Russell Brand.

Bringing this vaguely back on topic...
I do wonder how someone like Brand would get a fair trial as surely most people would have heard of him and he is such a polarising figure.
I mean, I personally dislike him intensely and I certainly couldn't be sure that wouldn't be an issue in a trial.
I know they say just concentrate on the evidence but I'd be useless on a jury with a public figure that I didn't like anyway. :p
 
Uther said:
Bringing this vaguely back on topic...
I do wonder how someone like Brand would get a fair trial as surely most people would have heard of him and he is such a polarising figure.
I mean, I personally dislike him intensely and I certainly couldn't be sure that wouldn't be an issue in a trial.
I know they say just concentrate on the evidence but I'd be useless on a jury with a public figure that I didn't like anyway. :p
Click to expand...
He can't. There is no way they could but a 12 person jury together with people who either haven't heard of him or who don't have an opinion about him. There was a bloke on the news the other day, talking about another trial, and he said justice is blind and this is the reason why the statue of justice atop The Old Bailey wears a blindfold. Only it doesn't does it, people only assume it does.
 
Uther said:
Bringing this vaguely back on topic...
I do wonder how someone like Brand would get a fair trial as surely most people would have heard of him and he is such a polarising figure.
I mean, I personally dislike him intensely and I certainly couldn't be sure that wouldn't be an issue in a trial.
I know they say just concentrate on the evidence but I'd be useless on a jury with a public figure that I didn't like anyway. :p
Click to expand...

I haven't been called for jury service, but as far as I'm aware in England jurors for a particular trial are picked at random from the available pool that day. And that randomness is supposed to be the safety net for a fair trial. Unless there is some special additional process for the defence to object to people (e.g. those wearing an "I Hate Russell Brand" T shirt) then being a high profile knobhead is probably not going to work in your favour.

You would hope that during a trial jurors will take onboard the seriousness of the proceedings and pay attention to the evidence and arguments presented before finding him guilty.
 
Could we find 12 (angry?) men in this thread alone that would give the guy a fair shake based on evidence presented alone?

On the evidence of my eyes that have read and my brain that has half understood, it could be argued either way. Hasn't this also dragged on for almost 2 years already? Would t be surprised if the Mandela effect hasn't set in.
 
Pick 12 random brits and I bet you would get a fair mix of positions in regards Brand.

Unless your into fringe loony conspiracy theories or pay particular attention to the news then hes been out of the public eye for what 10 years?
There will be practically a generation who have never heard of him.

There will be older people who dislike him, like him, hate him, love him etc.

I dislike him, I always have, I always have disliked people like him. By people like him I mean OTT "personalities".
I would still be able to judge him based on the merits of the case presented.

The judge can remove someone who is reported as showing clear bias (or if he witnesses this himself).

When you look at Brands self confessed history its no stretch to think that over a couple of decades hes crossed the line a fair few times.
Whether there is evidence to support this, and if its anything more than circumstantial no one knows other than those who needed to decide if he should be put to trial.
Luckily for Brand he had pretty much ruined his own reputation already. (Hence him having to grift people on youtube rather than actually working in entertainment).
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I dislike him, I always have, I always have disliked people like him. By people like him I mean OTT "personalities".
I would still be able to judge him based on the merits of the case presented.
Click to expand...

I'm the same, I can't stand him and I reckon he's guilty however I could sit on a fence in a courtroom.

I also think OTT Personalities have ben created by the Media and public.
People like Brand and Gino were constantly booked for TV and their OTT was expected therefore forging a thought they can get away with anything.
 
There is a big difference between not liking someone and wanting to see them go down just because of a dislike, versus not liking someone but still remaining objective. I think most rational people can agree that Brand is odd and does/says things that are completely bizarre, and the fact he previously said when the first round of allegations came out that he was "promiscuous" or whatever in the past seemed like an excuse rather than a flatout denial of the allegations and standing his ground, but instead he went on the offensive of the "lamestream media" and so on and started doing the whole fight the cause and pay donate to my channel shenanigans.

It's like trump saying he can just grab women by the ***** because "when you're famous they let you do it" according to him.

ipyF54j.png
 
Yeah that’s a pretty bad example of remaining rational and objective :cry:

People are going way too far with this, let’s see how it plays out in court before getting carried away.
 
Ayahuasca said:
Yeah that’s a pretty bad example of remaining rational and objective :cry:

People are going way too far with this, let’s see how it plays out in court before getting carried away.
Click to expand...

Kinda highlights the point about him never receiving a fair trial if that's what people are now making up.
 
I saw him in a Tesco near Reading yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him asking him for photos or anything especially given the current media attention. He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”. I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off.

When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying. The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, sorry but you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter. When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.
 
mrk said:
There is a big difference between not liking someone and wanting to see them go down just because of a dislike, versus not liking someone but still remaining objective. I think most rational people can agree that Brand is odd and does/says things that are completely bizarre, and the fact he previously said when the first round of allegations came out that he was "promiscuous" or whatever in the past seemed like an excuse rather than a flatout denial of the allegations and standing his ground, but instead he went on the offensive of the "lamestream media" and so on and started doing the whole fight the cause and pay donate to my channel shenanigans.

It's like trump saying he can just grab women by the ***** because "when you're famous they let you do it" according to him.

ipyF54j.png
Click to expand...


Goes on about being objective, calls someone a nonce from a, I assume, Reddit post image.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mrk
the identities of both accused and victim should be protected; should this be another (guy from wheel of fortune) situation and brand is found not guilty - his reputation will be trashed and victims may hesitate to report.
 
Dis86 said:
Hold on, he's now accused of being a nonce too?
Click to expand...
the guys a proper wrong un...

There have been allegations that Russell Brand, during his time as a BBC radio presenter between 2006 and 2008, used BBC-provided chauffeur-driven cars to transport a 16-year-old girl from her school to his home. One woman, referred to as "Alice" in reports, claimed that when she was 16 in 2006, Brand, then 31, had a three-month relationship with her. She alleged that he sent cars to pick her up from school, and during this period, he sexually assaulted her. Alice described the relationship as emotionally abusive and controlling, stating that Brand referred to her as "the child" and provided her with "scripts" to deceive her parents about their interactions.
Click to expand...

What kinda grown man does that.

In my books thats nonce territory, think about how naive you likely were at 16 and how easy you could be manipulated


16 +2 years gap kinda okay.
16+3 years gap kinda iffy
16+4 years can borderline nonce, why are you so interested in my daughter at a time in your life that your surrounded by women your own age?


16 + 15 = ima put a stop to it, even if I have to inflict physical harm.

if the above is true the guys a piece of poop and I hope he serves jail time without being put in solitary or given special protection
 
Last edited:
Zefan said:
I saw him in a Tesco near Reading yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him asking him for photos or anything especially given the current media attention. He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”. I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off.

When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying. The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, sorry but you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter. When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.
Click to expand...
Man of honour, oh the irony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom