Russell Brand.
- Thread starter Von Smallhausen
- Start date
If only there some sort of global internet movement where women would come out and accuse men of sexual harassment without evidence or fear of repercussion. I guess if something like that happened then maybe they could have said something.
Considering how big, wild and out of control the me too movement got, this is no longer a valid Defense.
Perhaps a criminal court should be the first port of call for all concerned.
Clearly you missed the sarcasm despite it being ladled on with a spoon. I'll try with emojis next time.
Well this is going downhill quickly.
You know, innocent until proven guilty used to be a no brainer for most people.
Last edited:
imagine being a woman who went through something awful 10 - 15 years ago and then having to think “should I go to the police about this now, by myself?”.
The upheaval in their current life’s they have to go through just to talk about these things is significant, yet alone if they revoked their anonymity.
He didn't say that. His words were "have serious doubts". That's not the same thing at all, in fact, I'd say this is closer to your definition of "reserving judgement" than your actually made up "the accusers were making it up".
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,963
- Location
- The Cronx
Well if you ignore every reasons I gave sure.
I didn’t spot sarcasm in your statement so maybe you should. Does this mean you are reserving judgement after all?
Nonsense. 'No smoke without fire' is another popular saying amongst the populous.
Innocent until proven guilty has always, and still is, applicable to the judicial system not the court of public opinion (rightly or wrongly)
The only difference now is that latter court has a larger voice than previously due to social media.
Last edited:
That's categorically wrong though.
Do you need reminding that this man used his position of power over female actresses to get away with sexual assault for years?
That's categorically wrong though.
Do you need reminding that this man used his position of power over female actresses to get away with sexual assault for years?
Fair enough. And he will die in prison.
Lets see if Brand ends up in court. Lets put him in court first before we destroy him.
Already, just watching the BBC now, I see they are talking about the 'serious charges' against him. Has he been charged yet?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Payout from who? The Times and C4 aren't paying anyone in that for their stories.
I refer judgement until I see more evidence but the idea that the allegations must be lies because “they didn’t go to the police when it happened” is nonsense. This does not mean I instantly believe them, but nor would I dismiss them without investigation.
If a woman is in a consensual relationship and they were raped, the chances of being believed are almost zero. There is also the problem of powerful men being in a position to ruin this woman’s life and career.
If a woman is in a consensual relationship and they were raped, the chances of being believed are almost zero. There is also the problem of powerful men being in a position to ruin this woman’s life and career.
Last edited:
Some people would probably think so yes, hence why it's a popular saying and people on the whole don't think "innocent until proven guilty" like esmozz stated. Which is exactly why its such an important principle in the judicial system, but not a lot you can do about the salacious gossiping hoi polloi
Hell, you had that group of vigilantes attack a pediatricians house...
Nobody said it was lies - but it is okay to ask why.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Why are you and other assuming it has anything to do with politics? Is the Times suddenly a lefty newspaper going after right wing thinkers? Though of course that is now the narrative on social media, they are all victims for telling the "truth"
I mean you say vigilantes, I read it as morons!
Twitter is an absolute crapfest over this. I cannot stand Brand, he's an odious worm of a man and about as funny as receiving a kick in the nads but when these accusations can ruin someone's life they should be dealt with correctly.
Perhaps you could make an argument that anonymity could be offered when people go to the police to report historical sex crimes. However I think it should still be anonymity for both parties until a verdict is reached.
However that shouldn’t extend to anonymously making allegations to a TV /newspaper/etc who are then allowed to publish/broadcast those unproven allegations in a documentary as though they were fact.
Last edited: