EDIT (19.12.2022) I REALISED THIS POST BECAME REALLY MESSY AND PERHAPS CONFUSING WITH ALL THE EDITS, SO I HAVE FORMATTED THE POST TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR.

THE STUFF IN BOLD AND ITALICS ARE ALL THE EDITS, EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE ORIGINAL POST. THERE WILL ALSO BE SOME NEW INFO THROUGHOUT THE POST.

PLEASE READ THE POST IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR EVERYTHING TO MAKE SENSE.

I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I SEE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO COMMENT BUT THEIR COMMENTS GET DELETED STRAIGHT AWAY. THIS IS NOT ME, I BELIEVE IT'S SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS SUBREDDIT'S NEW RULES TOWARDS POSTING (OR RATHER NOT POSTING).

I'd firstly want to say that I have no reason to either defend nor attack Dave. I've never really followed him, apart from his collabs with Roomie, PewDiePie, TheOdd1sOut and JaidenAnimations. Even then, it was more because of the other people involved rather than actually wanting to watch Dave. I did watch a couple of his vids, but that's about it.

At the same time, I have no idea who the victims are. So again, I have no reason to either attack or defend them.

I'm also writing this with the info I'm aware of. Please do let me know if I'm missing anything.

Most of you reading this probably heard the current situation surrounding Dave/BoyInABand. If not, then there's an accusing him of some pretty serious stuff, ie (direct quote from the letter) "situations that included years of lies, manipulations, and emotional, financial, physical, and even sexual abuse of many young girls", as well as Dave dating a 17 y/o girl when he was 23.

It seems that the open letter, as well as the whole of the account that posted it, (it turns out the account is still up; it’s just not being used) has been deleted. (The only things left on the account are some unrelated comments from before the accusations.)

The last comment to the post was made on 17.10.2022, so the post must've been deleted shortly after. I find this to be really interesting and at least somewhat strange. Apparently this is because the mods asked OP to delete R****l’s info, but OP simply deleted the whole post instead, along with every other post and even comments they made about Dave. More info under the “The victims' anonymousity” section.

The post itself

The first thing I find strange is that the post doesn't provide any evidence or proof of any accusations, despite repeatedly saying they can and/or the claim is provable. The only thing they proved is that Dave dated R****l when he was 23 and she was 17. (As far as I'm aware, even this situation is not very clear)

The mods managed to reach out to someone who spent quite a lot of time with Dave at the time of him dating R****l (won’t mention their name due to privacy). They claim they never witnessed any abuse from Dave towards R****l.

The other "evidence" provided were screenshots of text chats between at least two anonymous accounts, but they don't really prove any of the claims, but rather say that Dave is a horrible person. Now, being a horrible person does not mean that person is/was an abuser.

The last piece of "evidence" is this on Dave's channel which starts with the lyric "Take me without my consent". The open letter claims this was sung by 17 year old R****l, but as far as I'm aware, we don't actually know who sung this lyric. It could've been R****l, but it could've been literally anyone else, including a girl who was 18+ at the time. (This doesn't justify the lyric, which is weird to say the least)

pointed out in the comments that Dave actually gives credit to R****l in . This video seems to be a part of a series of tutorials which lead to the previous mentioned song as the final result.

The way Dave introduces her says a lot about him and/or their relationship, but then again, if his claim that she actually helped him with the lyrics is true, I think that says a lot about her as well.

What I also find weird is how vague the post is in some areas.

For example, the letter claims Dave financially abused his victims within its first paragraph, but then mentions nothing about this kind of abuse afterwards.

Towards the end it also says, and I quote, "What started as 5 girls is now way in the double digits". What does this mean? Is it 15 victims? 30? 99?

The letter also said Dave forced, or at least tried to force, polyamory on at least some of the victims. I personally don't understand how this can be forced onto anyone; either refuse to be part of a polyamorous relationship or break up with the person if they start dating other people. However, please do let me know if I'm missing anything.

Although it's been claimed Dave was actually polyamorous by some people who identified themselves as personally knowing Dave one way or another at some point in time, there's no evidence at all to suggest he tried to force polyamory onto anyone else. Not saying he didn't do it, we just don't know whether it actually happened or not.

Now, the lack of evidence in the post, along with its vagueness does raise some suspicions, but at the same time, we don't have any way of clearly saying these accusations are false.

The victims' anonymousity

I understand why you'd want to keep your identify in something like this. However, this works in the victims' detriment, at least partly. We have no idea how, and even if they're connected to Dave at all, we don't have any timeline of events, and we don't have any names, apart from R****l.

I also think it's really unfair how the victims who wrote the open letter are trying so hard to keep their identity secret, but at the same time they used the "way back machine" to not only reveal quite important info about R****l (such as where she lived at the time and the fact she just finished her first year of sixth form at the time), but they even showed her face, presumingly without her consent (?) That's really unfair if you ask me.

A couple of Dave’s ex-partners, who have been identified by the admins, have grown distrustful of the “spokesperson” of the alleged survivor’s group- aka the OP of the post with allegations. They asked the admin to get in touch with R****l in order to 1) inform her of the situation (ie there was an open letter which included her info) and 2) to make sure she’s alright. The admins have done this and, as far as I understand, helped her as much as they could in what must’ve been a very difficult situation for her.

Originally, OP also claimed they got R****l’s permission to include her info and picture in the post. However, it turned out R****l did NOT give OP permission to use her information and her picture (this was proved to me personally), and she understandably didn’t (and probably still doesn’t) like the fact her picture and info was used in the open letter.

She asked the admins to get the her info deleted from the subreddit and even threatened with legal action. (This is also why her name is now censored in this post.) She also asked the admins to do the extremely hard task of deleting every single comment that contains her name.

The admins then tried to convince OP to edit their post in order to get R****l’s information deleted, but OP was reluctant to do so. OP eventually opted to delete the whole post a while later. It seems the OP hasn’t spoken to anyone since they deleted their post and account, and therefore no one really knows why they deleted everything.

I think it’s also worth mentioning that, as far as the admins and I are aware, Dave hasn’t taken any legal action against anyone, neither has he threatened to do so. As far as we’re aware, there has also not been any legal action taken from the potential victims neither.

Not to mention that there are comments claiming they talked to at least one of the victims. , but I've seen quite a few of them. (I'll edit this post to add some more examples if I come across them again.) How did they come across the victims if no one knows who they are? How do they know they're the actual victims and not some random person with too much time on their hands? If they can offer actual evidence, why do they not post it publicly, but seemingly give it to anyone who asks for it anyway? This doesn't make any sense at all

It turns out that some of the potential victims identified themselves to at least some of the mods of this subreddit and some others have identified themselves to friends an/or friends of friends who also knew Dave. See ’s comments below as an example. This explains why a select number of people have evidence but no one else.

Please DO NOT bombard armahillo and/or the admins asking for any evidence. It’s very unlikely they’ll give you any, so you’ll just kill their phones with notifications, as well as wasting your and their time for absolutely no reason.

However, I don't think this excuses the fact the OP didn't provide any evidence publicly whatsoever (apart from the R****l situation).

Also bear in mind that there were also some people who were coming out with false stories/claims for attention.

We also have which claims Dave and his family know who wrote the letter. So then why wouldn't they at least provide some concrete evidence of their relationships with Dave and/or the abuse they achieved?

(The comment in question is the one at the bottom.) Why are they then trying so hard to stay anonymous, to the point they're not actually giving any evidence at all?

Also, the fact that the number of victims is "well into double digits" (whatever that means) and yet none of them want to give us the slightest of clues of this alleged abuse is also really suspicious if you ask me.

I just want to clarify- from my understanding, “well into double digits” means at least about 14/15. The events that supposedly happened in the open letter happened over a period of at least 12-14 years.

I personally highly doubt Dave could’ve gotten away with at least 12 years worth of abuse with at least 14 different people while not one victim would say a word. I doubt it took a supposed group of victims so long to come up with allegations/accusations, or any information about this as all, and they only managed to come up with… well… this mess.

As far as I'm aware, the only person who did come forward to publicly confront Dave was Shonalika with , but even that basically says he's a horrible person rather than an abuser.

The posts/comments who give at least some credibility to the original post

Now, we have , which highlights relevant posts and comments to this case.

A couple of the comments are really vague, and again, just claims without any sort of evidence, like .

Then we have comments like , which is probably something most of us expect from at least one of the victims. The comment confirms the author's connection with Dave by literally proving it, and has quite a lot of useful info.

Please note, however, how this comment confirms some of the stuff in the original post, like his polyamory, but generally speaking, his comment portrays Dave as a fun person to be around, but who also simply disposes of people when no longer needed, and a couple of other things.

has provided quite a lot of information which I think is quite important

I was also made aware in the comments of this post that the post I linked above is from a person who wants to defend the victims. After checking their profile, I can confirm this.

I'm not saying you shouldn't believe the victims/allegations, but I would recommend you at least try to stay unbiased until we have more information.

The account that posted the accusations

The account that posted the open letter, astekas_, is quite interesting as well...

At the time of writing this, the account is 158 days old, and only has 4 posts, all about Dave. The first one was 40 days ago, 2 of them were 29 days ago, and the last one was 11 days ago, which is very strange to me.

If you look at the account's comments as well, they start off with seemingly normal comments 41 days ago, but then they transition to being focused solely on Dave soon after. The last few comments are mostly copy paste comments, and they all suddenly stop 6 days ago, which again is strange to me.

According to the admin I spoke with, the account that posted the letter is, or at least was, owned by either one of Dave’s friends OR shared by the group of supposed victims themselves. This seems to be unclear.

However, it seems to be clear the OP of the open letter (and probably all the other Dave-related posts and comments) is a woman who claims she is one of Dave’s ex partners. She was supposedly chosen as some sort of spokesperson for the group of alleged victims.

We know OP deleted the open letter after being asked to delete R****l's info, but it’s not very clear who deleted all the other content related to Dave, or why exactly they did so (as far as I'm aware, at least). It wouldn't be surprising if OP deleted everything and just leave the account as it was before the allegations. What doesn't make sense (to me, at least) is why they didn't just delete the account as a whole, and why there is still some completely unrelated stuff left on it.

