Russell Brand.

The burden of proof is on the accuser and at this point just because she said it happened, doesn't mean it did.

As the law stands now, 16, while questionable even morally wrong, isn't actually illegal. As was said in R4 this morning just because an age gap exists doesn't mean it's nefarious. Maybe the law needs changing with regards to age of consent but that would open up a whole new can of worms as many teens are sexually active long before they even turn 16.
 
Hades said:
Yes that fact is widely known. But the burden of proof is high to ensure a miscarriage of justice against the accused is less likely. But as you are replying to my post about Kevin Spacey what has that got to do with Spacey? In his case several people came forward so it didn't deter them.

You appear to be saying that we shouldn't trust the verdict of courts. They won't get it right 100% of the time. But as I stated before, they are a far more reliable judge of guilt than news outlets and social media. They might not be perfect but they are the best we have right now.
Click to expand...
That isn't what all I am saying. What I'm saying is that the courts aren't the only ones allowed to form an opinion over whether I should associate or disassociate myself from someone. Their burden of proof is simply too high for their black and white answer to be societies only answer.
 
mid_gen said:
No, every individual and business is free to make their own judgement on how they respond to the allegations. They do as they please, free country.
Click to expand...

It's faux freedom if you can't be protected from false, unproven or pending judgment from allegations based on evidence.

Edit: to add, in the recent Marcus Greenwood case however, I'd argue that level of evidence is good enough for the 'punishment' he was dished out. There was video and audio evidence there and he got of lightly in comparison to a lot of others mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Fubsy said:
It's faux freedom if you can't be protected from false, unproven or pending allegations.
Click to expand...
Y'all so deep in the trench. Right wing anti disestablishment folk who cry to the police / courts the second it suits their 'freedumb' narrative lol.
 
Fubsy said:
Edit: to add, in the recent Marcus Greenwood case however, I'd argue that level of evidence is good enough for the 'punishment' he was dished out. There was video and audio evidence there and he got of lightly in comparison to a lot of others mentioned.
Click to expand...
So if they had video recorded the sexual assault you'd be ok? Lol.
 
mid_gen said:
So you don't think that individuals and companies should be free to decide how they act, and who they associate with?
Click to expand...

Reminds me of that recent "not advertising on GBN isn't democratic" nonsense. It's like the "go woke go broke" brigade didn't realise there were 2 sides to that particular coin :D
 
dlockers said:
You understand the burden of proof for a legal criminal conviction is so high that most rape victims/sexual assault victims don't even bother coming forwards?
Click to expand...
indeed it sucks....... and coming forwards years later makes it even more so interms of actually proving a case beyond reasonable doubt......

someone mentioned Greenwood..... and its a good topic to mention because i too think that is slightly different due to the fact that there is hard evidence inc recordings. he was literally caught in the act...................... but the charges dropped. i can see why an employer may think there is hard evidence to show they broke the Ts and Cs of their contract

versus people accuse a member of staff with something, but offer no proof , so you cut off their funding.

in rape cases it is really difficult, even more so when the person only comes forwards years later so there will not be any physical proof.... and yes i get why rape victims find it hard to come forward........... but going to the sun (or social media or what ever) to publish your story does not help.

imo the accuser and the accused names should remain anonymous, but victims need to be empowered to come forward far more easily............. but not go to the gutter press or twitter with it.
 
Last edited:
dlockers said:
So if they had video recorded the sexual assault you'd be ok? Lol.
Click to expand...
What exactly is your point? If there's recorded evidence (proof) of a crime being committed of course people are far more likely to belive that over some "he said/she said" nonsense from over a decade ago..
 
dlockers said:
So if they had video recorded the sexual assault you'd be ok? Lol.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't be ok with it, it's still sexual assault - but I'd certainly find societies reaction more understanding as there would be tangible evidence of wrongdoing rather than 20 year old memory to rely on.

You guys wanting punishment to be dished out on mere suspicion or initial allegation is something I cannot accept unless it was to be coming from a malicious viewpoint. I understand it, but I don't accept it.
 
dlockers said:
So if they had video recorded the sexual assault you'd be ok? Lol.
Click to expand...
well there is hard evidence that he bought the company into disrepute as he clearly committed a crime despite the victim choosing not to prosecute ..... i find it hard to see that you cannot see the difference between a person throwing an accusation of something vs hard evidence that something occurred.

i said i am uncomfortable with the name and shame without evidence but admit it is a difficult one.

the fact that you find it amusing in any way i think is pretty horrible to be honest.
 
Last edited:
dlockers said:
You understand the burden of proof for a legal criminal conviction is so high that most rape victims/sexual assault victims don't even bother coming forwards?
Click to expand...
If they come forward straight away that evidence/proof can be collected at that time and be more successful for conviction. Don't wait 5, 10 15 or 20 years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom