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

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlienBorg

The account one gave about black or dark eyes insinuates he was possessed. It doesn't work well for the prosecution.

Again cheers for the professional legal opinion.

Watching the documentary hadn't changed my opinion that there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence other than accounts that may or many not correct and accurate.

It was no evidence to begin with, and now its "doesn't seem to be any strong evidence"?

Mmmmmkay.

You would crumble in court methinks under any sort of cross-examination.

You said 'his victims' so you have decided he is guilty. Proves my point btw

Please don't try and put words into other people's mouths, its bad manners.

Technically the accusations levied against Brand in the documentary by 5 different women suggest them to be his victims.

How can he be guilty if he's not even been charged or questioned AlienBorg?

Is that your professional legal opinion at play once more?

The account one of the women gave was about black or dark eyes insinuating he was possessed. It doesn't work well for the prosecution. But you thought I made the claim...

You said his victims so you think he is guilty.

You have been caught btw

a reply to: AlienBorg

And you think he is not guilty.

M' unlearned friend?

Bit tired of you putting words into other folks mouths, Asmo... apologies, fat fingers, I mean Alienborg.

Anyone from the UK who has seen this guy over the last 20 years knows damn well he’s probably guilty. He was a heroin and crack addict for years, and had to have treatment for sex addiction.

When will you people learn that just because you agree with someone’s views, it doesn’t mean you religiously defend them against all odds.

Several women who were too young and scared at the time finally feel empowered to speak up.

Did you people defend jimmy savile too because his victims didn’t speak up soon enough?

The amount of incels on here immediately assuming the women are lying in EVERY one of of these situations is just exasperating.

I say again: you can agree with someone’s views and still think they may be guilty of other unrelated crimes. Your inability to separate the two are why society is so divided. The hard-left do it too.

originally posted by: fencesitter85

The amount of incels on here immediately assuming the women are lying in EVERY one of of these situations is just exasperating.

Why are you calling posters incels?

Wtf?

a reply to: AlienBorg

The account one of the women gave was about black or dark eyes insinuating he was possessed. It doesn't work well for the prosecution. But you thought I made the claim...

That would depend on what they were trying to prove, that the guy has a psychotic evil look come over him before he rapes a woman, or that he was possessed.

See they are not the same thing by all accounts.

You said his victims so you think he is guilty.

Again with the attempts at deflection and attempting to put words in other people's mouths.

It dont work.

And if you had any understanding of our legal system you would know here in in the UK people are innocent until proven guilty and that people who have not been charged or questioned can't be considered guilty.

You have been caught btw

Again that's just you trying to defect and shift blame.

Stay on topic it is not really about you or me.

And Brand is sure as s@it not possessed.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Indeed. Let's say, "misogynists" instead?

That better?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Indeed. Let's say, "misogynists" instead?

That better?

Why call any poster names?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Not names, accurate descriptions?

originally posted by: andy06shake
And Brand is sure as s@it not possessed.

We don't know that he is or he isn't. Possessed people can act normal much of the time. It would take an official exorcist from the church to make the determination that he's possessed or not. Not us.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I think it's more about being high on crack or heroin?

He's admitted to both?

a reply to: FlyersFan

We don't know that he is or he isn't.

Doctors and psychiatrists would know.

I'm inclined to suspect he's not possessed and that accounts of his eyes alleged by some of his victims going all black down to the phycological trauma of being raped as opposed to the devils inside.

The black eye stuff is all Hollywood is it not?

Where does it say that possessed people's eyes go all black?

Maybe it does for a know.

It would take an official exorcist from the church to make the determination that he's possessed or not. Not us.

I don't think our justice system and crown courts would require an official exorcist from the church of St Peter, them not being that big on the likes of Vatican rule or medaling from afar if you know what i mean.

Plus think about it how many rapist do you assume have tried to play the im possessed defense?

My bet is rather a few as to the numbers that actually were, I'm apt to ponder to be rather small.

Now drugs on the other hand like other posters suggest do indeed make you pupils somewhat dilate.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Some on other threads who are on here have also defended the likes of Lucy Letby.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Some on other threads who are on here have also defended the likes of Lucy Letby.

This again??

You have been warned by a mod already on this very thread about this.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

And you think he is not guilty.

M' unlearned friend?

Bit tired of you putting words into other folks mouths, Asmo... apologies, fat fingers, I mean Alienborg.

Nope see my posts.
Based on the online condemnation I see no strong evidence other than media trials. Nobody can convict a person on these accounts only.

And what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

When?

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Anyone from the UK who has seen this guy over the last 20 years knows damn well he’s probably guilty. He was a heroin and crack addict for years, and had to have treatment for sex addiction.

When will you people learn that just because you agree with someone’s views, it doesn’t mean you religiously defend them against all odds.

Several women who were too young and scared at the time finally feel empowered to speak up.

Did you people defend jimmy savile too because his victims didn’t speak up soon enough?

The amount of incels on here immediately assuming the women are lying in EVERY one of of these situations is just exasperating.

I say again: you can agree with someone’s views and still think they may be guilty of other unrelated crimes. Your inability to separate the two are why society is so divided. The hard-left do it too.

.based on his history someone can come to the conclusion he was very promiscuous and very desired especially by young women.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Page 16

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!!!!!!

a reply to: AlienBorg

Again it's not online where innocence or guilt is determined anywhere apart from inside your own head.

Those are just people expressing opinions, misguided or otherwise.

Courts convict people based on witness accounts and evidence, Goggle, not so much.

Nothing happened to "innocent until proven guilty"but that doesn't change the allegations of the women who have chosen to bravely tell their tales.

Nor will it change what is possibly about to unfold over the coming days or weeks much by my guess which is apt to be lots.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Anyone from the UK who has seen this guy over the last 20 years knows damn well he’s probably guilty. He was a heroin and crack addict for years, and had to have treatment for sex addiction.

When will you people learn that just because you agree with someone’s views, it doesn’t mean you religiously defend them against all odds.

Several women who were too young and scared at the time finally feel empowered to speak up.

Did you people defend jimmy savile too because his victims didn’t speak up soon enough?

The amount of incels on here immediately assuming the women are lying in EVERY one of of these situations is just exasperating.

I say again: you can agree with someone’s views and still think they may be guilty of other unrelated crimes. Your inability to separate the two are why society is so divided. The hard-left do it too.

.based on his history someone can come to the conclusion he was very promiscuous and very desired especially by young women.

The two matters are not mutually exclusive. This is the kind of logic people use to defend abusers of women.

"lots of women wanted to have sex with him so why would he force himself on anyone?"

Because people like that can think they're infallible. Especially while addicted to class A drugs.

Funny how anti Hunter Biden everyone is when drugs are the topic, but not with this clown.

He's innocent unless and until proven otherwise, but the amount of people immediately refusing to accept that these women could be telling the truth is sickening.