Not only this, but one of the identified victims mentioned above actually wrote her own statement and asked OP to post it on the same account as the open letter. For reasons unknown (to me, at least) this didn’t happen.

One of these victims also wasn’t invited to the group of victims that supposedly exists. As far as I understand, the victim didn’t even know about this group existed until she saw the open letter.

It also seems the account that posted the open letter actually blocked these two identified victims.

(EDIT 24.12.2022) As of the deleting of the post (and the other content related to Dave), DaftPina said he talked to one of the mods (not sure if the same one as the one I talked to, .

, which says, and I quote,

Hi. No, basically our goal was to connect with our victims here, inform his fans about him being an abuser and a scumbag and warn young girls who DM YouTubers about what did happen to some of the girls here and what could happen to them. Goals were achieved and we restricted his Reddit again. The information is available in several places so his potential future victims are still warned. His family knows and understands who he is. However some of the people who messaged us, specifically one, despite not being part of this are now hungry for drama and attention, threatening to doxx some of us, etc. So for me, personally, this will not fly. I get that memes were funny and deserved lol but forgetting there are actual people affected for an internet drama is not something I want to be part of.

This again raises more questions than answers.

If they want to raise awareness about Dave, then why delete all the warnings you've written about him? Also, why would you not be specific about what he's done, rather than claiming you can prove stuff multiple times and then not even attempting in doing so? Also, OP accused Dave of abusing his victims in multiple ways at the start of the letter, but then not mentioned them again.

As of the information being available in other places, I guess it's true, but then again, if they wanted to bring awareness about this, why would you make it more difficult for people to look for the information, and even then it would be surrounded by people's opinions one way or another?

If they want to "connect to the victims", then why would you not only refuse to interact with confirmed victims, but actually block them? (More info below)

As of informing people he's a scumbag, I think this was done by other people in this subreddit rather than OP herself, which again is interesting and questionable to say the very least.

And why did they bring other youtubers into this? 1) All of the posts and comments on the account were about Dave and 2) not all youtubers are horrible people.

Conclusion

I think this whole situation is a bit of a mess at the moment. We don't have a lot of evidence to prove the claims, but we also don't really have a reason to disprove anything neither.

The only thing we can be at least somewhat sure of at the moment is that Dave is not the nicest person to say the least, perhaps due to his mental health.

I really hope this situation will clear itself up sooner rather than later.

Although this whole situation is still quite messy, we at least got some more information than what we had at the start. It also seems that whatever the truth is, there was bad stuff done on both sides.

Dave has had the relationship with R****l, which, as far as I understand, started when she was 16 and he was 22, it’s believed they’ve met about a year prior, and their relationship lasted at least a year.

It also seems Dave had an inappropriate relationship with his fans, followers, subscribers or whatever you want to call them. For example, is his very last online public post.

Also, even if all of the allegations of abuse were false, it does seem he’s not the nicest person in the world to say the very least. There were many stories that came out about this, the first one probably being but also the stories that came out on this subreddit, such as . Even the “abuse evidence” given in the post painted him to as a horrible person rather than an abuser. (Before anyone asks- all abusers are horrible people but not all horrible people are abusers).

It seems Dave was indeed just replacing people whenever he felt like it, ignoring people who were trying to help him and other stuff mentioned in these two examples, as well as those given throughout the post.

On the other side, this wasn’t handled well at all by the account that posted this. There were extremely vague statements, most of which weren’t supported by any sort of evidence whatsoever. If there was actually a group behind this, then I personally believe this is even worse.

They refused to post a story of a CONFIRMED VICTIM, didn’t invite the other confirmed victim in the group made up of other supposed victims and then blocked the only confirmed victims other than R****l.

Not to mention that the OP blatantly lied about getting R****l’s consent to publish her information and then simply deleted everything once confronted, and then stayed silent ever since.

This just makes me wonder what else was a lie, or at least not 100% true? Was there ever any abuse? If there was, is the number of victims really “well into double digits”?

If the “open letter” was based on a tint of truth surrounded by lies, this would explain why the post was so vague and why there was no evidence of any of the claims apart from the R****l situation.

Since the OP is a woman who claims is one of Dave’s ex partners, my personal theory is that they perhaps had an argument or some sort of fallout (Dave wasn’t a very good partner according to Shonalika’s song, and looks like he wasn't a very good person overall) and OP wanted some sort of revenge. If not this, then she just posted the letter to get some attention.

Anyway, whatever the actual truth is, this brought to light some info about Dave. He MIGHT not be an abuser, but he’s certainly not the nice, helpful person we thought he was.

Lastly, as far as I understand, all of the supposed victims (apart from R****l) were in their 20s, or at least over 18. This means all of them (again, apart from R****l) were adults and, if any abuse actually happened, they probably noticed what was going on, even if it was later on. This means that even if they didn't want to take legal action against Dave, like the letter suggests, they could've at least gotten help from their families and/or friends. If not, then the families and/or friends of the potential victims should've noticed something was off and do something about it. The point I'm trying to make is that the victims were more than likely not as helpless as the open letter made them out to be.

This also brings back the fact that it's very unlikely that so many supposed victims and possibly at least some of their friends and family knew about this, and yet no one said anything for over 12 years or so.

Allegedly the reason they won’t name any of the victims is to protect them from harassment, which is reasonable... except for rachel, its really suspicious that you had no problem basically doxxing rachel but wont post a screenshot of a DM from dave to a victim to protect their privacy... so there are 2 main possibilities, either the allegations are true, but you just dont care about what happens to rachel, or they arent and you doxxed a girl who seems to not have had any problem with their relationship just to add credibility.

So I've seen talk that this is being handled by a legal or police involvement. Which you know good for doing that if this being taken seriously and it's a true thing. Now here comes where I see a massive issue. Anyone in here could take all the screenshots in the world and send them to Dave or a legal advisor for Dave and he gets the ability to sue for Defamation.

Defamatory statements

A defamatory statement is one which is false and causes damage to a person’s reputation or otherwise does them harm.

Libel is the term given to defamation in a permanent form, such as in print. Since the Broadcasting Act 1990, this also includes statements that are broadcast on the radio or television, even though the words are in this case spoken rather than written. It is the tangibility of the statement that really matters – libel deals with statements that are recorded. Defamation in a transitory and non-permanent form (eg, defamatory statements which are spoken) is known as slander.

Defamation and chat rooms

Libel can also include comments made online, including comments in emails or on websites. Usually comments made in a chat room or on a bulletin board/forum are considered slanderous, since their usage resembles casual conversation.

Claiming defamation

For a person to bring a claim of defamation, it must be shown that the statement:

• was made to somebody other than the claimant;

• has caused or would be likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation (Defamation Act 2013, s 1(1)). Harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not ‘serious harm’ unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss (Defamation Act 2013, s 1(2));

• may expose the claimant to contempt, disliking, hatred or ridicule;

• may cause the claimant to be shunned by society or avoided by people;

• was clearly applicable to the claimant, although they do not necessarily have to be named (eg, ‘the head of London Metropolitan Police Force’ would be sufficient without explicitly naming the claimant).

If someone claims that a person has made defamatory statements about them, the onus is on the person who made the statements to prove that the statements are true.

This entire post for these people turns into the victims becoming the bad ones really quick. This isn't protecting them at all. And these are UK laws I'm looking into here. So how are you protecting these victims from this? What are you gonna do with the thousands of people who saw and now can give someone the ability to counter the justice you need them to get? The people who outed themselves are at the most risk for something backfiring. I understand you want the justice but if you are at the legal part already you shouldn't be posting till you get the all clear. Any legal representee would advise you to wait so the other can't counter you. Please take that into consideration.

I loved this guy for years. I performed covers of his songs for graded classes. I checked every other week for updates to his channel during all his hiatuses. The first thing I hear about him in years is he’s a giant groomer. I’m devastated, not just for the victims, but for everyone like me who looked up to and identified with this guy. Every day it feels like we’re running out of people to look up to. So upset.

So like wheres the evidence boy in a band is a Hebevile and everything else y'all immediately started accusing him of b4 he even had a chance to defend himself...mind you all he's already talked about how crazy and abusive his ex's where so idk how reputable they are just a lil fyi...and I've done my own digging and found absolutely nothing other then a bunch of mad tikrokers and redditers posting horrible things and saying how their proud of sending him death threats.

Even if 16, 17, whatever is legal where he lived, a fully grown man in his 20s has nothing in common (other than maybe shared musical taste) with a teenager and can manipulate the hell out of them

I keep seeing people here point out it was legal for him, and sure, but dudes like him who aim for teenagers typically do it because they're immature and know that women their own age expect more from them.

I can't think of anything a (then) 23 year old has in common with a 16 year old. Dave became a legal adult when she was 11, not even a teenager yet. There's a huge gap in life experience between the two of them

I don't need to see Dave in cuffs to know he's disgusting.

For one, Armahillo has been commenting on posts regarding the accusations with overwhelming support of the victims and bias. He keeps saying the victims all want to remain anonymous, and that they can't post because they might press charges. If there are so many victims cooperating with each other, enough to write a whole letter to BoyInABand's family, AND they have a ton of evidence/proof to back up their claims, why did they not first press charges against BiaB, and then when the court found BiaB guilty, posted about it? I mean, a conviction is the most solid proof anyone can provide.

Also the reddit account that originally posted the accusations, was a newish reddit account that had never posted/commented until the day they started talking about BiaB. The comments from the first day, are on completely random posts/subreddits and are very generic. Then the OP goes on to post/comment about BiaB and switches to ONLY commenting/posting about him. The accusations were posted on more than one subreddit, and don't make much sense. The very first post is about BiaB being with Rachel, and the OP claims to have just been an internet friend of BiaB for 1.5 years, not even an ex of his.

The "letter that was sent some time ago" to BiaB's family doesn't even read like a real letter. It reads exactly like a chaotic reddit post.

I just don't know, and I'm confused. Every other person who's had major accusations come out about them, the accusers didn't remain completely anonymous, at least some people came forward and names could be put towards the accuser. They've also posted more evidence than was posted here, so I don't know why we can't expect the same in this case. Please, I urge you to look into the account that made the original post (astekas_) because none of this makes sense to me.

Know honestly, me personally It doesn't seem like the original reddit post about Dave being a pedophile makes since but since they say they have proof but there's no proof and this just came out of nowhere.

So, the majority of the subreddit at the moment is about boyinabands controversy’s, understandable, but from what I’m seeing, a lot of people have completely lost the ability to show respect to his victims.

Making jokes like “boyinachild” and “I was never taught what laws there are” is really insulting, and is very likely very upsetting to his victims, if they’re seeing it anywhere.

It’s understandable why you want to take the piss out of him, but I honestly believe it’s sometimes best to focus on the victims, and forget the perpetrator (or whatever the word is in this scenario). Yes, you could make fun of him for the shitty things he did, but there is a good chance that will affect the victims. If you just completely ignore him, and spread the victims stories, there is almost no chance of anyone getting upset.

People are a bit to desensitised to these situations unfortunately, and lose focus of the bigger image.

I laughed the first couple times (I have a safe place in hell) but it’s…. Getting old lol

This is a follow-up post to my previous post ('What's with the ambiguity? Dave himself confessed to a non-consensual relationship with Rachie.'), outlining Dave's sexual guilt in the Rachie Rave case. See here:

Often, when searching for a YouTuber's age on Google, any random result will pop up, regardless of whether it's true or not. Pretty much, anyone can write anything about any other person, no matter how famous or obscure they are. However, despite this, all the evidence goes in fact point to Dave having been born on the 24th of August, 1987.

This would make Dave 20 years old by the time he met Rachie, 21 by the time the two of them were full-time friends, and 22 by the time he started dating her while she was 16. So, in other words, there's a six year age gap between them.

- - Rachie: age 14 - -

Their relationship all began (even before it became a romance, even prior to becoming a friendship) when Rachie herself attended one of Dave's live shows. Dave's band, named 'You and What Army,' played a show at the Wulfrun Hall, part of a concert titled 'Generation: Summer Slam.' Rachie attended the concert, but it remains ambiguously as to whether they actually interacted with each other or not. Even if they did interact, it would've probably been a relatively brief encounter, maybe lasting a few minutes. At the time, Dave likely thought nothing of it, and Rachie was just like any other fan of this small, obscure band.

- - Rachie: age 15 - -

A year later, Rachie came to another concert featuring You and What Army, and immediately afterward she began chatting with Dave on his Myspace account (feel old yet?). They exchanged message quite often, and eventually as a result, they met up in real life and had regular social gatherings. Dave states that he attended Rachie's 16th birthday, which, in his eyes, made him feel like the friendship had become fully solid.

- - Rachie: age 16 - -

So, this is at the point where the two get together romantically. Many people have read the blog post announcing this, but very few have read the reply which Rachie left (on what appears to be an inaccessible account on the blogging site. I tried clicking on it, but nothing happened. Maybe it's always been like this, or perhaps there are just no archives to date).

Rachie wrote:

'This is sweet! I like being your bitch. LOL

You already know how amazing you were at Hadouken! But I’ll tell you again- YAWA WERE EPIC. WAYYYYY BETTER THAN HADOUKEN! 📷

Anyway, I will stop blabbing now. Ps- SMILE.'

One thing I don't understand about the comment is that it appears to have been written (and, by extension, published) a day before Dave's own blog post, the one she commented under. Dave's glob post was made public on the 30th of November, while her comment states it was made on the 29th of November. It doesn't really make any sense. How can the comment be visible if it's in reply to something that was published later? This can't be an editing mistake, either, as this isn't an image we're dealing with, but instead an archive on the Wayback Machine. So, as a result, nobody has messed with what I'm seeing. My best guess is that this is merely an error, a glitch on the site, and nothing more. I don't have any other explanation, so let's just work with this explanation instead of getting into absurd conspiracy theories.

Both Rachie and Dave claim that they saw each other again at the Hadouken show, a day after they got together romantically. Dave had come onto Rachie, asking her to be his girlfriend. In the blog post, Dave appears to have posted a compilation of his band - or, another band, or a mixture of bands, possibly including his own, You and What Army - in the form of a video. However, the video's no longer playable on the Wayback archive. This is the same with the photo posted of Rachie. It's no longer visible. With this said, it can be established that the Hadouken show was a real, legitimate event, not merely on the basis of the words of Rachie and Dave, or even the fact that You and What Army toured a bit, performed a few shows, but due to a YouTube video that was uploaded.

While the video's description has been altered now - it's unknown as to why this is - the original description, which can be viewed through a Google search, mentions Hadouken, a band that You and What Army played alongside. The Wikipedia article for the band, likewise, lists this as a fact (as of writing this, at least. It may be updated in the future, which could erase this). The is actually an audio only interview with You and What Army's members, including Dave himself.

The orignal description reads, in rough format:

this is the atmosphere show made durning a radio course with CM radio, we went to the ... Boyinaband, You and What Army, Hadouken**!,** and more.

For those who went ahead after being interested in David Paul Brown's blog, reading through his many journal-like entries, he talks of his then girlfriend Rachie quite a lot, mentioning the various things he's done with her. However, despite all the information he's provided, he never mentioned anything of a sexual nature. The most intimate than ever got wasn't even anything which existed between the two, but, rather, when Rachie took Dave to a gay bar, so that guys could hit on him. To this day, in terms of anything confessed from Dave, or anything claimed from Rachie, there is no confirmation of sexual activity between the two. Of course, this doesn't mean that sex didn't happen, just that it's never been confessed to. Consider that virtually no romantic couples don't engage in sexual play, and, on top of it, the ones who don't usually consider themselves asexual. Dave, a heterosexual man, is extremely unlikely to have no had sex with Rachie, especially with the follow-up accusations, which I'll get to eventually.

In a blog post titled, ',' Dave mentions that he was designing a website for Rachie. This website in question was called 'Revise with Rachie,' and it existed as a means of her expressing her views and studies on psychology. She was a psychology student at a college studying to acquire a job in the profession. Based upon the fact that she had written on her website that she had studied psychology for a year at that point, it appears that she was out of high school. However, because this is the UK, this likely just meant that she graduated high school early, not that she wasn't below the age of 18. In fact, her own website, on the same page as her college information, confirms that she was underage at the time of seeing Boyinaband.

'Hi! I’m Rachel, I’m 17 and live in the West Midlands in the UK. I have just finished my first year of 6 form/ college at Codsall Community High School and am studying Chemistry, Biology and Psychology at A Level.

My favourite unsigned band is You and What Army? You should check them out!

My boyfriend has had a website called for around 2 years now where he makes music tutorials. Ever since I’ve known him he’s always encouraged me to make one of my own so now I decided I would.'

So, this page of the website has two notable alternations: one where she states she's 17 (already shown), and the one where she states he's 18.

According to all the available archives on the Wayback Machine - meaning that a lot of dates are missing, implying that she definitely turned 18 a bit early, though how earlier is unclear, as her date of birth hasn't been publicly revealed yet - she was 17 on the 17th of July, and was 18 on the 2th of October (for both dates, in the year 2011).

See listed dates:

17 -

18 -

This does, indeed, confirm that they were dating while she was underage. The fact that David created Rachie's website can be seen anywhere, on any page, on the site, with the bottom bar reading, 'Based on Wordpress - Design by David Brown.'

- - Rachie: age 17 - -

So, when looking back at her description, she which was created for the band You and What Army. It's no surprise she considers them her favourite unsigned band (well, did, at the time). It was through them that she met Dave. In other words, she was a fan of band because of the band, not a fan of the band because of Dave. Dave himself was aware, according to his various blog posts where he consistently mentions her, that he was dating and, presumably, fucking a fan. This is further empathised when we follow the Wayback Machine link that was accompanied on Rachie's website. When we look down a bit, we see an account on Myspace which follows the band's account, titled 'Rachie RAVe.' When you hover your mouse over the account's icon, it says that the user is 18 years of age.

This is consistent with everything that's been previously established. Rachie turned 18 in, at least, the 29th of August, but most likely before then. So, she was 17 earlier that same year, 2011. This appears to be her profile, not only because it has 'Rachie' in the title, and Dave proudly displays it as one of the many, many people following the band (consider that the band had 28,730 followers, but Rachie was one of the only eight people displayed in the 'friends section'), but the username 'Rachie Rave' is actually a name that Dave used to publish collaboration music between the two.

WARNING: Disturbing and non-discussed audio incoming

If you go to Dave's Spotify account - and I don't mean the mainstream name, I mean the domain registered on Spotify as - you can find an album released by Dave called which contains 11 songs. The 6th listed song contains the name 'Rachie Rave,' a song which features her on vocals. It was a collaboration between the two titled, 'Bassline 7 Day Song Feat. Rachie Rave.' The album appears to have been taken down from Spotify, but the album, including the 6th song, can be found on YouTube.

The song can be As you'd expect, Dave gets Rachie to sing a bit for him. While the name 'Rachie Rave' is removed from the YouTube upload's title, you can see that the image accompanying the video has 'Rachie Rave' in it, which was consistently the name Dave adopted for her for music. Strangely enough, I haven't seen even a single person mention this song, or even the whole album, once before. The album was released sometime in 2010, meaning that Rachie was only 16 when she sang this song.

Rachie has actually been featured twice elsewhere in Dave's history of music production, in two YouTube videos he uploaded straight to his channel, which are still up to this day.

One is titled In it, Dave announces that he and Rachie were a thing, and not only that, in the description (which is still intact, by the way) he links to her psychology blog that he created (even vocally shouting it out in the video). To quote Dave's exact words:

'First, I guess you need to find a vocalist. For my vocalist I woke up next to her and figured, 'Yeah, she'll do,' which, as I understand it, is the usual method a record label executive will use to pick a pop-star.'

Seeing that the video was uploaded on the 12th of May, 2011, Rachie was 17 years old at the time, meaning that at this age she was sleeping in the same bed as Boyinaband. For some reason, or for no reason at all, no one has mentioned this yet. No one discusses the video, despite the fact that it's one of Dave's oldest videos.

The video, expectedly, features Rachie on vocals. Nothing sexually provocative with the lyrics, though.

