Russell Brand

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Who has said they support rape and sexual abuse?

Disagreeing with the soundness of a verdict is not supporting rape and sexual abuse.

For feck's sake.

He's too thick to bother with. My patience is a little thin today.

On a diet. 🙂

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Who has said they support rape and sexual abuse?
Disagreeing with the soundness of a verdict is not supporting rape and sexual abuse.

don't feed the Lefty Troll Eagle. You can never win an argument against a fanatic.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Who has said they support rape and sexual abuse?

Disagreeing with the soundness of a verdict is not supporting rape and sexual abuse.

For feck's sake.

This is where the thread has gone haywire. How does anyone's ideology come into regarding consent being withdrawn 20 years after the event as something not to be celebrated? It's not excusing Brand or his ilk to be concerned that a court case could be waiting because someone else has changed their mind.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Look at the gang rally round in defence of the rapist - warms the heart.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

This is where the thread has gone haywire. How does anyone's ideology come into regarding consent being withdrawn 20 years after the event as something not to be celebrated? It's not excusing Brand or his ilk to be concerned that a court case could be waiting because someone else has changed their mind.

But she hasn't 'changed her mind' at all - that's a completely dishonest framing.

Her story 17 years ago, as she told 23 different witnesses including her parents, friends and a healthcare professional, was that she had unwanted, non-consensual anal sex with Russell Brand.

That's still her story today.

Again, he was found not guilty on other allegations of rapes - if this was just some overt witch-hunt, or a jury oh-so-biased they were going to convict Brand whatever the evidence, or indeed we lived in a society where rape allegations are just convicted on a whim, those other allegations would have stuck as well... but they didn't.

 

[palace99]

Who has said they support rape and sexual abuse?

Disagreeing with the soundness of a verdict is not supporting rape and sexual abuse.

For feck's sake.

FFS, next you'll be saying Jimmy Saville never got a fair hearing as he was dead!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

But she hasn't 'changed her mind' at all - that's a completely dishonest framing.

Her story 17 years ago, as she told 23 different witnesses including her parents, friends and a healthcare professional, was that she had unwanted, non-consensual anal sex with Russell Brand.

That's still her story today.

Again, he was found not guilty on other allegations of rapes - if this was just some overt witch-hunt, or a jury oh-so-biased they were going to convict Brand whatever the evidence, or indeed we lived in a society where rape allegations are just convicted on a whim, those other allegations would have stuck as well... but they didn't.

I haven't mentioned witch hunts or anything similar and am not remotely interested in Russell Brand or his sleazy activities. My concern is as stated that 20 years after the event someone can end up in court for what may or may not have been a consensual act.
She could have told a thousand people but it's still one person's word against another.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I haven't mentioned witch hunts or anything similar and am not remotely interested in Russell Brand or his sleazy activities. My concern is as stated that 20 years after the event someone can end up in court for what may or may not have been a consensual act.
She could have told a thousand people but it's still one person's word against another.

As is nearly every rape allegation ever made - that's obviously not grounds to dismiss every allegation as false.

The jury decided that her word, as supported by 23 witnesses and who knows what else, was far more believable than his.

That's how our legal system works.

Again, the fact that the other rape allegations have not stuck flies in the face of this idea that you don't need to prove anything when accusing someone of rape or that convictions are just dished out for fun. The same jury who convicted him or rape and sexual assault did not convict him on those charges, so clearly there is a bar that needs hitting!

 

[Stirlingsays]

On a thread about a rapist, you've made the argument that 'the liberal left have heel-turned to sudden moral arbiters' - given the context of the conversation, it's pretty sensible to assume you mean that in terms of the left's condemnation of said rapist and abuser.

I'll try to explain it again more literally perhaps.

The left were always for sexual liberation but there are limits.....However, If the liberal left treat sexually degenerate behaviour as edgy and cool, as they did roughly for over a generation 85-2020 to the level past that of previous generations (which contained more social conservativism still within the culture), then you are de-facto going to create a space for more of that degenerate behaviour.

A percent of that behaviour is going to be illegal. Now I don't think Brand has been proven a rapist but I certainly believe that he was a degenerate before he settled down into family life.

He took full advantage of the cultural space, unlike the media and pop and rock stars before him he put it all out and centre and the girls flocked to him.

What the left now refer to as sexual assault they were literally laughing about during that time period. So yes, they have flipped culturally.

If you don't see that I can't really help you....well I knew that anyway. Why don't you post at Funt instead. He's Hol's edgy 'Ian Hislop' and you you will no doubt have more fun there.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

As is nearly every rape allegation ever made - that's obviously not grounds to dismiss every allegation as false.

The jury decided that her word, as supported by 23 witnesses and who knows what else, was far more believable than his.

That's how our legal system works.

Again, the fact that the other rape allegations have not stuck flies in the face of this idea that you don't need to prove anything when accusing someone of rape or that convictions are just dished out for fun. The same jury who convicted him or rape and sexual assault did not convict him on those charges, so clearly there is a bar that needs hitting!

That's fine if you have no concern about the same charge being levelled against people you know after 20 years.

 

[Stirlingsays]

FFS, next you'll be saying Jimmy Saville never got a fair hearing as he was dead!

Oh I see, if I doubt the soundness of Brand's conviction then I must think that Savile wasn't a paedo.

I guess if I doubt this conviction, I must think that anyone ever convicted of a sex crime was innocent.

Yeah, thanks for that.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

That's fine if you have no concern about the same charge being levelled against people you know after 20 years.

Absolutely no concern if there is sufficient evidence to move a jury to convict, because as evidenced even within this trial, rape convictions are not handed out cheaply.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Absolutely no concern if there is sufficient evidence to move a jury to convict, because as evidenced even within this trial, rape convictions are not handed out cheaply.

Fair enough. Alhough it might cost someone his marriage, job and reputation even if the charge isn't upheld.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I'll try to explain it again more literally perhaps.

The left were always for sexual liberation but there are limits.....However, If the liberal left treat sexually degenerate behaviour as edgy and cool, as they did roughly for over a generation 85-2020 to the level past that of previous generations (which contained more social conservativism still within the culture), then you are de-facto going to create a space for more of that degenerate behaviour.

A percent of that behaviour is going to be illegal. Now I don't think Brand has been proven a rapist but I certainly believe that he was a degenerate before he settled down into family life.

He took full advantage of the cultural space, unlike the media and pop and rock stars before him he put it all out and centre and the girls flocked to him.

What the left now refer to as sexual assault they were literally laughing about during that time period. So yes, they have flipped culturally.

If you don't see that I can't really help you....well I knew that anyway. Why don't you post at Funt instead. He's Hol's edgy 'Ian Hislop' and you you will no doubt have more fun there.

It's fine to be for sexual liberation and against rape. Brand hasn't been convicted of sexual liberation, he's been convicted of rape.

Your argument is built on a premise that blurs 'sexual liberation', 'degenerate behaviour' and 'rape', despite them not being remotely interchangeable terms.

There is truth to your broader point that there is some societal hypocrisy in terms of what was encouraged historically, but rape very obviously stands miles outside of that.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Fair enough. Alhough it might cost someone his marriage, job and reputation even if the charge isn't upheld.

As would any criminal allegation comparable in severity.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

As would any criminal allegation comparable in severity.

But how many other charges don't require any evidence other than word of mouth?

 

[Stirlingsays]

It's fine to be for sexual liberation and against rape. Brand hasn't been convicted of sexual liberation, he's been convicted of rape.

Your argument is built on a premise that blurs 'sexual liberation', 'degenerate behaviour' and 'rape', despite them not being remotely interchangeable terms.

There is truth to your broader point that there is some societal hypocrisy in terms of what was encouraged historically, but rape very obviously stands miles outside of that.

The fact that you can't see how all those are connected and that an increase in sexual liberation means an inevitable increase in the others just tells me you are blind to reason.

Again, post at others, engaging with you is using sign language in front of the blind.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The fact that you can't see how all those are connected and that an increase in sexual liberation means an inevitable increase in the others just tells me you are blind to reason.

Again, post at others, engaging with you is using sign language in front of the blind.

Obviously they're connected, but they're not interchangable terms - if you can't see that, you must be blind to reason.

I'll post what I want thanks.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

But how many other charges don't require any evidence other than word of mouth?

It's interesting how witness testimony has been rebranded as 'he said/she said' and 'word of mouth' - I only ever see that language applied to rape and sexual abuse cases. Curious.

Witness testimony is evidence. It's not somehow inadmissible or worthless because it comes from the person who experienced the crime.

People are convicted of assault, robbery, threats and numerous other offences on the evidence of a single witness. There is no general legal requirement for corroboration.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It's interesting how witness testimony has been rebranded as 'he said/she said' and 'word of mouth' - I only ever see that language applied to rape and sexual abuse cases. Curious.

Witness testimony is evidence. It's not somehow inadmissible or worthless because it comes from the person who experienced the crime.

People are convicted of assault, robbery, threats and numerous other offences on the evidence of a single witness. There is no general legal requirement for corroboration.

It isn't but not many serious charges will go to court without any other evidence.
In any case (no pun intended) we're getting sidetracked - my concern is how anyone can defend themselves decades after the event.