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

a reply to: UpThenDown

"courts are broken".

They certainly are.

It's the Court admin system that's broken.

Tens of emails asking if a date has yet been fixed for a Mags Court prosecution first hearing (adjourned due to Court error) - unanswered.

Then get a call from usher asking why I'm not there for a hearing that morning "Because you didn't tell me about it"?

So, attended via video link at 2pm. And waited and waited.

4:50 pm told not going to get on today.

Adjourned.

And gave me wrong date for adjourned hearing.

So two days before the hearing date they gave me, call from Usher: "Hello. Why aren't you here this morning?".

Rinse and repeat.


Gaaaah!

Here is the sad truth - can someone after years of investigating get four people to lie?
Yes, they can!
Would people lie for "their" candidate - yes they would.

At least 10 percent of the people have a personality disorder that would make them enjoy lying and harming an innocent person. That's not something I'm making up. So yeah, 90% of women would never lie but if you have 1000s to interview, you are going to get a few.

Does that 10% harm the honest 90% - yes they do. People have decided to pretend this 10% do not exist to protect the 90%.

In reality it doesn't protect the 90%. It just cast doubt on everyone making claims.

This media coverage is sick - there is even one lady NADINE DORRIES (if you are calling her that) going after his pregnant wife for not leaving him.

a reply to: Daughter2

Sad, yes. Very sad.

Can you even be bothered to post a link for that last bit?

Ta in advance.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Grenade

So, let's just ignore his alleged victims, eh?

It's a risk/benefit analysis-

What are the benefits of broadcasting allegations before police reports.

1. Does it help the "alleged victim" to have pretrial publicity - I would think it would NOT. Most want privacy and would not welcome personal details exposed to the public.
2. Does it put pressure on the police to investigate - yes
3. Does it encourage others to come forward - yes

What are the risks:
1. You destroy an innocent's person's life - you can never get over allegations
2. You take away their career
3. They go through emotional torture
4. Their family is targeted
5. You encourage people to make future false claims

On one had you have substantial irreversible risks. On the other, you have risks that could be minimized. You could wait to see if the police do a proper investigation. If an investigation is not done properly you can expose that and you could encourage people to come forward with specifically naming individuals.

a reply to: Daughter2

Well, let's just cancel investigative journalism?

You'd never have had Nixon and Watergate exposed.

Way to go!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

By way of balance:

"Those who have already found him not guilty because of the latest media trial."

See?

That's not a balanced argument as the presumption of innocence exists until one is proven guilty. Finding someone guilty before he is even getting a trial is mob justice.

People have the right to defend the above principle of being innocent until proven guilty.

Especially in the light of the media trials and public court opinions.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Well, yes.

Mind you, it's your good self that won't wait for due process and engages in trial by social media etc .

Balanced argument?

LOL!!!!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Here is the video :

Do you know the name of the left wing activist who presumes Brand is guilty until proven innocent. I mean the woman in the middle.

The definition of idiocy! I suppose you watched the video and have listened to what she was saying but being hammered by the other two women.

Wait a moment...!! I know her from other videos online!! She usually comes to Piers Morgan to defend the gender ideology and the trans lobby...

Jackpot!!!

a reply to: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

Well, yes.

Mind you, it's your good self that won't wait for due process and engages in trial by social media etc .

Balanced argument?

LOL!!!!

But what did I say?!

Innocent until proven guilty and very much against the media trials. I think that's a very reasonable position.

But Andy let's say and others online have spoken about his victims and hence accepting he is guilty before he is even charged and convicted.

Can I ask you, do you still have your license?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

There's a difference between investigating and trying to come up with dirt on an individual.

For things like this that have a substantial impact on people's lives - then I say wait until they had a chance to go over the evidence.

There was no harm in waiting. Let the police investigate - Even by their allegations he hadn't done anything for 10 years, so it's not like immediate harm was being done.

If you find the police didn't do their job - then you have a case - just like Cosby and Weinstein. But this wasn't the case of the police not doing their job.

If someone says you took papers from an office - you can get your life back if you are proven innocent.

Accuse someone of abuse, their life immediately stops and it NEVER returns to normal.

a reply to: AlienBorg

What's Andy got to do with me?

What licence?

Driver's licence?

Yes.

Practicing Certificate?

Yes.

Care to post your own qualifications?

a reply to: Daughter2

You do understand that the journalists and the media and whoever made this documentary have taken enormous risks? What if they can't prove what they're saying?

It would have been much better to have been a quite investigation rather than this.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Finding someone guilty before he is even getting a trial is mob justice.

You talk like people on here are lighting their torches and getting out their pitchforks!?
I said previously, you seem to be here not as someone wondering how this will all play out (as most of us are) but as a defender of Brand.
Will you be releasing a "leave Brand alone" video I wonder?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

What's Andy got to do with me?

What licence?

Driver's licence?

Yes.

Practicing Certificate?

Yes.

Care to post your own qualifications?

I don't have qualifications I am a security guard. But because you have qualifications and you said you're a lawyer but at the same time you don't seem to stick to the main ethical principles like innocent until proven guilty.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Are you kidding? Even if there was video evidence of them making it all up the worst thing is their company would have to pay. They might and I mean might face charges but those would eventually be dropped or they would just receive a slap on the wrist.

Until false allegations carry serious prison terms nothing will ever change.

Brand was very keen to use media, both social and MSM, during his rise to 'stardom'.
He was also pretty prone to use it to shame and embarrass some of his 'conquests' and to publicise some of his 'pranks' and other publicity events.

Sure, trial by media isn't desirable, but its the world we live in and has been fostered by twats like Brand who has used and manipulated the same medium for his own purposes etc.
The man is the epitome of a media whore.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Like I've said previously, I believe in innocent until proven guilty.....but he is a victim of his own making and doing.

I don't know if his accusers are making this up, exaggerating or if they are being honest.
But one things certain; judging by the reaction this story has generated on here is it any wonder that many female victims of sex crimes are incredibly reluctant to come forward?

Oh, and another thing that is certain; Brand will always be a bellend of epic proportions.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

Finding someone guilty before he is even getting a trial is mob justice.

You talk like people on here are lighting their torches and getting out their pitchforks!?
I said previously, you seem to be here not as someone wondering how this will all play out (as most of us are) but as a defender of Brand.
Will you be releasing a "leave Brand alone" video I wonder?

Nah you're confused. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So myself and others here are arguing about this and haven't made up our minds. Equally important there should be no media trials.

Going by the principle of innocence until proven guilty is the right thing to do. And I am on the right side.

You for example and Andy have made up your minds. Andy said about his victims so he believes he is guilty already and you believe the same thing.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Can I ask you, do you still have your license?

I remember a banned member being on here, asking silly questions about peoples qualifications?
What was his name???


Anywho...

www.standard.co.uk...

BBC Director-General Tim Davie has ordered a review into Russell Brand’s career at the corporation in light of the rape and sexual assault allegations made against him.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

What's Andy got to do with me?

What licence?

Driver's licence?

Yes.

Practicing Certificate?

Yes.

Care to post your own qualifications?

I don't have qualifications I am a security guard. But because you have qualifications and you said you're a lawyer but at the same time you don't seem to stick to the main ethical principles like innocent until proven guilty.

I noticed that too...something smells bad here.