Russell Brand denies 'serious criminal allegations' he claims are being made against him

a reply to: Saloon

Yes we are. Hello?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I’d go further, you not only want him cancelled, you want him jailed.

Thankfully the legal system doesn’t really care about your opinion in this case.

a reply to: Grenade

Guess you are ignoring how many times I have called for due process and let's wait and see?

Carry on putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I actually post .

Repeat a lie often enough, etc?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Grenade

Well if there is evidence and/or those people choose to come forward i imagine they will change him with rape by the looks of things considering the alligations made.

And what about the texts, phone number linked to him, and trips to the rape crisis center, those may qualify as evidence.

Broadcasters have launched urgent investigations into the historical conduct of Russell Brand while the Metropolitan police has appealed for any potential victims to come forward after the comedian was accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse.

www.theguardian.com...#:~:text=Broadcasters%20have%20launc hed%20urgent%20investigations,sexual%20assault%20and%20emotional%20abuse.

Obviously, he is innocent until proven otherwise, if they do prosecute the courts will decide his fate.

There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence not to say any evidence at all other than what some women have to say a decade later. Even if he did commit these crimes the lack of serious evidence will determine this case if it ever goes to the courts. What I find suspicious is the timing (which seems to be perfect) and the motives or incentives by a number of women who have suddenly appeared out of nowhere to coordinate an attack.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Saloon

Yes we are. Hello?

So you want speculative evidence? What legal precipice would call for
such an odd request? First timer for me!

Guess you are ignoring how many times I have called for due process and let's wait and see?

You can't do that and call for speculative evidence at the same time amigo.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

You can say this again and again until the cows come home, and doubtless will.

You might want to point to where I have ever said anything of the sort?

But just keep on repeating this bs. It may stick, if your lucky

From all your posts you want him to face trial and go to jail. But there is no much evidence for any of these accusations and it makes me think those who want him cancelled (like yourself) have found the perfect opportunity.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

With one hand you’re asking for due process and the other attempting to suggest his guilt.

As per usual, you’ve let your political leaning shroud your ability to provide a logical and consistent analysis.

I still love you.

a reply to: Saloon

Well, all we have is what we have.

Not sure why you don't understand when I have said let's follow due process?

My opinion is just that, for the moment.

Not sure what "legal precipice" actually means??

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Due process suggests there’s criminality. As you well know, right now he’s not been charged or even accused of anything. It’s a newspaper story, not a court case.

We’re speculating on the basis for the media’s character assassination, until he’s formally charged with any crime, he’s innocent. Until there’s a formal charge or investigation by law enforcement it’s nothing more than speculation and hearsay. Backed with nothing other than anonymous testimony.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Not sure why you don't understand when I have said let's follow due process?

That's okay I can tell you. Because you can't do that and
call for speculative evidence at the same time. It doesn't make any sense.

a reply to: Grenade

My "political leaning", whatever you might think it might be, has nothing to do with my opinion that he's a knobhead.

Not sure what part of my saying let's follow due process means I am attempting to suggest his guilt?

Just suggesting, he may be a knobhead

Which is not a crime.

Love you too, baby.

a reply to: Daughter2

Whether you liked Brand or not, he had a massive following and could influence elections. Close to 7 million is a huge block of voters.

I honestly think you are massively over-estimating his influence.

The vast majority of people here in the UK think he's nothing but an entitled, pretentious and arrogant twat.

I doubt these allegations are politically motivated but rather a growing discontent with the actions of a group of people who think they are above the laws and who use their positions of 'privilege' and 'celebrity' to bully and abuse people.

We should allow legal procedure to take its course but I find it embarrassing that people are willing to defend this prick just because they agree with some of his opinions.
The man is a complete and utter irrelevance with regards to influencing public opinion.

a reply to: AlienBorg

There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence not to say any evidence at all other than what some women have to say a decade later.

