Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 58,014
- Location
- Blurton
Russell Brand.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
If someone is libeling/slandering you post break up, and it ruins your life, then you as a victim of those things, did not handle the libel/slander well enough.
That’s not blaming, the blame is entirely on the malicious person, but there are malicious people in this world and how we handle them counts.
Are you under the impression that Brand doesn’t know who his victims or accusers are?!
My accuser didn’t go to the police so wasn’t granted anonymity, she went to social media.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 58,014
- Location
- Blurton
There's probably 100s if not 1000s of them he can pick from and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if found guilty.
If you can confront your accuser he deserves the same.
No one has argued he can’t confront his victim.
I think you’ve catastrophically misunderstood how it works.
It strikes me as quite odd that the media will so readily refer to the accusers as “victims” prior to the court case and a verdict being reached. Surely that’s at risk of influencing jurors and the outcome of the trial?
I guess that’s the reason for the legal language of “plaintiffs” and “defendants” as the term “victim” is loaded and implies that a crime has been committed and someone is guilty.
I guess that’s the reason for the legal language of “plaintiffs” and “defendants” as the term “victim” is loaded and implies that a crime has been committed and someone is guilty.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,127
- Location
- Shepley
Agreed re Brand but citation needed for Barton, I don’t think the Guardian ever held him in high regard even when he tried to rebrand himself as an intellectual.
The anonymity is from media reporting and the public not from the accused...I think some people need to understand how the system works before getting outraged by how they think it does.
Do you think that’s fair and reasonable when the accused isn’t given the same level of protection and anonymity from the media prior to the trial?
Plus my understanding is that even after a trial, assuming the accused is found innocent, the accuser having failed to prove their case and having publicly dragged someone’s name through the mud is still allowed to remain anonymous in perpetuity?
Surely that’s massively open to abuse , false accusations and grossly one-sided?
Last edited:
I think a lot of people have shown themselves up as both being the kinds of people to not understand basic legal concepts and the kinds of people to argue about things they clearly don’t understand.
I will accept apologies from said people over DM’s.
Or you’ll report them to the police amirite?
How far did you get with that last year when you threatened to do so btw?
For what’s it’s worth, you’re correct in the above argument but you have a very antagonistic approach.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,127
- Location
- Shepley
That’s why the media refers to “alleged” victims which is no different to a plaintiff.
If that's what needs to happen to ensure a functioning justice system, then yes it is. Life isn't always fair.
The (not necessarily perfect) solution to this is anonymity for all involved, rather than nobody but that doesn’t suit the desires of our media who desperately want to plaster people's faces under enticing headlines.
Go back and look at all the permabanned members in those threads, notice how I’m still here, and the significant improvement in the previously lax moderation. Case King were excellent.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 58,014
- Location
- Blurton
This was your reply to MY POST.
You could have just said they do face their accusers in Court instead of going on a rant saying I want to make victims suffer more and I want to silence rape victims etc.
Was there any need to make that claim from my post?
This was your reply to MY POST.
You could have just said they do face their accusers in Court instead of going on a rant saying I want to make victims suffer more and I want to silence rape victims etc.
Was there any need to make that claim from my post?
Post my whole reply with all its context, and what your post I’m quoting quotes. Don’t weirdly take a screen shot, crop it, and expose yourself as a blue tier user.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 58,014
- Location
- Blurton
You have claimed that I want to silence rape victims and I want to make them suffer.
Please explain why?
Or have you actually quoted incorrectly and your last paragraph was only aimed at me?
I’ve told you what to do to warrant a reply from me itt.
You’ve come here, massively misinformed and misunderstood a basic legal concept, posted a lot agreeing with some utterly horrific takes and view points. On now discovering that you didn’t understand what you were posting about the least you could do is be a bit humble and follow my insurrections when asking for a reply from me.
I don’t post as much anymore, so I don’t recognise any usernames. I get that I’m well known here, a bona fide posting super star of the forums that graces threads with supreme content, and a target for many a haterater. You don’t seem like a bad guy, you made a mistake, lord knows we all do, it’s how we handle mistakes that make us good posters.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 58,014
- Location
- Blurton
Woah, all I said was the accused should face their accusers, you said they actually do - END OF, thanks for putting me right.
I quoted somebody else who said they didn't which I found strange.
What other utterly horrific takes have I agreed with or have you got me mixed up with somebody else?
Just so you know this is what I replied to, do I deserve the accusations you are making?
Last edited: