Dispatches/Sunday Times investigation: Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

[mexico1970]

That isn't what I said and it was in reply to the one case you mentioned. According to GDM they're much higher nowadays anyway.

Not high enough though IMHO, I believe most other people would want stronger sentencing on rapes.

You did say that you considered 7 years to be "Not too low" you did post that didn't you?

As for GDM's comment.

Rapists sentenced to less than three years behind bars in 2022

Twenty rapists received custodial sentences of less than five years between January and June 2022.

www.express.co.uk

This isn't an attack on your opinion because life is about opinions and we all have one.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There should be almost no mitigating circumstances for adults, plenty get away with light terms.

I know you say they have gone up and you obviously have more knowledge on the sentencing guidelines than I do but there are some proper wrong 'uns who are out there after short sentences.

I am proud of my son, I attended court to give him support as he sent someone he went to school with down, now the **** is getting out soon.

Sentencing isn’t just about mitigation.

There has to be a wide range of sentencing for this offence because the culpability falls along the same lines. A serial rapist who uses violence is more culpable than someone who commits a single offence in the heat if the moment. There has to be a graduated approach or the system breaks down.

It’s rare these days for a conviction for rape after a trial to attract any less than double figures which will mean serving two thirds, not half. Six years behind bars is a long time for anyone to endure.

Well done on your son supporting his friend though. You are right to be proud of him.

 

[meltonblue]

It’s a toss up who to reply to, you or Seb. or even bluenova.

I think Seb stated it right that there seems to be two different arguments, sorry, debates going on here.

I’m usually very careful in how I phrase my point and do hope that the subtleties don’t get lost.

I have not watched the program as I keep stating so cannot comment on it’s purpose. However allegations of him being a nonce, don’t surprise me.

I read your post above and find us largely in agreement. Whether I’d use the word ‘testimony’ or not is beside the point. I think I understand yours and everyone else’s substantive pov.

As a general concept however, I have made the point that great care is required in the type of investigative journalism that helps a victim secure a successful prosecution.
Done wrongly with perhaps more salacious motives it can hamper the pursuit of justice.
I can’t judge the CH4 program and I certainly wouldn’t criticise the MeToo movement.

From what I’ve read in here I wouldn’t regard inbetween, Coatigan or myself, blueinsa and maybe a few others as defending Brand or any other nonces you care to mention. We are supporting a tenet of the law that I feel regardless of the subject matter ie sexual offences, should not be made an exception of.
There are plenty of sensitive areas in all sorts of crime and I think you are on dangerous ground if you start picking and choosing who or what deserves the presumption of innocence.
Innocent people have been convicted of crimes they haven’t committed. Is their hurt any less than a victim of rapes?
You can’t compare or equate the two abstractly. You need detail. But the law covers each scenario equally, you would hope.

I’ll state again for the record. Never liked the bloke. The allegations don’t surprise me.
I hope the aim of this program was to get more people to come forward and strengthen the evidence against him, so that a legal process against him can commence and ultimately secure a conviction, as I think this is what serves justice best for those he has allegedly abused.

I’m very much in agreement with this and agree with the sentiment of being very careful. As I said, the times and channel 4 lawyers would have worked very hard (and at considerable cost) before they’d have gone to publication on this and ultimately they are staking a lot both reputationally and financially themselves by doing it.

My point on the presumption of innocence wasn’t that it goes straight away, more that it doesn’t necessarily need a CPS prosecution in order for that to go aside from purely thinking from a judicial lens. Sometimes it doesn’t even need a court case at all, a settlement can be effectively an admission of guilt even if the record states the opposite (which it usually does to stop further attempts at prosecution).

I’m also not sure what people think consequences should be in the absence of a criminal conviction of this too. If the
presumption of innocent until proven guilty is extended to of anything unless a court of law says so, is that insinuating he should have no consequences at all if that doesn’t happen? Do people that think that think Greenwood should be still employed and playing for United for example?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not high enough though IMHO, I believe most other people would want stronger sentencing on rapes.

