement with the dark forces in the past, he has always been an easy target for a public take-down like the one that’s coming.
Charismatic and articulate as he is, and seemingly enlightened as he presents himself these days, it was a matter of time for this to happen.
So, they want us all talking about Russell Brand for a week or so whilst something else is happening. Maybe the signing of the Pandemic Treaty or The G20 Digital ID agreement or something WW3 related.
So why did C4 not pass on their “information” to the Police, if it is so damaging?
I think that’s pretty obvious.
They’ll use this to smear by association. There’ll be lots of footage with him talking to Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and others that TPTB don’t like.
Saw a hit post on RB looking at X over wife’s shoulder ( I’m not on it ) saying he’s a mate of Klaus & a Mason of sorts ! Surely not
Also – please has anyone got the dirt on Belfields conviction ! Was it right & proper ??.. 5 years !!!…
Brand’s challenges and exposure of the globalist cabal and complicity of the main stream media is clearly getting through, and his audience is getting big enough to require a hatchet job and likely lawfare against him as is the modus operandi of the Blob against those to be silenced and excommunicated who haven’t actually done anything wrong, but claims and accusations tie them up in defence – and the ‘no smoke without fire’ slur will stick.
noticed no comments on the daily mail article
No comments allowed on any of the many Mail pieces on him today. And they usually allow comments on pretty much everything!
To the woke down thumber..
Why has it taken 15 years and the efforts of a woke media organisation for these allegations to come to light???
Please answer.. If you can
I downvoted you, Jon, because it sounds an awful lot to me like you’re describing and legitimising rape. That’s why I’m asking you to clarify your post. Are you being sarcastic?
I think you need to define what you mean by “taken by force” because you’re sailing very close to the wind with language like that and you’ve ran out of editing time. I know what my interpretation of that is, and it’s definitely nothing positive, but I’d like you to clarify your post before I jump to conclusions.
You’ve already jumped to conclusions….
Well here we have the point Mogs… You’ve jumped right in..
basically calling what occurred between 2 consenting adults as rape
Point made
It doesn’t matter what OUR definition of “force” is.. What’s that got to do with anyone else???
We were consenting adults, she enjoyed a bit of rough sex and so did I occasionally….
Sounds like you need to grow up and realise these things happen in the real world…. Have you never taken drugs Migs?
“I know I’ve taken my partner by force before in certain relationships…” How is any woman meant to interpret that? Well keep it as is if you like but I’d ask the DS team to remove it as it’s definitely open to misinterpretation, in my opinion.
This is the point….. Can’t you see why I posted what I did..
Your “interpretation”….. Channels 4 interpretation..
The courts interpretation…. About 2 adults having sex 15 years ago..
How ludicrous can society get
My post is getting to the exact issue about Brand here, it’s a personal experience, so why would you wish it taken down..
I hoped this forum was woke free
So you can’t bear to hear /read something that doest align with your personal ideology and want it removed..
You know what Mogs.. I’m done and you should go work for Channel 4 and try your hardest to get Brand convicted..
I’m sure you’d be happy then… Well that’s after getting my post removed
“Sounds like you need to grow up..” Yeah, says the man who presumes all women like to be “taken by force” and if they don’t they’re liars. Very dodgy territory there, Jon.
No I didn’t say that…
So you think you can dictate what 2 consenting adults can and can’t do in the bedroom.. Where on earth are you at
Mogs, have you ever heard of Bondage?
I feel for Brand, it’s going to be extremely difficult to fight these allegations in this feminised world we live in
Consensual sex becomes rape 15 years later….
People need to realise various sexual activities occur in the bedroom,, It’s not all missionary position…. Some are into Bondsge.. even….wow!
I see you got your wishes and had my posts removed Mogs..
Can’t be having a serious accurate debate can we now
I don’t know what your post was, but there was a post yesterday (can’t remember the name of the poster) from a man who said he’d forced himself upon women in the past and was asking whether that was rape!!!! Incredible. And, yes, for any men left in the country who don’t understand, that is rape.
And, I’m not a young woman. I’m 65. Somehow, in 40 years, my husband has managed never to do that to me.
Are you saying we a have complaints department on here and that your posts have been removed because a complainer complained?
Yea yea yea, we know the narrative…
Can’t be a man anymore it’s all “toxic masculinity”
So Brands a narcissist and liked shagging around…
I have mixed feelings here…I’ve always found RB rather odious and cringe-making, but people I know and love are fans. The allegations made on the programme last night were certainly dreadful and the clips of his stage acts did nothing to improve my opinion of him. On the other hand, BBC Internet News is headlining a ‘testimony’ from an (alleged) victim that includes this ‘I swear to God…his eyes had no more colour…they were black, like a different person literally entered his body’. I mean…what?!