CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
England
Because rape allegations are hard to prove, and convictions are not handed out without significant proof.
That makes the guilty verdict more damning to anyone sensible.
Russell Brand
- Topic starter Cucking Funt
- Start date
Because rape allegations are hard to prove, and convictions are not handed out without significant proof.
That makes the guilty verdict more damning to anyone sensible.
Because there was enough evidence to convict of one but not the others?
It’s not f*cking difficult.
I am genuinely staggered by the reaction to this.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
I’m not at all - look at Trump and what people are prepared to overlook for ‘one of their own’.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Brave words from a keyboard coward.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
You mean like you thinking that the guy who shot Kirk was far right because all of your own weirdos were saying it on the social media you use.
Projection much?
If you added up their brain cells they might just get out of double figures.
Yet you swallowed it.....and yet you have spent hours on here talking about the gullibility of others.
You were on here for hours trying to convince people that because a photo looked like a meme from years ago that this meant far right. I wasted a whole evening trying to talk sense into you, but you just proved you wouldn't know what's 'sensible' from a sh1t in the woods.
One of their own indeed.
Last edited:
eaglesdare
Member
- Country
Australia
Hmmmm...as far as I know there was no DNA, no forensic evidence, no video?
Just hearsay?
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
And yet if he is convicted in a court of law, I will accept the outcome - defending rapists or murderers is not for me.
CPFCSaturn
Member
- Country
-
England
That’s apt, as you speculate on what evidence led to the rapist’s conviction.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Russell Brand isn't that right wing.
I mean does anyone know of Brand's right wing policy positions?
I know he doesn't support Rupert Lowe and doesn't even support Farage.
He's a social liberal.......A lefty from the 90s.
But a lefty from the 90s is far right to your clowns.
I mean does anyone know of Brand's right wing policy positions?
I know he doesn't support Rupert Lowe and doesn't even support Farage.
He's a social liberal.......A lefty from the 90s.
But a lefty from the 90s is far right to your clowns.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Last edited:
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Really?
So if a court of law convicts someone then you just accept it as fact?
Yeah.....I kind of believe you do.
However, there are so many cases of convictions being overturned that it makes you look about as gulliable as it comes.
From Grok:
Several profile UK cases involving rape (or sexual assault/attempted rape) and/or murder have seen convictions quashed in the last ~50 years (roughly since the mid-1970s), often due to advances in DNA evidence, unreliable confessions, or flawed forensic/identification evidence. Many involved the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) referring cases to the Court of Appeal.NYTimes
Here are some of the most notable ones:
- Peter Sullivan (Diane Sindall murder, 1986): Convicted in 1987 of the sexually motivated murder of 21-year-old barmaid Diane Sindall in Birkenhead/Merseyside (a frenzied sexual attack). He served about 38 years. In May 2025 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction after modern DNA testing on preserved semen samples from the scene produced a profile that did not match him (and pointed to an unknown male). This is widely described as the longest miscarriage of justice involving a living UK prisoner.NYTimes
- Andrew Malkinson (rape and related assault, 2003): Convicted in 2004 of the rape and assault of a woman left for dead on a motorway embankment in Salford/Greater Manchester (identification evidence was central; no DNA linked him at trial). He served ~17 years. In July 2023 the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions after DNA testing on the victim’s clothing matched another man on the National DNA Database. Greater Manchester Police later apologised, calling it a grave miscarriage of justice; the true perpetrator was later convicted.The Guardian
- Sean Hodgson (rape and murder of Teresa de Simone, 1979): Convicted in 1982 of the rape and strangling of 22-year-old barmaid Teresa de Simone in Southampton (he had made confessions later deemed unreliable). He served ~27 years. In 2009 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction after DNA analysis of preserved samples showed they did not match him (and later pointed toward another individual who had died).The Guardian