You did say that you considered 7 years to be "Not too low" you did post that didn't you?

As for GDM's comment.

Rapists sentenced to less than three years behind bars in 2022

Twenty rapists received custodial sentences of less than five years between January and June 2022.

www.express.co.uk

This isn't an attack on your opinion because life is about opinions and we all have one.

I bet the average sentence for rape is about twelve years. It’s easy for filth **** publications like the Express to print stuff like this without any context. Fucking scum.

 

[ballbag]

Looks like a staged argument.

I know from the quality of production, it doesn't look like it but presumably they have rehearsals or a quick run-through of what bollocks they are going to talk about today.

Who is that awful excuse for a human next to Pierce?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Who is that awful excuse for a human next to Pierce?

James Cracknell's ex-wife.

 

[inbetween]

It’s a toss up who to reply to, you or Seb. or even bluenova.

I think Seb stated it right that there seems to be two different arguments, sorry, debates going on here.

I’m usually very careful in how I phrase my point and do hope that the subtleties don’t get lost.

I have not watched the program as I keep stating so cannot comment on it’s purpose. However allegations of him being a nonce, don’t surprise me.

I read your post above and find us largely in agreement. Whether I’d use the word ‘testimony’ or not is beside the point. I think I understand yours and everyone else’s substantive pov.

As a general concept however, I have made the point that great care is required in the type of investigative journalism that helps a victim secure a successful prosecution.
Done wrongly with perhaps more salacious motives it can hamper the pursuit of justice.
I can’t judge the CH4 program and I certainly wouldn’t criticise the MeToo movement.

From what I’ve read in here I wouldn’t regard inbetween, Coatigan or myself, blueinsa and maybe a few others as defending Brand or any other nonces you care to mention. We are supporting a tenet of the law that I feel regardless of the subject matter ie sexual offences, should not be made an exception of.
There are plenty of sensitive areas in all sorts of crime and I think you are on dangerous ground if you start picking and choosing who or what deserves the presumption of innocence.
Innocent people have been convicted of crimes they haven’t committed. Is their hurt any less than a victim of rapes?
You can’t compare or equate the two abstractly. You need detail. But the law covers each scenario equally, you would hope.

I’ll state again for the record. Never liked the bloke. The allegations don’t surprise me.
I hope the aim of this program was to get more people to come forward and strengthen the evidence against him, so that a legal process against him can commence and ultimately secure a conviction, as I think this is what serves justice best for those he has allegedly abused.

For me I work in a safety critical industry which is black and white. It's hard to look past what is written down and the legalities etc. The newspapers are the opposite of this, they sell news based upon sensationalism and sometimes false information, for me they're the last place I'd put my trust.

I'm fully in favour of helping women to get help and come forward but that should happen through the correct channels and not through the cut throat profit driven media. The women involved are clearly vulnerable and the media is well placed to take advantage of them so there is something of a tightrope to walk.

We all have our opinion of course and we can express that on here. However when it comes to putting that opinion into the wider public domain I prefer to take a step back because it can and often does bite people in the arse.

My opinion of Brand is there is no defence of him other than he should have the right to defend himself from a position of innocence like anyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if he has done the things he is accused of but there's a process to follow to determine that. After that, the rest is for the lynch mobs I guess....

 

[Centurions]

Not high enough though IMHO, I believe most other people would want stronger sentencing on rapes.

You did say that you considered 7 years to be "Not too low" you did post that didn't you?

As for GDM's comment.

Rapists sentenced to less than three years behind bars in 2022

Twenty rapists received custodial sentences of less than five years between January and June 2022.

www.express.co.uk

This isn't an attack on your opinion because life is about opinions and we all have one.

No, I said "I wouldn't consider 7 years low TBH," so I don't know why you'd deliberately change it.

Either way you can argue with someone else bud because I won't be replying to you if you can't be arsed reading a post.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I bet the average sentence for rape is about twelve years. It’s easy for filth **** publications like the Express to print stuff like this without any context. Fucking scum.

Whatever the sentence handed down, it’s never enough for some.

Pretty much every article posted by any news source online that reports a sentence handed down’s replies will be dominated by the “throw away the key” and “it should have been more” crowd.

 

[meltonblue]

For me I work in a safety critical industry which is black and white. It's hard to look past what is written down and the legalities etc. The newspapers are the opposite of this, they sell news based upon sensationalism and sometimes false information, for me they're the last place I'd put my trust.

I'm fully in favour of helping women to get help and come forward but that should happen through the correct channels and not through the cut throat profit driven media. The women involved are clearly vulnerable and the media is well placed to take advantage of them so there is something of a tightrope to walk.

We all have our opinion of course and we can express that on here. However when it comes to putting that opinion into the wider public domain I prefer to take a step back because it can and often does bite people in the arse.

My opinion of Brand is there is no defence of him other than he should have the right to defend himself from a position of innocence like anyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if he has done the things he is accused of but there's a process to follow to determine that. After that, the rest is for the lynch mobs I guess....

The Times and Channel 4 would both (rightly) argue they have followed the correct process though.

 

[Bazzmand Show]

His upcoming shows have now all been postponed.

 

[SebastianBlue]

It’s a toss up who to reply to, you or Seb. or even bluenova.

I think Seb stated it right that there seems to be two different arguments, sorry, debates going on here.

I’m usually very careful in how I phrase my point and do hope that the subtleties don’t get lost.

I have not watched the program as I keep stating so cannot comment on it’s purpose. However allegations of him being a nonce, don’t surprise me.

I read your post above and find us largely in agreement. Whether I’d use the word ‘testimony’ or not is beside the point. I think I understand yours and everyone else’s substantive pov.

As a general concept however, I have made the point that great care is required in the type of investigative journalism that helps a victim secure a successful prosecution.
Done wrongly with perhaps more salacious motives it can hamper the pursuit of justice.
I can’t judge the CH4 program and I certainly wouldn’t criticise the MeToo movement.

From what I’ve read in here I wouldn’t regard inbetween, Coatigan or myself, blueinsa and maybe a few others as defending Brand or any other nonces you care to mention. We are supporting a tenet of the law that I feel regardless of the subject matter ie sexual offences, should not be made an exception of.
There are plenty of sensitive areas in all sorts of crime and I think you are on dangerous ground if you start picking and choosing who or what deserves the presumption of innocence.
Innocent people have been convicted of crimes they haven’t committed. Is their hurt any less than a victim of rapes?
You can’t compare or equate the two abstractly. You need detail. But the law covers each scenario equally, you would hope.

I’ll state again for the record. Never liked the bloke. The allegations don’t surprise me.
I hope the aim of this program was to get more people to come forward and strengthen the evidence against him, so that a legal process against him can commence and ultimately secure a conviction, as I think this is what serves justice best for those he has allegedly abused.

All fair enough, and I agree there are two different debates going on.

I will say, to your point about “there are plenty of sensitive areas in all sorts of crime and I think you are on dangerous ground if you start picking and choosing who or what deserves the presumption of innocence”, that I don’t think @bluenova, @meltonblue, or I are doing that.

We are simply pointing out that the presumption of innocence within the formal justice system only applies to legal determination and subsequent consequences enforced by the state. We all agree that is vital for protecting citizens against injustice perpetrated by state administered authorities.

But—for the same reason no right minded person thinks Jimmy Saville is “innocent” because he was never found guilty in a court of law—that presumption does not have to apply outside of the formal justice system. The concept of “innocence” or “guilt” is not solely confined to formal legal proceedings.

In fact, it is universally accepted that it isn’t, and for very good reason: primarily because formal justice systems (and the law enforcement apparatus supporting it) is necessary but insufficient to ensure all forms of consequences for negligent, malicious, unethical, or outright illegal behaviour are enforced.

