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

[mancity2012_eamo]

And for clarity, it wasn't your posts that I was referring to.

Still, the "default position of innocent until proven guilty" only refers to legal guilt.

My argument is that too many people hide behind that, and will insist that someone is innocent until they've been proved guilty in court. That's not true.

We had this with the Mendy case - where plenty of people couldn't understand why the women weren't being prosecuted as Mendy wasn't found guilty. His guilt didn't mean they were all lying. The burden of proof in a criminal court case is a very high bar, for very good reasons - most democracies have decided that they would rather guilty people go free, than innocent people go to jail.

I’m sure guilty people do go free.
I think it is better that no innocent person goes to gaol because they couldn’t prove their innocence.

That has also happened despite the law as it stands.

 

[SebastianBlue]

All still going on unabated is my bet mate, there are enough people in fact most people who work in the industry to be complicit in turning a blind eye.

Maybe they all have different moral values compared to the rest of the public?

And, because of that, authorities have not been put under public pressure to investigate their terrible actions…

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

These women are scared of Brand. Hence they are keeping their anonymity. This rules out their motive being money.

Fuck sake, slow down.

 

[mexico1970]

And, because of that, authorities have not been put under public pressure to investigate their terrible actions…

I just think it's shocking mate, someone somewhere should have said something sooner he's an obvious monster.

Thankfully their careers are now intact because someone mentioned it first.

 

[kaz7]

It's fucking shit isn't it? Taking away the fact it's bloody hard when it's just one persons word against another it can also be the piss poor sentencing even when rapists get found guilty in some cases.

All that being said where are the powerful in the loop celebrities including the females watching this happening and saying the sum total of nothing, I mean sending cars to secondary schools to pick up victims?

And nobody said anything?

I think big celebrities are protected and they are cash cows for the broadcasters so a cover up is what they do , hoping it never comes to light as it reflects badly on them , i hope many more are exposed

 

[Coatigan]

But the law gives Brand that exact same opportunity now too, he can sue Channel 4 and the times for defamation if he chooses to.

Not everything is decided in a court, and more so not a criminal court.

Sure.

Why is it so important to you that I come to agree with your stance, out of interest?

 

[SebastianBlue]

It's fucking shit isn't it? Taking away the fact it's bloody hard when it's just one persons word against another it can also be the piss poor sentencing even when rapists get found guilty in some cases.

All that being said where are the powerful in the loop celebrities including the females watching this happening and saying the sum total of nothing, I mean sending cars to secondary schools to pick up victims?

And nobody said anything?

Many are afraid of the consequences of doing so.

As much as many men will claim “society is against!!!”, culture at large is still very much shaped (and in some cases, literally controlled) by men perspective, which includes the sort of responses we see in here from men “just asking questions” and reactions on the internet attacking the women coming forward, including trying to dox them so they can be harassed and intimidated.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's fucking shit isn't it? Taking away the fact it's bloody hard when it's just one persons word against another it can also be the piss poor sentencing even when rapists get found guilty in some cases.

Have you got any recent examples of these low sentences for rape?

 

[mexico1970]

I think big celebrities are protected and they are cash cows for the broadcasters so a cover up is what they do , hoping it never comes to light as it reflects badly on them , i hope many more are exposed

It should be a culture that should be accepted as fact, you don't have sex with people who don't want to have sex with you period.

Judging by the silence it looks like it's not all happy smiling caring cunts it's more like a scene from the hammer house of horror film about vampires.

Clear the lot of them out they are obviously up to no good.

 

[mexico1970]

Have you got any recent examples of these low sentences for rape?

My son gave evidence in a rape case and the person got 7 years, he'll be out soon after doing nowhere near 7.

I consider 7 years a low sentence.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Sure.

Why is it so important to you that I come to agree with your stance, out of interest?

Only speaking for myself, it is because “only a conviction in a court of law should count against a person, so if they are never convicted, there should be no consequences of any kind” is an extremely dangerous stance, especially in cases where the legal system is woefully insufficient and/or historically corrupt and the people making that argument now that to be the case.

It’s a similar argument supporters of slavery made: it’s not illegal so it can’t be wrong and there shouldn’t be any consequence of any kind for it.

 

[kaz7]

My son gave evidence in a rape case and the person got 7 years, he'll be out soon after doing nowhere near 7.

I consider 7 years a low sentence.

It is the only serving half a sentence that enrages me about the legal system , rape someone, ruin their lives , get seven yrs but out in three, it is just wrong

 

[mexico1970]

It is the only serving half a sentence that enrages me about the legal system , rape someone,ruin their lives ,get seven yrs but out in three , it is just wrong

I'm amazed some people think that the sentencing isn't low, I know they are following guidelines but those guidelines are wrong aren't they?

 

[Coatigan]

No, my view is that society intrinsically functions on forms of justice being enforced outside of the legal system. And that is how it has to function because the legal system is necessary but not sufficient for a fully functioning civil society.

And, once more, you have enforced those non-legal forms of justice many times over your life and so arguing that that it is wrong to do so is arguing that you are yourself wrong for doing so.

If “justice” was only ever enforced via the courts, people would be doing and allowing all manner of horrible things. Which I admit they are now, unfortunately, but at even higher rates than we see now.

It is a pretty universally established fact in sociology that “justice” is not merely enforced through formal systems created and administered by state entities. And that it can’t be, as formal systems aren’t sufficient in themselves to maintain functioning civil societies (they are not large enough, robust enough, or present enough to do so).

Literally all evidence supports that.

It is not an argument against legal systems and state enforced justice. It is merely an acknowledgment of the nearly universally accepted reality that civil societies require other forms of “justice” to function, as well. And all societal consequences cannot be simply predicated on whether someone has been found legally guilty in a state administered legal system.

If that were the case, most offences would never be punished in any way, whether breaking off ties with someone that has abused or mistreated you, or consequences being enforced with the likes of Jimmy Saville.

You are a member of a civil society, you have enforced consequences on others that have never been found guilty in a court of law of the offence you are effectively punishing them for, so I don’t really understand why we are even arguing this point.

You are welcome to give me examples of my enforcing 'non-legal justice'. Tell me my life story while you are at it.

Our views on what makes good society, and the law, clearly differ.

Our views on Brand, ironically most likely do not.

I really don't know why it is so important to you that I or someone else comes to agree with you that 'social justice' is the way forward, and the law should get binned. But it is pretty clear you won't get me to. Eventhough I do enjoy Batman.

 

[Centurions]

I'm amazed some people think that the sentencing isn't low, I know they are following guidelines but those guidelines are wrong aren't they?

I wouldn't consider 7 years low TBH, getting out early because of "good behaviour" is another argument.

 

[mexico1970]

I wouldn't consider 7 years low TBH, getting out early because of "good behaviour" is another argument.

You think 7 years is high enough for rape? This is why it needs a rethink mate, it's nowhere near enough in my opinion.

If you'll rape someone you'll do anything.

 

[Coatigan]

Only speaking for myself, it is because “only a conviction in a court of law should count against a person, so if they are never convicted, there should be no consequences of any kind” is an extremely dangerous stance, especially in cases where the legal system is woefully insufficient and/or historically corrupt and the people making that argument now that to be the case.

It’s a similar argument supporters of slavery made: it’s not illegal so it can’t be wrong and there shouldn’t be any consequence of any kind for it.

Whoah. Mate, with all due respect, you are way fucking overthinking this.

 

[SebastianBlue]

You are welcome to give me examples of my enforcing 'non-legal justice'. Tell me my life story while you are at it.

Our views on what makes good society, and the law, clearly differ.

Our views on Brand, ironically most likely do not.

I really don't know why it is so important to you that I or someone else comes to agree with you that 'social justice' is the way forward, and the law should get binned. But it is pretty clear you won't get me to. Eventhough I do enjoy Batman.

Have you ever stopped speaking to someone because they mistreated you?

Have you ever spoken negatively with others about the behaviour of someone else you found problematic or abhorrent?

Do you think Jimmy Saville is innocent?

The thing about my argument is that I don’t have to know your or anyone’s life story. I know with certainty you have enforced non-legal “justice” on others over the course of your life, because it is literally impossible not for you to have done so.

 

[meltonblue]

Sure.

Why is it so important to you that I come to agree with your stance, out of interest?

It’s not, why would you think it is? People directly involved rarely change their minds in online media discussions!

Doesn’t mean people reading it won’t though and there’s a plethora of people today (in general rather than on here) saying it should solely be down to the police and the CPS and I just think that’s fundamentally not true and am explaining why.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

My son gave evidence in a rape case and the person got 7 years, he'll be out soon after doing nowhere near 7.

I consider 7 years a low sentence.

Yes, it definitely is these days. Notably so. Especially if it went to a trial, which it must have done.

Sentences for rape have gone up enormously in the last couple of decades.