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

[Bazzmand Show]

On point as always,

This was excellent.

 

[SebastianBlue]

We are not. As I did not really comment on the second.

I believe in karma too, but I didn't argue that either.

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.

 

[Blue Lorry]

And poor Billie went on to marry that utter wanker Laurence Fox as well

Poor, not after marrying them 2 I’m quite sure ;-)

 

[Scottyboi]

Poor, not after marrying them 2 I’m quite sure ;-)

She was far more talented than them pair of cunts.

 

[Eccles Blue]

Who the fuck is Beverley Turner?

She must be a real wrong ’un if she makes Pierce sound sensible.

She was born in Prestwich!! Older Blues might get the reason for the exclamation marks there. ;-)
She is the sister of the Olympic swimmer Adrian Turner.
Just answering what was probably a rhetorical question. ;-)

 

[mexico1970]

That’s basically advocating the removal of a free press though, which would be a very slippery slope.

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.

 

[west didsblue]

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.

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.

 

[Coatigan]

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 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.

 

[SebastianBlue]

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.

Not trying to bait, just trying to better understand.

Many people do seem to be genuinely arguing that a person should not face any sort of consequence (and that we should not pass judgement or even offer our opinion on the matter) unless they have been found guilty of the allegations in question in a court of law.

Which is a stance that not only contradicts reality but what is necessary for a civil society, especially in the case of instances of sexual abuse and rape, because of the extreme failings of said formal justice system for those crimes.

And I thought—apparently mistakingly— you were in part arguing that.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

Indeed. That’s also why these allegations have to be taken with a lot of consideration though. Brand didn’t even respond to them let alone try to block them and the times and channel 4 lawyers wouldn’t have let it get anywhere near publication without doing a lot of checking.