It was only two days later that Dave uploaded another video which featured Rachie Rave, In this video, Rachie sings the lyrics, 'Take me without my consent.' What does this mean, exactly? Well, considering the calling out Boyinaband for over 12 years of sexual abuse (the term 'sexual abuse' even being employed), it is revealed by at least one of Dave's ex-partners that he had (and, probably, still has) a rape-play fetish, meaning he sexually gets off on the idea of people being raped. The post also mentions that he gets off to violent pornography, and gets a thrill out of controlling and dominating his partners. To quote from the post:

'He also has a provable porn addiction that includes him being attracted to pre-teenage girls, women who dress to look like children, abusive porn, and assaults.'

Basically, this can be used to explain the lyrics 'take me without my consent,' as Dave likely sexually got off on the idea of raping his girlfriend (which he, literally, did do), also likely forcing his girlfriend to act out rape-play with him. As she was a child at the time, Dave had raped her repeatedly (that is, if they did engage in sexual intercourse, which they almost absolutely did).

The phrase, uttered by Rachie, who, at the time, was in a sexual relationship with Dave, 'I like being your bitch,' further empathises that this was a relationship based upon uneven power dynamics, with a particular focus on Dave controlling, possessing, and abusing his then sexual partner.

Association with Cryoatic

Cryoatic - former YouTuber who played video games - was exposed for sexually grooming minors over the course of many years, hiding behind this public persona as a shy, sensitive, emotional guy. Which, to be fair, he definitely was, and probably still is. Not denying these individual traits within a human being is not, to any extent, justifying, downplaying, or ignoring a person's atrocities. In fact, it has no real correlation with the sex offender in question, nor any sex offender for that matter. The fact that Cryoatic was truly all of these things, a very calm, mellow, meek man, just proves that sexual predators come in all shapes and forms, and the sexual abuse Cry inflicted upon many underage subjects was actually only possible due to his friendly persona. In other words, the guy was suspiciously innocent seeming, to the point of parody. If Cry was unattractive to children, if he didn't act and present himself in a relatable way for his audience, he wouldn't have been able to groom all these kids, to sexually communicate with them. He put on the mask (pun intended) to give others the impression that he was a great guy, and, as a result, when the accusations of him being a pedophile and sexual abuser sprung forth, so many people didn't believe that he could've done it. They denied such realities because they were so obsessed with Cry, so loving of him, the persona he fostered over the years. 'How could this sensitive, polite, nice man possibly sexually abuse these children?!' they cried. They didn't, and likely still don't, understand that a person's personality doesn't determine whether or not they'll sexually abuse someone, or a bunch of people.

Boyinaband collaborated with Cry on many occasions, and when the accusations came out, and Cry was, fortunately, widely believed to be a sex offender by the community, Boyinaband remained completely silent. To him, it was as if nothing at all had happened. Despite being in contact with Cry up until the accusations (and, who knows, maybe even afterwards, as they could've shared their depraved, unethical love of children), Dave appeared to have suddenly forgot about Cry, despite the fact that many people were asking him all over social media to take down his videos that he made with Cry in them. The fact that he was so silent appears ironic now. Both are pedophiles, both are sexual abusers, and both are groomers and still active predators.

Despite their many similarities, not merely in terms of music but in terms of sexual proclivities, what distinguishes Cryoatic from Dave is the fact that, to my knowledge, Cryoatic has never raped a child. He might have, in fact it's actually quite likely that he has. But, it hasn't been confirmed as of yet, and none of Cry's accusers have claimed this (it happened exclusively online). Dave, however, is far, far worse, as he's very likely raped Rachie anywhere from dozens to hundreds of times, as I've mentioned in my previous post, and that his sexual abuse of girls has spanned over twelve years now.

Yet, despite the fact that he's a rapist being public ever since he and Rachie got together romantically, despite the fact that Dave confessed all of this himself, that it's not even accusations, it's entirely admissions of guilt, no one has called him out for this until about a month or so ago. Do fans not even read what this guy writes? It appears so, quite strangely.

Fans of this guy keep saying, 'Please, let the allegations be false! Please, I'm begging!' But, this doesn't make any sense, to any degree. The guy confessed himself, he admitted all of it, he said himself that he had an inappropriate relationship with the woman (girl at the time). He slept in the same bed as her, he likely acted out rape-play with her. At least one of his ex-girlfriends as testified to this guy being a pedophile for girls even younger than Rachie, pre-teens, kids aged 11 and 10 years.

In order for Boyinaband to be innocent, this has to be the most intense, widespread social stunt over pulled. He would have to have faked having a girlfriend, Rachie being of age, not being his girlfriend, and the two needed to have had faked their intimate relationship. Why, why would they do this? WHO KNOWS! NOBODY DOES! Maybe, just maybe, because it's not fake, and Dave is a rapist, and Rachie is his rape victim, that this guy, while he was a 22 year old man, sexually assaulted, over and over again, this 16 year old girl.

While Dave confirmed himself that he was in a romantic relationship with this underage individual, what can't be confirmed is the rest of the testimonies of his ex-partners. Since Dave has said nothing of this himself, it's unknown whether he dated another person under the age of sixteen. That said, I one hundred percent believe the victims, all of them, to the fullest degree possible. I don't doubt for a moment that Dave raped more than one child. After all, I've never met a 'one-time rapist.' It's extraordinarily rare for a rapist to have only raped one person, extraordinarily rare for a sexual predator to have only preyed on a single individual. One of his exes claims that Dave has dated multiple underage partners, girls ranging from 16 yo 17 in age.

Mr. Sensitive

Okay, after seeing the amount of people excusing rape in the comment section of my last post, a very disturbing sight to behold (for those who need to hear, and I hate that I have to even say this, children, of all ages, cannot consent to sex, not with other children, not with adults, just never, period. Yes, you're excusing rape, and you should all be utterly ashamed of yourselves), I've decided it's best to post this excerpt from Lundy Bancroft's book, 'Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.' In a chapter of this book, Bancroft profiles and details a variety of different abusive men, specifically focusing on the collide between male psychology and domestic subordination. He describes a certain type of male abuser and oppressor: Mr. Sensitive.

You know what else Cryoatic and Dave have in common, outside of their musical tastes and their pedophilia? The fact that these monsters are sensitive, fragile, in touch with their femininity type of men. The opposite of macho men, they lure women and children in with the promise that they're better than masculine men, that they're calm, gentle, and soft. This persona works a lot better than the persona held up by many other abusers, because even if it's an accurate representation of the abuser being profiled here, it doesn't mean that this inherent character, this personality type, isn't a horrid, unnatural, abusive one. Everything for Cry and Dave must be about their emotions, that their emotions matter more than anything else, and that everyone daring to judge them, accuse them of sexual abuse, are just heartless, devoid of empathy. Hence, why people act like it's shocking that they're not innocent, that they're guilty of sexually offending. These people aren't helping the cause, at all. It's not the case that these sorts of people are less likely to commit sexual abuse, it's the case that they're more likely to. It shouldn't be surprising that a very innocent seeming person, like Dave, or like Cry, are sexual abusers. They are, fully, Mr. Sensitives, using the shield of their emotions to get people to feel sorry for them, to fool the world, making all doubt that they could commit sexual crimes.

Here's the, quite lengthy, excerpt from the book (it's a great book, by the way. Go read it if you're interested in the variations of male abuse):

'Mr. Sensitive appears to be the diametric opposite of the Drill Sergeant. He is soft-spoken, gentle, and supportive—when he isn’t being abusive. He loves the language of feelings, openly sharing his insecurities, his fears, and his emotional injuries. He hugs other men. He may speak out about the absurdity of war or the need for men to “get in touch with their feminine side.” Perhaps he attends a men’s group or goes on men’s retreats. Often he has participated extensively in therapy or twelve-step programs, or reads all the big self-help books, so he speaks the language of popular psychology and introspection. His vocabulary is sprinkled with jargon like developing closeness, working out our issues, and facing up to hard things about myself. He presents himself to women as an ally in the struggle against sex-role limitations.

To some women, he seems like a dream come true. So what’s wrong with this picture? Nothing obvious yet. But this is exactly the problem: Mr. Sensitive wraps himself in one of the most persuasive covers a man can have. If you start to feel chronically mistreated by him, you are likely to assume that something is wrong with you, and if you complain about him to other people, they may think you must be spoiled: “You have the New Age man, what more do you want?”

The following dynamics are typical of a relationship with Mr. Sensitive and may help explain your feeling that something has gone awry:

1. You seem to be hurting his feelings constantly, though you aren’t sure why, and he expects your attention to be focused endlessly on his emotional injuries. If you are in a bad mood one day and say something unfair or insensitive, it won’t be enough for you to give him a sincere apology and accept responsibility. He’ll go on and on about it, expecting you to grovel as if you had treated him with profound cruelty. (Notice the twist here: This is just what an abuser accuses his partner of doing to him, when all she is really looking for is a heartfelt “I’m sorry.”)

2. When your feelings are hurt, on the other hand, he will insist on brushing over it quickly. He may give you a stream of pop-psychology language (“Just let the feelings go through you, don’t hold on to them so much, ” or “It’s all in the attitude you take toward life, ” or “No one can hurt you unless you let them”) to substitute for genuine support for your feelings, especially if you are upset about something he did. None of these philosophies applies when you upset him, however.

3. With the passing of time, he increasingly casts the blame on to you for anything he is dissatisfied with in his own life; your burden of guilt keeps growing.

4. He starts to exhibit a mean side that no one else ever sees and may even become threatening or intimidating. Mr. Sensitive has the potential to turn physically frightening, as any style of abuser can, no matter how much he may preach nonviolence. After an aggressive incident, he will speak of his actions as “anger” rather than as “abuse, ” as though there were no difference between the two. He blames his assaultive behavior on you or on his emotional “issues, ” saying that his feelings were so deeply wounded that he had no other choice. Many people reject the possibility that Mr. Sensitive could be an abuser.

I ran into this disbelief one weekend when I was leading a training course on emotional recovery, as I periodically do. My workshops focus partly on the healing effects of crying and so tend to be attended by more women than men. The males who do come have included many of the most wonderful men it has been my good fortune to know, as well as a handful of the biggest manipulators. A few years ago, a participant named Deanna approached me anxiously before a workshop. She explained that an ex-partner of hers named Brad had called her a few days ahead of the workshop to tell her he was attending the same weekend. She was uncomfortable and told him that if he showed up she would leave. He promised not to bother her, though, and said he would not bring up their relationship in any way. He was coming with his new girlfriend, which eased Deanna’s worries.

I spent some time talking with Brad as the workshop was starting, without mentioning Deanna, and he seemed likeable, kind, and—what can I say?—sensitive. However, I observed within a few hours that he was in fact speaking to other people about his past with Deanna and getting them riled up about her “running away from” their unresolved issues. On Sunday morning, he finally provoked a scene about their relationship in front of the full workshop, which was humiliating to Deanna. The story does not end there. I called a break, and took Brad aside. I told him that it was my understanding that he had agreed not to raise these issues and that it had become obvious to me that he had come for the weekend with the intention of doing precisely what he had promised not to. I went on to point out that he had taken Deanna’s weekend away from her and that I considered this kind of power move to be abuse, especially since it was directed at an ex-partner. Saying the word abuse to an abusive person can be like lighting a tinderbox: When you name the unmentionable secret, he goes wild. Brad got loud, rolled his eyes at what a hysterical exaggerator he considered me to be, and adopted a victim stance, saying, “I beg you to stop this.” Then came the most important part: He said in a screeching whine, “I have only put a hand on a partner once in my life, many years ago, and I just barely pushed her away from me like this”—and he shoved me hard by the shoulder—“after she called my mother a sick woman.”

Well, why was Brad denying a history of assault (while actually admitting to one) when I hadn’t said anything about violence? The possibility that he might be physically abusive had never occurred to me before, but it certainly did now. The signs were all there: bullying Deanna that weekend and then insisting it was for her own good; feeling entitled to ignore an important agreement; blaming his earlier girlfriend for his assault of her and minimizing it—the strength of the shove he gave me would have shaken up most women. I now doubted that the assaultive incident he had described was his only occasion of physically intimidating a woman. At this point I required Brad to leave the workshop. I then had to deal with a mini-insurrection from some of the other workshop participants, who couldn’t believe I was ejecting this gentle man who was so in touch with his feelings. He cries after all; how could he be abusive?

This “gentle man” style of abuser tends to be highly self-centered and demanding of emotional catering. He may not be the man who has a fit because dinner is late but rather erupts because of some way his partner failed to sacrifice her own needs or interests to keep him content. He plays up how fragile he is to divert attention from the swath of destruction he leaves behind him.

The central attitudes driving Mr. Sensitive are:

I’m against the macho men, so I couldn’t be abusive.

As long as I use a lot of “psychobabble, ” no one is going to believe that I am mistreating you.

I can control you by analyzing how your mind and emotions work, and what your issues are from childhood.

I can get inside your head whether you want me there or not.

Nothing in the world is more important than my feelings.

Women should be grateful to me for not being like those other men.'

I've been watching some of the takes and I'm not here to debate the whole if he done it or not and what not.

For me I've seen a trend with people involved only debating or talking to people who criticize or put the opinion of waiting and so forth with the proof and the debates that go on and on. So putting a critical insight in my post might get what I'm going for here.

Now in the original post there was a mention of not wanting to start a witch hunt. Understandable and also mature. Good on you for not wanting to start thing. But you did chose reddit where my critical point is this is a place for fire starting and people who will do a witch hunt no matter what is happening.

So my question after reading a lot of comments on the original post. Why are you not curbing those people who are actively stating that is what they are doing. Mentioning to go after others that have talked to Dave or even passed him in the media. There are people sending hate and starting witch hunts and the only people that are getting traction are the people who are looking for evidence and or criticizing the original post.

Why is there no discussion here for keeping that under control so this can be a place to discuss facts and points? There should be a better control over the situation that has started and the fact is yes people will be people but posted here on a public forum you can take to stopping things before they get out of hand.

People can go overboard and once they see something they gun for it. No one deserves to be dragged for just talking to someone they knew nothing about potentially. My issue with this is going forward you are going to see more people get hurt. So what is going to be done?

So, while not defending these allegations, I also must say we need to stop holding influential individuals to higher human standards. Most of us, myself included, can look back on instances where for whatever reason we hurt others. Sometimes badly. If all of us had our worst moments broadcast, especially by those we hurt, we would all look like horrid people as well.

I think that’s why so many comments are about how ‘so many influencers turn out to be bad people’. No, they just are revealed to be human. For all of our selfish, impulsive, and often cruel actions. We are no better than them, and they are no more perfect than us. They are just public, while we have the luxury of being private.

Again, not defending the actions. They are horrid if true, and I have no reason to think they are not. Just hate this constant idea that influential people are somehow expected to live a pristine and clean life when that is impossible for every one of us. And I’m tired of seeing people propose to judge someone as though we ourselves hold any moral superiority.

This isn’t about Dave. This is just one example of something I see again and again. Stop expecting influential individuals to be flawless. That’s impossible, and will only end badly.

EDIT: Important to note I’m not defending Dave by saying what he did is somehow excusable or something we all do. I’m just saying people tend to want to assume their favorite creators could never do bad things, and that sets up a situation where if they do, we are crushed. It’s important to not put too much emotional stock in a creator. We know a persona, not the real them, and the real them might not be a good person.

EDIT 2: Appreciate the silver on what is in essence a tired man's ramblings.

Regardless of how you feel morally about him dating a 17 year old in England it was 100% legal for them to engage in a relationship and have sex

the other accusations are just that accusations boy in the band may be a big asshole but that doesn't make him a sexual predator nor does it make him a R*

we need to wait for some form of proof to immerge and if it already has be so kind as to share it with me and I will remove my post immediately - for the record this isn't me accusing anyone of lieing on either sides but before we condemn someone as a R* or a Hebe/Pedo or anything else there needs to be some proof

This is nothing against victims as a whole or these victims in particular I know nothing about any of them my girlfriend is a victim [not of dave of course] who I fully support and love dearly she feels the same way I do in both this case and similar cases

there are serial abusers both men and women and abuse has many different forms whether its false accusations to destroy someone's career social standing or physical/sexual/mental abuse

The court of public opinion can be as dangerous as the legal issues that come alongside committing such heinous abuse lives can be destroyed without any law enforcement being involved

I think blindly believe alleged victims is a dangerous thing to do I obviously hope that these girls aren't telling the truth as the thought of anyone going through this kind of trauma is heart breaking

evidence may come out at a later date but until then i think we should reserve our views

I'd like to preface this by saying I've experienced abuse in the past, and know that none of this is about me. I just feel the need to share my experience somewhere with all of this new information.

Ever since the allegations came out I've been struggling to wrap my head around it all. Dave was a huge part of my childhood, not only did watching his videos cheer me up when I was sad. But there were many nights as a kid/teen that I have spent listening to his music while I was upset, predominantly Spectrum and Empty. Before coming out to my parents, and while I was at the height of my eating disorder, these songs helped me to cope a lot. And they helped me feel less alone.

I can't stop wanting to hear the songs again, I definitely developed multiple unhealthy parasocial relationships in my head as a kid. If I were in the wrong place at the wrong time I could have been one of the girls that came forward recently. I hate that. I hate that the person I found comfort in when no one else was around was yet another piece of shit who, if he got the chance, would have hurt me just as much.

I am so sorry to all that Dave has hurt, and I am so sorry if this comes across as insensitive or attention seeking. But I think it's a problem a lot of Dave's going fans had/have, hence his ability to abuse so many. I'm so proud of the girls who came forward, to stop Dave from doing this anymore. I hope he addresses it somehow, at least to apologize to you all if he hasn't already.

Never posted here, I think it'll remain that way as I've only just stumbled upon this subreddit after hearing of the accusations about Dave last night.

I'm feeling conflicted. I believe victims - always have, always will unless there is evidence against the "victims". I will believe his victims until I see evidence and proof that their claims are in fact not true.

It's okay to still listen to his music and also no longer support him as a person. It's okay to separate him from his music. There is no shame in it.

You're loved, you're wanted. It's okay to feel what you feel. That's all I wanted to say for my first and probably only post here. <3

In a blog post by Dave himself, dating back to the 3rd of March, 2011, he says that he celebrated his then girlfriend Rachie's 18th birthday, meaning that she just turned of age (though, even at the time, was still incapable of consenting to sexual activity with Dave, due to the inappropriate status of their relationship, as she was romantic and, presumably, sexual with him prior to coming of age).

In a blog post dating back to the 30th of Novemeber, 2009, Dave announces that he had just got with Rachie, that she had officially become his girlfriend. This means that Rachie was sixteen at the time of entering into a romantic and, most likely, sexual relationship with Boyinaband at the time (almost seventeen).

It gets worse, however, as Dave mentions that they first met two years ago, on the post announcing their relationship status. He says (direct quote, no paraphrasing):

'She saw me play the “Generation: Summer Slam” show maybe 2 years ago at the Wulfrun Hall.   Maybe a year later, she decided to come see YAWA play live at the little civic with a few friends…

Soon after that show, she sent me a message on myspace and we got talking. We talked quite a lot over the coming months and she came to a lot of shows. We became pretty good friends, and that friendship was consolidated when I went to her birthday party this year. We began hanging out in real life and became close friends.'

This means that, at the time when the two met and began a friendship, Rachie was actually fourteen years old (almost fifteen). Dave was either nineteen or twenty at the time, considering that it's commonly stated that Dave was twenty three years by the time Rachie was almost seventeen.

So, why the ambiguity? Why are people, fans and non-fans alike, claiming that they want to see if Dave confirms this as true or not, are anxiously waiting for him to respond to see if he'll deny it? The guy confessed it all this over a decade before the sexual abuse accusations even came forward.

'Okay, but he didn't admit to anything illegal!'

