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

a reply to: andy06shake

The reason statute of limitations exists is because the more time that goes by the more difficult it becomes to defend one's self from allegations.

With time people die memories fade and tacrs are often changed. Happening 20 years ago it unlikely he could form an adequate defense.

Now in the UK the govt has 6 months to bring up criminal charges. If this was tried in California they give you 10 years to report rape. Anything beyond that they cannot prosecute.

a reply to: andy06shake

Just because something happened years ago doesn't mean you cannot be held to account Saloon.

Why am I being told this I know.

Surely you are not suggesting that if Brand is found to be guilty of what he's being accused of it should be ignored because it happened a couple of decades in the past?

No I'm not and I don't even know where you're getting that.

Dont matter if the fellow is saying things you wish to hear or agree with, or if you even share the same political ideologies, if he's a wrong'yin he should be tarred and feathered just like any other wrong'yin, famous or otherwise.

Look tar and feather him any way I don't care, you're way off the mark.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Listening to Brand chatting with Saville about sending his young P.A. over naked for him, felt really sickening to be honest, his previous P.A. also appeared on the doco'. She spoke about how she'd be sent with a hotel or phone number to young girls he wanted from Universities who appeared on his Big Brother show, and how he had a revolving changing room door of young women.
They also had a fellow comedian on at the end talk of how there had been rumours of Brands behaviour for a while.

Like you and others have said, it shouldn't be trial by media or opinion but by the law, and if found guilty then punished, but the show certainly put Brand in a very bad light.

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

I’m still waiting for the names of Epsteins black book to come out, and be investigated, you know his clients….

I’m also wondering why Julian Assange is in jail, the accusations of rape he faced long since dropped but did enough damage to his character, he skipped bail and has served 3 years over the maximum sentence for that offence, so why is he still languishing behind bars?

But never mind that, lets move on to the next Brand of distractions exactly as intended .

a reply to: dragonridr

The reason statute of limitations exists is because the more time that goes by the more difficult it becomes to defend one's self from allegations.

There is no official statute of limitations for criminal cases here in the UK.

With time people die memories fade and tacrs are often changed. Happening 20 years ago it unlikely he could form an adequate defense.

If the things he is being accused of are true, good luck with any sort of defense.

Now in the UK the govt has 6 months to bring up criminal charges.

That's simply not my understanding of the matter and just not true.

That is the realm of The Crown Prosecution Service to decide, and again there is no statute of limitations for criminal cases here in the UK.

if this was tried in California they give you 10 years to report rape. Anything beyond that they cannot prosecute.

Different strokes for different folks dragonridr, the law of the land here suggests there is no time limit where people can be charged where the likes of rape or other serious sexual offenses are concerned.

And im inclined to believe given the nature of the offenses and the fact that it takes time for some of the poor victims of such to come forward, thats not a bad idea.

a reply to: dragonridr

Now in the UK the govt has 6 months to bring up criminal charges.

Thats not always the case.

Under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, how long the police have to charge you depends on the severity of the offence. Summary only offences like common assault often have a 6-month time limit, while the most serious offences like historic sexual abuse have none.

There is no time limit on when many cases – including historic sexual abuse accusations – can be prosecuted in the UK. However, for those offences that are considered summary-only, there are strict time limits (often 6 months) albeit this area of the law can become complicated as to when the 6 month period starts and when it stops.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Insurrectile

Right now we might as well call for some heads on spikes for bringing up Savile.

Its funny you bring up Saville.
The Documentary played a piece of Brand talking to Saville and offering to send over his P.A. naked for Saville.

Lets burn them at the stake and keep raking in the good money with the industry then? My kind of humor at play here.

a reply to: Saloon

I do apologize if I'm way off the mark.

The thing is its not really about you or me, but about what Brand allegedly got up to, and the proclivities he appears to have where little girls are concerned.

End of the day if he's prosecuted our courts will decide his guilt or innocence.

As it should be imho.

a reply to: surfer_soul

I’m also wondering why Julian Assange is in jail, the accusations of rape he faced long since dropped but did enough damage to his character, he skipped bail and has served 3 years over the maximum sentence for that offence, so why is he still languishing behind bars?

Because we live in a perfect country with a perfect gov. with perfect people where
everything's perfect and on the up and up.

Because if it wasn't I'd crap my pants and never go outside again.

a reply to: Saloon

Thanks for reminding me of this, I can go to bed and sleep soundly now knowing we our safe in the hands of our ever loving government…

originally posted by: surfer_soul
I’m also wondering why Julian Assange is in jail, the accusations of rape he faced long since dropped but did enough damage to his character, he skipped bail and has served 3 years over the maximum sentence for that offence, so why is he still languishing behind bars

Assange's rape and sexual assault accusations timed out, so he managed to escape those. He's currently appealing extradition to the US. He is in custody while this happens because he previously skipped bail, so cannot be trusted not to do that again.

Anyhoo. If Sweden - at the time - had an indefinite statute of limitations for rape rule as with the UK, then Assange may still have an arrest warrant out for him, and he may be going to Sweden rather than the US. But another topic.

a reply to: dragonridr

"Now in the UK the govt has 6 months to bring up criminal charges. If this was tried in California they give you 10 years to report rape. Anything beyond that they cannot prosecute."

No. Only in some cases which are Summary Only.

Ie less serious offences.

a reply to: andy06shake


Statute of limitations is to prevent the defendent from unreasonable defense. Say you look back 20 years just finding people you were associated with could be a major task would be for me. Then over time memory fades so someone that could have said no they were with me that night. 20 years later goes memories can fade and exonerating evidence for a defendant may well be found to have gone missing after several years.

If they accuse him of sex with minors very difficult to prosecute in the UK. Age of consent is 16 and prior to that there is an exception to 13.

Now rape allegations looking at it without evidence they cannot prosecute a witness statement would not be enough. So unless day video came forward showing he raped them I find it unlikely but could happen I suppose. And the 6 months is a restriction they have 6 months from the date of allegations. So if a woman makes an accusation they have 6 months ro prosecute.

a reply to: dragonridr

No. See above.

That's in England and Wales, Scottish law may differ.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Saloon

Thanks for reminding me of this, I can go to bed and sleep soundly now knowing we our safe in the hands of our ever loving government…

Anytme amigo if only I could convince myself so easily.

a reply to: dragonridr

Again there is no statute of limitations here in the UK where the likes of the serious offences in question are concerned.

By the looks of it, if he's charged with anything, it will be rape if those text messages and the story being told by "the Child" are anything to go by.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes:


www.lawtonslaw.co.uk...

"Under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, how long the police have to charge you depends on the severity of the offence. Summary only offences like common assault often have a 6-month time limit, while the most serious offences like historic sexual abuse have none. Generally, you can only be held at a police station for 24 hours (though there are exceptions such as offences committed under the Terrorism Act). If you are released under investigation you will be notified of the outcome in due course."

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Bombs away Russell! .. Oh my! .. just look at the dirt it's kicked up.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: surfer_soul
I’m also wondering why Julian Assange is in jail, the accusations of rape he faced long since dropped but did enough damage to his character, he skipped bail and has served 3 years over the maximum sentence for that offence, so why is he still languishing behind bars

Assange's rape and sexual assault accusations timed out, so he managed to escape those. He's currently appealing extradition to the US. He is in custody while this happens because he previously skipped bail, so cannot be trusted not to do that again.

Anyhoo. If Sweden - at the time - had an indefinite statute of limitations for rape rule as with the UK, then Assange may still have an arrest warrant out for him, and he may be going to Sweden rather than the US. But another topic.

No we’ve been through this before and you were wrong then as you are now, the statement she made to the police would have had the case immediately dismissed had it ever gone to court.

He isn’t merely in custody he is in belmarsh prison, just because someone has skipped bail previously doesn’t give them the right to keep in prison when he has served his sentence for that offence.

The USA wants him for espionage, for exposing war crimes committed by their personnel. We call that journalism, they should be going after the perps of the war crimes, not the person reporting them.

We can see their true colours clearly through all this.

Brand has spoke out against similar things, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he has been set up. Especially when he had women falling at his feet back in the day, then he was a real prick but a media darling, now he’s a changed man and speaks against all the corruption, and look what happens! Character assassination if nothing else comes from it.

Anyone who can’t see through this is frankly stupid.

a reply to: surfer_soul

"Anyone who can’t see through this is frankly stupid."

Not necessarily.

Other opinions are available.