Russell Brand

[chris123]

Crazy, gagging order that bankrupted her. She needs a pro bono solicitor. Or another member of U2.

There was no legal representation, no trial, a £50k fine which she couldn't pay so was made bankrupt by the court.

 

[Cucking Funt]

Russell Brand........there are parallels to Oscar Wilde.......a funny clever bloke who got ruined by a bedroom scandal. Did jail time and it broke him.

Yes. A Picture of Dorian Gray is a literary achievement matched in quality only by My Booky Wook.

 

[silvercobra73]

True, but Brand was next level talent.

I don't have to think he was a great guy back then to recognise that.

He didn't make it big in America down to a haircut.

Him making it big in America is no measure of his talent. You only have to see the shite that they push out as entertainment to realise their standards are shockingly low.
They are now running around like headless chickens trying to distance themselves. "We had no idea he was like that" If only we had known we would have reined him in" Blah blah blah.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Him making it big in America is no measure of his talent. You only have to see the shite that they push out as entertainment to realise their standards are shockingly low.
They are now running around like headless chickens trying to distance themselves. "We had no idea he was like that" If only we had known we would have reined him in" Blah blah blah.

Yes it is.

It's the biggest western market that speaks English.

The Beatles wanted to make it big in America....for the same reason and most acts failed over there.

The idea that you can make it big in every single English speaking market and not be talented isn't a realistic one.

A measure of talent is in who gets selected for projects and few British comedians ever get selected......and he was chosen because investors thought he could make money for them. Which he mostly did.....He left Hollywood, rather than the other way around.

So while I'm not going to argue with you that he was a t***.....which is something he himself aknowledges I can't agree with you on obvious talent that stood out......A lot of people invested in Brand and let him get away with stuff and it wasn't for the haircut, it was because he was very popular.

Again, who for you is this big talent that makes Brand look untalented?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Winston Smith explains many of the issues with this court case.

 

[Stirlingsays]

To answer an earlier point about Saville.

Saville was a peadophile based upon weight of multi-sourced evidence that, for example showed the exploitation of vulnerable people in institutional settings. Something that can be proven that he sought and had access to.....that proves something more than he said/she said.

The conviction of Brand however came about despite the lack of strong corroboration of the specific criminal acts alleged; they rest heavily on later recollection and interpretation of consent, power dynamics, and what occurred in private.

Essentially the difference is weight of evidence.

The Brand conviction shows the decline of justice in Britain since Blair, once he and the Labour Party messed with it and the Tories kept the changes.

It means that any of us can be imprisoned on anything somebody might say about a single event that happened in private twenty years ago with no other evidence required.

There are a lot of possible negative consequences from that.

 

[orpingtoneagle]

Brands profile in the US was helped by his marriage to Katy Perry

Oh and the Yanks are no judge of true talent, look at how much work Ricky Gervais gets over there......

Brand was, is and will.alwaya be a wrong 'un but I have some sympathy for him as his excess was not just paid for by a braying media they encouraged and often manufactured a deliberate furore

 

[eaglesdare]

To answer an earlier point about Saville.

Saville was a peadophile based upon weight of multi-sourced evidence that, for example showed the exploitation of vulnerable people in institutional settings. Something that can be proven that he sought and had access to.....that proves something more than he said/she said.

The conviction of Brand however came about despite the lack of strong corroboration of the specific criminal acts alleged; they rest heavily on later recollection and interpretation of consent, power dynamics, and what occurred in private.

Essentially the difference is weight of evidence.

The Brand conviction shows the decline of justice in Britain since Blair, once he and the Labour Party messed with it and the Tories kept the changes.

It means that any of us can be imprisoned on anything somebody might say about a single event that happened in private us with no other evidence required.

I am of the opinion that there should be statute of limitations for cases like brands. And if it passes a certain length of time can only be brought in a civil court at most.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I am of the opinion that there should be statute of limitations for cases like brands. And if it passes a certain length of time can only be brought in a civil court at most.

Without a formal complaint around the time then I think that's just common sense.

Which is probably why it isn't in effect as we live in insane times.

 

[Part Time James]

To answer an earlier point about Saville.

Saville was a peadophile based upon weight of multi-sourced evidence that, for example showed the exploitation of vulnerable people in institutional settings. Something that can be proven that he sought and had access to.....that proves something more than he said/she said.

The conviction of Brand however came about despite the lack of strong corroboration of the specific criminal acts alleged; they rest heavily on later recollection and interpretation of consent, power dynamics, and what occurred in private.

Essentially the difference is weight of evidence.

The Brand conviction shows the decline of justice in Britain since Blair, once he and the Labour Party messed with it and the Tories kept the changes.

It means that any of us can be imprisoned on anything somebody might say about a single event that happened in private twenty years ago with no other evidence required.

There are a lot of possible negative consequences from that.

Taking Brand out of the equation, this ought to scare anyone. One day the people who were fine with this system may find themselves on the wrong end of it.

 

[Part Time James]

Without a formal complaint around the time then I think that's just common sense.

Which is probably why it isn't in effect as we live in insane times.

You can report to a SARC if you believe to have been raped and any evidence they take at the time will be held. You still have a choice for years to come as to whether you wish to pursue a criminal complaint. I appreciate that somebody who has been horrifically assaulted may still lack the confidence or clarity of mind to log evidence with a SARC, but it does buy you time to decide what to do.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Taking Brand out of the equation, this ought to scare anyone. One day the people who were fine with this system may find themselves on the wrong end of it.

Indeed, some of them will.....echoes of Salem about it.

I hear that David Walliams is next up for the chopping block.

 

[Part Time James]

Indeed, some of them will.....echoes of Salem about it.

I hear that David Walliams is next up for the chopping block.

A very strong rumour yes, unless an appellate judge goes "oh please don't kill yourself, society needs you".

 

[Stirlingsays]

You can report to a SARC if you believe to have been raped and any evidence they take at the time will be held. You still have a choice for years to come as to whether you wish to pursue a criminal complaint. I appreciate that somebody who has been horrifically assaulted may still lack the confidence or clarity of mind to log evidence with a SARC, but it does buy you time to decide what to do.

17 years though?

I can see obvious problems with that system.

It can be geniune but it can also be a dishonest person's sword of damocles.

How do you protect against regret sex?

It's very 'believe all women'.

 

[Part Time James]

I should also caveat that I don't know whether girls/women/anyone who could be assaulted are sufficiently educated around forensic evidence and the use of a SARC.

A SARC protects anonymity and will not progress a claim, merely take evidence. Whereas the police legally have to pursue a crime once they are aware. I imagine a lot of people either haven't heard of a SARC, or are worried that it will make their mind up for them. Only the police will do that. Having registered evidence with a SARC makes the legal process easier (not easy, but easier) should a victim wish to engage the police at a later date.

 

[Part Time James]

17 years though?

I can see obvious problems with that system.

It can be geniune but it can also be a dishonest person's sword of damocles.

How do you protect against regret sex?

It's very 'believe all women'.

I am essentially agreeing with you.

But that 17 years is less significant if a visit was made to a SARC at the time.

 

[Badger11]

17 years though?

I can see obvious problems with that system.

It can be geniune but it can also be a dishonest person's sword of damocles.

How do you protect against regret sex?

It's very 'believe all women'.

Apparently our PM is looking at the rules around questioning victims e.h. victim blaming. We shall have to see what he comes up with but in the case I was on it was obvious that the defence lawyer had been told by the judge not to bully the victim which she didn't.

Lawyers bullying witnesses is simply wrong "don't wait for the translation, answer the question" but giving victims a free ride on their evidence is also wrong, especially in the case I was on when it was obvious she was lying.

A fine balance

 

[Part Time James]

On the jury I served on this year, the victim went to the police a week (not 17 years) after the incident, but her friend had encouraged her to go to a SARC within 24 hours of the incident.

The defendant had never denied there was intercourse but the SARC logged injuries that added gravitas to her claim. It wasn't the only factor but it definitely helped her account.

The accused was found guilty by the way, a verdict that's quite often hard to get in this type of case.

 

[StandbyPalace]

I am of the opinion that there should be statute of limitations for cases like brands. And if it passes a certain length of time can only be brought in a civil court at most.

What like let them get away with their crimes you mean? Big fat no from me.
Although Russell Banned has recently found Jesus and hoping to be forgiven for his heinous crimes, we now all know he would analy rape Mary if he got the chance.

 

[Part Time James]

What like let them get away with their crimes you mean? Big fat no from me.
Although Russell Banned has recently found Jesus, hoping to be forgiven for his heinous crimes we now all know he would analy rape Mary if he got the chance.

The one issue with a statute of limitations for rape is that a lot of women won't come forward if they don't think they will be believed. It's conceivable that a significant period of time could pass before she felt emboldened to speak up, often because of another similar case against the person which has more robust evidence.

However, there needs to be a mechanism for women (or people) to register an offence at the time with the freedom to pursue it at a later date. And there is.