If the evidence supports bringing charges, people must be charged IMO. I’m no expert on policing or criminal investigation, but I’d imagine the bar for burden of proof is very high with little room for opinion or assumptions. If charges are brought against someone there must be evidence to support the charge. If the charge is for violent crime, people should be rightly cautious and take action to protect themselves.
Russell Brand.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
If the evidence supports bringing charges, people must be charged IMO. I’m no expert on policing or criminal investigation, but I’d imagine the bar for burden of proof is very high with little room for opinion or assumptions. If charges are brought against someone there must be evidence to support the charge. If the charge is for violent crime, people should be rightly cautious and take action to protect themselves.
I'm all for charging people if there's evidence, but after this amount of time, what evidence would there be? If it comes down to your word via there's and that's enough to charge them, that's just scary.
The guys is worth a few quid, so what would stop a small group of women just giving it a go, or for someone that doesn't like his pollical views finding women he's slept with and then motivating them to do this? Not much it seems.
Can't stand the guy tbh, anyone who inserts that many unnecessary words into conversations is overcompensating for something.
The guys is worth a few quid, so what would stop a small group of women just giving it a go, or for someone that doesn't like his pollical views finding women he's slept with and then motivating them to do this? Not much it seems.
Can't stand the guy tbh, anyone who inserts that many unnecessary words into conversations is overcompensating for something.
Last edited:
What has that got to do with keeping the accused anonymous until a guilty verdict has been passed (which was @silvagti's main discussion point in the post you quoted)?
If guilty - name can be released
If innocent - anonymity remains
In cases where the police believe releasing a name to bring further victims forward - apply to the courts who will assess the evidence and make the decision.
Please bear in mind that the reason for what I have written above is only necessary because it has been proven that the public are idiots that cannot be trusted to be emotionally intelligent enough to wait for a court verdict nor deal with an innocent verdict properly.
Last edited:
Because of the risk posed pre trial as explained.
Last edited:
In fact, I'll go one further - They should change the "Not Guilty" verdict to "Innocent" given that the general population interpret Not Guilty with "they got away with it" especially towards sexual crimes....
I'd agree that if there's sufficient evidence then charges should be brought and I doubt anyone would disagree with that. I'd like to think that the evidence is very substantial before someone is charged but in many cases like these it's often a matter of one persons word against that of another unfortuantely. Made even more difficult when the accusations are historical from over 20 years ago.
What I'd take issue with is whether the accusers should be provided with anonymity. In the case where those involved are still children it's perfectly reasonable that they should remain anonymous. However for adults it feels like an afront to the concept of people being treated equally before the law if one person is provided it and another denied the same right. Anonymiity tips the scales of justice too far onto the side of the plaintiff.
I guess it's more of a grey area in the case of that snooker player in the news today where the accusers are 30 y/o adults but the alleged crime took place 20 years ago when they were children. On balance I think even in those circumstances that the accuser should be named to minimise the risk of malicious accusations to being made particulary in the event that the accusation is historical (eg several decades ago).
Last edited:
Care to point me to that explanation?
I was hoping you’d explain why protecting a potential violent offender by maintaining their anonymity is a relevant point to make.
It’s worth keeping in mind there is victim and perpetrator in this scenario. Not to mention the fact releasing the name of a victim publicly, would discourage future victims coming forward resulting in more crime.
Last edited:
I appreciate it's easy to fall into those semantics but right now I think it's questionable to refer to them as "victims" as beyond the accusation being made and the charge going to court nothing has been proven.....
Right not it's not reasonable to claim that there is a "victim" and a "perpetrator" as that implies the accused is guilty and the plaintiff's case has been proven. Only after the court case is it fair to use those terms IMO.
Last edited:
Well, you’d have to first ignore the fact the police have conducted interviews and investigations and the crown prosecution have concluded there is enough evidence to bring charges, before that’s the case.
Not sure why - you said
So I was simply asking for you to point to the post(s) showing the explanation you had stated has been made so I could read it
. It was a genuine request.In answer to your question at the top of this post:
If there is a potential for the ACCUSED to be violent then the prosecution should apply to the court for said accused to be held on remand and not granted bail.
To make my position clear - In crimes where the victim is able to be granted anonymity for reporting restrictions, then the accused should also have that right unless a guilty verdict is given. At this point, then the name can be release. This anonymity generally only happens with sexual crimes. Given a mere accusation of a sexual crime effectively destroys a person's life, even without a conviction, it is entirely justifiable to extend the anonymity to the accused. Then:
If guilty - name can be released
If innocent - anonymity remains
In cases where the police believe releasing a name to bring further victims forward - apply to the courts who will assess the evidence and make the decision.
This statement above, combined with other wordings in your recent posts, seems to imply that your opinion is that anyone that is charged with a crime has committed said crime. Happy to be corrected with an explanation, making things a bit clearer though
Last edited:
By definition you're a 'potential violent' offender.
Wrong. There is an alleged victim and an alleged perpetrator.
That would be even more amusing when someone gets an "innocent" verdict in a criminal court and is later found liable (i.e., more likely than not "guilty") during a civil trail.
Serous charges have been brought, it’s reasonable to safeguard the public IMO. Brand will get his trial.
Not sure why - you said
So I was simply asking for you to point to the post(s) showing the explanation you had stated has been made so I could read it
In answer to your question at the top of this post:
If there is a potential for the ACCUSED to be violent then the prosecution should apply to the court for said accused to be held on remand and not granted bail.
To make my position clear - In crimes where t
This statement above, combined with other wordings in your recent posts, seems to imply that your opinion is that anyone that is charged with a crime has committed said crime. Happy to be corrected with an explanation, making things a bit clearer though
I pretty much dismiss the argument of anonymity. Needs of the many… side of caution… I’d also have no issue with the Police remanding Brand in any form.