Russell Brand

[palace99]

I might be wrong, but I feel like Brand's public 'crucifixion' and the pending media trial of Walliams seems related to their relationship with left wing politicians. Brand seemed to get away with his behaviour before he appeared to be saying the wrong things, and Walliams had a strong attachment to Labour.

I'm not convinced by the rape allegations against Brand and I see that Walliams is already being vilified on moral grounds before a shred of evidence has been presented regarding any illegality.

The law is not there to judge people's promiscuity and when all these cases hinge on media investigations and one word against another, I'm concerned that you could probably find practically anyone guilty of something in their past.

It's all too convenient.

Meanwhile, dozens of organised immigrant rapists are walking free or receiving short sentences and Labour doesn't want you to see the figures.

Every historical sexual offence is effectively one person's word against another. There will be no physical evidence and at best some circumstantial ones.

In Brand's case some of the alleged offences did appear quite minor and i am unsure as to why the jury found him guilty of some and not other allegations. Some of the offences were also witnessed (e.g. at parties or in the workplace) but no one came forward to either support or disprove the allegations. That seemed a little strange.

Just for balance these guys were convicted 20 years after the offences. Were you ok with this?

Rochdale gang guilty of raping and abusing girls for five years

Seven men are convicted of sex offences against two girls in Rochdale between 2001 and 2006.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

You are wrong, its a concerted effort by the Judiciary, Police, Politicians, Royal family, BBC and some of the media that have blocked stories of Saville, Epstein, Brand etc, and tried to suppress them, until the weight of complaints against these these "Celebrity's" are so vile and vast that containment is impossible, despite the wishes of the privileged class

Sure, but at some point they are sacrificed as a useful distraction.

 

[Cucking Funt]

File under 'Forthcoming Events'

Chris Evans’ erection and Jeremy Kyle’s ‘cult’

The BBC is rightly being asked again why it enabled Russell Brand’s behaviour. We should ask the same of News UK’s own radio stars.

brokenbottleboy.substack.com

 

[chris123]

I agree about the sentencing. If it were rape, it couldn't be considered the high end of rape. It seemed like wonen went for consensual sex initially but it went too far. There didn't seem to be weapons or beating or threats to life involved. Nor were any underage. Which would be the high end of rape in anyone's unbiased opinion. And there's the rub: so much bias here. Jury, judge, public, media, documentary - case has to be considered bias - whether he is guilty or not.
I don't particularly care that he's sent down but this seems to be against all precedence. Sub judice for a start and having to dismiss half the jury should say something.
I also thought his defense case was terrible. In fact, so bad I would have considered the judge mentioning it.

Yet, I still think he is likely to be guilty of something. Maybe I'm just biased too.

An admission may have earnt some mitigation, and I thought that the process was that your defense are instructed.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

It really is the posters you’d expect to defend absolute wrong’uns defending the absolute wrong’uns, isn’t it?

Both these men are from your mob.
Now we will witness the unedifying sight of their former lefty friends trying to distance themselves from any association.

 

[palace99]

This was my concern with Brand as well. I know some people are adamant the verdict was right and others are adamant it was wrong, I haven't an opinion either way. But I have concerns about whether there is any possibility, even remote, that the jury could have been biased and whether a jury trial was appropriate.

i would say there is a 100% probability the jury was biased as we all have personal biases, whether we recognise them or not. However, the jury system is the best process we have and why it is made up of a cross section of society.

It clearly isn't perfect though - we all remember the Rodney King murder trial

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

If there are any further harrowing revelations, I might keep a box of tissues to hand. (pending photos) 🙂

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Every historical sexual offence is effectively one person's word against another. There will be no physical evidence and at best some circumstantial ones.

In Brand's case some of the alleged offences did appear quite minor and i am unsure as to why the jury found him guilty of some and not other allegations. Some of the offences were also witnessed (e.g. at parties or in the workplace) but no one came forward to either support or disprove the allegations. That seemed a little strange.

Just for balance these guys were convicted 20 years after the offences. Were you ok with this?

Rochdale gang guilty of raping and abusing girls for five years

Seven men are convicted of sex offences against two girls in Rochdale between 2001 and 2006.

www.bbc.co.uk

I would consider organised gang rape a different category to Brand's alleged misdemeanours.

 

[Cucking Funt]

The judge did not need to announce in advance a long custodial sentence.

He did not take the time to consider the sentencing imo, it did look
pre-determined and a rush.

You must be guilty or why are you here, it looked stacked against the defence.

😎

Judges very often tell defendants to expect a custodial sentence after being found guilty. This wasn't a 'courtesy' just extended to Brand. It's a common occurrence.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

File under 'Forthcoming Events'

Chris Evans’ erection and Jeremy Kyle’s ‘cult’

The BBC is rightly being asked again why it enabled Russell Brand’s behaviour. We should ask the same of News UK’s own radio stars.

brokenbottleboy.substack.com

Saville and Harris are dead. Glitter is nearly dead. The media need fresh meat.

 

[Part Time James]

i would say there is a 100% probability the jury was biased as we all have personal biases, whether we recognise them or not. However, the jury system is the best process we have and why it is made up of a cross section of society.

It clearly isn't perfect though - we all remember the Rodney King murder trial

I don't entirely agree, although broadly speaking I do. I think you know what I meant in terms of bias. I believe the bias COULD (put it in caps so nobody tries to claim I said something else) have been more prevalent and damaging when the case involved a celebrity who had a documentary made about him being a pest prior to the sequestering of a jury. It is the system we accept though, I do concur.

 

[eaglesdare]

Interesting the media conveniently left out David Walliams is a labour party member (now was) imagine if he had been reform?! 🤯

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

Every historical sexual offence is effectively one person's word against another. There will be no physical evidence and at best some circumstantial ones.

In Brand's case some of the alleged offences did appear quite minor and i am unsure as to why the jury found him guilty of some and not other allegations. Some of the offences were also witnessed (e.g. at parties or in the workplace) but no one came forward to either support or disprove the allegations. That seemed a little strange.

Just for balance these guys were convicted 20 years after the offences. Were you ok with this?

Rochdale gang guilty of raping and abusing girls for five years

Seven men are convicted of sex offences against two girls in Rochdale between 2001 and 2006.

www.bbc.co.uk

Your naivety is staggering, i find it amazing it even got to court, when the poor victims have to get through the barriers of of the bent, Police, Judiciary and Media, would you be happy if you had a 15 year old daughter, would you be happy with her mixing in the Brand crowd.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

Saville and Harris are dead. Glitter is nearly dead. The media need fresh meat.

What a vile statement, even by your standards

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

What a vile statement, even by your standards

Vile?

Do you seriously think that the media doesn't live for these kinds of cases and in some cases actually contrives to create them?
You also have to consider the media/politics connection.

I believe these people are tolerated while they are useful and then sacrificed at a convenient moment. The extent of their alleged crimes pales in comparison to what has been happening in Rotherham and many other places, much of which has been covered up. Not to mention a host of other political betrayals.

Our focus should not be on a few celebrities.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

Walliams knows what is coming, he is trying to liquidate his assets before its to late, if his passport isn't taken off of him a country with no extradition is possible, he has a bit more up top than Brand which isn't hard

 

[DanH]

Judges very often tell defendants to expect a custodial sentence after being found guilty. This wasn't a 'courtesy' just extended to Brand. It's a common occurrence.

The only thing some of the posters on here seem to understand less than how the British legal system works is what ‘consent’ means.

 

[DanH]

Both these men are from your mob.
Now we will witness the unedifying sight of their former lefty friends trying to distance themselves from any association.

And while ‘my mob’ disown and condemn them for their actions and won’t ’touch them with a barge pole’, to use Brand’s own words, ‘your mob’ can’t seem to wait to rush to their defence.

Extremely unedifying.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

And while ‘my mob’ disown and condemn them for their actions and won’t ’touch them with a barge pole’, to use Brand’s own words, ‘your mob’ can’t seem to wait to rush to their defence.

Extremely unedifying.

You and your friend Saturd are virtue signalling clichés. Some of us like to tell it as we see it.

I know honesty is a dirty word for the left.

 

[cryrst]

Jumping in on this one, I would be OK with them seeking compo so long as it was not their motivation for bringing the complaint.

And people who suffer a crime do not complain for the selfless act of protecting others. If your house was burgled and you had them on CCTV, you would not call the police to protect other houses in the neighborhood who may be burgled by the same blokes.

How could you prove otherwise
Yes I would if my neighbours were being burgled