@DailyMail Seriously, what was Jemima Khan, a toff, doing with him? He's as common as the gutter he is from, speaks pure cockney, was she on drugs? She must have had some issues to even consider spending time in his company. Very strange pairing which was sure to end badly. And it did.
@KHarveyProctor@davidwalliams He should be fine. He hasn't called out big pharma or tech comapnies or anything like that. And he isn't a born again christian either. Nothing to worry about.
@HelloCanada Such a great actress, putting on the broken, hurt, emotional damage demeanour. The black clothes. You could not beat this for sheer performace.
@KenLaCorte The draconian judge made an example of him. He didn't get a fair trial. The age difference had not occurred to me and is worse than I realised. But it was 16 years ago and he is since reformed. It was sluttish. Punishment was due but probably about 2 years with some comm service
@oli96033@dorotheabyrne This has red flags all over it. Who pays 500 to indulge their current not too serious BF in this manner? It's very fishy and has kink written all over it. If the above account is true, then Khan's post predates it in anticipation. The plot only thickens here.
@JillKerby We quite naturally absorb much of Britain's culture here. Brand pushed boundaries in humour. It was seen as cool to shock audiences. Was Ireland as laddish in that way though? Not really. He was quite cockney to start with and just too one track and overtly sex mad for our taste
@MichealMartinTD@JoeBiden Doing something typically totally irrelevant, spending time with a dinosaur of the democrat left which is so over. Like yesterday's news. Do better.
@NewstalkFM So the judge decided to make an example of him. The only justification for giving him 10 years would be if he posed a threat. Would he attack someone outright, hold them against their will, I doubt it. It was not a fair trial, completely biased, justice was not served here.
@TheJadeWarwick It is absolutely corrupt and ultimately a waste of tax payers' money. They are putting a low value on childrens' lives and listening to a bunch of loose women @elonmusk
@DailyMail But children are still at risk. Why such a high value on a bunch of loose women who threw themselves at Brand and would still if he was available? He can't be serious. A child's life has to have a higher value.
@thejournal_ie Yes, he did show contempt. 16 years ago. We know. He was open and honest about most of it. So were directors and programme makers at the BBC who encouragrd him. While he should be punished, 7 to 10 years is ridiculously harsh and unnecessary. It doesn't serve anyone.
@Siona537436326@Neccccy It was a different era. His predatory behaviour was encouraged by the BBC, all of 16 years ago. He deserves punishment but nothing like 10 years. Ridiculous and a waste of taxpayers' money.
@Neccccy Vulnerable children are being passed around, yet the gangs involved get reduced sentences. Brand should do some time, community service but nothing like 7 years of a 10 year sentence. This was trial by media and a witch hunt.
@SammiePressdee 10 years is what you give to a serial rapist, with recent history who would be a threat to society. Brand is not, is a reformed character pursuing a different path. Apart from anything else it's a waste of taxpayers money. Hope he is able to appeal.