Well, this may or may not be true, but prior to even getting into the legal aspect of this, there's the moral aspect that's far more important. I don't care what the state says, I care what reason and, most importantly, consent has to say. If the two had sex, she was raped. Dave was able to give sexual consent, because he was over the age of eighteen. When someone is an adult (eighteen or above), they have the ability to give meaningful, informed consent, are not incapable of comprehending the full consequences and ramifications of their actions. The chances that the two didn't have sex, probably dozens to hundreds of times too, is almost impossible. It'd have to be wishful thinking to suggest otherwise. Not only is it the case that Dave raped Rachie, he very likely did it up to dozens to hundreds of times, as I've mentioned.

Rachie, unlike Dave, was incapable of consenting to such sexual acts. During her sixteen and seventeen years of age, her mind couldn't process sexual activity the same way adult minds do. For a child the idea of being used isn't present, despite the retrospective afterthoughts reflecting that of a rushed 'decision,' one that couldn't truly be made as a decision, something that was coerced. Even after she was eighteen, she still couldn't give consent. It was still a form of rape, because Dave had groomed her for multiple years. She was still in a sexually abusive relationship, with an extreme power dynamic that was fully imbalanced.

Now, in terms of the legal elements to all of this, because the maximum age of consent in the United Kingdom is sixteen years of age - it's actually far lower for sexuality activity in general, but sixteen is the year in which the state incorrectly deems a person able to consent with all people, meaning that anyone, not just a certain sexually abusive proportion of the population, are permitted to rape them - Dave, unfortunately, cannot be prosecuted (either in the context of court, or in terms of being arrested) for this sex crime (in the natural law sense of the term 'crime').

However, while this is true, there's still the possibility of Dave being apprehended and imprisoned for committing a years long act of sexual grooming. Seeing that he was with her, in person and online, for two years prior to their formation of the romantic/sexual relationship, the state may or may not correctly label this as grooming.

According to section 67 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, sexual grooming is defined as:

'A criminal offence for anyone aged 18 or over to intentionally communicate with a child under 16, where the person acts for a sexual purpose and the communication is sexual or intended to elicit a sexual response. The offence applies to online and offline communication, including social media, e-mail, texts, letters, etc.'

In both Dave's blog posts, he unfortunately omits any information regarding his true intentions. He makes it unclear as to whether or not the intention of the friendship was for sexual purposes later on. It could as well be the case that any sexual or romantic feelings he developed for her later on were, indeed, developed later on, meaning that it was simply intended as a genuine, asexual friendship. In terms of citing the two blog posts, there can't really be a case made that Dave was grooming Rachie, in purely sexual terms at least, since there's a lack of motivation described.

This stated, according to a slightly differently worded definition of the legal act, what Dave could've done could be deemed illegal by the state, provided that this definition is chosen by a court or prison facility over the former mentioned:

'A person aged 18 or over intentionally communicates with a child under 16, who the adult does not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, if the communication is sexual or if it is intended to encourage the child to make a communication which is sexual. The offence will be committed, whether or not the child communicates with the adult.'

Because of the very specific phrasing, it could be argued what Dave did was against the government's law, due to the part which says, 'or if it is intended to encourage the child to make a communication which is sexual.' While Boyinaband's intentions were, again, rather vague, considering how things turned out in the end, with Dave very likely having had sex with Rachie (having raped her, that is), the purpose of their original friendship could've been, in Dave's eyes, a gateway toward sexual physical contact. If most members of a courtroom believe that Dave's intentions were to rape the child in question, it's presumably the case that what Dave did was illegal, as seeing that Rachie was underage at the time, fourteen years, Dave's actions could be characterised as, in exact words, 'intended to encourage the child to make a communication which is sexual.'

I, personally, would argue that, indeed, Dave's actions were sexually predatory and creepy, as it's unnatural for a nineteen or twenty year old man to befriend a fourteen year old girl. I thought that in any decent society such social relations would be publicly, widely shunned, something mocked and criticised, something prevented even. It's very unusual for an adult to take a non-sexual interest in a child. Friendships between adults and children are, by default, of a very unsettling nature, as it's almost always the case that the adult individual intends to sexually abuse the younger subject. Do you really reckon that Dave would possess a non-sexual interest and liking toward someone of that age, despite the extreme age disparity, despite the fact that virtually all adults consider kids to be annoying, rude, and difficult and unbearable to interact with? Again, the usual motivation for such interactions is that of a sexual drive. It's almost definitely the case that Dave intended to rape her from the start.

So, to put things into summary, if the majority in a legal setting - a courtroom, for instance - decide that Dave is guilty on the basis of shady, immoral intentions, Dave can be sent to prison under British law. However, this is only if the majority are in favour of his imprisonment, and not only that, but it would assume that the government, to begin with, recognise the second phrasing of the same legal act over the first. Due to separate phrasings of the same act, very unfortunately, there's no common understanding as to whether Dave, or anyone else breaking the same law, can actually be prosecuted for such actions. I suppose it's sort of a gamble, a dice roll, as to whether the court's going to classify one phrasing as fact or not.

To end things, I'm very much aware of the dark subject matter at hand, and I hope nobody is despairing at this discussion of a very, very grim reality. I understand, as well, that very few people refer to Dave as a 'rapist' (despite the fact that he is one), because of it's extremely harsh connotations. But, if you actually, genuinely oppose sexual abuse, you need not downplay what Dave has done: grooming (absolutely, as he's confessed to it himself, in all except name) and sexual violence (most likely). The word 'rape' is a very disturbing one, perhaps the most disturbing word in the English language. I can completely understand any emotional pain you may feel hearing someone describe your once held up idol as the lowest of the low, committing the worst act anyone can ever possibly commit: rape.

All this stated as firmly as possible, the two reasons I made this post are that Dave's innocence is entirely non-existent, and also that what he did to this poor, young girl (now a woman) can be considered illegal. There's the extremely slim, microscopic possibility that Dave didn't actually sexually assault Rachie, that their relationship was romantic but never sexual (extraordinarily unlikely. What are the percentage of couples that don't engage in sexual activity? Tiny, and you know it). It's wishful thinking to deny such sexual assault. And, also, that the state may actually arrest Dave if they follow the second phrasing of the legal act, and if the court, as well, mostly agrees in favour of Dave's guilt.

Dave admitted everything himself. The most disturbing part of this entire mountain of misery is that the guilt was made public over a decade ago, yet it took over a decade to even attempt to cancel him. You see the problem, do you not?

Throw him and his ex in a jail cell

afaik he's not active on ig, twitter, or yt that much either right? is he just going to leave quietly while he can?

EDIT: i don't support dave anymore and won't until the allegations are proven false. i stand with the victims and think he's a vile man.

Hey, everyone. I'm working on a follow-up post to my last post (), which compiled quite a lot of evidence against Dave, in terms of his non-consensual relationship with Rachie.

If you know what date he was born in, it'd be really helpful, since we're talking about an age gap disparity. Thank you.

Edit: I mean to refer to real date of birth. I know Google has an answer, but I was wondering if this is actually correct, if Dave, in any of his videos or in his blog posts, or on social media, has confirmed his exact age.

The idubbbz collab has so many lyrics making fun of Chinese people and it didn't matter if he said the lines or Ian, because Dave wrote all of them

Same with the anti-Indian stuff with PewDiePie but I don't know if he wrote the entire track

More like Boyinaklan am I right

Does anyone else feel bad for Dave? He’s obviously innocent! How could he have known what he was doing was wrong? He was never taught what laws there are.

There's a lot of discussion in this subreddit as to whether there is enough evidence to believe the claims made about Dave. I thought I'd give my 2 cents into the matter.

I think that only asking whether or not there is enough evidence to believe that he did/is doing what is claimed is too simplistic. We should be proportioning our confidence based on the consequences.

Firstly, is there enough evidence provided to conclude that Dave should face legal repercussions? No.

There has been a lot of personal testimony, most of which is anonymous, but there hasn't been any concrete evidence, such as video/screenshots of actual conversations with Dave. The only concrete evidence is that he dated R***** when he was 23 and she was 17. As many have pointed out, this is not illegal where Dave lives.

It's important to note that just because no concrete evidence has been presented to us doesn't mean that there isn't any, and doesn't mean that the allegations are false. The victims have expressed their wish to remain anonymous, and we should respect that. We are not the justice system, we are just members of this community. If any of the victims decide to seek legal action, that is their own decisions to make.

Next, consider whether there is enough evidence for you, personally, to stop supporting his content. I think that this is the issue where there will be the biggest divide. In fact, some people may find that the proven relationship with R***** is enough for them to stop supporting him. However, I want to stress that people who do not wish to continue supporting his content are not (necessarily) just believing everything is absolutely true simply based on the claims made. In other words, no, they are not just being gullible or whatever. They may have decided that they would rather risk not supporting someone who turned out to be innocent, than support someone who actually is an abuser.

ETA: I will also stress that those who do continue to support his content are not necessarily being callous. "Innocent until proven guilty" is based on the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to end up sending an innocent person to jail. If someone personally thinks that this same level applies to whether or not they should continue to support his content (in this case, that it is better to support a guilty person financially than to remove your support from, or "cancel", an innocent person), then that is fine.

Personally, I will no longer be supporting his content unless it turns out that this is fake for the above reason (I'd rather not risk supporting an abuser), and also because the people who have identified themselves as having known Dave personally are not surprised by this and they believe the victims. Additionally, I'm taking into account the fact that Dave's channel is basically dead at this point, so me unsubscribing from him won't really impact him negatively.

Lastly, consider whether there is enough evidence that the potential targets should be wary of contacting or developing a relationship with Dave. I think this is a resounding "yes". This is also the exact reason why the victims have decided to come forward. As they stated in the original post: "We are not his "haters", not witchhunters, and not strangers. We don't want anything. We’re not interested in being associated with him in any way. All we want to do is to warn his young fans about what can happen to them."

If you still want to support Dave's content because it is more important to you that you don't end up ditching someone for false allegations, then that is your prerogative. But don't judge other people for disagreeing with you on this point. Once again, this does not make them "gullible", and it does not necessarily mean that they think there is enough evidence for him to be convicted of anything. You don't need that level of confidence to stop supporting his content.

TL;DR: It's too simplistic to lump everything together as a "did he/didn't he" issue. There are separate issues to consider.

Is there enough evidence provided that Dave should face legal repercussions? No.

Is there enough evidence provided to stop supporting Dave's content? Personally, yes.

Is there enough evidence provided that those within his target demographic should be wary of contacting him? Yes.

Edit: Censored the name of Dave's ex as she did not give permission to be involved in this, and did not want to be.

don’t have anything too add, just wanted to say that i’m hella disappointed if this is true. back like 5-6 years ago he was like my mini hero.

I’d rap his songs in primary school in the back of the class just enjoying life lmao. i got my mother into his music too. I’m not even angry, i’m just really upset, and i hope the victims find peace

I'm 21 Afab & was abused from the ages of 2-18. Between 10-17 this included CSA. During this time I also picked up habitual attraction to dangerous males, almost like I subconsciously know & am drawn to the danger bc it's familiar or something. When I was a HS freshman/sophomore I had an intense crush on BoyInABand.

When I learned of the allegations it was very triggering both bc it reminded me of my own abuse & because it re-enforced my belief that I can not be trusted when it comes to men I am attracted to & that I simply got lucky with my fiance.

I feel like the only men I'm safe to crush on have to be fictional & it makes me flipflop between feeling super broken & sick and thinking most everyone is evil and it sucks

There's a lot of discussion in this subreddit as to whether there is enough evidence to believe the claims made about Dave. I thought I'd give my 2 cents into the matter.

I think that only asking whether or not there is enough evidence to believe that he did/is doing what is claimed is too simplistic. We should be proportioning our confidence based on the consequences.

Firstly, is there enough evidence provided to conclude that Dave should face legal repercussions? No.

There has been a lot of personal testimony, most of which is anonymous, but there hasn't been any concrete evidence, such as video/screenshots of actual conversations with Dave. The only concrete evidence is that he dated Rachie when he was 23 and she was 17. As many have pointed out, this is not illegal where Dave lives.

It's important to note that just because no concrete evidence has been presented to us doesn't mean that there isn't any, and doesn't mean that the allegations are false. The victims have expressed their wish to remain anonymous, and we should respect that. We are not the justice system, we are just members of this community. If any of the victims decide to seek legal action, that is their own decisions to make.

Next, consider whether there is enough evidence for you, personally, to stop supporting his content. I think that this is the issue where there will be the biggest divide. In fact, some people may find that the proven relationship with Rachie is enough for them to stop supporting him. However, I want to stress that people who do not wish to continue supporting his content are not (necessarily) just believing everything is absolutely true simply based on the claims made. In other words, no, they are not just being gullible or whatever. They may have decided that they would rather risk not supporting someone who turned out to be innocent, than support someone who actually is an abuser.

Personally, I will no longer be supporting his content unless it turns out that this is fake for the above reason, and also because the people who have identified themselves as having known Dave personally are not surprised by this and they believe the victims.

Lastly, consider whether there is enough evidence that the potential targets should be wary of contacting or developing a relationship with Dave. I think this is a resounding "yes". This is also the exact reason why the victims have decided to come forward. As they stated in the original post: "We are not his "haters", not witchhunters, and not strangers. We don't want anything. We’re not interested in being associated with him in any way. All we want to do is to warn his young fans about what can happen to them."

If you still want to support Dave's content because it is more important to you that you don't end up ditching someone for false allegations, then that is your prerogative. But don't judge other people for disagreeing with you on this point. Once again, this does not make them "gullible", and it does not necessarily mean that they think there is enough evidence for him to be convicted of anything. You don't need that level of confidence to stop supporting his content.

TL;DR: It's too simplistic to lump everything together as a "did he/didn't he" issue. There are separate issues to consider.

Personally:
Is there enough evidence provided that Dave should face legal repercussions? No.Is there enough evidence

Look I’m gonna be Fr. Have we seen any evidence of the claims on Dave? I’m a victim of abuse aswell ( ofc not by Dave ) so I understand it isn’t easy sometimes but if there is literally NO proof any of this happened- it’s kinda hard to believe 🤷‍♀️

Like in court, you need evidence to prove things. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not innocent until claimed guilty.

Anyway- all I’m saying. If someone can show me legitimate proof then please do cause I’m not really on any side right now because I haven’t seen anything to make believe anything.

I don’t know much about the drama at all but as soon as I read ‘what was 5 victims is now way above double digits’ I felt genuinely sick. When I picture ‘way above double digits’ in my head I picture truly awful individuals like Jikishii/Demetrius or Destery Smith.

I’m quite curious as to how many victims have come out so far, estimated.

I wanted to start off with a clear statement that I understand the desire for more "clear and conclusive" evidence, and I don't necessarily disagree with the notion.

However, it is extremely important that we all take a step back and realize that this isn't just some drama, these victims have accused Dave of misusing his platform and harming others. Regardless of the amount of evidence, it just simply isn't safe for them (or others) if we ignore it.

But I also want to point out that there may not be any "clear and conclusive" evidence, not to the degree that some people may want. Victims usually realize they're victims far too late to grab anything super conclusive, police often write off victims, and frankly there may not be any legal issues. The kind of evidence people want, just doesn't come about that often. This is a situation where we have to look at the situation as it's presented as face value.

By asking for more clear and conclusive evidence, you're telling real victims that "Hey, we don't believe you.", "We don't care if he did these things.", or "You have to pass our standards to have your story heard." Once again, I don't necessarily disagree with a desire for more evidence, but the more difficult it is for real victims to get their story out there, the more rampant abusers will become. The only way to limit damage done, is to trust the victims until you have knowledge that you're wrong.

You might ask- Why should we care? Well, we platformed Dave. We're inherently the reason why if these victims are telling the truth, why he had such easy access to them. We made it easy for him. But not only that, but these victims likely feared coming forward specifically because of us, his fanbase.

We hold a responsibility to hold our celebrities and whatnot accountable when they misuse their platform, and I believe this is one such case. Not taking a side, is always taking the abuser's side.

But let's talk about what happens to Dave if these allegations are untrue- basically nothing. I mean that sincerely, it's been a while since I had heard of anything he's done before this, seemingly the subreddit had nothing to talk about either. It's not like he's going to be ruined forever, because what's there to ruin? (no offense)

Plus, keep in mind that if we are wrong about something, we are able to rectify it. People just often choose not to.

So please, think of the victims and support them rather than put them down like some of you unintentionally have.

TLDR- last 3 sentences.

I've been a friend of Dave's for almost 3 years. We met at work, and we were flirty for a while, but things kind of quickly settled into friendship. (I have photos of us together and an infinite number of screenshots to verify with mods if they're interested.)

Parts of this story absolutely resonate, ring true, or have been directly confirmed by Dave over the past couple years. Other parts are directly contradicted by my personal experiences with him, although that doesn't necessarily mean anything about the authenticity of the experiences of other women who've come forward. It can absolutely be true that Dave was a good friend to me, and treated these women terribly.

I guess I wanted to corroborate the parts of this that I can, while maybe... I don't know, adding nuance or providing extra perspective to the other parts? It's difficult to read these things about someone I still very much care about. I'll bold each point/accusation so it's easier to skim.

Being polyamorous isn't wrong. He told me about this immediately, and never pressured me to change my relationship style. (I didn't know that he'd come out to his parents, they didn't know last time we talked about this.) He has expressed some regret to me about pushing some of his partners to try being poly/open when they weren't super comfortable with it; this was in the context of something he really regrets and has tried to improve upon, and something he brought up himself. So it's easy to believe these claims of manipulation, pressure, and coercion, which is wrong, certainly wrong, especially as it relates to sex.

Dating younger women isn't wrong. This one is sticky, especially because every country (or US state) has its own laws in place. I don't know where he was living when he dated [the girl who was 16 at the time*], but if it was the UK, that relationship would have been legal. Frowned upon, maybe, but not criminal, and sometimes we have to fall upon the law for ethical issues where so many contradictory opinions and beliefs exist. This happening so long ago doesn't change her experiences, and I believe that this relationship was probably traumatic, toxic, and possibly abusive. But we can't call him a pedophile solely based on this relationship. My personal understanding (all this coming from him) is that he almost exclusively dates girls in their 20s, and I'm definitely not the oldest women he's been attracted to.

I didn't know that he's attracted to pre-pubescent girls, I've never heard or seen anything to suggest that. I did know that he has an ideal body type, which is extremely thin, although he never said this and never spoke negatively about my body. I have experienced a lot of pressure to lose weight, by a different partner and for work, so I'm pretty sensitive to it (and I would remember). Dave always seemed supportive, and expressed horror at my experiences being pressured/insulted because of my body by others. In the video he made with Jaiden about her eating disorder, he admits that one of his long-time partners ran a pro-anorexia forum, and that he learned everything he knows about eating disorders from her. It would really surprise (and upset) me to hear that this behavior (speaking negatively or coercively about a woman's body) continued since making that video with her.

Dating fans is definitely sketchy. There's a power imbalance and he's aware of that, and it's something I know he's thought about a lot. I would say for him, he sees himself as needing to use every possible advantage? I think he tries to offset some of that power imbalance by addressing it directly with women (although I have nothing to back this up, I don't know if this is something he normally does, but that's what it sounded like he was saying). What I heard from him is that sometimes he'll reply to women who reach out to him, but would never reach out to someone himself. If these girls are overage... it's hard to condemn him for accepting offers or whatever. I don't know what these conversations are like, whether they're coercive or manipulative or degrading, and I think this is an instance where screenshots would go a really long way. Most of the info we're getting on Dave's abuse is unfortunately really vague. Telling young women they're replaceable is definitely fucked up, and is something I have (thankfully) never heard from him myself, although I may be in a different position - he may have been more respectful towards me because we've worked together publicly.

Nonconsensual physical violence: unequivocally wrong. I don't remember Dave telling me about him hitting [the girl who was 16 when they started dating*], but I do remember him telling me one other story about physical violence and I'm actually surprised it hasn't been brought up in any of this. He did say he's never told anyone about it before, but I guess I thought that was an exaggeration. Violence is never ok. And it sounds like there have been at least one, possibly two, incidents of violence in his past. The one he described to me is at least a decade past, and I know it's his greatest regret.

