Russell Brand

[Hrolf The Ganger]

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.

Do you? But many of these cases also hinge on media investigations and one word against another.

The bold are your words.

As i stated earlier any historical sexual offence - rape, under age sex, grooming etc - has no physical evidence.

If multiple people claim they were raped by the same person surely it has to be investigated, regardless of whether the accused is famous, promiscuous or an Asian taxi driver.

This is not a left or right argument.

The bottom line here is that neither you nor I or anyone else actually knows what happened aside from those involved. The jury is making a judgement based on the word of individuals. In this case, these people have been emboldened to come forward by a media investigation.

How can any thinking person not be at least a little concerned about the validity of a conviction under those circumstances? How can Walliams get a fair trial when most of the population have already labelled him as a wrongun?

 

[silvertop]

You seem rattled by my valid questions? Do you not think a jury may have had prior connotations to brand before the trial? However could it have been fair if they had? How would we ever know? The same now for walliams. How would he get a fair trial after the documentary aired last night?

No sequiturs here just questions on how some people can pretend to be concerned about women and their rights if they can't even define what a woman is? Nor care about men entering women's safe spaces 🤷🏻‍♂️

I am not going to address the second para as it has nothing to do with the matter.

Also, while some may have jumped on that bandwagon, this is not a question of women's rights. Men, women and trans people alike can all be raped and assaulted.

The first para does present a sensible point, but what is your alternative? Democracy is flawed but it is better than no democracy. Likewise, jury trials have their limitations (including the one you identify) but most still prefer it over a single judge.

I would see the further erosion of jury trials to be reserved for only the most serious matters other than white collar stuff and for the election for juries to be removed. Too expensive, too time consuming. We need faster wheels of justice.

But I wonder if you would be so quick to condemn trial by jury if the person convicted was a member of an Asian grooming gang or Jihadi terrorist. It seems the views on here are guided not by the prosecution of Brand but by the perception that he has been scapegoated as part of some elitist purge of male heterosexuals etc.

 

[silvertop]

I wouldn’t say it explains everything but it certainly means that I’m experienced enough or ‘qualified’ (quite literally) to comment on certain topics on HoL with a bit more confidence and authority than others (topics that is).

OK, but does your experience lead you to believe the convictions may be unsafe?

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

OK, but does your experience lead you to believe the convictions may be unsafe?

This is a message board. People are entitled to opinions.

However, they could be total liars about their qualifications/experiences.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

this video is for all our fake feminist sheep on HOL

 

[Nicholas91]

This is a message board. People are entitled to opinions.

However, they could be total liars about their qualifications/experiences.

Something I experienced much of whilst I was working at NASA.

 

[Part Time James]

This is a message board. People are entitled to opinions.

However, they could be total liars about their qualifications/experiences.

They aren't. I have a Masters degree in lie detection.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Something I experienced much of whilst I was working at NASA.

North Anerley Shopping Alliance? Or should that say Nisa?

 

[silvertop]

Just comment really. I know of an incident where a female worker was dating a male co-worker. They split up,....then she accused the man of rape. Before it went to trial, the police investigation revealed her to be lying, out of spite.
She suffered no consequences. They both still work at the same place, but in different departments and on different shifts.

Women lying, makes catching real rapists so much very more difficult.
And I mean contempt of Court lying.
NOT, being found "not guilty", due to inadequate evidence.

Good point. There has been a long overdue switch from women being sent away as silly little things who just made it up to convince their husbands they were victims or because they were gagging for it etc. to a move towards treating complaints about rape the same as complaints about robbery and any other offence. You can only applaud this. What if the person complaining was your daughter, niece or sister?

However, in the current environment, women can use the whole Me2 world to weaponize attacks on men. I have little doubt it happens in "rape myth" cases where the sudden gift of power presents an opportunity.

However, 0.5% conviction from complaint to conviction does not suggest this is particularly prevalent. Indeed, it suggests more a justice system that is completely failing complainants. Where high profile cases like Brand are acting as attempts to display that something is "being done". Little more than PR presentations and sticking plasters to cover a huge issue.

Of course, that does not mean the Brand case was a stitch up. I do not believe it was.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

OK, but does your experience lead you to believe the convictions may be unsafe?

It’s the million dollar question and I am being very careful and considered.

In this one particular case I would have to say I am not sure because I haven’t sat in court every day and I haven’t considered every bit of evidence presented and cross examined. What I have remarked about this case, and what applies to every other criminal case in England & Wales is that for the defendant to be found guilty, it has to be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. It is not for the defence to prove anything, it is for the Crown to prove guilt.

I struggle with this particular case because of the factors I have previously outlined, the incidents are 17 or more years ago, there is no physical evidence, no DNA, no CCTV, no direct witnesses and ultimately it has been a victims word against a defendant. I have approached it purely from a criminal prosecution point of view, as should be the case and that is with no outside influence & no reference to any previous circumstances. The bar for the burden of proof in a criminal case is very high and I’m not sure it has been reached in this particular case.

Is that the same as me saying the convictions may be unsafe? I genuinely feel there is a difference between what I have said and that inference but trying to explain it is not straightforward.

Putting the Brand verdicts to one side. I feel in the bigger picture that it’s a concern we can have guilty verdicts in any cases that are 17 years old (or more), have no direct evidence and where it’s a case of one persons word against another’s?

What is to stop someone saying the same about me, you or anyone else on here.

 

[eaglesdare]

I am not going to address the second para as it has nothing to do with the matter.

Also, while some may have jumped on that bandwagon, this is not a question of women's rights. Men, women and trans people alike can all be raped and assaulted.

The first para does present a sensible point, but what is your alternative? Democracy is flawed but it is better than no democracy. Likewise, jury trials have their limitations (including the one you identify) but most still prefer it over a single judge.

I would see the further erosion of jury trials to be reserved for only the most serious matters other than white collar stuff and for the election for juries to be removed. Too expensive, too time consuming. We need faster wheels of justice.

But I wonder if you would be so quick to condemn trial by jury if the person convicted was a member of an Asian grooming gang or Jihadi terrorist. It seems the views on here are guided not by the prosecution of Brand but by the perception that he has been scapegoated as part of some elitist purge of male heterosexuals etc.

Yes men just aswell as women can be raped or sexually assaulted. I'm not disputing that. I simply called out a double standard in some people wanting to protect women.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not condeming jury trials. I am simply asking the question how a fair trial is possible when the jury has already been saturated with weeks of one sided media coverage. That goes for a judge only trial too. I've no opinion over a jury vs judge trial.

That problem exists whether the defendant is Brand or Walliams or a grooming gang member or a terrorist.

In regard to a jihadist terrorist I highly doubt it would be a hearsay he said she said kind of trial?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

One of the sad, though of course by no means most serious, aspects to the current two famous men involved is that most people aren't remotely surprised which in some strange way detracts from what they've done.

 

[Part Time James]

One of the sad, though of course by no means most serious, aspects to the current two famous men involved is that most people aren't remotely surprised which in some strange way detracts from what they've done.

It makes the Lewis Dunk verdict all the more surprising.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Good point. There has been a long overdue switch from women being sent away as silly little things who just made it up to convince their husbands they were victims or because they were gagging for it etc. to a move towards treating complaints about rape the same as complaints about robbery and any other offence. You can only applaud this. What if the person complaining was your daughter, niece or sister?

However, in the current environment, women can use the whole Me2 world to weaponize attacks on men. I have little doubt it happens in "rape myth" cases where the sudden gift of power presents an opportunity.

However, 0.5% conviction from complaint to conviction does not suggest this is particularly prevalent. Indeed, it suggests more a justice system that is completely failing complainants. Where high profile cases like Brand are acting as attempts to display that something is "being done". Little more than PR presentations and sticking plasters to cover a huge issue.

Of course, that does not mean the Brand case was a stitch up. I do not believe it was.

So you saying that believing that woman was raped 17 years ago was 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?

Personally I can't see how it's little more than a punt......Putting someone in jail for ten years based upon guesswork......If this wasn't the famously promiscuous Brand he wouldn't be in jail in my view.

What if he were your brother or father to use your own point?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It makes the Lewis Dunk verdict all the more surprising.