- Stephen Downing (murder of Wendy Sewell, 1973): Convicted in 1974 of the murder of typist Wendy Sewell in a Bakewell cemetery (he was 17, with learning difficulties; the case relied heavily on a confession obtained after prolonged questioning without proper caution or solicitor access, plus disputed forensic blood evidence). He served ~27 years. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in 2002, ruling the confession unreliable and forensic evidence flawed.Ccrc
- Andrew Evans (murder of Judith Roberts, 1972): Convicted in 1973 of the murder of 14-year-old Judith Roberts near Tamworth (he was 17 and made confessions after presenting himself to police following dreams/visions of the victim; psychiatric issues and a “truth drug” were involved). He served ~25 years. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in 1997 as unsafe due to the unreliability of the confessions given his mental state.Wikipedia
- Victor Nealon (attempted rape, 1996): Convicted in 1997 of the attempted rape of a woman near a nightclub in Redditch. He served ~17 years. In 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction after DNA evidence on the victim’s clothing pointed to another (unknown) male rather than him.The Guardian
- Barry George (murder of Jill Dando, 1999): Convicted in 2001 of the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando (shot on her doorstep; key evidence included a particle of firearms discharge residue later deemed inconclusive/neutral, plus other circumstantial points). The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in 2007 as unsafe; he was acquitted at a 2008 retrial after ~8 years in prison. (Note: this was murder without a sexual element.)Wikipedia
mark_cpal785
Member
- Location
- Dartford
- Country
-
England
Hearsay is not permitted as evidence in a court of law so none of it would be hearsay. A number of the defendents told other people about what happened to them at the time, so they haven’t changed their story only changed their mind to hold Brand accountable for what he did.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Yes it is because there are exceptions.
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, hearsay has important exceptions where it can be accepted as evidence. The trial included material that falls into these categories:.....Hearsay was part of the evidence used to convict Brand.
The core evidence that led to his conviction on one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault which was brought under the live testimony of the complainants.
Zero evidence other than he said/she said.
Unsafe.
Cucking Funt
Member
- Location
- Gaza
- Country
-
England
How do you know if any of the statutory gateways weren't met? Were you in court for the whole trial? No, you weren't. Did you hear all the evidence? No, you didn't. But the jury were, and they did. Yet you still maintain that proceedings were biased.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept that a rapist has been quite rightly convicted on what was obviously credible evidence?
The court got it wrong because some bloke on a football message board who wasn't in court and didn't hear all the evidence says so. Is that what you're saying?
mark_cpal785
Member
- Location
- Dartford
- Country
-
England
Seems a lot of people on here don’t know the meaning of the word hearsay 🤔
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
I do maintain the proceedings were biased and the conviction is unsafe.
Why is this difficult to accept?
Common sense.
The alleged incidents took place between 1999 and 2009. None of these complainants made a formal report to the police at or near the time. All of them came forward to police only after the September 2023 Channel 4 Dispatches documentary and related Times/Sunday Times reporting, with reports occurring in 2023–2025.
That documentary wouldn't have been made if Brand was still a darling of the left.
If Brand is a rapist after shagging thousands of women without anyone going to the Police until a few years ago then I call bullshit.
If McCartney and Jagger suddenly start social media criticisng the establishment that gains millions of followers I'm of the view that establishment cucks will suddenly find lots of stuff that encourages people....all under the freedom of not revealing their identities ....to take them to court.
You’re defending a convicted rapist.
They’re also glossing over the fact the two of the rape charges didn’t stick.
Anyone thinking this is some sort of cover up is a rapist apologist.
mark_cpal785
Member
- Location
- Dartford
- Country
-
England
the jury were selected from people that had not seen the documentary to avoid any bias. Brands defence that things had been invented or re-imagined because of the documentary did not hold up as the victims had told other people about what happened to them at the time but they didn’t want to report it.
The people speaking out in the documentary did not come forward after the documentary was made.
Could you apply your same logic to Jimmy Saville not being a paedo? No DNA or physical evidence just accusations. Same for Rolf Harris. Both just accusations of historical abuse.