Russell Brand.

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





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.
Click to expand...

Answered already I think. Your question is super ambiguous.

As for your reasoning for anonymously charging people, the Police can remand suspects for their own safety and can’t legislate for idiots or the opinions people hold.
 
jigger said:
Answered already I think. Your question is super ambiguous.
Click to expand...

It's really not, you're just being obtuse for your own reasons :rolleyes:

Simply put - If a person is charged with a sexual offence but is not convicted for various reasons, you accept the verdict and hold no prejudices to said person?


jigger said:
As for your reasoning for anonymously charging people, the Police can remand suspects for their own safety and can’t legislate for idiots or the opinions people hold.
Click to expand...

So a person, who has not been proven guilty of any crime and may not have even committed the alleged crime, has to be remanded for their own safety as well as potentially losing their job and home simply because the public cannot think with more than their neanderthal brains. A potentially innocent person has their life destroyed because of other people. Are you are ok with this happening?
 
Richie said:
It's really not, you're just being obtuse for your own reasons :rolleyes:

Simply put - If a person is charged with a sexual offence but is not convicted for various reasons, you accept the verdict and hold no prejudices to said person?




So a person, who has not been proven guilty of any crime and may not have even committed the alleged crime, has to be remanded for their own safety as well as potentially losing their job and home simply because the public cannot think with more than their neanderthal brains. A potentially innocent person has their life destroyed because of other people. Are you are ok with this happening?
Click to expand...

You’ve narrowed and framed the convocation again. I would need to consider the specifics of trial and have some understanding of how the verdict was reached.
 
Last edited:
jigger said:
You’ve narrowed and framed the convocation again. I would need to consider the specifics of trial and have some understanding of how the verdict was reached.
Click to expand...

So firstly it is ambiguous and now, in an attempt to be specific, I am narrowing it down too much? :cry:

I'm out... You cant discuss with people being deliberately disingenuous in their arguments :cry:
 
Richie said:
So firstly it is ambiguous and now, in an attempt to be specific, I am narrowing it down too much? :cry:

I'm out... You cant discuss with people being deliberately disingenuous in their arguments :cry:
Click to expand...

Try less hypocrisy and assumptions next time :) It’s really not conducive to discussion.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
So firstly it is ambiguous and now, in an attempt to be specific, I am narrowing it down too much? :cry:

I'm out... You cant discuss with people being deliberately disingenuous in their arguments :cry:
Click to expand...

Yup. Clearly knows he's talking tosh so is trying to weasel.
 
nitram100 said:
What can they do to prove after so long, just witness statements?
Click to expand...

It's a travesty what happened to Jimmy Savile, just witness statements.

In reality the statements will show historical evidence, in other words something that has been kept away from the public but keeps cropping up with his victims and that's why some are sticking and others aren't.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
It's a travesty what happened to Jimmy Savile, just witness statements.

In reality the statements will show historical evidence, in other words something that has been kept away from the public but keeps cropping up with his victims and that's why some are sticking and others aren't.
Click to expand...
Yeh I'm just curious. Saville had over 450 statements against him, Brand has what, 5? Not exucusing anything or saying he's innocent but saville sexually abusing kids at a hospital is different to brand's accusations which from what I read were at parties where alcohol and drugs are involved. It's not the same thing imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom