Yes, of course. I've also pointed out that being a sex addict doesn't necessarily mean that that person would engage in illegal activity towards women. However, when all is said and done, regardless of people saying he should be locked up for unpalatable but not unlawful behaviour, the fact is that Brand has very serious allegations of a criminal nature against him from multiple people.From the reactions on social media I think people need to understand that there's a huge difference between treating women wrong and raping a woman. Seems to be a lot of people wanting him punished from being a prick towards women. Obviously if his mistreating of women has crossed over into sexual assault then he deserves everything he gets.
She is a covid denier and anti vaccine , she was all over the place during covid , stupid bitchWho the fuck is Beverley Turner?
She must be a real wrong ’un if she makes Pierce sound sensible.
Now that I have read more posts and responses I have realised that @bluenova, @meltonblue, and I are arguing a completely different point to what you, @mancity2012_eamo, and @inbetween are arguing.
We all agree that individuals should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense. That absolutely has to be the base assumption for our justice system to function correctly.
But what bluenova, meltonblue, and I are discussing is the concept of innocence and consequence in society-at-large, which is incredibly important in the case of instances of sexual abuse and rape, because the vast, vast majority of these heinous acts go unpunished with the current legal system.
That is for many, many reasons, some very dubious (authorities protecting their own or powerful people, a system designed to favour men general, etc.), others because the standard of proof of guilt is well beyond simply “did they likely do it”, the accused often have high-powered lawyers that can get them off on technicalities, and getting victims to speak in court can be incredibly difficult because of the repercussions for doing so (especially in a society that still vehemently backs men over the women, causing many victims to be harassed or worse for coming forward).
So simply stating that everyone should presume an accused sexual abuser or rapist to be innocent if they never faced legal consequences for their actions (whether because charges are never brought or because a guilty verdict could not be attained for the accused) is essentially arguing that the vast majority of victims should see no justice of any kind.
And it is also tacitly arguing that Jimmy Saville should be considered innocent and should not have suffered any consequences for the abuse he perpetrated.
It’s the naming of people I don’t like trial by media.You think this story was knocked up on a ‘slow news day’ ? It was the result of years of investigation. The women they interviewed were assured of anonymity by the journalists investigating. If they want to report it as a crime at a later date, that’s up to them. But it’s nobody’s job to ‘send them’ to the police.
No, we are arguing two completely different things.Yes think we have already established we are arguing two ends of a concept/right.
I myself don't really give a fuck about someone else's interpretation of that right, their take on it's weaknesses, historical application, outcomes etc. It is in our law and I accept it blindly, like I accept the speed limit. It is four words, it is pretty damn unambiguous.
My real only issue, since clarified, was that this was taken to suggest 'taking his side'.
It’s the naming of people I don’t like trial by media.
No, we are arguing two completely different things.
We agree on the right of presumption of innocence within a legal framework (i.e. state enforced consequences of actions deemed illegal)—we have always agreed on that right.
But you seemingly reject that a civil society contains other forms of justice outside of the court system.
Which I do not understand, given that is pretty universally established as fact, especially as you will have enforced non-legal justice many, many times over your life.
And the understanding of that means Brand can face consequences for his actions outside of legal proceedings, as is the case for a great many people not found legally guilty of a crime, like Jimmy Saville.
Presumption of innonence in the court system does not have to be (and is not) applied to every possible type of consequence in society.
And hiding behind that right to argue that no person should face any consequences if they are not found guilty in a court of law is an ethically bankrupt stance, especially in the case of sexual abuse and rape, because the vast majority of those acts go unpunished by the justice system.
By that logic, no one should have any issue having a known (but not convicted) child abuser take care of their children. After all, the legal system chose not to enforce consequences on that person so everyone else must do the same.
I am not sure if you are necessarily taking that stance, but it does appear to be the nonsensical position of a few in this thread.
Then I am honestly unsure of what your point was in the context of seemingly supporting the other posts arguing “we have to presume Brand is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and thus no consequences or debate should take place until that occurs” in the thread.We are not. As I did not really comment on the second.
I believe in karma too, but I didn't argue that either.
Poor, not after marrying them 2 I’m quite sure ;-)And poor Billie went on to marry that utter wanker Laurence Fox as well
Poor, not after marrying them 2 I’m quite sure ;-)
She was born in Prestwich!! Older Blues might get the reason for the exclamation marks there. ;-)Who the fuck is Beverley Turner?
She must be a real wrong ’un if she makes Pierce sound sensible.
That’s basically advocating the removal of a free press though, which would be a very slippery slope.
Logically following your argument would save a fortune in prison costs because no one would ever need to be remanded in custody because they can be assumed to be innocent until their trial is over. Not sure that many trials for serious crimes would take place though due to lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of the accused.You have to assume innocence because that's the whole point of the legal system. It isn't taking sides, it's the default position. I am on the side of the women involved because they have come forward and their case should be heard. However I'm also on the side of the legal system, nobody can punish or attack Brand or do anything else until a case is proven.
I agree, rapes don't always result in convictions but we can't change the legal system to ensure that convictions do happen. The way to improve the conviction rate is to educate women and make it as easy as possible for women to report it through the Police. The Police also have to get better at investigating and the CPS in how it charges people.
What will be lost in this is the whole thing will become a story about the personality of Russell Brand and not the simple fact that the women involved have (hopefully) come forward to get justice. Unfortunately in the media and opinion no-one actually cares about these women, they only care about the outrage and punishing the person involved.
Then I am honestly unsure of what your point was in the context of seemingly supporting the other posts arguing “we have to presume Brand is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and thus no consequences or debate should take place until that occurs” in the thread.
I apologise if I misunderstood your posts to support that position.
Not trying to bait, just trying to better understand.Not sure whether you are trying to bait me or someone else with that, but you are inadvertently putting words in my mouth.
Bluenova and I ironed out some time ago the issue I had, the implication of 'taking his side' by acknowledging the legal standpoint in this.
To be honest there were plenty of super injunctions and probably still are that prevent free speech. We are already careering down the slippery slope at a great rate of knots.