The verdict on him was in years ago and it wasn't at all surprising. Like him winning the Bellend d'Or it was nailed on.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

It’s the million dollar question and I am being very careful and considered.

In this one particular case I would have to say I am not sure because I haven’t sat in court every day and I haven’t considered every bit of evidence presented and cross examined. What I have remarked about this case, and what applies to every other criminal case in England & Wales is that for the defendant to be found guilty, it has to be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. It is not for the defence to prove anything, it is for the Crown to prove guilt.

I struggle with this particular case because of the factors I have previously outlined, the incidents are 17 or more years ago, there is no physical evidence, no DNA, no CCTV, no direct witnesses and ultimately it has been a victims word against a defendant. I have approached it purely from a criminal prosecution point of view, as should be the case and that is with no outside influence & no reference to any previous circumstances. The bar for the burden of proof in a criminal case is very high and I’m not sure it has been reached in this particular case.

Is that the same as me saying the convictions may be unsafe? I genuinely feel there is a difference between what I have said and that inference but trying to explain it is not straightforward.

Putting the Brand verdicts to one side. I feel in the bigger picture that it’s a concern we can have guilty verdicts in any cases that are 17 years old (or more), have no direct evidence and where it’s a case of one persons word against another’s?

What is to stop someone saying the same about me, you or anyone else on here.

So effectively you're arguing that rapes that have taken place in the past should never be convicted..? Because what you describe is going to be the case for almost all of them.


I think when an accuser can produce 24 witnesses who support her story, that's incredibly convincing - one of the witnesses was a nurse the victim visited at the time in 2009 and specifically reported that she'd had unwanted, non-consensual anal sex with Russel Brand. She told her parents, friends, ex-boyfriend the same story.

What are we saying here? She lied to everyone around her, including faking a visit to a healthcare professional, to make a 17-year play at a payout from Russell Brand..? Is that a serious defence?

Or are all 24 of them, including the professional nurse, just making it up?

The idea that a jury can't, or shouldn't, be moved to convict by that type of evidence is absolute lunacy.


In terms of "what is to stop someone saying the same about me, you or anyone else"... well the lack of 24 supporting witnesses as evidence, obviously. The other rape allegations against Brand did not stick, so the idea that people can just flagrantly accuse anyone of rape and get them convicted doesn't stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny - the allegation didn't even stick against someone who was found guilty of sexual assaults and a rape, never mind an average person with no history of sexual abuse.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

So you saying that believing that woman was raped 17 years ago was 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?

Personally I can't see how it's little more than a punt......Putting someone in jail for ten years based upon guesswork......If this wasn't the famously promiscuous Brand he wouldn't be in jail in my view.

What if he were your brother or father to use your own point?

24 supporting witnesses, including a nurse, absolutely puts it beyond reasonable doubt for me, and clearly the jury - why does the victim go to visit a nurse in 2009 with the exact and specific allegation that she'd had unwanted, non-consensual anal sex with Russell Brand..? That's incredibly moving evidence to anyone being sensible.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Milliband, corbyn and Owen jones did.

Left or right who cares. They are all complicit

I agree re complicity, but the left are not trying to defend him now he's been convicted of rape.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Ridiculous of you avoiding addressing the second paragraph, it has everything to do with this discussion.

Why does the sex of the rape victim matter to the argument..? That bullshit culture war bingo is not relevant.

Accusing others of not caring about women's safety while you actively defend a convicted rapist is an interesting take.

 

[Glazier#1]

Maybe not on the subject, except tangentially.

That piece of rubbish that is called Jonathan Ross has quickly come out to wash his hands of any association with Brand. Yeah right; who will ever forget that disgusting phone 'prank' of himself and Brand phoning Andrew Sachs and leaving a message that Brand had slept with his daughter.

Childish at best and at worst.... well, you decide.

For me, Ross is amongst the tartiest of tarts who will never fear of stooping low to seem popular at all costs. He'll do anything, any show that will keep him in the limelight. He wouldn't be the first or last to do that, I know.

Him and Brand were right old buddies but now, of course, the hideous Ross will say anything to distance himself from his buddy in order to protect his own reputation.

Horrible, horrible man.