Another one bites the dust?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 SW19 CPFC  Addiscombe West 18 Sep 23 3.21pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
What's curious is that everyone is all over this except, oddly, the police. Have any offences been committed and is he being investigated by them? Personally, I can't stand him and always remember how Charlie Brooker described him as 'a long haired Dickensian dicking machine' Amusing and seemingly accurate description. Doesn't appear that any of the accusers have gone to the police (yet). However it's important to remember that going public with these sorts of allegations, both as an individual and as a company, or broadcaster, or journalist leaves you very very open to legal action and libel, defamation and so on unless you've thoroughly done your homework. This hasn't been dropped on a whim. This is also far from the first time that journalism has been the catalyst to validly expose various forms of historic criminality and force the Police/Authorities into action. The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in Boston. NoTW Phone Hacking. The Panama Papers. Jimmy Saville. Are some of you suggesting that because Brand has in recent times shifted to monetising the right wing and fringe conspiracy audience that means all of this has to be made up because it's the elites trying to take him down? Essentially, if he was still a lefty, he'd be fair game. It's partisan nonsense. I also think you overstate his importance... I seriously doubt any large corporates view him as anything more memorable than a stray midge on a warm summers eve. I'm not sure I heard similar exoneration for good old Jimmy. Edited by SW19 CPFC (18 Sep 2023 3.24pm)
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 23 3.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
how would the BBC define 'improper behaviour' ? you would wonder after Savile et al. improper behaviour - Brand said there are two genders ? - Brand said the nuclear family gets better outcomes, for kids, than anything else ? improper behaviour ? Brand says a lot of things. Indeed he hardly ever stops. That his target audience will agree with some of them is hardly a surprise. That has nothing to do with improper behaviour. Even prats can express opinions. It's what they do that matters.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 18 Sep 23 3.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Amusing and seemingly accurate description. Doesn't appear that any of the accusers have gone to the police (yet). However it's important to remember that going public with these sorts of allegations, both as an individual and as a company, or broadcaster, or journalist leaves you very very open to legal action and libel, defamation and so on unless you've thoroughly done your homework. This hasn't been dropped on a whim. This is also far from the first time that journalism has been the catalyst to validly expose various forms of historic criminality and force the Police/Authorities into action. The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in Boston. NoTW Phone Hacking. The Panama Papers. Jimmy Saville. Are some of you suggesting that because Brand has in recent times shifted to monetising the right wing and fringe conspiracy audience that means all of this has to be made up because it's the elites trying to take him down? Essentially, if he was still a lefty, he'd be fair game. It's partisan nonsense. I also think you overstate his importance... I seriously doubt any large corporates view him as anything more memorable than a stray midge on a warm summers eve. I'm not sure I heard similar exoneration for good old Jimmy. Edited by SW19 CPFC (18 Sep 2023 3.24pm) My feeling exactly. Very few mavericks have that kind of power. The last one to genuinely upset the status quo was Farage but only because he spent years campaigning and growing the Brexit support at elections. RB doesn't have a political party or stand for anything in particular apart from pointing out the hypocrisy and greed amongst elites, nothing new in that and plenty of others doing the same thing. He's just not that important to the majority of us. Edited by Badger11 (18 Sep 2023 3.44pm)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 23 3.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
What was the actual EVIDENCE seen 5 minutes in? I would need to watch the programme again to be specific but the women were making direct accusations of abuse, thus providing evidence. Evidence which remains untested and unverified. Alongside that were statements of reports being made to the police at the time which have been verified as true by the investigating journalists. That doesn't prove that those reports are truthful but does prove that reports were made, thus providing additional evidence, which can be reviewed and valued. Evidence can be true or untrue. It is provided by a witness in an effort to establish the truth.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 23 4.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
You have obviously bought into trial-by-media. I have seen and heard enough from Brand over the years to have formed an opinion of him. I have listened to the statements of the women and to his denials. On the balance of probabilities with the information before me, I think it is much more likely he did these things than not. That's not "buying into" anything. It's simple observation and common sense. If it looks like a duck................ That said I would be the first to defend his right to a fair trial during which his accusers are cross-examined, his denials evaluated and an objective determination of the truth, beyond any reasonable doubt be made.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 18 Sep 23 4.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
