Russell Brand

[BaaLocks]

18 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Bleedin' hell, someone mark the calendar! 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day 🙂

[YorkshireRam]

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

First and foremost I’m not going to take offence at you saying my rhetoric ties closely to rape apologists ect ect and the reason for that is I don’t know where your coming from on stuff and your life experience, im aware there are issues treat with more emotion because I’ve been touched by them ,

wrongful convictions is not really the metric I’m looking at , im more concerned at the best way to achieve rightful convictions and am pro anything proposed to achieve that and bring the least pain and harm to victims , even with the best system possible you can never eliminate ALL wrongful convictions ,we are talking about a post on here that showed 3 messages in isolation and I simply said I could not convict someone on THAT ALONE, if you and the original poster are saying you can then I disagree 🤷🏻‍♂️

I have a daughter and a son 

Good, it genuinely wasn't mean to be offensive, just an explanation why devils advocacy on this issue can sometimes come off as provocative, but you provided enough nuance within your comments for me to know that wasn't the intention. 

The only suggestion for increasing conviction rates I have is to also greatly increase the severity of punishments for false accusations. This should reduce the number of false accusations to a negligible level, after a few examples are made. If the same flawed methodology is applied for proving accusations, then the risk of multiple years in prison should be a successful deterrent. Then simply lower the threshold for conviction: that text message should be good enough to convict, in my opinion; or if there is a marginal chance he was lying, then he has to prove that he was lying. Confessions should carry weight and when difficulty ascertaining level of consent is omnipresent, they should hold even more water.

Corroboration should also be more legally impactful, neatly bringing us back to Brand, and when multiple victims recount similar testimonies- that's enough for me to assume guilty until proven innocent, in light of the flaws in proving culpability in a criminal sense. 

[Archied]

26 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Good, it genuinely wasn't mean to be offensive, just an explanation why devils advocacy on this issue can sometimes come off as provocative, but you provided enough nuance within your comments for me to know that wasn't the intention. 

The only suggestion for increasing conviction rates I have is to also greatly increase the severity of punishments for false accusations. This should reduce the number of false accusations to a negligible level, after a few examples are made. If the same flawed methodology is applied for proving accusations, then the risk of multiple years in prison should be a successful deterrent. Then simply lower the threshold for conviction: that text message should be good enough to convict, in my opinion; or if there is a marginal chance he was lying, then he has to prove that he was lying. Confessions should carry weight and when difficulty ascertaining level of consent is omnipresent, they should hold even more water.

Corroboration should also be more legally impactful, neatly bringing us back to Brand, and when multiple victims recount similar testimonies- that's enough for me to assume guilty until proven innocent, in light of the flaws in proving culpability in a criminal sense. 

Make no mistake ,I would throw away the key on rapists and would feel pretty much the same with any false accuser but I’m certain that the number of people who get away with rape dwarfs false accusers,

I really don’t know the perfect answer to this issue other than searching for and weighing all the evidence that can be found , I do think the treatment of victims and people reporting these crimes seems to have improved vastly though I’m sure it can get better ,

the anonymity issue throws up such positive and negatives , naming the accused has proven vital so often and been the thing that nails powerful abusers ,, one thing I would suggest is the total banning of nda agreements in all areas which I believe would stop abusers carrying on abusing for years and getting away with stuff and perhaps not just in these types of cases 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Archied

[Stive Pesley]

36 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

neatly bringing us back to Brand, and when multiple victims recount similar testimonies- that's enough for me to assume guilty until proven innocent, in light of the flaws in proving culpability in a criminal sense. 

The girl in the US went to a rape crisis centre the next day and still has all the documentation to prove it. She also still has text messages from RB telling him that she didn't consent and he replied to apologise. Seems pretty open and shut to me. If anyone still insists on seeing a criminal conviction before they will admit Brand is monster then I don't know what to say

 

 

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

The girl in the US went to a rape crisis centre the next day and still has all the documentation to prove it. She also still has text messages from RB telling him that she didn't consent and he replied to apologise. Seems pretty open and shut to me. If anyone still insists on seeing a criminal conviction before they will admit Brand is monster then I don't know what to say

 

 

Did they show all of the above in the program? I remember only highlighted snippets 

If I was on a jury I’ve seen enough along with those messages to tell me I would find him guilty on them🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited September 21, 2023 by Archied

[Ram-Alf]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

If he can deny his crimes I guess anyone can 

Plead not guilty and he'll get to go to court, Give his evidence and spoil the CPS and all...As they say...he just wants his day in court...and try another escape😁

Edited September 21, 2023 by The Last Post

[maxjam]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

If he can deny his crimes I guess anyone can 

I didn't escape M'lud, I was playing hide n seek with the guards 😛

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Did they show all of the above in the program? I remember only highlighted snippets 

If I was on a jury I’ve seen enough along with those messages to tell me I would find him guilty on them🤷🏻‍♂️

It's all directly from The Times article. The whole scenario is horrible. He rang and invited her over - when she got there, he was already on the job with another girl and asked her to join them. She freaked out and said no as this wasn't what she was expecting - tried to leave and he essentially took her by force. Says she didn't go to the police as she'd have to admit she entered the house through choice, with a reasonable expectation that they might have sex. You can see her logic - but the idea that he's only in the wrong if he's convicted of it in court is dubious to say the least. Wrong 'uns gonna wrong

[Malagaram]

19 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's all directly from The Times article. The whole scenario is horrible. He rang and invited her over - when she got there, he was already on the job with another girl and asked her to join them. She freaked out and said no as this wasn't what she was expecting - tried to leave and he essentially took her by force. Says she didn't go to the police as she'd have to admit she entered the house through choice, with a reasonable expectation that they might have sex. You can see her logic - but the idea that he's only in the wrong if he's convicted of it in court is dubious to say the least. Wrong 'uns gonna wrong

Off with his testicles.

