Russell Brand

bhops said:
I've heard of grooming of course, I haven't been living under a rock. I just think if you want to relitigate a consensual relationship via a grooming charge you are potentially going down a very very dangerous path.
Click to expand...
Just remember, bhops, you're trying to have a rational discussion with someone who thinks it's ok to send a male rapist to a female prison. And yet they are on here posing as the saviour of women. And children.
 
gashonthenail said:
Just remember, bhops, you're trying to have a rational discussion with someone who thinks it's ok to send a male rapist to a female prison. And yet they are on here posing as the saviour of women. And children.
Click to expand...
Really?? I really can’t reconcile how you can ever under any circumstances justify putting a biological man in a woman’s prison.
 
bhops said:
I’m not. It’s interesting that you’ve already made up your mind.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't I? A jury won't matter, juries often get it wrong. He is not 'entitled' to a trial as a matter of course, he is only entitled to a trial as part of due process if he is charged and he will only be charged if a victim decides to press charges and the statute of limitations has not run out. The other recourse is a civil trial, which again, the victim has to initiate?
Has it really come to this? Are people not allowed to have opinions? Especially in such a casual setting as this? If I were in a pub talking about it over a beer, would I have to say the word 'alleged' over and over or can I just discuss it how I like?
 
bhops said:
Really?? I really can’t reconcile how you can ever under any circumstances justify putting a biological man in a woman’s prison.
Click to expand...
No rational person can. And no one who really cares about vulnerable women can. Unless they don't really give a damn about vulnerable women, and are just here to virtue signal.
 
Redacted said:
Why wouldn't I? A jury won't matter, juries often get it wrong. He is not 'entitled' to a trial as a matter of course, he is only entitled to a trial as part of due process if he is charged and he will only be charged if a victim decides to press charges and the statute of limitations has not run out. The other recourse is a civil trial, which again, the victim has to initiate?
Has it really come to this? Are people not allowed to have opinions? Especially in such a casual setting as this? If I were in a pub talking about it over a beer, would I have to say the word 'alleged' over and over or can I just discuss it how I like?
Click to expand...
No you’re welcome to your opinion, I’m going to at least wait for his version of events.
 
Redacted said:
Why wouldn't I? A jury won't matter, juries often get it wrong. He is not 'entitled' to a trial as a matter of course, he is only entitled to a trial as part of due process if he is charged and he will only be charged if a victim decides to press charges and the statute of limitations has not run out. The other recourse is a civil trial, which again, the victim has to initiate?
Has it really come to this? Are people not allowed to have opinions? Especially in such a casual setting as this? If I were in a pub talking about it over a beer, would I have to say the word 'alleged' over and over or can I just discuss it how I like?
Click to expand...
juries often get it wrong, but not you. oh no, you have it right. in fact, you're so right that you're completely shut off to any other possibility than that he is guilty. what is that saying about the fool thinking he is right, and the wise man doubting himself??

interestingly you thought johnny depp was guilty too. i think you just have it in for sexy men. very telling.
 
bhops said:
No you’re welcome to your opinion, I’m going to at least wait for his version of events.
Click to expand...
Did you see his video where he denied it all? Also, the reporters informed him of their story about 8 days before publication and gave him an opportunity to respond. How many chances does he get?
 
Redacted said:
Did you see his video where he denied it all? Also, the reporters informed him of their story about 8 days before publication and gave him an opportunity to respond. How many chances does he get?
Click to expand...
I assume he will respond soon.
 
bhops said:
I assume he will respond soon.
Click to expand...
He might and if he ever said anything to make me change my mind, I would say so. I already said I think the then 16 year old bears some responsibility for the relationship part of it and she only left him when she found him in bed with someone else. So, I think you and I are sort of in some agreement on that case.
The default in these cases is innocent til proven guilty, but this case is a bit different in that he has been telling us who he is for years. My opinion on a message board is not going to damage him.
 
Redacted said:
I think another victim has come forward, I just can't remember where I read it
Click to expand...

Yep, one who has alleged he sexually assaulted them in 2003 - this is in addition to the ones in the Times article, which took place between 2006 and 2013.
 
Dagenham Dom said:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...
But how can you prove that somebody has harassed you, if there were no witnesses. And especially if it happened some time ago. Rape cases are difficult, even if you go to police straight after, since it's hard to prove sex happened without your consent, if no other kind of violence was involved. It's mostly the victim's word against the (alleged) harasser's word.

My take is that if more than one person accuse somebody of harassing them, I automatically believe them. I can imagine one person making false accusations out of spite or mental problems or whatever, but eight? No way.
 
Back
Top Bottom