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

a reply to: AlienBorg

You need very strong evidence and proof to conduct someone of rape and sexual assault. The media witchhunting isn't the best possible way and it creates mainly a backlash that favourites Brands even if he has done it.

And is that your experienced legal opinion on the matter?

But as I said in the post above

No CCTV evidence of possible assault and abuse

No forensic evidence- This is the most important part of any such investigation

No audio or photographic evidence

The alleged offences were committed many years ago and by definition the collection of any type of evidence is something that seems almost impossible.

If he is charged with rape the courts will indeed decide, not you.

And they will deem what constitutes evidence that can be submitted, again not you.

There is no statute of limitations where rape is concerned here in the UK, another fact you reuse to swallow or accept.

Courts decide on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of media trials and public condemnations.
What's happening isn't great for any legal system.

The court decides your guilt or innocence based on witness testimony and corroborating evidence.

As to whats not great for a legal system, would that not a failure to prosecute the guilty?

a reply to: AlienBorg

We only have accounts by some women and some text messages. Do you think this is enough to convict someone of rape or sexual assault??

I know a boy that did 8 years out of a 12-year sentence for double rape with nothing other than the witness testimony and no forensic evidence presented against him to secure the conviction.

Got out on appeal and ended up back in.

You may actually wish to study how our justice system functions.

www.bbc.co.uk...
www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

The Dispatches documentary might be helpful, you should probably watch it if indeed you care to comment on what was said.

a reply to: AlienBorg

conduct someone of rape and sexual assault.

I'm not conducting anyone in rape?

No forensic evidence- This is the most important part of any such investigation

There is evidence, as one victim whilst in the U.S. went to a rape centre after her ordeal. Also the phone messages he sent to some of his possible victims is classed as forensic evidence..

The alleged offences were committed many years ago and by definition the collection of any type of evidence is something that seems almost impossible.

So you're saying commiting a crime many years previsously means that it should just be forgotten about?
Try telling that to the victims of the Golden State killer?
I'm glad our laws on rape here in the UK are a little different to yours.
en.wikipedia.org...

Courts decide on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of media trials and public condemnations.
What's happening isn't great for any legal system.

I wholehearedly agree here but this is just a website for people to give opinions on, nothing more and thats all we are doing.

a reply to: Kurokage

This should be about a possible rapist using his fame and infamy to commit rape and get away with it and not weather you support his conspricies.

Well it's not because this wasn't a police investigation. The fact that it looks
like a media hit job to people with brains and eyes and stuff? Might have
something to do with the big investigation being done in the interest of...
Can you guess? Who is? Oh that's right the one percent owned progressive
media that's so weird. How does that keep happening? No wait how does the
left manage to keep ignoring it happening? IDK

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

conduct someone of rape and sexual assault.

I'm not conducting anyone in rape?

No forensic evidence- This is the most important part of any such investigation

There is evidence, as one victim whilst in the U.S. went to a rape centre after her ordeal. Also the phone messages he sent to some of his possible victims is classed as forensic evidence..

The alleged offences were committed many years ago and by definition the collection of any type of evidence is something that seems almost impossible.

So you're saying commiting a crime many years previsously means that it should just be forgotten about?
Try telling that to the victims of the Golden State killer?
I'm glad our laws on rape here in the UK are a little different to yours.
en.wikipedia.org...

Courts decide on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of media trials and public condemnations.
What's happening isn't great for any legal system.

I wholehearedly agree here but this is just a website for people to give opinions on, nothing more and thats all we are doing.

I meant 'convict' someone.
What you're describing isn't any evidence. Someone went to rape center and so what? Did they get raped? And if so was it Brand who raised her? How can you prove this?

No I am not saying crimes should be forgotten. But as time passes providing evidence is almost impossible because as I said earlier

No CCTV evidence of possible assault and abuse

No forensic evidence- This is the most important part of any such investigation

No audio or photographic evidence

The alleged offences were committed many years ago and by definition the collection of any type of evidence is something that seems almost impossible.