The texts, phone number linked to him, and trips to the rape crisis center(2012), may constitute evidence and cannot simply be simply discounted.

Even if he did commit these crimes the lack of serious evidence will determine this case if it ever goes to the courts.

And is that your expert legal opinion?

CPS may think otherwise if a complaint is made made to the Police which may well happen given the serious nature of the allegations come Monday/or proceeding days of the week.

Guess time will tell on that score.

What I find suspicious is the timing (which seems to be perfect) and the motives or incentives by a number of women who have suddenly appeared out of nowhere to coordinate an attack.

That does not appear to be the case through with allegations stretching back to 2006.

This documentary has been about a year in the making by all accounts.

It's investigative journalism, if he's a rapist, he deserves far worse than what you assume to be a personal attack.

a reply to: Saloon

I'm not calling for that .

Probably why you don't make sense?

ATTENTION

I don't know how it is that people can't understand that opinions of each other are not the topic on ATS - EVER - but it's close to time to start issuing Posting Bans to those who ignore this.

BE WARNED IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE POSTING BANNED! This includes comments members make in other threads.

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.

The topic is Russell Brand denies 'serious criminal allegations' he claims are being made against him
NOT sewer gas!!!!!!

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Not sure what "legal precipice" actually means??

Yeah I apologize legal precedent is what was meant.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Due process suggests there’s criminality. As you well know, right now he’s not been charged or even accused of anything. It’s a newspaper story, not a court case.

We’re speculating on the basis for the media’s character assassination, until he’s formally charged with any crime, he’s innocent. Until there’s a formal charge or investigation by law enforcement it’s nothing more than speculation and hearsay. Backed with nothing other than anonymous testimony.

What I can't understand is the following.
Let's suppose for one moment he is guilty and he has sexually assaulted all 4 women between 2006 and 2013.

How is it possible to prove it after so many years have passed?? All they have is their testimonies and perhaps some of their relatives verifying their accounts or some saucy emails and texts. But you can't convict anyone based upon this type of 'evidence'. In reality this is no evidence.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

We’re in agreement, I’ve always said he’s a knobhead. That’s blatantly apparent.

However, being a knob who talks crap isn’t illegal. You’d be serving a life sentence if that was the case. (It’s a joke admins, one which even Carpy will have a little s'n-word' at)

a reply to: AlienBorg

Which is why this is nothing more than a media induced character assassination that will likely go no-where other than defamation of character by association to the story.

If he was a left leaning TV presenter for a major network the story would be buried quicker than you can say Huw Edwards.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence not to say any evidence at all other than what some women have to say a decade later.

The texts, phone number linked to him, and trips to the rape crisis center(2012), may constitute evidence and cannot simply be simply discounted.

Even if he did commit these crimes the lack of serious evidence will determine this case if it ever goes to the courts.

And is that your expert legal opinion?

CPS may think otherwise if a complaint is made made to the Police which may well happen given the serious nature of the allegations come Monday/or proceeding days of the week.

Guess time will tell on that score.

What I find suspicious is the timing (which seems to be perfect) and the motives or incentives by a number of women who have suddenly appeared out of nowhere to coordinate an attack.

That does not appear to be the case through with allegations stretching back to 2006.

This documentary has been about a year in the making by all accounts.

It's investigative journalism, if he's a rapist, he deserves far worse than what you assume to be a personal attack.

Texts, emails, and the phone calls to him don't constitute evidence of sexual assault.

The only thing they can see is the content of these text messages and whether there are threats of violence, verbal abuse, and related offences.

If someone has gone to take crisis center that doesn't imply this someone was raped and if she did Russel Brand is the rapist.

It would be impossible to prove any of these even if he did commit all these crimes.

I don't see much evidence other than what a number of women said who I don't know of their motives.

You can't convict someone in the absence of evidence. The attack seems coordinated to me and to everyone else who has read this story. It seems it took them more than a decade to realise they have been sexually assaulted.