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

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: JIMC5499

He's stated many times that he doesn't vote

Nobody cares. It's irrelevant.

He maybe a mad /bad boy.
He may have failed math in school.
But it's irrelevant.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Bastion said there is forensic evidence, DNA, and so on. If we assume there is, then why did it take 10-17 years to bring up a case??

Maybe if you were to watch the actual documentary applicable instead of choosing to comment without doing so you might be able to answer your own question.

Rape victims don't always come forward right away and the allegations go all the way back to 2006.

If you have DNA evidence or other types of forensic evidence then you may have a strong case.

I do not have any case, you fail to comprehend that its the CPS in the UK that decides as to whether or not charges will be brought based on evidence and witness testimonies given to the Police.

Which as far as im aware has yet to take place or if it has is not yet public knowledge, the world spins through and those complaint may very well be in the post.

But you wait decades to take someone to court?? Something is not right here.

Again you seem to be confused and fail to comprehend how our justice system operates, there is no statute of limitations where crimes like rape are concerned.

As to something not being right well quite possible thats Brand if the alligations turn out to be true.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

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

Did you watch the documentary?

Phone messages are a form of evidence, also the evidence of brusing and other things optained at the rape centre are evidence of possible wrong doing, which was talked about in the documentary.
Now the documentary has aired other women are coming forward, just like in the Epstein and weinstein cases, when they feel they aren't alone others do come forward.

If there has been forensic evidence obtained 10-17 years ago then why it wasn't used and thru waited for that long?

Phones messages don't constitute rape or sexual assault. Maybe threatening behaviour of harassment but that is as far as it goes.

Bruises? From whom? How do you prove it?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

Bastion said there is forensic evidence, DNA, and so on. If we assume there is, then why did it take 10-17 years to bring up a case??

Maybe if you were to watch the actual documentary applicable instead of choosing to comment without doing so you might be able to answer your own question.

Rape victims don't always come forward right away and the allegations go all the way back to 2006.

If you have DNA evidence or other types of forensic evidence then you may have a strong case.

I do not have any case, you fail to comprehend that its the CPS in the UK that decides as to whether or not charges will be brought based on evidence and witness testimonies given to the Police.

Which as far as im aware has yet to take place or if it has is not yet public knowledge, the world spins through and those complaint may very well be in the post.

But you wait decades to take someone to court?? Something is not right here.

Again you seem to be confused and fail to comprehend how our justice system operates, there is no statute of limitations where crimes like rape are concerned.

As to something not being right well quite possible thats Brand if the alligations turn out to be true.

The documentary isn't the substance of this debate.


Bastion said there is forensic evidence, DNA, and so on. If we assume there is, then why did it take 10-17 years to bring up a case??

You said the victims wait and don't always come forward. This could be true in some cases. But up to this point is speculation.

No I don't think have failed anything as you say.

I said earlier and will insist that until now

-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.

Unless there is serious evidence and a court of law with judge and jury deciding then what is presented until now can't do much.

I am not saying he is guilty or innocent but that you can't convict someone of rape based on testimonials and text messages. The prosecution will have a very hard time to convince Brand is guilty.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Phones messages don't constitute rape or sexual assault. Maybe threatening behaviour of harassment but that is as far as it goes.

Says you, who is not a solicitor or prosecutor but the Police and CPS may very well think otherwise and use them as corroborating evidence.

Ile be inclined to go with their assessment of the matter as opposed to someone who has yet to even watch the documentary where the allegations are made against the man.

As to how things are proven, again that will be down to witness testimony, and evidence presented that supports their allegations should anyone come forward and make a complaint.

a reply to: Kurokage

The episode was called "The Prince and the pedo" if you want to educate yourself about real journalism

I'll ask again another way, what consequences came to Andrew
when he was found to be a pedophile rapist exposed by Dispatches?

And once again did I miss where he was arrested and why are you calling
this a "conspiracy theory" if Dispatches investigated? Kind a weird.

Just curious how Brand is more important than far more powerful people
on a list of pedophiles?

a reply to: andy06shake

Are the police investigating Russell Brand now?

a reply to: AlienBorg

Dispatches won't convict Brand and certainly this isn't about a documentary.

Dispatches aired the allegations after an investigation. They're a documentary maker and not a police unit? I don't think you understand the difference here?

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

How many rape cases are based on rapists being caught in the "act"?
Forensic evidence is'nt just about seamen, it can be about brusing, scratches, torn garments. The girl that claim Brand raped here whilst in the U.S. went to a rape a centre where evidence was obtained.
Audio evidence? are you a coldwar spy? This is the age of messaging with things like Whats app, and several of the women had evidence on their phones of Brand apologizing after the acts he commited.

So do any of us have a direct line to the "Old Bill"?
What your asking asking for is dated, audio? This the age of social media and messaging, which are evidence in this day and age.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

Bastion said there is forensic evidence, DNA, and so on. If we assume there is, then why did it take 10-17 years to bring up a case??

Maybe if you were to watch the actual documentary applicable instead of choosing to comment without doing so you might be able to answer your own question.

Rape victims don't always come forward right away and the allegations go all the way back to 2006.

If you have DNA evidence or other types of forensic evidence then you may have a strong case.

I do not have any case, you fail to comprehend that its the CPS in the UK that decides as to whether or not charges will be brought based on evidence and witness testimonies given to the Police.

Which as far as im aware has yet to take place or if it has is not yet public knowledge, the world spins through and those complaint may very well be in the post.

But you wait decades to take someone to court?? Something is not right here.

Again you seem to be confused and fail to comprehend how our justice system operates, there is no statute of limitations where crimes like rape are concerned.

As to something not being right well quite possible thats Brand if the alligations turn out to be true.

And is your justice system operating?

You need to wait over a decade to bring someone to justice who may have committed very serious crimes such as rape when you have the evidence and you could have done it a decade ago?

Because logic says if you do have strong evidence you don't wait for 10-15 years. Especially when there is DNA and other forensic evidence. When you don't have this evidence then it seems you need to rely on testimonials and whatever else you rely on. Even if you have had something, after the passage of time it has probably gone.

a reply to: AlienBorg

The documentary isn't the substance of this debate.

I think brand might disagree with you on that score never mind the fact that the documentary is where the allegations against the man have been made.

Bastion said there is forensic evidence, DNA, and so on. If we assume there is, then why did it take 10-17 years to bring up a case??

Im not Bastion, but there is corroborating evidence as has been already pointed out to you which you would have seen if you had bothered to watch the documentary that the thread is about.

You said the victims wait and don't always come forward. This could be true in some cases. But up to this point is speculation.

Since i have never been raped i am indeed speculating, as to it being true victims don't always come forward right away.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have been sexually assaulted who would be able to explain their ordeal and why they choose to wait until they muster the courage to come forward better than i ever could.

No I don't think have failed anything as you say.

You have failed to watch the documentary that the thread is about and failed on numerous occasions where your understanding of our justice system is concerned, plain for all to see in black and white im afraid.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

Dispatches won't convict Brand and certainly this isn't about a documentary.

Dispatches aired the allegations after an investigation. They're a documentary maker and not a police unit? I don't think you understand the difference here?

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

How many rape cases are based on rapists being caught in the "act"?
Forensic evidence is'nt just about seamen, it can be about brusing, scratches, torn garments. The girl that claim Brand raped here whilst in the U.S. went to a rape a centre where evidence was obtained.
Audio evidence? are you a coldwar spy? This is the age of messaging with things like Whats app, and several of the women had evidence on therir phones of Brand apologizing after the act.

So do any of us have a direct line to the "Old Bill"?
What your asking asking for is dated, audio? This the age of social media and messaging, which are evidence in this day and age.

Yes I do and that why I won't rely on a documentary. I haven't said it's a police unit. The alleged victims should have contacted the police and not dispatches. Unless Dispatches have contacted the alleged victims but in any case the police is the place you start.

I
Never said you're caught in the act but surely you need strong forensic evidence to have a strong case.

The last part of your message doesn't relate to someone who sexually assaulted women. Having text messages with some apology about something doesn't imply at all an apology was given for sexual assault or rape.

If there was a girl who was actually assaulted or raped she should have gone to the Police (in the US). Being at a rape centre doesn't show anything in relation to Brand.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: Kurokage

The episode was called "The Prince and the pedo" if you want to educate yourself about real journalism

I'll ask again another way, what consequences came to Andrew
when he was found to be a pedophile rapist exposed by Dispatches?

And once again did I miss where he was arrested and why are you calling
this a "conspiracy theory" if Dispatches investigated? Kind a weird.

Andrew settled out of court with Virginia Giuffre and sadly nobody was able to prove Andrew commited crimes in the UK.
and as of yet nobody has gone to the police to accuse Andrew of wrong doing.

metro.co.uk...

I'm not calling this a conspiracy.
Brand and some on here claim he's being accused because he's now pushing conspiricy theories.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

The documentary isn't the substance of this debate.

I think brand might disagree with you on that score never mind the fact that the documentary is where the allegations against the man have been made.

Bastion said there is forensic evidence, DNA, and so on. If we assume there is, then why did it take 10-17 years to bring up a case??

Im not Bastion, but there is corroborating evidence as has been already pointed out to you which you would have seen if you had bothered to watch the documentary that the thread is about.

You said the victims wait and don't always come forward. This could be true in some cases. But up to this point is speculation.

Since i have never been raped i am indeed speculating, as to it being true victims don't always come forward right away.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have been sexually assaulted who would be able to explain their ordeal and why they choose to wait until they muster the courage to come forward better than i ever could.

No I don't think have failed anything as you say.

You have failed to watch the documentary that the thread is about and failed on numerous occasions where your understanding of our justice system is concerned, plain for all to see in black and white im afraid.

No there isn't any need to watch a documentary. My point of view isn't shaped by social media and documentaries (and this maybe a good documentary, I am not saying it's not). The problem is elsewhere and once you understand where the problem is then you will realise why someone cannot be convicted based on this type of evidence. If Brand was to be convicted then you could be next and every other male (XY just to be very specific because of the usual antiscientific talking about many genders and so on)

a reply to: AlienBorg

And is your justice system operating?

Sigh!

Police have asked witnesses to come forward and the victims to contact authorities if they wish to lodge a complaint.

I'm going to go with yes as that's a fact and it is working.

You need to wait over a decade to bring someone to justice who may have committed very serious crimes such as rape when you have the evidence and you could have done it a decade ago?

Again not me per say, but the CPS who decide to prosecute, and there is no statute of limitations where crimes like rape is concerned here in the UK which you either fail to comprehend or simply disregard.

Because logic says if you do have strong evidence you don't wait for 10-15 years. Especially when there is DNA and other forensic evidence.

Might wish to take that up with our CPS who actually know their arse for their elbo with regards when and why to prosecute crimes.

When you don't have this evidence then it seems you need to rely on testimonials and whatever else you rely on.

Yes, courts can rely on witness testimony, that's how they function, the same as your own.

Even if you have had something, after the passage of time it has probably gone.

Well, you don't know what they have, because you apparently have not watched the documentary, or heard the allegations being made, and the seemingly corroborating evidence that backs up the womans tales.

Logic say its prudent to watch the documentary at the very least before bumping your gums about people and places you fail to comprehend, so there is that.

Bus journey over now so i really am away for a while.

Hopefully, you will at least have bothered to come to your senses and give the documentary a view by the time i return, that way we can actually have a conversation as to what the thread is about.

a reply to: AlienBorg

It was Dispatchers that have aired the allegations against Brand raping and sexually assulting women, so how is this not also about the documentary that was shown?

It was Dispatches that contacted them after investigating not the other way around. Many rape victims don't want to go to the police, the stats are there to see.

Many rapes and sexual assults are commited by people who the victim knows and after said crimes sometimes the rapist will send messages to their victims to alleviate guilt or try to say "things got a little bit out of hand" just as Brand did with text proven to be from his fone on the documentary.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Seems you already know he’s guilty. Makes me wonder how you ever obtained a law degree.

If only 6% of rape cases result in conviction then the CPS and your industry buddies need to up their game.

Still, a lawyer who presumes guilt before trial isn’t one I’d want to hire.

No, I have consistently said, many times, let's follow due process and let's see.

Maybe you are confusing me thinking he's a knob head, not a criminal offence, with the issue of guilt of crimes?

Or you are just on a wind up.

No, you wouldn't want to hire me, not that you could. These days I prosecute.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

It was Dispatchers that have aired the allegations against Brand raping and sexually assulting women, so how is this not also about the documentary that was shown?

It was Dispatches that contacted them after investigating not the other way around. Many rape victims don't want to go to the police, the stats are there to see.

Many rapes and sexual assults are commited by people who the victim knows and after said crimes sometimes the rapist will send messages to their victims to alleviate guilt or try to say "things got a little bit out of hand" just as Brand did with text proven to be from his fone on the documentary.

So what if it was Despatches?
We're talking about the kind of evidence presented and it doesn't seem to be anything that can convict someone of sexual assaults or rape.

Yes, that's all good and fine but without very strong evidence you don't get a conviction.

a reply to: Kurokage

Andrew settled out of court with Virginia Giuffre and sadly nobody was able to prove Andrew commited crimes in the UK.
and as of yet nobody has gone to the police to accuse Andrew of wrong doing.

There you go, so you can see as well as I can the documentary on Andrew
was never ment to discover and accuse. Basically a reiteration I guess?

Didn't Andrew get sent to his room for a month or something like that?
Likely for being so careless and bringing embarrassment to the Crown.

So now you see my point how media is being selective as to who gets
investigated then ratted off? And "Media hit job" isn't one of the craziest
things I've Amber Heard?

a reply to: AlienBorg

So what if it was Despatches?
We're talking about the kind of evidence presented and it doesn't seem to be anything that can convict someone of sexual assaults or rape.

How can you say that or speculate on the matter or evidence which you initially claimed did not exist without watching the documentary where the allegations were levied and evidence presented?

Yes, that's all good and fine but without very strong evidence you don't get a conviction.

So now there is evidence you just don't think it's strong?

Watch the program AlienBorg and then you can tell us all as to your opinions.

Or not, its completely up to you.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

And is your justice system operating?

Sigh!

Police have asked witnesses to come forward and the victims to contact authorities if they wish to lodge a complaint.

I'm going to go with yes as that's a fact and it is working.

You need to wait over a decade to bring someone to justice who may have committed very serious crimes such as rape when you have the evidence and you could have done it a decade ago?

Again not me per say, but the CPS who decide to prosecute, and there is no statute of limitations where crimes like rape is concerned here in the UK which you either fail to comprehend or simply disregard.

Because logic says if you do have strong evidence you don't wait for 10-15 years. Especially when there is DNA and other forensic evidence.

Might wish to take that up with our CPS who actually know their arse for their elbo with regards when and why to prosecute crimes.

When you don't have this evidence then it seems you need to rely on testimonials and whatever else you rely on.

Yes, courts can rely on witness testimony, that's how they function, the same as your own.

Even if you have had something, after the passage of time it has probably gone.

Well, you don't know what they have, because you apparently have not watched the documentary, or heard the allegations being made, and the seemingly corroborating evidence that backs up the womans tales.

Logic say its prudent to watch the documentary at the very least before bumping your gums about people and places you fail to comprehend, so there is that.

Bus journey over now so i really am away for a while.

Hopefully, you will at least have bothered to come to your senses and give the documentary a view by the time i return, that way we can actually have a conversation as to what the thread is about.

Do you really think they have had strong evidence and waited 10-15 years.

Bastion said there is DNA and other forensic evidence but why wait for so long??

What I ve realised is how easily you can get convicted online and on social media in our days.

I don't need to watch the documentary to 'come to my senses' as you said. I have good critical ability and unless strong evidence is presented there cannot be any conviction.