The laws in the UK maybe a little different but you need strong evidence and proof to convict someone of rape.

a reply to: AlienBorg

It's worth watching the Dispatches doc and Times write up as it's incredible investigative journalism with 100s of sources backing up the claims and a four year long investigation and written records of his actions from 2006ish onwards which debunks his delusional claims it's all lies by TPTB because he thinks he has influence when infact Times Insight Team and Dispatches have a long detailed history of exposing TPTB such as exposing Israel's illegal nuclear weapon programme, US use of international kidnap and torture of suspects in rendition etc...

There's verified phone forensics, testing, medical notes, frozen DNA samples from underwear/rape kit from a rape crisis centre in LA with LAPD having been contacted at the time. Under UK journalism law you can't publish such claims without dozens of media lawyers being satisfied the evidence is beyond doubt.

Obviously innocent until proven guilty but The Times and Dispatches have had a lot more people come forward with more serious allegations that they're thoroughly investigating and will make public if they turn out to be true -

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

We only have accounts by some women and some text messages. Do you think this is enough to convict someone of rape or sexual assault??

I know a boy that did 8 years out of a 12-year sentence for double rape with nothing other than the witness testimony and no forensic evidence presented against him to secure the conviction.

Got out on appeal and ended up back in.

You may actually wish to study how our justice system functions.

www.bbc.co.uk...
www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

To convict someone in the absence of evidence is just shocking unless there was evidence and you misunderstood what happened. I don't know the case and can't comment btw.

a reply to: bastion

Commenting on what was said without even bothering to watch the documentary on the subject which the thread is about tells us everything we need to know really.

The boys not got a clue or even seems willing to gather the relevant information

You're right all the same innocent until proven guilty where Brand is concerned, but its not looking good if any of those 5 women's claims turn out to hold weight.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: AlienBorg

It's worth watching the Dispatches doc and Times write up as it's incredible investigative journalism with 100s of sources backing up the claims and a four year long investigation and written records of his actions from 2006ish onwards which debunks his delusional claims it's all lies by TPTB because he thinks he has influence when infact Times Insight Team and Dispatches have a long detailed history of exposing TPTB such as exposing Israel's illegal nuclear weapon programme, US use of international kidnap and torture of suspects in rendition etc...

There's verified phone forensics, testing, medical notes, frozen DNA samples from underwear/rape kit from a rape crisis centre in LA with LAPD having been contacted at the time. Under UK journalism law you can't publish such claims without dozens of media lawyers being satisfied the evidence is beyond doubt.

Obviously innocent until proven guilty but The Times and Dispatches have had a lot more people come forward with more serious allegations that they're thoroughly investigating and will make public if they turn out to be true -

I am afraid the Times and Dispatches (whatever this is) cannot substitute a court or convict someone. Unless someone has been to a court and had been convicted one is innocent until proven guilty.

If there is forensic evidence then that will change things. If there is CCTV evidence that will change things. If there is audio and photographic evidence that will also change things. So far there hasn't even been a police complaint.

I see you place a lot of weight on the Times and Dispatches... Back off a little

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bastion

Commenting on what was said without even bothering to watch the documentary on the subject which the thread is about tells us everything we need to know really.

The boys not got a clue or even seems willing to gather the relevant information

You're right all the same innocent until proven guilty where Brand is concerned, but its not looking good if any of those 5 women's claims turn out to hold weight.

A documentary that I wasn't aware of and don't need to watch although I may do. But don't rely on the documentary and media to build up a case or to convict someone. There has to be a court of law with judge and jury.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Oh i know the boy well, he saved my life in a former life, and i also know both of the women in question who made the allegations.

But it doesn't change what he was charged with, or the fact that he was convicted on mere witness testimony alone without other evidence of the forensic sort.

Back to this thread though you really need to watch the documentary by Dispatches pertaining to the subject because it's what the thread is about and also the reason why you don't understand the evidence presented which somewhat corroborates the allegations being put forward.

Shift to do now, but i will check back and see how the thread is going.

a reply to: AlienBorg

The thread is about the documentary.

How could you not be aware of that when its on the first page?

The TV prog which is supposedly going to reveal the allegations is on UK TV Channel 4 at 9pm tonight,16th sept.

Yeh, i think it might be an idea to give it a glance.

Do as you please all the same.

But it speaks volumes if you refuse to look at the allegations being presented in the actual dispatches documentary.

If he's charged then you get a court of law with a judge and jury if it goes to trial.

I really should not have to explain this.

Again busy now for a while go watch the documentary, or not.

a reply to: andy06shake

No one needs to see the hit piece.......

The police should deal with allegations...... that is.....if anyone takes any allegations to the police.

And this thread is about Russell Brand denying serious allegations......it is not about the Dispatches program.

a reply to: Saloon

I never said anything about a possible police investigation.
How could evidence of someone being a POSSIBLE rapist be a media hit job? To use your terms, anyone with brains and eyes could see he's a sexual predator because he's admmited that much himself, he was admitted for sexual addiction to a rehab centre ffs.

Might have
something to do with the big investigation being done in the interest of...

I love the fact that people are quick to jump on the msm is evil band wagon. All media these days is main stream and opinionated.
The fact that Brand's behaviour has been reported on for years doesn't have anything to do with it! Thats sarcastic by the way!!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

So you have not watched it either?



The thread is about the Dispatches documentary and is the reason Brand chose to chime up on the matter.

Same as its the reason for the existence of the thread.

The Police are now involved and asking for witnesses to come forward and the victims to contact them.

Again this week will dictate the pace of any investigation if indeed any of the victims choose to come forward to our authorities, and that's just how the British justice system rolls.

Canny type and work though, i just make a mess.

Police seem fully aware they cannot begin criminal proceedings based on a tv show. CPS and police lawyers likely already advised them on that. That's why they are asking potential victims to come forward and lodge charges directly with police. Media are in line with this now. Lots of calls for women to talk to police.

If anyone does come forward, criminal investigations can begin and CPS can decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute.

Anti establishment figures like Brand are always going to be targeted for public humiliation.

'Investigative journalism' having sufficient funding to take down mouthy individuals but nothing to help us all find justice against say, privatised water companies charging us all to pump our effluence in our natural resources?

a reply to: andy06shake

I will wait and see if anyone goes to the police first.

a reply to: AlienBorg

What you're describing isn't any evidence.

I think you'll find it is my friend.

www.altlaw.co.uk...

Text messages — among other forms of electronically stored information (ESI) — must be legally obtained and properly preserved as evidence, or a court won't pass them as authentic.

Texts must be presented in a format that shows more than just the sender or receiver’s name, with information proving their relevance. For example, the phone number that has sent the messages. A court order can be obtained if a person doesn’t voluntarily provide their phone.

There are also instances when text messages may have been deleted to cover up evidence. In these circumstances, texts can still be obtained from the receiver’s phone or from the phone’s service provider for a limited time.

Many famous cases involving celebrities have included text messages used as legal evidence in a court of law.

It's already been show that the number that sent the messages to some of his possible victims after said inccidents was Brands.

No CCTV evidence of possible assault and abuse

So you think you should only be covicted of rape if you're caught in the act on CCTV??

No forensic evidence- This is the most important part of any such investigation

What do you think forensic evidence is? I think you're watching to many America detective shows??

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Think that's what we are all waiting on.

The TV prog which is supposedly going to reveal the allegations is on UK TV Channel 4 at 9pm tonight,16th sept.

Don't change the fact that the thread is still about the documentary all the same which you have yet to watch.

So there is that, and the thing is you don't appear to be the only one in the lack of relevant information boat.

On my way out the door now through, with things to do and people to see.

Bye'bye.

a reply to: andy06shake

Only the police need the relevant information......as far as I know.