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

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.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Ease up, the Police have not even started an investigation yet so this is all there is at this stage.

We'll just have to wait.

a reply to: AlienBorg

If he faces trial the evidence is not going to be a TV documentary, mate.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: DBCowboy

He's got form, mate. He got fired previously for dressing up as Bin Laden the day after 9/11 and fired by the BBC for his phone call "prank " on the actor Andrew Sachs (Manuel off of Fawlty Towers) leaving disgusting messages about how he shagged his granddaughter. Goes way back, as does other stuff.

In my book he's a git (not an offence as such but he sure is an offensive prick) but as for these latest allegations, let's see how due process works out

He's an ex crackhead and heroin addict and I don't think he deserves your support or sympathy.

He may be a complete prat, but it still doesn't change the fact that they go after people who don't obey the message.

Imagine the support a defense he'd have if he did.

a reply to: AlienBorg

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

I'm not a rape victim or the CPS AlienBorg.

Plenty of people have been convicted of rape decades down the line down to evidence and/or witness testimonies presented against them via victims coming forward, and that's a fact.

But you would know that if you knew anything about our legal system of laws.

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

Again some of the allegations have been around for quite a while, same with the number of alleged victims, as to why now, well the documentary that you failed to watch has been in production for over a year, so it's not now really, when this all began to take shape.

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

Well, he is innocent until proven guilty, social media don't put you in jail, thats the police and authorities' job if you merit such action.

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.

And just like the last fellow, who refused to watch the documentary, where the allegations were made, and the evidence presented, that tells us everything we need to know.

I did not say you have good critical ability.

I did however say you don't know your arse from your elbow.

Because you now appear to be refusing to watch the documentary pertaining to the allegations being made, which once again is what the thread is about.

Especially since earlier on you were suggesting you may watch it.

One has to ponder why that is?

Could it be because you don't like or wish to swallow what you may find out regarding the allegations being made against Brand?

a reply to: AlienBorg

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.

So you decided to watch the docoumentary then, and have seen the phone messages for yourself?

a reply to: Saloon

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?

I think it may be you who hasn't understood here, Giuffre didn't go to the police about Andrew she sued instead, with Andrew settling out of court in the U.S.
She should of given any evidence to the police in my opinion instead of going after money.
So far no evidence has come to light about crimes being commited here in the UK. I think Andrew was commiting his evil acts when abroad with Epstein.

Andrew got kicked out of his home by Charles.

So now you see my point how media is being selective as to who gets
investigated then ratted off

I don't see your point here, as both were investigated by dispaches for supposed crimes commited? it's upto authorties to carry out any further investigations if a complaint is made.

a reply to: DBCowboy

He may be a complete prat, but it still doesn't change the fact that they go after people who don't obey the message.

Hey DB, stolen any noobies stuff lately?? Hope you're doing well.

The defence of "cause I prove conspricies are real they're after me" shouldn't be used to cover alleged crimes if proven correct.

I wonder what this will distract us from?

Is anything going on they dont want us to focus on?

a reply to: coop039

The new energy bill going through parliament in the uk?

a reply to: coop039

I wonder what this will distract us from?

Is anything going on they dont want us to focus on?

How long is a piece of string?

There is always something going on where they try and get you to look the other way.

But in this instance, the Dispatches documentary that aired last night was years in the making, and the allegations date back to 2006.

So to think they just decided to chuck it together and fling it out there to distract us from god knows what is logically a tad wonky by my guesstimation.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: andy06shake

Are the police investigating Russell Brand now?

The Met confirmed today that they have received allegations

a reply to: andy06shake

2003, apparently now.

www.bbc.co.uk...


Oh, it's a new allegation.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Edited so as to not cause offense.

Based:

A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.

I just caught this too

Guar dian link to police being informed

Russell Brand: Met police receive report of alleged sexual assault in relation to claims
Force has ‘received a report of a sexual assault which was alleged to have taken place in Soho in central London in 2003’

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Cheers for the info carpy2.

Well, that did not take long.

www.thejournal.ie...#:~:text=about%20Russell%20Brand.-,The%2048%2Dyear%2Dold%20comedian%20and%20actor%2 0has%20been%20accused,%2C%20central%20London%2C%20in%202003.

I guess the ball is a rolling.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

If he faces trial the evidence is not going to be a TV documentary, mate.

It's better if you advise the others here who believe they have all the evidence in the world by relying entirely on a documentary. And this had been their talking point so far. Mine has been very different and here it is.

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 at this point.

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.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The 48-year-old comedian and actor has been accused of rape, assault and emotional abuse between 2006 and 2013, when he was at the height of his fame working for the BBC, Channel 4 and starring in Hollywood films. The Met said they have now received an allegation of sexual assault in Soho, central London, in 2003.29 mins ago

When I asked they hadn't so it's just in.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

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

I'm not a rape victim or the CPS AlienBorg.

Plenty of people have been convicted of rape decades down the line down to evidence and/or witness testimonies presented against them via victims coming forward, and that's a fact.

But you would know that if you knew anything about our legal system of laws.

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

Again some of the allegations have been around for quite a while, same with the number of alleged victims, as to why now, well the documentary that you failed to watch has been in production for over a year, so it's not now really, when this all began to take shape.

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

Well, he is innocent until proven guilty, social media don't put you in jail, thats the police and authorities' job if you merit such action.

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.

And just like the last fellow, who refused to watch the documentary, where the allegations were made, and the evidence presented, that tells us everything we need to know.

I did not say you have good critical ability.

I did however say you don't know your arse from your elbow.

Because you now appear to be refusing to watch the documentary pertaining to the allegations being made, which once again is what the thread is about.

Especially since earlier on you were suggesting you may watch it.

One has to ponder why that is?

Could it be because you don't like or wish to swallow what you may find out regarding the allegations being made against Brand?

It's scary to even think someone can be convicted only on the basis of testimonials.

Either there is something wrong with the defense given by the defense team or there is something wrong with the system or both.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

If he faces trial the evidence is not going to be a TV documentary, mate.

It's better if you advise the others here who believe they have all the evidence in the world by relying entirely on a documentary. And this had been their talking point so far. Mine has been very different and here it is.

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 at this point.

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.

Repeating the same denials is getting a little boring. Remeber what Charles Tremper said about denial.
There's pleny of evidence, it's now upto the police to check into it.