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

SWP's back said:
The press broke Saville. Weinstein. The Catholic Church being a den of pedos in the US to name but 3 off the top of my head. That’s what investigative journalists do.
Click to expand...

...but why didn't the kids who got raped by priest's go to the police first??
 
ancoats said:
it's that platform (social media) that the government fear the most, So what do they do ? That's right they do a job on him and make a case that he can not defend himself on Tv
Click to expand...

So just to get it right, you think dispatches and Sunday times reporters collaborated together to release this story on the instruction of the government…? And I’d assume the people alleging would have to have been in on it too…? All in order to shut down a comedian with limited appeal on social media?

I mean, yes that sounds a lot more plausible than just Russell Brand potentially being a wrong un…
 
meltonblue said:
So just to get it right, you think dispatches and Sunday times reporters collaborated together to release this story on the instruction of the government…? And I’d assume the people alleging would have to have been in on it too…? All in order to shut down a comedian with limited appeal on social media?

I mean, yes that sounds a lot more plausible than just Russell Brand potentially being a wrong un…
Click to expand...
The simpler answer than Russell being a serial sexual abuser and potential rapist is that there is a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of people to destroy the fizzling career of a comedian grifter for… reasons.
 
meltonblue said:
So just to get it right, you think dispatches and Sunday times reporters collaborated together to release this story on the instruction of the government…? And I’d assume the people alleging would have to have been in on it too…? All in order to shut down a comedian with limited appeal on social media?

I mean, yes that sounds a lot more plausible than just Russell Brand potentially being a wrong un…
Click to expand...

Its exactly what the Alt-Right, Blue tick wankers are all saying on Twitter.

He's mentioned some shit about the vaccines, Big Pharma and the deep state so of course the mighty behemoth that is Channel 4 has come after him.
 
Funny that the big defence of Brand seems to be that they're only targeting him now because he's "revealing the truth" about corruption in politics, etc. when most people in this country had largely forgotten about him and outside of his little circle of followers in America he has barely any influence or clout at all. As a matter of fact, I think Brand's only been served up for the chopping block now because he has no influence and is worth nothing to anybody important. It was the same reason Weinstein's victims had to wait decades to get justice - his films finally started bombing so Hollywood saw no reason to protect him any longer and they let him be the fall guy to protect all the other sex offenders in the industry. Similarly, Brand has now lost any kind of value to the kinds of people who usually block these investigations from journalists so they've moved out of the way and allowed him to be taken down. I do believe the accusers in this instance.
 
I'm not a fan but what they "revealed" last night wouldn't make it into court never mind secure a conviction
 
bluenova said:
Suggesting that Brand is right now innocent, simply because he's not been convicted, is taking his side over the multiple women who have accused him.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
No. It really is not. It is having faith in the justice system and ot taking it ipin yourself to decide that someone is guilty.
Click to expand...
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.
 
meltonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SebastianBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

That may be an issue. But it is a whole other one to the comment he or I made.
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bluenova said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
bluenova said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bluenova said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it is not taking sides. It is simply respecting and accepting the law and systems we have in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top