Russell Brand.

i fully agree however with the very important small print that not having enough evidence to make charges stick does not mean the accuser is a liar.
(and no i am not saying when someone is found not guilty we should still assume where there is smoke there is fire either).

but yes when a person is proven to have made something up or hugely embellished what they claimed happened then they need to face charges.... but we cant have a system where victims are afraid to come forward because Rich people couple swamp them with solicitors and ultimately get them in trouble
 
I used to really like Brand, but he's gone off the deep end, also the thing that sold it more for me was there were texts he sent to one of the victims apologising for what he did. Now that could have been anything I suppose.... but there seems to be too many for it all to be made up. He was absolutely a sex pest.
 
jigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's fine... But I pretty much dismiss your argument against it i.e. "Needs of the many… side of caution"... I guess we have to agree to disagree :)



What about my last part which has nothing to do with anonymity though?

For clarity:

Richie said:
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
Click to expand...

In essence - are you a member of the "no smoke without fire" crowd? :confused:
 
Richie said:
That's fine... But I pretty much dismiss your argument against it i.e. "Needs of the many… side of caution"... I guess we have to agree to disagree :)



What about my last part which has nothing to do with anonymity though?

For clarity:



In essence - are you a member of the "no smoke without fire" crowd? :confused:
Click to expand...

The last part is you making assumptions. I believe charges have been brought and there is case to be answered. I believe our criminal justice systems should be as open and transparent as possible and it’s critical that public safety is put first.
 
Last edited:
Never going to be a right answer on this one.
There will be cases where naming a defendant will cause more issues, and they are later found not guilty.
There would be cases (hence why they changed the law) that not naming means the case fails, they are found not guilty, or never fully charged, and are later found to be guilty.

Right now I think the balance is probably correct, in that by default the defendant is named at a certain point, and the accuser remains unnamed. But both can be changed on the ruling of the judge.
Its down to the legal team of each side to ask for the above to be changed "in the public interest" as and if they see fit.
 
jigger said:
The last part is you making assumptions. I believe charges have been brought and there is case to be answered. I don’t believe our criminal justice systems should be as open and transparent as possible and it’s critical that public safety is put first.
Click to expand...

I am not making assumptions, I am asking you a question... Making an assumption would be me saying "you are part of the 'no smoke without fire' crowd"... What I ACTUALLY ASKED is "are you a member of the 'no smoke without fire' crowd" and you have deflected answering with accusations of assumptions.

Furthermore, you appear to be narrowing down the entire discussion surrounding the anonymity question to the Russell Brand incident. I, along with others here, are speaking about it in the general sense.



jigger said:
I don’t believe our criminal justice systems should be as open and transparent as possible....
Click to expand...

I assume the above is a typo and you DO believe our criminal justice systems should be as open and transparent as possible?
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Never going to be a right answer on this one.
There will be cases where naming a defendant will cause more issues, and they are later found not guilty.
There would be cases (hence why they changed the law) that not naming means the case fails, they are found not guilty, or never fully charged, and are later found to be guilty.

Right now I think the balance is probably correct, in that by default the defendant is named at a certain point, and the accuser remains unnamed. But both can be changed on the ruling of the judge.
Its down to the legal team of each side to ask for the above to be changed "in the public interest" as and if they see fit.
Click to expand...

The argument for anonymously charging people with crime is madness. It would be impossible to regulate and make our policing akin to those of Russia or Iran.
 
Richie said:
I am not making assumptions, I am asking you a question... Making an assumption would be me saying "you are part of the 'no smoke without fire' crowd"... What I ACTUALLY ASKED is "are you a member of the 'no smoke without fire' crowd" and you have deflected answering with accusations of assumptions.

Furthermore, you appear to be narrowing down the entire discussion surrounding the anonymity question to the Russell Brand incident. I, along with others here, are speaking about it in the general sense.





I assume the above is a typo and you DO believe our criminal justice systems should be as open and transparent as possible?
Click to expand...

Yeah typo. You never asked a question, you questioned my choice of singular words and seemed to take everything out of context while ignoring the overall tone to frame further discussion. It seems it’s you that’s now narrowing the discussion, I’m considering the wider ramifications and implications of applying the law to everybody.
 
Last edited:
jigger said:
Yeah typo. You never asked a question, you questioned my choice of singular words and seemed to take everything out of context while ignoring the overall tone to frame further discussion.
Click to expand...

:confused: Sure I did... I have copied it below:

Richie said:
In essence - are you a member of the "no smoke without fire" crowd? :confused:
Click to expand...

That fits all the requirements to be classed as a question
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
That's fine... But I pretty much dismiss your argument against it i.e. "Needs of the many… side of caution"... I guess we have to agree to disagree :)
Click to expand...

Open justice isn’t actually due to the needs of the many. It’s on the principle that justice must be public so that it can be seen and a judge cannot hide. Anonymity brings the risk of bias entering into a judgement as a judge does not need to fear public scrutiny (e.g. you’ve been more lenient/harsh because of XYZ). Anonymity then becomes an exception for overriding public policy reasons, but overall anonymity should be avoided to ensure justice can be seen and not just assumed.
 
jigger said:
You questioned my use of singular words and assumed the use of those meant some underlying bias.

Would you like to ask me something?
Click to expand...

QUESTION TO YOU - Are you a member of the "no smoke without fire" crowd?



Pudney said:
Open justice isn’t actually due to the needs of the many. It’s on the principle that justice must be public so that it can be seen and a judge cannot hide. Anonymity brings the risk of bias entering into a judgement as a judge does not need to fear public scrutiny (e.g. you’ve been more lenient/harsh because of XYZ). Anonymity then becomes an exception for overriding public policy reasons, but overall anonymity should be avoided to ensure justice can be seen and not just assumed.
Click to expand...

I think what I am suggesting is being misinterpreted so I will try and explain more as I am not talking about anonymous prosecutions.

In the UK, a mere allegation of a sexual crime is enough to send parts of the population into dusting off their pitchforks. Once a person is charged, this vigilantism is intensified and the accused faces potential assaults, loss of employment, loss of home etc. This level of personal "fallout" is not generally the same compared to other crimes. Allegations of sexual crimes are also affected by the "no smoke without fire" mentatility in that, if the accused is not convicted (charges dropped pre or during trial, found not guilty at trial etc), their life is still potentially ruined - they are still tarred by their neighbours, they can't gain any employment, potentially attacked or their property damaged and the news reports follow them for evermore thanks to the Internet.

The anonymity I am suggesting is simply restrictions on the reporting of info making them identifiable (name, photo, address etc). The press can still report on the case without this. What difference is there with the media reporting "30 year old man in court charged with rape" vs "David Smith, a 30 year old man from Abbots Way, Cheshire appears in court charged with rape <insert photo of accused here>"

During the trial, the media can still report on the facts of the case - the fact of him being "David Smith, a 30 year old man from Abbots Way, Cheshire" is irrelevant to what happens in the court until Verdict time.

If David Smith is found Not Guilty - Anonymity remains​
If David SMith is found Guilty - Media can now release Name, address, photo etc​


IF the police/prosecution deem that there may be more victims and naming him would encourage them to come forward then fine BUT - They should take this to the courts and, present their evidence to the Judge and have the Judge rule on removing the anonymity.

None of what I am suggesting hides the investigation nor the trial from the public domain.


I hope this clears things up a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom