eaglesdare
Member
- Country
Australia
Understand what you want just like the professor thread. It's not what I said.
Russell Brand
- Topic starter Cucking Funt
- Start date
Understand what you want just like the professor thread. It's not what I said.
PalazioVecchio
Member
- Location
- Area 51
- Country
USA
well that shows a naivety that is staggering. Do you also believe that footballers never fake being hurt ? to get the other fella a yellow card ? I wish i lived in your colourful Willy Wonka World.
Woman’s sentence increased after multiple false rape allegations
A woman who lied to the police falsely accusing ten innocent men of rape had her sentence increased following intervention by the Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
England
No, you just hint it and then scutter off like a coward when it’s addressed.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
Theres a difference, though between an assailant being unknown and identified following investigation and a direct accusation from the victim.
Please believe this is in no way meant to be a defence of Brand all I'm asking is how in a similar situation anyone could defend himself over an accusation of something which happened 20 years ago?
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
well that shows a naivety that is staggering. Do you also believe that footballers never fake being hurt ? to get the other fella a yellow card ? I wish i lived in your colourful Willy Wonka World.
Woman’s sentence increased after multiple false rape allegations
A woman who lied to the police falsely accusing ten innocent men of rape had her sentence increased following intervention by the Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP.www.gov.uk
A single example obviously doesn’t prove anything about scale.
Full Fact examined exactly this topic in 2018 and concluded that 3-4% is a reasonable estimate of rape allegations that are made maliciously, but no doubt your man off YouTube knows better.
Naivety.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
Sure, it’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s reasonable enough to explore the logic of punishing victims if a conviction doesn’t stick.
Brand was found not guilty of some of the allegations, so clearly he was able to defend himself in those cases.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
Yes he did but after that amount of time it's still largely he said/she said and if one party claims everything was consensual and the other disagrees it's very hard to actually prove either way.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
Sure, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused… that’s part of why these cases don’t convict at a very high rate… it’s very hard to prove.
So when there is a guilty verdict, we can either jump up and down and pretend it’s just been given out on a whim, or we can accept that it must be based on a pretty convincing case - why would a jury who found him not guilty of other alleged rapes just decide he was guilty on this one?
PalazioVecchio
Member
- Location
- Area 51
- Country
-
USA
you should research the background to the Conor McGregor rape case. It's a very big coincidence that it all happened after he stuck his head above the Political parapet-wall. When you live in a Stalinist Soviet Union, you learn to keep your mouth shut.
I predict that Russell Brand will get absolutely tonked by the sentencing judge.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
I don't know. I'm just trying to look at it dispassionately and ask how the accused can prove his innocence.
eaglesdare
Member
- Country
-
Australia
And in the run up to an election. They had to get him off the board. They didint have enough evidence for a criminal trial so it went to a civil court. (I'm not a fan of him either just like Brand)
PalazioVecchio
Member
- Location
- Area 51
- Country
-
USA
"One officer was assigned to read Brand's books, watch his stand-up routines and DVDs and listen to his podcasts to help build the case."
Benny Hill was lucky that he a) died before our World went nuts and.....b) wasn't really interested in the ladies.
www.bbc.com
could you nail Benny Hill for harassment below ?
Benny Hill was lucky that he a) died before our World went nuts and.....b) wasn't really interested in the ladies.
Russell Brand sentencing: Follow live
The presenter and actor, 51, was found guilty on Thursday of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault after a weeks-long trial.
www.bbc.com
could you nail Benny Hill for harassment below ?
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
‘They’ had to get Conor McGregor off the board before the election 😂😂😂😂
Absolute gold.
Absolute gold.
steeleye20
Member
- Location
- Croydon
- Country
-
England
'He f****d it'!' Brand as he left.
He certainly did. his counsel talked him into a long jail sentence.
Where were the denials, what about the burden of proof?
When I saw the captions of what he was saying I thought why don't you shut up, you're making things worse.
He made the point about the C4 documentary and FT article 'poisoning the well' that's right as these were in wide circulation before being referred to the police, the order of disclosure is wrong.
It really does appear that in the UK the accuser can be anonymous, the defendant does not face his accuser as he would in America, for example. And then if the accusation is false they can just walk away.
A jail sentence is just revenge.
😎
He certainly did. his counsel talked him into a long jail sentence.
Where were the denials, what about the burden of proof?
When I saw the captions of what he was saying I thought why don't you shut up, you're making things worse.
He made the point about the C4 documentary and FT article 'poisoning the well' that's right as these were in wide circulation before being referred to the police, the order of disclosure is wrong.
It really does appear that in the UK the accuser can be anonymous, the defendant does not face his accuser as he would in America, for example. And then if the accusation is false they can just walk away.
A jail sentence is just revenge.
😎
I'm surprised that the sentencing is so soon after the verdict. These days it seems judges take weeks and even months after a guilty verdict before passing sentence.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
They don't care.
They are convinced they are right, I can't be bothered.
Time will out.
Cucking Funt
Member
- Location
- Gaza
- Country
-
England
I hope the barrack room lawyers here questioning the process and the evidence in this trial read this very carefully and then admit that they actually don't know what the f*ck they're talking about.Just reading through this thread I have spotted a lot of innaccuracies and contradictions to what I have read surrounding Russell Brand and this case, I have followed this case in great detail so I thought it is probably worth me trying to set the record straight, hopefully.
There wasn't "no evidence", this is false. It's also not just 6 women who have come out against Russell Brand, there is more, the 6 women are just the ones that have had their cases taken to court. It's also important to note that 12 different jurors all unanimously convicted him on the evidence given. 12 jurors and not even one had any objections that would result in a mistrial. You cannot convict anyone on NO EVIDENCE, that's not how this works, there is always evidence and Russell Brand had bundles of evidence against him.
The prosecution's case against Russell Brand was built primarily on the testimony of the four women he was convicted of assaulting, supported by witnesses, text messages, historical records and evidence about his behaviour at the time.
It wasn't a case based on DNA or CCTV. The alleged offences dated back to 2004–2009, so investigators had to reconstruct events many years later.
Here is what the jury heard.
1. The rape conviction – 2009
A woman who had met Brand after one of his comedy performances at the Hammersmith Apollo said:
- She went back to his home with him.
- They initially had consensual sexual contact.
- She said he subsequently raped her anally without a condom.
- She later confronted him about what had happened.
Important evidence: She subsequently exchanged text messages with Brand. In one message, he responded, "I'm sorry".
The prosecution relied on her account and the messages as evidence supporting her allegation.
Reuters+1
2. Sexual assault – MTV employee, 2004
A woman working for MTV said Brand:
- Groped her breasts at a party in a Soho bar.
- Subsequently took her into a toilet and forced her to perform oral sex.
The jury convicted him of the groping but acquitted him of the alleged rape in the toilet.
3. Sexual assault – radio employee, 2004/2005
A woman working at Choice FM said Brand encountered her in a corridor at the Capital Radio building.
She told the court that he:
- Pushed her against a wall.
- Kissed her.
- Grabbed and painfully groped her.
The jury convicted him of this sexual assault.
4. Sexual assault – Channel 4 employee, 2009
A woman working on a Channel 4 project said she had been required to give Brand a massage.
She described him thrusting his head into her groin during the incident.
The jury convicted him of sexual assault.
5. What other evidence did prosecutors use?
There was also a substantial amount of supporting investigative material:
- More than 100 witnesses interviewed.
- Over 400 witness statements collected.
- More than 1,400 documents examined.
- Historical photographs and floor plans of locations connected to the allegations.
- Brand's books, interviews, stand-up performances, television appearances and podcasts were examined.
- Statements from people who knew him and could provide evidence about his behaviour and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.
His 2007 autobiography and comments about his sexual behaviour also featured in the prosecution's wider presentation of his conduct.
Metropolitan Police+1
6. Did he admit anything?
Brand admitted in court that:
- He had been extremely promiscuous.
- He had been obsessed with sex.
- He had used his celebrity status to facilitate sexual access to women.
However, he maintained that all sexual encounters were consensual and denied committing the offences.
The important distinction
The prosecution did not have forensic proof or CCTV footage of the alleged offences. Its case relied heavily on the women's accounts and the supporting evidence gathered around them.
The jury considered the evidence and convicted him on four counts, while acquitting him on three others.
That distinction matters: the convictions were decisions made by the jury on the evidence presented, not simply a finding that he had behaved promiscuously or inappropriately.
You can read the official prosecution account here:
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Shouldn't you be putting on your foot cream old boy.
All testimony, which apparently to you is gold standard proof that something happened as they said it did.
Sorry I don't lock up family men based on he said/she said......what's the protection against regret sex or encounters here? Please tell.
Cucking Funt
Member
- Location
- Gaza
- Country
-
England
I'm much more inclined to accept the soundness of the court and trial system in this country than I am to accept the wild speculation of ill-informed conspiracy theorists. I can get that on Twitter. Old boy.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
The way the Judge is summing this up and the unpleasant details he's giving Brand is going to get clobbered.