Russell Brand.

kitch9 said:
Its not limbo at all, you are innocent until proven guilty.

It's the simplest of concepts possible, absolutely no nuances.
Click to expand...

Only legally.

Everyone saw the video, heard the voices, saw the pictures. In wide public opinion that lad is labelled for life.
 
kitch9 said:
Its not limbo at all, you are innocent until proven guilty.

It's the simplest of concepts possible, absolutely no nuances.
Click to expand...
Cosby allegations surfaced in 2014. He was convicted 2018. You are arguing to grant leniency because you need the 'man' to determine how you should think.
 
BowdonUK said:
It shows how far society as fallen. Many tenets of society have collapsed. Now it struggles with basic justice.

Professionalism, impartiality, the legal process are all verging on being lost to mob rule.

Objectification and dehumanisation in the poison at the centre of a lot of problems these days.

Brand might be guilty. But abandoning societies principles for one person isn't good enough. We've all been damaged by this process.
Click to expand...

Come on this is hyperbole. Is he being lynched? Is he being locked up by the state? Its just society doing what it has always done just on a massive scale due to the internet and social media. If you want it to stop you'll have to turn off the internet and people getting sent to Coventry will only happen at the local level.
 
Fubsy said:
You're right. They can't. I'm just advocating the position that should not be tolerated by society, or at the very least questioned whether it's proportional considering the two possible outcomes: he did it or he didn't do it, no one actually knows at this point beyond Brand himself and the alleged victims. It is a form of preliminary punishment though, a sanction, could even roll out some terms and conditions maybe.

I'm also talking generally, not just Brand. What would happen to a regular guy if an accusation was made? I'd lose my job, my home, maybe my wife, all I've ever worked for. Damn right too if guilty, but what if you aren't? Some level of punishment has already been dished out before the cogs of justice have concluded. It doesn't sit right with me, it niggles and feels wrong, despite my understanding of the high levels of abuse and low conviction rates - it's such a tricky one, that I'm not surprised has all sorts of disagreements built in.
Click to expand...
Ah you want to control society into a group think. Gotcha
 
BowdonUK said:
It shows how far society as fallen. Many tenets of society have collapsed. Now it struggles with basic justice.

Professionalism, impartiality, the legal process are all verging on being lost to mob rule.

Objectification and dehumanisation in the poison at the centre of a lot of problems these days.

Brand might be guilty. But abandoning societies principles for one person isn't good enough. We've all been damaged by this process.
Click to expand...

If I punch you in the face in front of everyone breaking your nose, you go to the police, but it takes 2 years to convict me due to court timings, are you telling me that in those 2 years I’m innocent, didn’t actually do it, and you would defend me as innocent and not want anyone to say I did it until the courts ok it?
 
hurfdurf said:
If I punch you in the face in front of everyone breaking your nose, you go to the police, but it takes 2 years to convict me due to court timings, are you telling me that in those 2 years I’m innocent, didn’t actually do it, and you would defend me as innocent and not want anyone to say I did it until the courts ok it?
Click to expand...
The suggestion was yes unless the assault was on video, lol.
 
dlockers said:
The suggestion was yes unless the assault was on video, lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah, more people just need to get raped in back alleys directly in view of a CCTV camera /s

Remember folks, you're also partly to blame if you're willing to enter a man's house or have previously given consent. One of the classics from a few days ago.
 
dlockers said:
Cosby allegations surfaced in 2014. He was convicted 2018. You are arguing to grant leniency because you need the 'man' to determine how you should think.
Click to expand...
What's that got to do with anything.

They are no nuances under law. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
 
kitch9 said:
What's that got to do with anything.

They are no nuances under law. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
Law is entirely nuance you plonker. That's why they often reference precedents. We aren't even at the legal stage yet (if it even happens) so not sure why you keep saying irrelevant things.
 
dlockers said:
I do agree with a lot you've put there. I don't think it's vocal minority though. I don't know anyone with common sense who would argue Brand being distanced from by institutions is a bad idea. I agree with your point about how dare they keep the content up but demonetize him, I think that's an odd stance to take.
Click to expand...

I concede at this point, only on grounds that it makes sense from a business stand point. I still view it as a form of punishment, but then as others (and possibly yourself) have said, you live by the sword...

hurfdurf said:
If I punch you in the face in front of everyone breaking your nose, you go to the police, but it takes 2 years to convict me due to court timings, are you telling me that in those 2 years I’m innocent, didn’t actually do it, and you would defend me as innocent and not want anyone to say I did it until the courts ok it?
Click to expand...

You aren't innocent, but punishing you in lieu of conviction is jumping the gun. The possibility is that you could be innocent, maybe there's some mitigating factor (Roar may be twisting your nipples a little too hard) or before the incident and in private, you had lamped him first etc. The evidence needs to be collected, presented and judged before sentence is given.
 
hurfdurf said:
“Why didn’t they come forward earlier!?” ask incel men who refuse to believe multiple detailed allegations, extensively reported, against a man who actually joked about this stuff on stage and on air.
Click to expand...

Have you seen Jimmy Carr?

Using the above logic, he must be ****ing himself. All it takes is a whisper to some journos.
 
Fubsy said:
You aren't innocent, but punishing you in lieu of conviction is jumping the gun. The possibility is that you could be innocent, maybe there's some mitigating factor (Roar may be twisting your nipples a little too hard) or before the incident and in private, you had lamped him first etc. The evidence needs to be collected, presented and judged before sentence is given.
Click to expand...

Would you therefore claim I hadn’t actually done it and defend me against any repercussions society wise, such as if other posters wanted to stop being my friend, until the courts gave you permission to have an opinion?
 
Fubsy said:
Have you seen Jimmy Carr?

Using the above logic, he must be ****ing himself. All it takes is a whisper to some journos.
Click to expand...
He's joked about it loads. He's never actually behaved like a sex pest though, so it'd be far more surprising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom