Russell Brand

[Turk Thrust]

10 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

I think lots do Archie, This thread confirms this, If James Corden was charged for impersonating a comedian and I was on the Jury, He's guilty as soon as I'm sworn in 😁, A heard of wild horses wouldn't move me 👍 

Shouldn’t that be a heard of ears? 😋

[Archied]

18 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Even in this hypothetical scenario, I can't envisage a situation where a bad tempered retort like that comes out... you're trying to verbally hurt the other person, not lie about a crime that ultimately reflects worse on you, than it does wound the other person as an argumentative assertion. And if you were to lie about something like that and it ends up being used in court, I'd kind of argue that's natural selection and you deserve what you get?

So by that I take it your saying it’s ok to be fitted up for something you havnt done if you ve done something else wrong in the past , anyway from what I’m told this person has been convicted using ALL the evidence so it’s a bit uncomfortable speaking hypothetically about one element of the evidence not being enough to convict anyone on on its own 🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited September 20, 2023 by Archied

[YorkshireRam]

1 minute ago, Archied said:

So by that I take it your saying it’s ok to be fitted up for something you havnt done if you ve something else wrong in the past , anyway from what I’m told this person has been convicted using ALL the evidence so it’s a bit uncomfortable speaking hypothetically about one element of the evidence not being enough to convict anyone on on its own 🤷🏻‍♂️

No it's far more simple: if you lie about raping someone, I'm not particularly bothered if a court takes that at face value and punishes you for the crime...

It's quite easy to avoid, just don't talk about raping people, most of us manage just fine.

[Ram-Alf]

46 minutes ago, Turk Thrust said:

Shouldn’t that be a heard of ears? 😋

Oooops...my spulling is orfull 😁

[Archied]

40 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

No it's far more simple: if you lie about raping someone, I'm not particularly bothered if a court takes that at face value and punishes you for the crime...

It's quite easy to avoid, just don't talk about raping people, most of us manage just fine.

Ok ,,, just out of interest what’s your view on the issue of the below average intelligent, mentally I’ll , emotionally disturbed ect ect being entitled to the protection of the law ?

things in life and around people are very very rarely simple 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Archied

[YorkshireRam]

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

Ok ,,, just out of interest what’s your view on the issue of the below average intelligent, mentally I’ll , emotionally disturbed ect ect being entitled to the protection of the law ?

things in life and around people are very very rarely simple 

 

If you want to play whataboutism: would you rather accommodate for the absolutely marginal percentage (could be entirely null) of instances of this occurring due to the mitigating factors you claim, or for rape victims themselves?

Honestly, when faced with a text message of a perpetrator admitting culpability, the fact you've jumped through hoops to try and find hypothetical excuses for that behaviour is a little bit strange... Which brings me back to the central theme, yes there will be marginal instances of false accusations etc. but they will always pale in comparison to the level of injustice currently perpetuated by the flawed judicial process.

And to use the example in question, if that guy went to prison for saying he raped someone when he didn't, but that was offset by a steep increase in conviction rates for these crimes. Then yes I think that's a fair trade off, and he'll learn his lesson for saying something so mind-numbingly stupid just to try hurt someone in an argument...

[GboroRam]

11 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

If you want to play whataboutism: would you rather accommodate for the absolutely marginal percentage (could be entirely null) of instances of this occurring due to the mitigating factors you claim, or for rape victims themselves?

Honestly, when faced with a text message of a perpetrator admitting culpability, the fact you've jumped through hoops to try and find hypothetical excuses for that behaviour is a little bit strange... Which brings me back to the central theme, yes there will be marginal instances of false accusations etc. but they will always pale in comparison to the level of injustice currently perpetuated by the flawed judicial process.

And to use the example in question, if that guy went to prison for saying he raped someone when he didn't, but that was offset by a steep increase in conviction rates for these crimes. Then yes I think that's a fair trade off, and he'll learn his lesson for saying something so mind-numbingly stupid just to try hurt someone in an argument...

It's a difficult subject, one I've tried to not get involved. 

I fully understand why police won't prosecute on the basis of a confession alone. It's been proved unreliable before. 

I also think there's a difference between people making up their minds about the conduct of an individual and deciding they don't want to associate with them, and a criminal conviction resulting in legal outcomes. 

I also have no problem with the concept of investigative journalism. Lots of cases only come to light after journalists start to investigate. Real journalism, not the kind we're mostly left with at the moment. 

I also don't believe there's a bald guy stroking a cat in the top office of the BBC, like a bond villain. A lot of people turned a blind eye to some terrible behaviour. Did they know the full story? Perhaps not. Did they not ask too many questions, out of self preservation? I'd not be surprised. Did some people treat him like he was untouchable? I reckon so. 

Has he changed his views to garner support from a demographic possibly more relaxed with abusive behaviour? Possibly, but it does let off the hook some people who never objected while he remained under the radar. 

A lot of people have enabled his behaviour. You can't even blame "the sign of the times" like we might have if this was the 70s or 80s.

[Archied]

24 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

If you want to play whataboutism: would you rather accommodate for the absolutely marginal percentage (could be entirely null) of instances of this occurring due to the mitigating factors you claim, or for rape victims themselves?

Honestly, when faced with a text message of a perpetrator admitting culpability, the fact you've jumped through hoops to try and find hypothetical excuses for that behaviour is a little bit strange... Which brings me back to the central theme, yes there will be marginal instances of false accusations etc. but they will always pale in comparison to the level of injustice currently perpetuated by the flawed judicial process.

And to use the example in question, if that guy went to prison for saying he raped someone when he didn't, but that was offset by a steep increase in conviction rates for these crimes. Then yes I think that's a fair trade off, and he'll learn his lesson for saying something so mind-numbingly stupid just to try hurt someone in an argument...

Jumped through hoops to find excuses ,,,,,, that and the rest of your post tells me it’s time to give you a swerve , I told a poster earlier in this thread that although I didn’t agree with some of what he said I was genuinely interested in how he thought we could improve the justice system in these types of cases , got no answer , you’ve given yours above , you don’t give a duck about rightful or wrongful convictions as long as conviction numbers rise ,

there’s not anywhere anybody sensible can really go with that🤷🏻‍♂️

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It's a difficult subject, one I've tried to not get involved. 

I fully understand why police won't prosecute on the basis of a confession alone. It's been proved unreliable before. 

I also think there's a difference between people making up their minds about the conduct of an individual and deciding they don't want to associate with them, and a criminal conviction resulting in legal outcomes. 

I also have no problem with the concept of investigative journalism. Lots of cases only come to light after journalists start to investigate. Real journalism, not the kind we're mostly left with at the moment. 

I also don't believe there's a bald guy stroking a cat in the top office of the BBC, like a bond villain. A lot of people turned a blind eye to some terrible behaviour. Did they know the full story? Perhaps not. Did they not ask too many questions, out of self preservation? I'd not be surprised. Did some people treat him like he was untouchable? I reckon so. 

Has he changed his views to garner support from a demographic possibly more relaxed with abusive behaviour? Possibly, but it does let off the hook some people who never objected while he remained under the radar. 

A lot of people have enabled his behaviour. You can't even blame "the sign of the times" like we might have if this was the 70s or 80s.

Quality post 🤷🏻‍♂️

[GboroRam]

9 minutes ago, Archied said:

Quality post 🤷🏻‍♂️

Bleedin' hell, someone mark the calendar! 

[Archied]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Bleedin' hell, someone mark the calendar! 

Let’s enjoy the moment and leave it a few days before we unpack sunaks speach 😀👍

[Scott129]

24 minutes ago, Archied said:

Jumped through hoops to find excuses ,,,,,, that and the rest of your post tells me it’s time to give you a swerve , I told a poster earlier in this thread that although I didn’t agree with some of what he said I was genuinely interested in how he thought we could improve the justice system in these types of cases , got no answer , you’ve given yours above , you don’t give a duck about rightful or wrongful convictions as long as conviction numbers rise ,

there’s not anywhere anybody sensible can really go with that🤷🏻‍♂️

Archied - while it's not a position I agree with in this particular example - I do admire your steadfastness at wanting to hear both sides of the story.

I just don't know how you can see those messages and your initial reaction not be 'my god, what a scumbag' and instead think 'I want to give this guy a chance and hear his side of the story first'. The hypothetical situation that he's lied, in my opinion, probably has about a <1% probability.

[PistoldPete]

44 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It's a difficult subject, one I've tried to not get involved. 

I fully understand why police won't prosecute on the basis of a confession alone. It's been proved unreliable before. 

I also think there's a difference between people making up their minds about the conduct of an individual and deciding they don't want to associate with them, and a criminal conviction resulting in legal outcomes. 

I also have no problem with the concept of investigative journalism. Lots of cases only come to light after journalists start to investigate. Real journalism, not the kind we're mostly left with at the moment. 

I also don't believe there's a bald guy stroking a cat in the top office of the BBC, like a bond villain. A lot of people turned a blind eye to some terrible behaviour. Did they know the full story? Perhaps not. Did they not ask too many questions, out of self preservation? I'd not be surprised. Did some people treat him like he was untouchable? I reckon so. 

Has he changed his views to garner support from a demographic possibly more relaxed with abusive behaviour? Possibly, but it does let off the hook some people who never objected while he remained under the radar. 

A lot of people have enabled his behaviour. You can't even blame "the sign of the times" like we might have if this was the 70s or 80s.

Try as I might, I can’t disagree with any of this. The noughties weren’t really that naughty were they not compared to the 1980s. 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, Scott129 said:

Archied - while it's not a position I agree with in this particular example - I do admire your steadfastness at wanting to hear both sides of the story.

I just don't know how you can see those messages and your initial reaction not be 'my god, what a scumbag' and instead think 'I want to give this guy a chance and hear his side of the story first'. The hypothetical situation that he's lied, in my opinion, probably has about a <1% probability.

But I do think what a scumbag ,, but what that snapshot of a message / interaction doesn’t tell me is what level of scumbag he is ,,, a burglar is a scumbag but I wouldn’t give him a whole life term in prison just based on him being a burglar without any evidence of murder 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Stive Pesley]

https://www.theonion.com/nation-could-have-sworn-russell-brand-was-already-convi-1850849838

 

The Onion nailing it again 😂

[YorkshireRam]

15 hours ago, Archied said:

Jumped through hoops to find excuses ,,,,,, that and the rest of your post tells me it’s time to give you a swerve , I told a poster earlier in this thread that although I didn’t agree with some of what he said I was genuinely interested in how he thought we could improve the justice system in these types of cases , got no answer , you’ve given yours above , you don’t give a duck about rightful or wrongful convictions as long as conviction numbers rise ,

there’s not anywhere anybody sensible can really go with that🤷🏻‍♂️

There was more nuance than that, to be fair, a significant strand of my argument was examining these (nigh-on impossible to quantify metrics) of wrongful convictions v lack of convictions. And yes, I don't believe there are enough wrongful convictions to use their existence as an argument not to reform the system.

How we could improve the justice system would be to: overhaul the physical process and make it far less invasive, ensure as close to complete anonymity for victims, and stronger sentencing. Those measures don't even touch improving conviction rates but do accommodate for the victims far more, as well as strengthening the deterrent element through harsher punishment. 

The problem is that your rhetoric ties quite closely with a very common retort from rape apologists (not saying you are one) where when this topic is raised, they just snap back with ''what about wrongful convictions'' and it's become a bit of a dog whistle within this thematic discourse. When you've come out with quotes such as ''it’s kind of difficult to imagine a rapist actually telling someone he has raped them'', there's also a level of ignorance there that is going to irritate people clearly closer to this issue than you are...

[Mucker1884]

D-I-L spent the day coordinating this from behind the camera...

Pre planned, but good timing I guess, what with the recent headlines behind this thread...

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=327399296612265

 

 

 

 

 

[Archied]

2 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

There was more nuance than that, to be fair, a significant strand of my argument was examining these (nigh-on impossible to quantify metrics) of wrongful convictions v lack of convictions. And yes, I don't believe there are enough wrongful convictions to use their existence as an argument not to reform the system.

How we could improve the justice system would be to: overhaul the physical process and make it far less invasive, ensure as close to complete anonymity for victims, and stronger sentencing. Those measures don't even touch improving conviction rates but do accommodate for the victims far more, as well as strengthening the deterrent element through harsher punishment. 

The problem is that your rhetoric ties quite closely with a very common retort from rape apologists (not saying you are one) where when this topic is raised, they just snap back with ''what about wrongful convictions'' and it's become a bit of a dog whistle within this thematic discourse. When you've come out with quotes such as ''it’s kind of difficult to imagine a rapist actually telling someone he has raped them'', there's also a level of ignorance there that is going to irritate people clearly closer to this issue than you are...

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 

[Archied]

17 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

D-I-L spent the day coordinating this from behind the camera...

Pre planned, but good timing I guess, what with the recent headlines behind this thread...

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=327399296612265

 

 

 

 

 

30 years years ago I was telling people that worked for me that they didn’t whistle or shout at women off the scaffold or else they could duck off 🤷🏻‍♂️

[BaaLocks]

If he can deny his crimes I guess anyone can