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 womanWho 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.