If everyone presumed everyone else to be innocent of any action unless they were found guilty by a court of law society would actually breakdown pretty quickly.

And, once more, in the case of sexual abuse and rape, it would be even more rare (it is already shockingly rare) that the offences would ever be investigated, much less prosecuted.

That is because the sort of presumption of innocence by the public-at-large that is seemingly being argued is proper—which should apparently bar members of the public from debate or scrutiny of the accusations—is what most often causes the allegations to be investigated at all.

No one is advocating for binning the courts or fucking off the law. We’re just trying to inject realism and sociological facts in to the discussion. As much as certain segments of people have tried to make “social justice” a nasty term, it is actually a fundamental element of human existence, playing out at all times across each person’s day, being undertaken by each person (whether they are aware of it or not), and it has to happen for life to go on. Sometimes it goes too far, to be sure. But that does not mean it is inherently bad or that it does not exist, same as the formal justice system.

And I think it is important to make these points for the reason we are even having this discussion now: because people like Russell Brand have acted to devalue and degrade basic reasoning and logic in public discourse to attain influence, then used that influence to allegedly abuse other people, and subsequently used the “I am innocent until proven guilty” argument in bad faith, knowing those that have been influenced to disregard basic reasoning and logic will accept it, in an attempt to shield themselves from potential consequences.

TL;DR

Legal presumption of innocence is fundamental to protecting the rights of a citizen against abuses of the state. I believe most of us agree on that.

But a requirement of a presumption of innocence outside of the legal framework is not only not a realistic expectation, it would be a very problematic expectation for society given the insufficiency of formal justice systems to enforce negative consequences for all actions society deems unacceptable.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Whatever the sentence handed down, it’s never enough for some.

Pretty much every article posted by any news source online that reports a sentence handed down’s replies will be dominated by the “throw away the key” and “it should have been more” crowd.

What was that thing Einstein said?…

 

[SebastianBlue]

Damn it man, I wanted specific examples, not hypothetical ones!

And on that slightly light-hearted comment, I bow out and excuse myself from this discussion, with no disrespect to you or Melton.

It is clear you both mean well. It is not like I mean any harm myself. But this goes beyond the topic at hand.

I wish you both well on your crusade, but it is not for me. I've got washing to hang out.

To be fair, it is easier for me to undertake the crusade because I literally have nothing else to (or that I can) do.

Genuinely hope you have a lovely evening and week, mate!

 

[meltonblue]

All fair enough, and I agree there are two different debates going on.

I will say, to your point about “there are plenty of sensitive areas in all sorts of crime and I think you are on dangerous ground if you start picking and choosing who or what deserves the presumption of innocence”, that I don’t think @bluenova, @meltonblue, or I are doing that.

We are simply pointing out that the presumption of innocence within the formal justice system only applies to legal determination and subsequent consequences enforced by the state. We all agree that is vital for protecting citizens against injustice perpetrated by state administered authorities.

But—for the same reason no right minded person thinks Jimmy Saville is “innocent” because he was never found guilty in a court of law—that presumption does not have to apply outside of the formal justice system. The concept of “innocence” or “guilt” is not solely confined to formal legal proceedings.

In fact, it is universally accepted that it isn’t, and for very good reason: primarily because formal justice systems (and the law enforcement apparatus supporting it) is necessary but insufficient to ensure all forms of consequences for negligent, malicious, unethical, or outright illegal behaviour are enforced.

If everyone presumed everyone else to be innocent of any action unless they were found guilty by a court of law society would actually breakdown pretty quickly.

And, once more, in the case of sexual abuse and rape, it would be even more rare (it is already shockingly rare) that the offences would ever be investigated, much less prosecuted.

That is because the sort of presumption of innocence by the public-at-large that is seemingly being argued is proper—which should apparently bar members of the public from debate or scrutiny of the accusations—is what most often causes the allegations to be investigated at all.

No one is advocating for binning the courts or fucking off the law. We’re just trying to inject realism and sociological facts in to the discussion. As much as certain segments of people have tried to make “social justice” a nasty term, it is a tu ally a fundamental element of human existence, playing out at all times across each person’s day, being undertaken by each person (whether they are aware of it or not), and it has to happen for life to go on. Sometimes it goes too far, to be sure. But that does not mean it is inherently bad or that it does not exist, same as the formal justice system.

And I think it is important to make these points for the reason we are even having this discussion now: because people like Russell Brand have acted to devalue and degrade basic reasoning and logic in public discourse to attain influence, then used that influence to allegedly abuse other people, and subsequently used the “I am innocent until proven guilty” in bad faith, knowing those that have been influenced to disregard basic reasoning and logic will accept it, in an attempt to shield themselves from potential consequences.

TL;DR

Legal presumption of innocence is fundamental to protecting the rights of a citizen against abuses of the state. I believe most of us agree on that.

But a requirement of a presumption of innocence outside of the legal framework is not only not a realistic expectation, it would be a very problematic expectation for society given the insufficiency of formal justice systems to enforce negative consequences for all actions society deems unacceptable.

Perfectly put and sums up my position entirely too.

 

[Coatigan]

It’s a toss up who to reply to, you or Seb. or even bluenova.

I think Seb stated it right that there seems to be two different arguments, sorry, debates going on here.

I’m usually very careful in how I phrase my point and do hope that the subtleties don’t get lost.

I have not watched the program as I keep stating so cannot comment on it’s purpose. However allegations of him being a nonce, don’t surprise me.

I read your post above and find us largely in agreement. Whether I’d use the word ‘testimony’ or not is beside the point. I think I understand yours and everyone else’s substantive pov.

As a general concept however, I have made the point that great care is required in the type of investigative journalism that helps a victim secure a successful prosecution.
Done wrongly with perhaps more salacious motives it can hamper the pursuit of justice.
I can’t judge the CH4 program and I certainly wouldn’t criticise the MeToo movement.

From what I’ve read in here I wouldn’t regard inbetween, Coatigan or myself, blueinsa and maybe a few others as defending Brand or any other nonces you care to mention. We are supporting a tenet of the law that I feel regardless of the subject matter ie sexual offences, should not be made an exception of.
There are plenty of sensitive areas in all sorts of crime and I think you are on dangerous ground if you start picking and choosing who or what deserves the presumption of innocence.
Innocent people have been convicted of crimes they haven’t committed. Is their hurt any less than a victim of rapes?
You can’t compare or equate the two abstractly. You need detail. But the law covers each scenario equally, you would hope.

I’ll state again for the record. Never liked the bloke. The allegations don’t surprise me.
I hope the aim of this program was to get more people to come forward and strengthen the evidence against him, so that a legal process against him can commence and ultimately secure a conviction, as I think this is what serves justice best for those he has allegedly abused.

A couple hours ago, this saves a lot of typing.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Not sure why his contract with Big Brother didn't insist on him being castrated.

 

[meltonblue]

Damn it man, I wanted specific examples, not hypothetical ones!

And on that slightly light-hearted comment, I bow out and excuse myself from this discussion, with no disrespect to you or Melton.

It is clear you both mean well. It is not like I mean any harm myself. But this goes beyond the topic at hand.

I wish you both well on your crusade, but it is not for me. I've got washing to hang out.

Think it’s one of those where if we were all in a pub having a pint and talking it through, we’d all be in agreement in ten minutes anyway :)

 

[snorky]

“it should have been more” crowd.

It should have been ten

 

[SebastianBlue]

Think it’s one of those where if we were all in a pub having a pint and talking it through, we’d all be in agreement in ten minutes anyway :)

Very true.

Much easier to realise you are arguing different points and actually largely agree on both when you can discuss directly in real-time and are seven pints in. ;-)