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

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

Extracted from my post above

Whats that now?

Have been watching the documentary and most of what is presented are personal accounts of women who have had sex with him but they were consenting adults. The first one said she was raped btw (that happened in the US). There is a lot of discussion about what a bad boy he was and a womaniser and a drug addict.

That was quick its 1 hour 45 mins long.

Is the little girl "The Child" not just 16 when the brand forced his tallywacker in her face, where she proceded to have to punch him off her?

Coz that's rape right there in any sane man's mind, or at the very least sexual assault.

And the fact it doesn't even matter as to what age the poor girl happens to be.

If they take him to court they will need much more than the above accounts.

He's not even been charged yet, You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.

And again i don't think you are qualified to make that assessment given your apparent very limited understanding of our legal system with reference to the fact that you can't seem to comprehend we do not have a statute of limitations for a start or what may constitute actual evidence.

They have tried to assassinate his character in the documentary. I don't think it worked. He has many fans around.

Like yourself for instance?

If there is evidence they need to present it in a court of law. It seems most are accounts of consenting adults who had sex with him.

Not what the people in the documentary said or who made the allegations.

I am of the view that only a court of law can decide and not the media and potentially misleading documentaries.

Ultimately i think we agree there again its a court of law he has to worry about, and a court of law where if charged his innocence or guilt will be determined.

He has bve

"bve"

Does he aye?

Probably get cream from the GP for that.

Whats "bve" when it's at home?

No I am not one of his fans btw but I am not one who will find him guilty based on accounts of alleged incidents that happened 10-15 years and for which there is very little or no evidence.

I think I have a much better understanding of your legal system in comparison to the online 'judges and prosecutors' who have already decided he is guilty.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

You ve got to say this to the people who have already found him guilty in the absence of any evidence and are speculating and speculating and speculating. I hold a much more rational position where you need a jury and jurors to decide (if there are any charges brought up against him)

Asmod... Alienborg, this is a website purely for people to post their opinions about subjects, thats what we're all doing on here. Nobody is asking for Brands head or claiming he's definitely guilty of the crimes he's been accused of from what I've seen on here so far.

The wait and see is what it should happen.

If it was just wait and see then ATS would close down pretty quickly as would twitter and the like as nobody would be allowed to post an opinion.

I think you have already made up your mind and have found him guilty as charged in the media.

I rather take a much more conservative and rational view which isn't based on the alleged crimes claimed by some women and verified all over the web

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

You ve got to say this to the people who have already found him guilty in the absence of any evidence and are speculating and speculating and speculating. I hold a much more rational position where you need a jury and jurors to decide (if there are any charges brought up against him)

Asmod... Alienborg, this is a website purely for people to post their opinions about subjects, thats what we're all doing on here. Nobody is asking for Brands head or claiming he's definitely guilty of the crimes he's been accused of from what I've seen on here so far.

The wait and see is what it should happen.

If it was just wait and see then ATS would close down pretty quickly as would twitter and the like as nobody would be allowed to post an opinion.

I think you have already made up your mind and have found him guilty as charged in the media.

I rather take a much more conservative and rational view which isn't based on the alleged crimes claimed by some women and verified all over the web

So do you care to post my comments where I've stated he's guilty or are you just going to keep repeating the same thing over and over? I haven't stated he's guilty and nor would I. Do I like the guy? No, not really. he always seemed a little creepy and full of himself, does that make him a rapist? I don't think so. The documentary does but him in a bad a light in my opinion but again that doesn't make him guilty.

Just out of curiosity do you play much D&D? My brother plays, I like the story of Asmodeus, Asmodeus is a unique and powerful archdevil and ultimate ruler of the Nine Hells, realm of devils. He rules from Nessus, the deepest layer.

a reply to: AlienBorg

No I am not one of his fans btw but I am not one who will find him guilty based on accounts of alleged incidents that happened 10-15 years and for which there is very little or no evidence.

Are you sure?

Because Brands into all that daft-arsed 5G conspiracy nonsense and anti-vax mumbo-jumbo.

I would have thought the fellow to be right up your street, think he's even a David Icke subscriber type thingamabob.

I thought you liked all that stuff and the people who entertain such thoughts, maybe I'm confusing you with someone else?

Anyhoo i suppose it is not about you or me, or who or what we support, but about the allegations made against him by multiple different women.

Also, its been explained to you that there is no statute of limitations here in the UK where serious sexual offenses are concerned.

And that people have been found to be guilty of rape decades after they have committed the depraved act of evil.

Why you choose to keep on harping on about the fact that the allegations are in the past is beyond me.

A beast is a beast there is no shelf life or statute of limitations where wrong'yins are concerned, nor should there be.

I think I have a much better understanding of your legal system in comparison to the online 'judges and prosecutors' who have already decided he is guilty.

And your reasoning behind such logic would be.................""you think"".

You see you seem to get a hell of a lot of things wrong or fail to understand where even the likes of mere evidence is concerned or again that there is no statute of limitations here in the UK.

And that's just the top two that spring to mind.

End of the day Brand has not been charged with anything yet, or even questioned by Police, who are appealing for witnesses and victims to come forward, still only Monday though.

A lot a cards probably still to fall on the table where these allegations are concerned.

a reply to: angelchemuel

Thanks for noticing that they had not named him and correcting.

a reply to: AlienBorg

who will find him guilty based on accounts of alleged incidents that happened 10-15 years and for which there is very little or no evidence.

Harvey Weinstein probably thought the same.

a reply to: AlienBorg

"I think I have a much better understanding of your legal system in comparison to the online 'judges and prosecutors' who have already decided he is guilty."

You do?

Even though you have no clue about limitation, evidence, due process or pretty much anything about our laws?

You have been repeatedly told that most on here will wait for evidence and due process.

Who has already decided he is guilty?

Hope you don't include me in that sweeping generalisation.

By the way, I am a lawyer and real life prosecutor.

Yet you have a better understanding of our legal system?

😂

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Itisnowagain

sexual assault in relation to the media reporting of allegations against Russell Brand

The police do have to be careful how they word any press release so as not to prejudice any case.

They also need protect themselves. Naming someone for no more than allegations made against them is not due process and is in contradiction to 'innocent until proven guilty' ie, the legal principle of presumption of innocence.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

No I am not one of his fans btw but I am not one who will find him guilty based on accounts of alleged incidents that happened 10-15 years and for which there is very little or no evidence.

Are you sure?

Because Brands into all that daft-arsed 5G conspiracy nonsense and anti-vax mumbo-jumbo.

I would have thought the fellow to be right up your street, think he's even a David Icke subscriber type thingamabob.

I thought you liked all that stuff and the people who entertain such thoughts, maybe I'm confusing you with someone else?

Anyhoo i suppose it is not about you or me, or who or what we support, but about the allegations made against him by multiple different women.

Also, its been explained to you that there is no statute of limitations here in the UK where serious sexual offenses are concerned.

And that people have been found to be guilty of rape decades after they have committed the depraved act of evil.

Why you choose to keep on harping on about the fact that the allegations are in the past is beyond me.

A beast is a beast there is no shelf life or statute of limitations where wrong'yins are concerned, nor should there be.

I think I have a much better understanding of your legal system in comparison to the online 'judges and prosecutors' who have already decided he is guilty.

And your reasoning behind such logic would be.................""you think"".

You see you seem to get a hell of a lot of things wrong or fail to understand where even the likes of mere evidence is concerned or again that there is no statute of limitations here in the UK.

And that's just the top two that spring to mind.

End of the day Brand has not been charged with anything yet, or even questioned by Police, who are appealing for witnesses and victims to come forward, still only Monday though.

A lot a cards probably still to fall on the table where these allegations are concerned.

Very positive!

If you take a look around you will see many others who have doubts about this story and the subsequent condemnation online and in the media. I am sure they're not this followers either.

I like very much you play the conspiracy card but that doesn't work I am afraid.

The documentary is based on accounts about incidents that happened 10-15 years ago (allegedly) Most of what is described is his behaviour from a number of consenting adults in most cases. There are some serious allegations too but there had to be evidence and not just accounts.

I don't see why thy are picking on poor Russell. He's as innocent as Bill Cosby!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

"I think I have a much better understanding of your legal system in comparison to the online 'judges and prosecutors' who have already decided he is guilty."

You do?

Even though you have no clue about limitation, evidence, due process or pretty much anything about our laws?

You have been repeatedly told that most on here will wait for evidence and due process.

Who has already decided he is guilty?

Hope you don't include me in that sweeping generalisation.

By the way, I am a lawyer and real life prosecutor.

Yet you have a better understanding of our legal system?

😂

Most here have decided he is guilty in the absence of evidence hence they have no understanding of the legal system generally speaking.

If you're a lawyer you should discipline those who have come to the conclusions he is guilty of rape and sexual assault based on a documentary.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Who are all these others you claim to have decided are saying he's guilty? I've gone over a fair few pages and see no such thing. Paranoia can be a crippling problem, don't you think?

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

You ve got to say this to the people who have already found him guilty in the absence of any evidence and are speculating and speculating and speculating. I hold a much more rational position where you need a jury and jurors to decide (if there are any charges brought up against him)

Asmod... Alienborg, this is a website purely for people to post their opinions about subjects, thats what we're all doing on here. Nobody is asking for Brands head or claiming he's definitely guilty of the crimes he's been accused of from what I've seen on here so far.

The wait and see is what it should happen.

If it was just wait and see then ATS would close down pretty quickly as would twitter and the like as nobody would be allowed to post an opinion.

I think you have already made up your mind and have found him guilty as charged in the media.

I rather take a much more conservative and rational view which isn't based on the alleged crimes claimed by some women and verified all over the web

So do you care to post my comments where I've stated he's guilty or are you just going to keep repeating the same thing over and over? I haven't stated he's guilty and nor would I. Do I like the guy? No, not really. he always seemed a little creepy and full of himself, does that make him a rapist? I don't think so. The documentary does but him in a bad a light in my opinion but again that doesn't make him guilty.

Just out of curiosity do you play much D&D? My brother plays, I like the story of Asmodeus, Asmodeus is a unique and powerful archdevil and ultimate ruler of the Nine Hells, realm of devils. He rules from Nessus, the deepest layer.

Btw since you spoke about the archdevil and the spirit of darkness...

If anyone of you have watched the documentary in full, around 3/4 on the way there is testimony by one of his friends who said she was consenting but later at another time she said no and as she looked at Russell Brand he seemed to have had dark eyes or black eyes ( can't remember exactly). He was possessed according to her....

I hope they play this part of the interview if it goes to the court.

I wonder how much of this are exaggerations or maybe half truths and quarter truths and some complete lies. But good insinuated he was possessed by the devil...

Strange that the few "it couldn't possibly be a media conspiracy" posters here also happen to make some very pro-Vax posts!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

Who are all these others you claim to have decided are saying he's guilty? I've gone over a fair pages and see no such thing. Paranoia can be a grippling problem, don't you think?

You probably have some issues but it doesn't matter.

All you need to know is that you can't condemn someone online or make conclusions based on the absence of evidence.

You have made your mind I assume.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Very positive!

If you say so.

If you take a look around you will see many others who have doubts about this story and the subsequent condemnation online and in the media. I am sure they're not this followers either.

You're allowed to have doubts, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Dont mean its looking good for Brand, or that you understand our legal system which i think you simply just don't like.

I like very much you play the conspiracy card but that doesn't work I am afraid.

Smashing but its not Pokemon or gin rummy but about facts and allegations being made against Brand.

The documentary is based on accounts about incidents that happened 10-15 years ago (allegedly) Most of what is described is his behaviour from a number of consenting adults in most cases. There are some serious allegations too but there had to be evidence and not just accounts.

You mean the 1 hour 45-minute Dispatches interview you ""allegedly"" watched.

And again is that in your expert ""legal"" opinion?

originally posted by: Kurokage
this is a website purely for people to post their opinions about subjects, thats what we're all doing on here. Nobody is asking for Brands head or claiming he's definitely guilty of the crimes he's been accused of from what I've seen on here so far.

For some of us, facts really are sacred. The opinion stuff is mainly drivel.

a reply to: AlienBorg

You probably have some comprehension issues but it doesn't matter.

All you need to know is that you can't condemn someone online or make conclusions based on the absence of evidenc

Would you be insulting me perhaps, you know thats a banable offence?
I've said before that an opinion on website like this is just that, my opinion and I haven't once claimed Brand is guilty. It seems your defending him before any charges have been made, wierd that?

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

Very positive!

If you say so.

If you take a look around you will see many others who have doubts about this story and the subsequent condemnation online and in the media. I am sure they're not this followers either.

You're allowed to have doubts, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Dont mean its looking good for Brand, or that you understand our legal system which i think you simply just don't like.

I like very much you play the conspiracy card but that doesn't work I am afraid.

Smashing put its not Pokemon or gin rummy but about facts and allegations being made against Brand.

The documentary is based on accounts about incidents that happened 10-15 years ago (allegedly) Most of what is described is his behaviour from a number of consenting adults in most cases. There are some serious allegations too but there had to be evidence and not just accounts.

Again is that in your expert ""legal"" opinion again?

I say what I said earlier

The documentary is based on accounts about incidents that happened 10-15 years ago (allegedly) Most of what is described is his behaviour from a number of consenting adults in most cases. There are some serious allegations too but there had to be evidence and not just accounts.

There has been a description 3/4 in the documentary where Russell Brand is described as having dark eyes. So he is possessed as it was said or was insinuated...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

You probably have some comprehension issues but it doesn't matter.

All you need to know is that you can't condemn someone online or make conclusions based on the absence of evidenc

Would you be insulting me perhaps, you know thats a banable offence?
I've said before that an opinion on website like this is just that, my opinion and I haven't once claimed Brand is guilty. It seems your defending him before any charges have been made, wierd that?

Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning...

Your posting says otherwise btw.