Russell Brand

DanH said:
is actually an anatomically perfect replica of his actual brain.
Click to expand...
you doing more ad hominem attacks there Dan ? and banging on again about women's rights ? your absence from the Grooming Gang thread is noteworthy.

Russell Brand was a randy scumbag, many women threw themselves at him cos he is famous, the Elites have scapegoated him by throwing the book at him. Nothing else to see here.

The Elites failures to defend thousands of children is the Elephant in the Room. Something you seem very reluctant to acknowledge.
 
PalazioVecchio said:
you doing more ad hominem attacks there Dan ? and banging on again about women's rights ? your absence from the Grooming Gang thread is noteworthy.

Russell Brand was a scumbag, the Elites have scapegoated him by throwing the book at him. Nothing else to see here. The Elites failures to defend thousands of children is the Elephant in the Room.
Click to expand...

You’re a disgrace, eagle.
 
Cucking Funt said:
Do you even know what constitutes a 'safe' and 'unsafe' conviction?
Click to expand...
It depends on who's doing the convicting.
At different times Nelson Mandela was convicted of leaving the country illegally, inciting strikes, sabotage, conspiracy and attempting to violently overthrow the state.
Do those convictions prove he was a bad man?
 
The more one reads about this case, the investigation and the trial, the more one wonders how there could ever be a guilty verdict. It’s for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty but in this case we have no forensic evidence, no CCTV, no witnesses to the alleged incident(s) and the offences alleged are 17 years old or more.

How do you know who is telling the truth in a case of one persons word against another’s?
 
Phil’s Barber said:
The more one reads about this case, the investigation and the trial, the more one wonders how there could ever be a guilty verdict. It’s for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty but in this case we have no forensic evidence, no CCTV, no witnesses to the alleged incident(s) and the offences alleged are 17 years old or more.

How do you know who is telling the truth in a case of one persons word against another’s?
Click to expand...
if Saville, Epstein, Brand etc, were dealt with at the time they new about the crimes there would have been credible witnesses, but no, the crimes are covered up by the known authorities, including the media until the weight of suspicion is overwhelming, even today a Republican report says that the FBI knew what Epstein was doing in 2005, but 14 years past until he was silenced in 2019, The Media, Police, Judiciary all want the crimes covered up to align with their own agendas, as much as possible.
 
Phil’s Barber said:
The more one reads about this case, the investigation and the trial, the more one wonders how there could ever be a guilty verdict. It’s for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty but in this case we have no forensic evidence, no CCTV, no witnesses to the alleged incident(s) and the offences alleged are 17 years old or more.

How do you know who is telling the truth in a case of one persons word against another’s?
Click to expand...

The sexual assault charge. He fondled her breasts at the bar but then she gave him a blow job and had sex with him? 🤔
 
PalazioVecchio said:
you doing more ad hominem attacks there Dan ? and banging on again about women's rights ? your absence from the Grooming Gang thread is noteworthy.

Russell Brand was a randy scumbag, many women threw themselves at him cos he is famous, the Elites have scapegoated him by throwing the book at him. Nothing else to see here.

The Elites failures to defend thousands of children is the Elephant in the Room. Something you seem very reluctant to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

They all pretend to care about women's rights but have no idea what a woman is 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
eaglesdare said:
They all pretend to care about women's rights but have no idea what a woman is 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...

They are scared what their mates on the bbs would think of them if they were honest about it.

That's what most of them are here doing.....pathetically thinking they are 'standing up' for something.....even though it's the safest thing in the world to type words on a keyboard.
 
Stirlingsays said:
They are scared what their mates on the bbs would think of them if they were honest about it.

That's what most of them are here doing.....pathetically thinking they are 'standing up' for something.....even though it's the safest thing in the world to type words on a keyboard.
Click to expand...

Nope, we’re just calling you wrong’uns out for defending a convicted rapist.
 
Phil’s Barber said:
The more one reads about this case, the investigation and the trial, the more one wonders how there could ever be a guilty verdict. It’s for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty but in this case we have no forensic evidence, no CCTV, no witnesses to the alleged incident(s) and the offences alleged are 17 years old or more.

How do you know who is telling the truth in a case of one persons word against another’s?
Click to expand...
Because the jury see and listen to the evidence and reach a verdict. You weren’t on the jury. They found him guilty. What more do you need?
If you think jury’s are all woke gay men and feminists who do you think should be trying a case in the UK in 2026? 12 men like you? Do you think a single judge would have come to a different conclusion? I reckon, listening to the sentencing remarks that the judge was more than convinced he was guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top