[Malagaram]

Just now, Malagaram said:

Off with his testicles.

Not surgical castration,just use 2 bricks

[YorkshireRam]

1 hour ago, The Last Post said:

He just wants his day in court...and try another escape😁

He's been watching too much Happy Valley 😂
 

[Normanton Lad]

40 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's all directly from The Times article. The whole scenario is horrible. He rang and invited her over - when she got there, he was already on the job with another girl and asked her to join them. She freaked out and said no as this wasn't what she was expecting - tried to leave and he essentially took her by force. Says she didn't go to the police as she'd have to admit she entered the house through choice, with a reasonable expectation that they might have sex. You can see her logic - but the idea that he's only in the wrong if he's convicted of it in court is dubious to say the least. Wrong 'uns gonna wrong

How do you know this is true? The credence the pitchfork carriers on here give to articles in the papers is shocking.

If you have ever read an article about someone or something you know very well then you find that the article is usually full of errors and lies. You should assume that all the other articles are just as inaccurate.

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

I didn't escape M'lud, I was playing hide n seek with the guards 😛

Maybe he'll sue the BBC for not saying he was 'allegedly' on the run. To the point of discussion earlier in the thread, it's so hard to see how we stop this sort of time wasting and obviously unhelpful playing around with the system without then - at the very same time - blocking opportunity for those real cases cited earlier to be fairly considered. No easy answers, as said earlier.

[Stive Pesley]

23 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

How do you know this is true? The credence the pitchfork carriers on here give to articles in the papers is shocking.

If you have ever read an article about someone or something you know very well then you find that the article is usually full of errors and lies. You should assume that all the other articles are just as inaccurate.

Seriously? We should assume that every new article we read is untrue? Easier to just not read the news at all then. What would be the point

Anyway - don't let me stop you defending rapists. It's a good look for you

 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's all directly from The Times article. The whole scenario is horrible. He rang and invited her over - when she got there, he was already on the job with another girl and asked her to join them. She freaked out and said no as this wasn't what she was expecting - tried to leave and he essentially took her by force. Says she didn't go to the police as she'd have to admit she entered the house through choice, with a reasonable expectation that they might have sex. You can see her logic - but the idea that he's only in the wrong if he's convicted of it in court is dubious to say the least. Wrong 'uns gonna wrong

Saw the channel 4 dispatches program but not seen the written article , I don’t think they showed all of those text exchanges but I may be wrong 

[Archied]

29 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

How do you know this is true? The credence the pitchfork carriers on here give to articles in the papers is shocking.

If you have ever read an article about someone or something you know very well then you find that the article is usually full of errors and lies. You should assume that all the other articles are just as inaccurate.

Pretty damming texts , I would think the times would be very unlikely to publish them and in very serious trouble if they couldn’t prove they were genuine 

[Jubbs]

52 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

How do you know this is true? The credence the pitchfork carriers on here give to articles in the papers is shocking.

If you have ever read an article about someone or something you know very well then you find that the article is usually full of errors and lies. You should assume that all the other articles are just as inaccurate.

So for a story like this, you think that they can just write an article with all these accusations without proof? My word.

[Stive Pesley]

39 minutes ago, Archied said:

Pretty damming texts , I would think the times would be very unlikely to publish them and in very serious trouble if they couldn’t prove they were genuine 

Yup - The article says that they went to multiple sources to verify the authenticity of the texts to make sure they were 100% sent from RB's phone at the time.  Given the content - can you imagine any journalist publishing those texts if they weren't 100% cast iron sure they were genuine

[Normanton Lad]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Seriously? We should assume that every new article we read is untrue? Easier to just not read the news at all then. What would be the point

Anyway - don't let me stop you defending rapists. It's a good look for you

 

 Every few weeks someone becomes a victim of a Big Brother type "two minutes of hate".  There is no real evidence against many of these public hate victims. Look at the newspaper headlines from 10, 20 or 30 years ago and ask yourself if these things turned out to be true.

[YorkshireRam]

4 minutes ago, Normanton Lad said:

 Every few weeks someone becomes a victim of a Big Brother type "two minutes of hate".  There is no real evidence against many of these public hate victims. Look at the newspaper headlines from 10, 20 or 30 years ago and ask yourself if these things turned out to be true.

Except with Brand there is substantial evidence, it's literally been posted on this page of the thread... At this point, what are you actually on about?