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

[hilts]

It was a collaborative four year investigation with the times too and there’s more reporting to come out.

They would not publish in the first place if they didn’t think the story was solid, their lawyers would have spent a very long time looking at the evidence before publishing too given if it isn’t it opens them up to catastrophic damages.

The idea that they might have knowingly collaborated in a stitch up is so far beyond unlikely, anyone suggesting it is either a moron or knowingly doing it for other reasons.

There was definitely a shadow on the moon though and a channel 4 exec was seen on a grassy knoll outside the big brother house.

 

[Coatigan]

The issue there is that the justice system fails the vast majority of victims of sexual abuse and rape.

So having faith in the justice system is quite problematic.

That may be an issue. But it is a whole other one to the comment he or I made.

 

[bluenova]

No. It really is not. It is having faith in the justice system and not taking it upon yourself to decide that someone is guilty.

That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.

I didn't say that I've decided he's guilty. I was questioning that he was automatically considered actually innocent (rather than legally innocent), simply because he's not been convicted.

Given the pitiful conviction rates for rapes and sexual assaults, and the myriad genuine reasons women have for not reporting them, it simply doesn't hold up that we automatically give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than the women who have accused him.

 

[BayernMan]

Why do conspiracy theorists always want to defend nonces?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.

I didn't say that I've decided he's guilty. I was questioning that he was automatically considered actually innocent (rather than legally innocent), simply because he's not been convicted.

Given the pitiful conviction rates for rapes and sexual assaults, and the myriad genuine reasons women have for not reporting them, it simply doesn't hold up that we automatically give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than the women who have accused him.

It’s not about innocence or guilt really. That can’t be established in a tv programme.

Would you want your daughter to date Brand?

 

[Coatigan]

That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.

I didn't say that I've decided he's guilty. I was questioning that he was automatically considered actually innocent (rather than legally innocent), simply because he's not been convicted.

Given the pitiful conviction rates for rapes and sexual assaults, and the myriad genuine reasons women have for not reporting them, it simply doesn't hold up that we automatically give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than the women who have accused him.

May be different to what you thought, but it is not the opposite to what you said, or what I responded to. You said presuming he is innocent until proven guilty is taking his side over the victims. It is not. It is assuming he has the same right as anyone else.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Why do conspiracy theorists always want to defend nonces?

Sometimes it's because they are like-minded souls, who dress up as Batman.

 

[BobKowalski]

Why do conspiracy theorists always want to defend nonces?

I’m sure it‘s just an unfortunate coincidence.

 

[bluenova]

May be different to what you thought, but it is not the opposite to what you said, or what I responded to. You said presuming he is innocent until proven guilty is taking his side over the victims. It is not. It is assuming he has the same right as anyone else.

Only because you clipped out the rest of the post.

Saying that he is innocent, unless he's been convicted in court IS taking his side over the women.

It is NOT saying he's guilty, it's simply pointing out that if you assume he is innocent, you're believing him, rather than the women.

You can be presumed innocent in the legal sense, and still have committed a crime. My post was suggesting that being legally "presumed innocent" is different to knowing he's innocent. I would suggest we have an open mind, even if this never goes to court.

 

[Coatigan]

Only because you clipped out the rest of the post.

Saying that he is innocent, unless he's been convicted in court IS taking his side over the women.

It is NOT saying he's guilty, it's simply pointing out that if you assume he is innocent, you're believing him, rather than the women.

You can be presumed innocent in the legal sense, and still have committed a crime. My post was suggesting that being legally "presumed innocent" is different to knowing he's innocent. I would suggest we have an open mind, even if this never goes to court.

No, it is not taking sides. It is simply respecting and accepting the law and systems we have in place.