Russell Brand

[Hrolf The Ganger]

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.

You are amazingly thick.

Questioning a conviction is not defending a rapist. The conviction is what makes him a rapist.
By contrast, supporting an ideology that allows dangerous criminals to be released from prison early or arrive on boats and move into your neighbourhood shows a complete disregard for the safety of women and girls.

 

[eaglesdare]

You are amazingly thick.

Questioning a conviction is not defending a rapist. The conviction is what makes him a rapist.
By contrast, supporting an ideology that allows dangerous criminals to be released from prison early or arrive on boats and move into your neighbourhood shows a complete disregard for the safety of women and girls.

He is literally putting words into people's mouths. Same old same old.

I don't think many on here if any are defending brand or his actions. They are simply asking the question if the trial was fair and free from prejudice.

 

[hackney-viking-eagle]

Hilarious how many 'save our girls' patriots are now vehemently defending a man who used to send his BBC driver to the school gates to pick up girls. Literal schoolgirls. And Walliams - messaging 15 year old fans and arranging dates. Seriously. Have a word with yourselves.

 

[Part Time James]

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.

Wasn't he acquitted because they thought the accuser was making it up?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

You are amazingly thick.

Questioning a conviction is not defending a rapist. The conviction is what makes him a rapist.
By contrast, supporting an ideology that allows dangerous criminals to be released from prison early or arrive on boats and move into your neighbourhood shows a complete disregard for the safety of women and girls.

Abusive as ever, from a total moron who can’t hold a thought in his head without it involving immigrants.

You are absolutely defending a rapist.

Chomped down on yet another grifter who views your lot as easy prey to exploit.

Maybe one day the penny will drop, but you’re probably too thick to ever see it.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

He is literally putting words into people's mouths. Same old same old.

I don't think many on here if any are defending brand or his actions. They are simply asking the question if the trial was fair and free from prejudice.

You’re all desperately trying to prove the ‘innocence’ of a rapist and sexual abuser - that is very clearly defending him.

Own what you are.

 

[silvertop]

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

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

Yes, and I was politely asking him based on his personal experience as a police detective whether he believes the convictions were unsafe.

I am genuinely interested in his view.

You saw attack where there was none

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Abusive as ever, from a total moron who can’t hold a thought in his head without it involving immigrants.

You are absolutely defending a rapist.

Chomped down on yet another grifter who views your lot as easy prey to exploit.

Maybe one day the penny will drop, but you’re probably too thick to ever see it.

You are too stupid to understand simple concepts.

I don't particularly like Russell Brand and I can't stand Walliams. That has no bearing on their guilt. I don't know if they are actually guilty or not. You don't either, so stop your faux outrage.

 

[silvertop]

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.

In he-said-she-said cases juries generally do not convict, which is probably why most prosecutions do not proceed. As you say, juries need a great deal more, especially after the passage of so many years.

In the instant case, I have a feeling Brand was convicted on some of the charges (remember the juries chucked others out so they did try to apply the evidential standard as evenly as they could) because:

1. The surrounding circumstantial evidence;
2. The evidence of the victims was compelling;
3. Brand's evidence was a train wreck;
4. Combination of the above.

I do not think the rather relaxed application of sub judice leading up to the trial was a significant factor as, otherwise, the prosecution would have won a clean sweep.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Yes, and I was politely asking him based on his personal experience as a police detective whether he believes the convictions were unsafe.

I am genuinely interested in his view.

You saw attack where there was none

putting accusations to me, I did not make. You say a poster is a police detective. And so you believe that ?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

You are too stupid to understand simple concepts.

I don't particularly like Russell Brand and I can't stand Walliams. That has no bearing on their guilt. I don't know if they are actually guilty or not. You don't either, so stop your faux outrage.

Another phenomenally dumb take.

By your logic, we don’t know if any criminal is ‘actually guilty’ because we can just pick and choose whether we like the verdict or not.

How do you prove ‘actual guilt’ if not in a court of law..?

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Hilarious how many 'save our girls' patriots are now vehemently defending a man who used to send his BBC driver to the school gates to pick up girls. Literal schoolgirls. And Walliams - messaging 15 year old fans and arranging dates. Seriously. Have a word with yourselves.

You are obviously another person who can't tell the difference between defending someone and questioning a conviction.

Personally, I think Walliams looks exactly like the guy you wouldn't want around your daughter, but that is part of the problem. I am already prejudiced against him.

How many of the jury in the Brand case were neutral about his well known reputation? I'm just asking the question.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Another phenomenally dumb take.

By your logic, we don’t know if any criminal is ‘actually guilty’ because we can just pick and choose whether we like the verdict or not.

How do you prove ‘actual guilt’ if not in a court of law..?

There isn't always certainty in a conviction, but there is at least some evidence. Would you get a conviction for a robbery without evidence? What about murder?

 

[eaglesdare]

Hilarious how many 'save our girls' patriots are now vehemently defending a man who used to send his BBC driver to the school gates to pick up girls. Literal schoolgirls. And Walliams - messaging 15 year old fans and arranging dates. Seriously. Have a word with yourselves.

How does walliams get a fair trial now to be guilty or innocent? Everyone has already made up their mind about him?

 

[silvertop]

putting accusations to me, I did not make. You say a poster is a police detective. And so you believe that ?

Who would claim to be what they are not?

 

[DanH]

You are obviously another person who can't tell the difference between defending someone and questioning a conviction.

Personally, I think Walliams looks exactly like the guy you wouldn't want around your daughter, but that is part of the problem. I am already prejudiced against him.

How many of the jury in the Brand case were neutral about his well known reputation? I'm just asking the question.

How do you explain him being acquitted of the other charges if you think the jury were prejudiced?

 

[Stirlingsays]

How does walliams get a fair trial now to be guilty or innocent? Everyone has already made up their mind about him?

It's the OJ Simpson problem, though that particular situation ended up being in his favour for reasons most know about now.

The only way famous people can get a fair trial on aspects like would be with English speaking foreign juries, where these people aren't known......still hard to find but doable.