Russell Brand.

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Are you suggesting the press are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?

No.

I wasn't suggesting anything other than it was a really dumb suggestion.

If I was forced to take a view on the press it would be that they will do anything to drive clicks/sales.

 

[Dis86]

We go over this semi regularly

Not guilty does not mean innocent.
It means they failed to meet the burden of proof required. Which is beyond reasonable doubt.

No, it doesn't.
However beyond reasonable doubt is the key bit. Reasonable.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

So from the time your are accused of something you can never be innocent again. Because "not guilty" is not innocent, and you should be forever marked as possibly guilty.

This is true.
Its just the way the UK system has evolved.
I mean its reasonable that its beyond reasonable doubt to convict.
Its why the judges will look generally for unanimous decisions.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Would 5 people like to come forwards to say @Mercenary Keyboard Warrior swore and spat at them?

Calling 5 people to testify against him, please.

There may be £5000 per accuser for a successful conviction.

Calling all victims of @Mercenary Keyboard Warrior 's disgusting behaviour, please come forwards. There may be a reward.

Has anyone been paid for their story? I'll be amazed if the Times paid any of these women.

 

[Dis86]

Companies like Google have a duty to their advertisers and share holder above anything else. They aren't going to risk either for some random person who has been accused of rape. If the allegations come to nothing and it all blows over then they will likely monetise his content again and advertisers will not object to their products being in his content. Do you expect Google to continue putting their advertisers next to him right now?

And that's where the mob mentality is wrong. If this was dealt with anonymously as I pointed out earlier in the thread there would be no issue.

 

[FoxEye]

This is true.
Its just the way the UK system has evolved.
I mean its reasonable that its beyond reasonable doubt to convict.
Its why the judges will look generally for unanimous decisions.

It does make a malicious accusation all the better, tho. Supremely unlikely you'll be proven to be lying, and the accused is ruined even if found innocent.

Win/win for a malicious (or just speculative) accuser.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Are you suggesting the press are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?

They do it because its their job. Are you suggesting they pay every witness for their testimony? Every victim they speak to is paid? An ex worked for a TV production company that made Dispatches and other such programs and they did not pay the witnesses. They might cover travel expenses if they wanted them to come to a studio to film but that is it.

 

[Dis86]

They do it because its their job. Are you suggesting they pay every witness for their testimony? Every victim they speak to is paid? An ex worked for a TV production company that made Dispatches and other such programs and they did not pay the witnesses. They might cover travel expenses if they wanted them to come to a studio to film but that is it.

Exactly. They do it for money. Money is intrinsic to this. Not goodness of heart.

I've already pointed out the claimants may be acting simply out of vengeance.

 

[Hotwired]

And then when it turns out that they've dropped a completely innocent person? That should be remembered in my eyes.

It's incredibly easy to make allegations and a lot of them have been found to be false after other people have been thrown under the bus.

I'm sure Youtube will welcome the Brand Brand back into the money making machine the moment he's not a liability. Also that Brand will crawl back to them the moment he can. It's cold business.

Meantime as a self employed person whose entire income relies on good will, there's always JSA.

What do you want to hear, agreement that it's damaging to be accused of rape and that this should be an accusation that business partners should be legally forced to tolerate despite any damage to themselves?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

No, it doesn't.
However beyond reasonable doubt is the key bit. Reasonable.

It very much does.
Found not guilty means on balance of evidence there was not enough to convict, again beyond reasonable doubt.
Its a common mistake to take not guilty to mean innocent.

The CPS say "To find the defendant ‘guilty’ the jury must be sure that the defendant is guilty. Sometimes you’ll hear this described as ‘sure beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so you are sure’.
If the jury aren’t sure that the defendant is guilty then they must find them ‘not guilty’. "

It does make a malicious accusation all the better, tho. Supremely unlikely you'll be proven to be lying, and the accused is ruined even if found innocent.

Win/win for a malicious (or just speculative) accuser.

Again they wont be found innocent.
They will be found not guilty.

Generally cases with little to no grounding wont even go to court, the CPS looks at balance of evidence.
Bear in mind these sorts of charges will the the State vs (ie criminal), and not the low level bar of a civil case.

A large part of recent coverage has been that in regards rape cases for example that the CPS is setting the bar very high. So they are not progressing simple "he says she says" type cases.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

And that's where the mob mentality is wrong. If this was dealt with anonymously as I pointed out earlier in the thread there would be no issue.

The only way this is going to be dealt with anonymously is through the police and even then it won't be if the person is charged. The chances of him being charged are slim to **** all as its a, he said, she said. Maybe the case where the victim went to see a rape centre the same day and there are texts but even then I doubt the CPS would think they could get a conviction. If you can't get any recourse though the courts or think that you can't (the data says you stand little to no chance) then speaking to the press is all you have left.
I'm not speaking about this case in particular now but do you think that someone who says they were sexually assaulted or raped should never be allowed to name their attacker?

 

[FoxEye]

A large part of recent coverage has been that in regards rape cases for example that the CPS is setting the bar very high. So they are not progressing simple "he says she says" type cases.

I'm not convinced of that at all.

Especially with the historical prosecutions. Things that are alleged to have happened decades ago.

Even where accusers have been unable (or unwilling) to give exact dates, time or places. And still these things can go to trial.

e: It's important to say they aren't all criminal trials. Civil cases can just as much ruin a reputation and have an even lower threshold for returning guilty verdicts.

 

[Dis86]

The only way this is going to be dealt with anonymously is through the police and even then it won't be if the person is charged. The chances of him being charged are slim to **** all as its a, he said, she said. Maybe the case where the victim went to see a rape centre the same day and there are texts but even then I doubt the CPS would think they could get a conviction. If you can't get any recourse though the courts or think that you can't (the data says you stand little to no chance) then speaking to the press is all you have left.
I'm not speaking about this case in particular now but do you think that someone who says they were sexually assaulted or raped should never be allowed to name their attacker?

But they didn't go to the press. The press sought them out!

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I'm not convinced of that at all.

Especially with the historical prosecutions. Things that are alleged to have happened decades ago.

Even where accusers have been unable (or unwilling) to give exact dates, time or places. And still these things can go to trial.

e: It's important to say they aren't all criminal trials. Civil cases can just as much ruin a reputation and have an even lower threshold for returning guilty verdicts.

Warning! Lefty news source

CPS accused of betraying rape victims as prosecutions hit record low

Victims’ commissioner for England and Wales criticises CPS’s ‘woeful’ performance as prosecutions drop 26% in a year

www.theguardian.com

 

[StriderX]

I'm not convinced of that at all.

Especially with the historical prosecutions. Things that are alleged to have happened decades ago.

Even where accusers have been unable (or unwilling) to give exact dates, time or places. And still these things can go to trial.

e: It's important to say they aren't all criminal trials. Civil cases can just as much ruin a reputation and have an even lower threshold for returning guilty verdicts.

Well there has to be some sort of consequence for all these nearly impossible to prove sexual assaults or else there will no longer be any barrier at all for people to abuse others.

 

[Fubsy]

A 30 year old chap in your street is having sex with 16 year old school girls in the area.

How would I know for certain this guy on my street is having sex with 16 year old school girls?

He’s also a creepy sex pest in public.

Have the police been alerted to his creepy sex pesting?

He gets barred from the local shop and pub

Why? If this because of a rumour going around?

a few of the girls fathers have filled him

There's allusion here of him being assaulted. This is a crime, if he didn't fear for his life, he would report it to the police. He doesn't.

He’s generally not liked and accused of forcing himself on girls.

So no proof, just a bit of a weirdo and there's a few stories going around.

Your brother hears about this man and owns the local petrol station in the next town. Your brother is outraged and bans this man from using the petrol station where his daughter works.

The man turns up to the petrol station, my brother is angry after hearing all the stories and wants to put an end to it to protect his daughter. He fills him, then douses him in petrol and sets him alight. One less perve in the world.

He gets life for murder. An investigation finds that none of the things that my brother thought this guy had done, were proven to be true.

Who is in the wrong?

Everyone.

Yes, I've butchered your post and sensationalised it, but I do however agree with the sentiment of your proposal - people in an area will act to protect and look out for each other, especially with how awful the police are in some places, so a degree of self policing occurs. However, the mob can and does get carried away and has to be guarded against somehow.

I knew a few loner guys that have had rumours passed around, one guys was terrified to be seen out in public because of what people were saying about him. It wasn't true, and never found out how it started, mistaken identity maybe - the guy had to move in the end. I'm personally ashamed, that as a kid, I spread a horrid rumour about my neighbour - I never got a chance to apologise.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Exactly. They do it for money. Money is intrinsic to this. Not goodness of heart.

I've already pointed out the claimants may be acting simply out of vengeance.

So because journalists are paid they are liars who make up stories? Is that what you are saying or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Now some clearly do. The tabloids are famous for it but I would hope the Times would still be above such things and especially on a high profile case that could cost them big £ if they don't have the evidence to back up their case.

All of them acting out of vengeance? They might be, that vengeance might be because he raped them though or it might be because he treated them badly. I've got an open mind on the rape stuff. I've already said several times that the 16 year old stuff is creepy as hell, as is what he asked her to do, if she is telling the truth of course.

 

[FoxEye]

Well there has to be some sort of consequence for all these nearly impossible to prove sexual assaults or else there will no longer be any barrier at all for people to abuse others.

You said "nearly impossible to prove". Your own words.

What action should we take against a person when it's "nearly impossible to prove" that he did anything, at all???!

I mean, that's a weird place to be, logically, trying to seek prosecution and punishments when you can't prove anything even happened.

 

[Dis86]

So because journalists are paid they are liars who make up stories? Is that what you are saying or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Now some clearly do. The tabloids are famous for it but I would hope the Times would still be above such things and especially on a high profile case that could cost them big £ if they don't have the evidence to back up their case.

All of them acting out of vengeance? They might be, that vengeance might be because he raped them though or it might be because he treated them badly. I've got an open mind on the rape stuff. I've already said several times that the 16 year old stuff is creepy as hell, as is what he asked her to do, if she is telling the truth of course.

We've seen multiple high profile payouts by the press in recent weeks and months, so yes, I think we can correctly infer journalists will lie.

What they will also do is use clever and coercive language. Let's be very clear, I've only actually seen one account that had any details to claim he did something illegal. And those details are incredibly hard to corroborate especially when part of the 'evidence' is literally a message from him saying sorry for being a douche. He could have been apologising for a million and one things.

Also I must admit I find it strange that a woman has seemingly kept this message for something like a decade yet never gone to the police with a rape allegation and has only seemingly revealed it when approached by the press.

 

[Fubsy]

Do people actually know what incels are?

Isn't Russell Brand like an anti-incel? A chad?