That response doesn't make any sense. Of course I have evidence that The Times took down the stories of some women and didn't get anything from Russell other than a short statement. All you have to do is read the story to see that that's the case.

Pretty much every newspaper does exactly what I describe. They talk to the person with a grievance, and the other side either won't give a statement, gives a short statement but won't tell their side of the story, or "could not immediately be reached for comment."

Anyone who reads newspapers should immediately pick up on that. It's not like it's a secret. It's right in the stories.

You just have to use critical thinking. If the paper says "Wednesday," it's almost certainly right. They keep track of that.

But here's how journalism to often works:

First, someone has a problem with someone. So they go to the newspaper and they say "This entity is evil! Listen to my tale of woe!"

So the journalist takes down the tale of woe.

And sometimes - they just publish it. You get exactly one side of the story.

But sometimes they reach out to the other side. And the other side always does the same thing. Instead of telling their story, they either say "no comment" or release a short statement saying "I categorically deny the allegations."

Why? Because the person telling the story has just signalled to them that legal proceedings, whether criminal or civil, may be about to begin. And their lawyer is telling them: "Short statement or no comment. Literally anything else you say could hurt you in court."

So, no, reporters aren't just "making up rape stories." What they're doing, is just telling someone's story. They aren't investigating it, they aren't challenging it, they aren't getting other sides of the story. They're just taking down what somebody says, dressing it up to make it more entertaining to read on the toilet, and publishing it.

And so they get stuff wrong all the time. Like, just the first of about a hundred examples off the top of my head: do you remember when an irate mother went to the press and said "My son watched Beavis and Butthead and then imitated Beavis and burned down the trailer with my daughter inside"?

Well, it's not like the journalists were inclined to challenge her in any way, so that lie just stood for the next fifteen years or so until the kid grew up and said "Yeah, my mom is a crazy person, I'd never seen Beavis and Butthead once in my life, and what actually happened is a candle fell over."

If I read a line in the newspaper that says "as Jon put down his coffee he turned to me and said 'i saw Ron climb the fence'" then I would have first hand testimony

No. You absolutely would not. You would have secondhand testimony.

If Jon told you what he saw, that's firsthand testimony.

If someone told you what Jon told them he saw, that's secondhand testimony. Whether that someone is a reporter or not.

Reporters want you to believe they're dogged and careful pursuers of truth - that if they say it, you can be assured that it's the truth and the complete truth and nothing but - but that just isn't how the industry works. Reporters are on insane deadlines. They make mistakes. They have biases. They fuck up, frankly, all the time. And sometimes they're all too happy to fuck up; a fuckup that brings in a million clicks is better for the paper than a true story that brings in a hundred.

Here, we have both first and second hand testimony

No, you have secondhand and thirdhand testimony. You don't even have "a second woman's" name. You don't know who this person is. All you have is a story, told by an overworked journalist with all kinds of personal biases and professional demands, that is literally being written for profit.

And you're just like "Oh, a story, told to me by a professional writer. Well, that's the same as firsthand testimony."

Like I said: you gotta stop just uncritically believing everything you read.

No, sorry, you're just not right. "Firsthand testimony" means the witness appears on the stand, and delivers testimony under both direct examination and cross-examination.

If I tell you that Joe told me he saw Ron climbing the fence, you do not have Joe's firsthand testimiony. You have hearsay. It doesn't matter how "vernacular" you want to be; all you have is hearsay and it isn't admissible in any court of law.

And what you have read in the Brand case is secondhand and thirdhand hearsay, reported by a party according to its own self-interest. You have a third party selectively telling you the juiciest parts of what some women said, with no possibility of any kind of further cross-examination.

That is not evidence. You have not seen a single shred, read a single word, of evidence in this case. Do not delude yourself otherwise. And stop uncritically believing everything you read.

All of this changed in 2017. The #MeToo movement took off when high-profile allegations of sexual assault were made against film producer Harvey Weinstein.

Recall that the "Me too" movement was manufactured to suppress a movie exposing the Hollywood pedophile culture.

Weinstein was red meat.

An adult hetero sacrifice.

I think forcing your dick into someone's mouth such that they have to get violent in order to get you off them - to me, that's a rape. Also anything he did with a 16 year old is rape where I live, fortunately for brand apparently not where he lives.

And I think that if someone tries to give their girlfriend a rough blowjob, thinking she'll be into it, and she's not feeling it so she smacks him on the stomach and he stops, that's, well, not something I need the government to get involved in.

I count exactly one woman who has anonymously accused Brand of rape. Who are the other supposed rape victims?