What's curious is that everyone is all over this except, oddly, the police. Have any offences been committed and is he being investigated by them? Personally, I can't stand him and always remember how Charlie Brooker described him as 'a long haired Dickensian dicking machine' It seems the Met Police have just announced that they have opened an investigation following reports being made to them.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 18 Sep 23 4.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I would need to watch the programme again to be specific but the women were making direct accusations of abuse, thus providing evidence. Evidence which remains untested and unverified. Alongside that were statements of reports being made to the police at the time which have been verified as true by the investigating journalists. That doesn't prove that those reports are truthful but does prove that reports were made, thus providing additional evidence, which can be reviewed and valued. Evidence can be true or untrue. It is provided by a witness in an effort to establish the truth. If you start reading into it more, there are plenty of examples given such as text messages from Brand that are still on victims phones. Things like this are crucial to investigative journalists to ensure that any claims they do make can be backed up by logic and rigour. Otherwise, no more job, massive lawsuit. If you're after DNA evidence, sure, you're going to struggle. But there wasn't any for Jimmy, now, was there? Not saying he's innocent or guilty at this stage, although knowing how certain one has to be before putting stuff like this into the public domain I could have a good guess that at least one of these victims is credible, but the double standards on show here because of partisan posturing is a joke, even for this forum
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 18 Sep 23 4.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I have seen and heard enough from Brand over the years to have formed an opinion of him. I have listened to the statements of the women and to his denials. On the balance of probabilities with the information before me, I think it is much more likely he did these things than not. That's not "buying into" anything. It's simple observation and common sense. If it looks like a duck................ That said I would be the first to defend his right to a fair trial during which his accusers are cross-examined, his denials evaluated and an objective determination of the truth, beyond any reasonable doubt be made. Fair points. He does talk sense occasionally, but did use to be a massive helmet. As you allude to, with these things there's usually no smoke without fire. Maybe what people viewed as a vulgar comedic persona was actually much closer to home. If he does go down he won't be the last. Drake is next on my expected seedy wrongun takedown list for sometime around 2030.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 18 Sep 23 6.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I would need to watch the programme again to be specific but the women were making direct accusations of abuse, thus providing evidence. Evidence which remains untested and unverified. Alongside that were statements of reports being made to the police at the time which have been verified as true by the investigating journalists. That doesn't prove that those reports are truthful but does prove that reports were made, thus providing additional evidence, which can be reviewed and valued. Evidence can be true or untrue. It is provided by a witness in an effort to establish the truth. I cannot recall any statements that reports were made to the police. Indeed the alleged rape victim stated she did not go to the police. Are you saying that unverified accusations are evidence then? Interesting Edited by Spiderman (18 Sep 2023 6.38pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 18 Sep 23 6.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Fair points. He does talk sense occasionally, but did use to be a massive helmet. As you allude to, with these things there's usually no smoke without fire. Maybe what people viewed as a vulgar comedic persona was actually much closer to home. If he does go down he won't be the last. Drake is next on my expected seedy wrongun takedown list for sometime around 2030. Your second to last sentence is probably not the best, in light of the circumstances
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 18 Sep 23 6.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
I cannot recall any statements that reports were made to the police. Indeed the alleged rape victim stated she did not go to the police. Are you saying that unverified accusations are evidence then? Interesting Edited by Spiderman (18 Sep 2023 6.38pm) If unproven and false, he will sue, and then the accuser will eventually be outed, and the journos livelihoods ruined. So I’d be surprised if this is the case. There’s a lot to lose on both sides. Not just his
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 18 Sep 23 8.07pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
If unproven and false, he will sue, and then the accuser will eventually be outed, and the journos livelihoods ruined. So I’d be surprised if this is the case. There’s a lot to lose on both sides. Not just his You seriously think that rape without physical evidence can be proven after ten years? Any outcome is little more than opinion dressed up with official backing....There is no real way of knowing. As with rape, unless you go immediately to the Police the evidence becomes increasingly shakey.....Ten years and it's unlikely to work in a normally functioning justice system.....though let's not forget that our woke justice system is the one that somehow twisted itself around to winning for Amber Heard....that's how much liberalism has infected thinking in our courts. In my view this is well known and thought through by its establishment actors. The probable result is a damaged reputation based on no smoke without fire and little else.....I don't see careers being destroyed at all. There are too many people, especially in the establishment, who support what is happening....and they can always fall back on 'believe all women' and 'we had five women, who didn't know each other'....leaving out the fact that they went looking for them. Calculated. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Sep 2023 8.12pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.