I can confirm that he tends to "go through" people quickly. (I can also confirm he has an addictive personality, and I think it's related to his depression. More on that in a bit.) It isn't just romantic partners; I know he ghosts good friends to. He warned me about this, he admitted it's difficult to maintain any kind of relationship while he's as depressed as he is, and I've experienced that myself (like especially while I was depressed, it was hard to maintain close contact with literally anyone). It's shitty, but I think this is kind of normal. I also think it's common and heartbreaking for a young woman and romantic partner to blame themselves when being abandoned by someone they love and admire, suddenly, and potentially without explanation. The timing may have been bad. It's also possible Dave directly stated that it was their fault, that they weren't good enough, or that he got bored of them, I have no idea, again I've never seen or experienced that from him.

Dave is an addict. He's admitted he gets really easily addicted to mobile and video games. He's also been open enough about his drug/alcohol use that I assumed they were dependencies, and the same goes for porn. I 100% believe he's a porn addict, although he hasn't said so himself. It's sort of just something I knew about him, and I think that's a big part of what changed our relationship to be more platonic; for whatever reason porn addiction is a deal-breaker for me.

As for dating girls without money or careers, I know that he's tried to date girls with careers easily comparable to his own, two that I can think of, both of which didn't work out (right away) because of a difference in sexual preferences. I don't know if he deliberately targets women at a disadvantage, it's possible they're just more likely to be taken with the idea of dating someone with money and prestige. I have my own career, influence, some money, and I did before we met. (But it is possible, again, that this is why I was treated so well while others weren't.) I was really interested in YouTube, and he was really supportive of that, giving lots of good feedback and advice. I know at least one of his long-term girlfriends started a YouTube channel, and he admitted he may have been pressuring her a bit, but framed it as 'I know what it takes to make a channel work, and if you can't do these things then you can't expect to make a living doing this.'

"[He] disappears if they don't do everything he wants, and treats them with zero empathy. They mean nothing to him outside of his pleasure, his wants, and his entertainment. When girls want to leave, he either blocks them before they can confront him or uses his depression and suicidality as cards to force them to stay until he gets bored of them." I don't know how to explain this, but I think this is true. I guess some of this was expressed playfully to me, like exclusively in the context of fantasy, but I believe these women. I believe he treated them terribly, like they were disposable, and that it had lasting, damaging effects on them. I think I understood that however intense things felt in the moment, that they were likely temporary and that on a real level, he wanted things to be casual. He doesn't like obligation, and probably isn't in a place to provide stable, lasting emotional support and involvement, even if it's something he really craves.

We don't talk often, but we check in every now and then. We always reply, although we missed each other's birthdays. We have inside jokes, exchange compliments, and express affection. I know that he's lost contact with a lot of close friends, and that he's aware that they probably resent him for it. I've experienced depression, and when we talk about heavy things I usually begin the conversation by asking if he has the mental real-estate to handle something heavy/difficult, and I think it goes a long way. It's really hard to help someone when you feel like you're drowning yourself. I'm sorry that he's been a neglectful friend to so many, but I kind of understand where that's coming from. I've also seen him really support a friend (in person) who was going through some shit, actively listening, affirming and validating his experiences, asking really good questions, and I have to admit I was impressed.

Ultimately, I think it's fair and reasonable to want to warn young fans about his mistreatment. I'm really curious about the timeline here, how much of this is ongoing/recent, especially because this letter makes it all sound immediately relevant. I'm also curious how/why this is happening now. I like the idea of all these young women finding and supporting one another, processing what they experienced. I guess I feel conflicted about this as a potentially career-ending move. Obviously there is anger and resentment here, and it's justified, but I don't think it's fair to attack Dave without a little more evidence. The 'screenshots' included are testimony, but not evidence, and this is coming from someone who can corroborate a huge amount of what's been said already. It's just that... words like "pedophile" and "abuser" are really powerful, and if we're going to proceed in labeling him as those things... it's hard to just take someone's word for it.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling. I don't think many people are in the position of like -- actively caring about him, being a friend AND being a former romantic interest, so I think I have a unique perspective to add.

I would really appreciate if people respected my privacy on this, and didn't try to figure out who I am. Feel free to reach out or comment with questions, especially if you knew Dave. I've really enjoyed the conversations I've had so far.

Edit: I want to add that I've spoken with another victim, one who's in the group, and she's provided enough details that I can't believe their letter is false. I think it's problematic and shoots itself in the foot somewhat, but the content is real. The private conversations between victims include a lot of unique, identifiable information, and the victims are reasonably afraid of repercussions. Among other things, Dave would know exactly who said what and would theoretically be able to take retaliatory action. So that's why the open letter is so vague. I know I'm just one more anonymous voice online, but for what it's worth, I believe these victims.

Edit: Really frustrated to learn that the ONLY woman named in the open letter was named without her consent, and without even being contacted/informed this was happening. People posted a photo of her! That is incredibly not ok. She has asked that her name be removed from this discussion, so I've (clumsily) done that here. To the girl: I'm really sorry, I had no idea that was the case and would never have used your name if I'd known you hadn't explicitly said you were ok with this.

Title

When I was 13, boyinaband was my favorite YouTube channel and Dave was my role model. I drew fan art of him and he even inspired me to make my own music! I loved the way his lyrics made me think from a different perspective. I remember screen recording his songs so I could listen to them on my camera app after my screen time limit went off! Also, he was one of the few artists me and my brother both liked to listen to. I’d associate his songs with happy memories. But now that I know he was an abusive ahole, it ruins his songs for me. It’s hard to process that the same guy that did so much for 13 year old me was so terrible to women. He’s no role model. He’s not all around a good guy. He’s just a dick. And that’s so hard for me to understand.

His rap voice just sounds like he thinks he's the smartest dude around and he's not. I could take maybe some dude like Logic (even though it'd be cringy as shit) doing "Don't Stay in School" because Logic never really sounds like he thinks he's smarter than the listener, but this dude really thought he was just dropping truth-bombs left and right.

That and (I'll admit, I found it funny at the time) it's just weird that he'd do more (at least in concept) hard-hitting songs and then go do stupid shit like "Asian Jake Paul" or "Congratulations" that'd make me wonder if he really was a 30 year old dude doing internet diss tracks and/or anti-Indian shit, despite (since the Indian population is huge) probably having a lot of Indian fans. Just felt really immature.

That being said, I also don't think he ever had any interesting flows or could even smoothly ride a beat. He just kinda struck me as some guy who COULD rap but didn't really listen to anything with rapping unless it was Twenty One Pilots or the occasional Eminem single.

TL;DR this dude corny

Does anyone remember when Dan made a song basically asking Dave to be friends again? yeah...

🤔

Has your opinion on Dave changed after reading the pinned Reddit post?

Elon just knows how to fool people and make money - he hasn’t invented anything. David’s video did some awful damage to society 💀

Bazooga

Dave meant a lot to me and inspired my own creative journey, to have him turn out to be such an awful person is truly saddening

The allegations have been out for almost a month I think, and I’m wondering if Dave will come out of his hole to attempt to refute them. I remember what happened with Slazo, not saying it’s the same situation since those allegations ended up being false, but more people thought he was guilty because he took so long to respond. I think it would be a good idea for Dave to at least publicly address it. This sucks horribly, I must say. I’ve always looked up to him. I guess this is why you shouldn’t idolize people.

Literally came here to see if any of y’all had some secret news. Imma need a few days. God damn it

WAS HE GASLIGHTING HIS EX WHEN HE WROTE EMPTY HE SAID THAT HIS EX STARVED HERSELF AND HE DIDN'T KNOW HOW BAD IT WAS BUT SHE WANTED TO DO IT AND ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO DO IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA!?

Sorry for yelling

Alot of what I've read seems to be subjective or with no proof backing it up. I haven't seen screenshots of him directly speaking to these individuals, video, or voice clips of anything to prove the claims true. All I see is screenshots of people talking about it and one person singing a music track that, he allegedly wrote (to be frank, the music track doesn't even really match his music style so the validity of that is questionable). Plus the man has literally been offline for months. If he has reached out to his fingers online then this convos should exsits in someone's dms. It seems unusual for some who isn't active on social media to be like this, especially struggling with mental health to the point where they have a hard time uploading. This just doesn't match. Idk if anyone hear has had true depression, but it takes a toll on ever part of your life. Sometimes you can't even get the motivation to get out of bed to eat, shower or do anything because it's so debilitating making thise simple things hard to do. Having and maintaining a relationship is even harder. And just for education purposes, most guys JO more than once a day and they may watch porn when doing so. That isn't a porn addiction but someone inexperience, naive, religious, etc. may think that constitutes as an addiction. Idk, it's subjective unless your a psychologists who can diagnose that. As far as him liking certain type of porn. People have kinks and preferance, unless it literal child porn, real rape or anything illegal, then he should be fine. Idk if you have been on pornhub, but people like the college girls who look like they just turned 18. Literally that is half of porn hub and then there are legal adults who roleplay to look younger. Because it fantasy and roleplay. If you don't like that then cancel pornhub and every other porn site. There have been countless times where people go out of their way to cancel someone because that celeb/influencer didn't reciprocate feeling or any other reason (like clout or simply that just hate that person). Just like there have been claims, which unfortunately, have been proven to be true that the accused celeb/influencer did horrible things to innocent people. Until I see physical proof I can't really believe this, and this is me steeping outside any bias and just looking at it from simply and analytical point. Because unfortunately we live in a world where people will do this to bring down someone they don't like. If true this is horrible and he should be deplatformed and I'm open to being wrong. But right now it too soon to say anything due to lack of evidence. For the record I'm not trying to decredit their experiences or defend Dave. Because currently I'm on neither side. I'm simply pointing out the lack of evidence and inconsistencies, so therefore believing such allegations without evidence isn't justified.

He has offically been gone for two years,almost three

From what I heard he was a groomer and a pediophoile

I don't know much about this

I miss him so much any updates?

Is he ok? He hasn't uploaded in two years

Does anybody know where Dave is? I hope he’s doing well, I miss him :(

"been working on it with dave" -Pewds

Hey everyone! I’m not sure whether anyone knows this answer - but who knows. Does anyone know whether or whether not Dave will ever come back to YouTube? I’ve heard roomie say he might quit YouTube - but it was emphasized as a maybe. Anyone have any knowledge by chance?