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

a reply to: AlienBorg

Here we go again. I have repeatedly said let's follow due process, it's early days, and yes, innocent til proven guilty.

So, Mr Security Guard, stop putting words in my mouth and totally misrepresenting my opinions?

Security Guard? Hmmmm..ever had to give evidence against perps?

a reply to: quintessentone

Sure does smell, not me though.

a reply to: AlienBorg

It's definitely you who's confused here.

You keep assuming I've made up my mind on Brands guilt or innocence before a trail has even began.

“Assumptions are unopened windows that foolish birds fly into, and their broken bodies are evidence gathered too late.”

originally posted by: Daughter2
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.

Never heard of "perverting the course of justice?"

Or much else of relevance?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure does smell, not me though.

You seem to throw around that 'due process' term when it suits you.

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

Well, we all have Demons?

Apparently.

a reply to: quintessentone

Pretty much consistently, actually?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Pretty much consistently, actually?

And now 'perverting the course of justice', again when it suits you.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Equally important there should be no media trials.
Going by the principle of innocence until proven guilty is the right thing to do.

Do you expect a complete media black out for a public figure on trial, because you agree with him?

Sounds familiar, too bad he hasn't the right connections.

a reply to: quintessentone

First time I have mentioned that. In reply to another poster?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

First time I have mentioned that. In reply to another poster?

Well, eyes are on you now.

a reply to: quintessentone

Are they?

Why do you want to make me the subject of this thread?

a reply to: Terpene

No mention of a defamation claim?

No super injunction?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: AlienBorg

It's definitely you who's confused here.

You keep assuming I've made up my mind on Brands guilt or innocence before a trail has even began.

“Assumptions are unopened windows that foolish birds fly into, and their broken bodies are evidence gathered too late.”

It seems you have already made your mind just as Andy did yesterday when he said that his victims have spoken out, so he has believes these women have been sexually assaulted and he is guilty as charged in the media.

You seem to have taken the same route without considering the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise and you started talking about forensic evidence. I want really to see what kind of physical evidence someone has from an alleged incident 20 years ago.

For historical matters the Police usually dismiss all cases.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

Equally important there should be no media trials.
Going by the principle of innocence until proven guilty is the right thing to do.

Do you expect a complete media black out for a public figure on trial, because you agree with him?

Sounds familiar, too bad he hasn't the right connections.

I am not getting you.

A public figure doesn't get media trials.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

Well, we all have Demons?

Apparently.

Especially the woman who allegedly saw Brand having dark eyes after she said no to him. Insinuating he was possessed...

Great talk...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AlienBorg

Here we go again. I have repeatedly said let's follow due process, it's early days, and yes, innocent til proven guilty.

So, Mr Security Guard, stop putting words in my mouth and totally misrepresenting my opinions?

Security Guard? Hmmmm..ever had to give evidence against perps?

Security is indeed what I do.
But I understand you're innocent until proven guilty and you can't have media trials and be condemned before even having a proper trial.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: quintessentone

Are they?

Why do you want to make me the subject of this thread?

I was responding to AlienBorg about an observation I made about you is all. Just swipe on by and this will go away for the time being.

a reply to: AlienBorg

What's a media trial?

media speculating on the ongoing trial of a public media figure?

They'll either celebrate or go silent, depending on the verdict.

a reply to: AlienBorg

They do?

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...

Ever hear of Stephen Lawrence, etc?

I assume you can back up your claim?