You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?
September 25 2023 12.31am

Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 11 of 30 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

 

View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 19 Sep 23 2.30pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

Courts decide guilt and apply an appropriate punishment.

I don't think a deceased person can be tried, as they have no opportunity to defend themselves - a basic right of our legal system.

The Saville case cannot be compared as it was so full of systematic failures across all involved to the point that the Jusdicial system in this country failed the victims. It should be used as a lesson for the system to be improved upon.

All those with an opportunity to defend themselves have that right, and should be afforded it.

There are several valid comparisons with the Savile case, not least that it is suggested that the behaviour was an open secret but either tolerated or ignored. That will doubtless now be investigated as a side issue. If it is shown that victims were intimidated from reporting their abuse then thatís a serious issue for the various broadcasters to address.

For sure Brand has the right to defend himself, both now with denials and in court if and when prosecuted. He also has the right to sue for defamation if he knows the accusations to be untrue.

In the meantime we will all reach our own conclusions on the merit, or otherwise, of the claims.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 19 Sep 23 2.37pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

So following this reasoning you believe that no one should believe that Savile wasnít responsible for any of the things he was accused of, and his reputation should remain untarnished?

Courts decide punishment. People can reach opinions irrespective of anything done in court.

Should I be accused of not maintaining gas appliances as a landlord I would laugh all the way to the bank. I donít possess any gas appliances as a landlord.

Saville is dead and cannot be tried.

Even the living Nazi leaders got a trial at Nuremburg.

Have you ever possessed gas appliances as a landlord?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 19 Sep 23 3.33pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

Saville is dead and cannot be tried.


Even the living Nazi leaders got a trial at Nuremburg.


Have you ever possessed gas appliances as a landlord?

I know both the first two statements.

Savile has not been given the benefit of doubt because he wasnít convicted in a court. Brand has the opportunity to issue denials, sue for defamation and defend himself if prosecuted.

That the Nazis were given the chance to defend their actions doesnít mean that people held no opinions on them before they were tried.

I have never owned a rental property with gas appliances and my care home was heated by oil, with a service contract in place as a legal requirement.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 19 Sep 23 3.52pm Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

If they have no substance then Brand should be immediately instructing lawyers to sue the various media companies for defamation and make public statements to that effect.

He would get millions in compensation and enhance his reputation if that is true.

I donít see it happening and I donít expect it to. No media company would publish claims of this sort unless they know they are true.

Letís see who is right.

How do you reach that conclusion when the record compensation for defamation in the UK is £1.5 million, and that was in 1989?

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 19 Sep 23 3.58pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

Right. Done and dusted with this charade.

Only conclusion I can reach is this down to pure vindictiveness. That back in his murkey past Brand managed to piss off somebody within media circles who has now risen to prominence and with the ability to try and do Brands legs.

He ain't influential enough for any kind of 'Deep State' takedown. And he is not mainstream enough to warrant any kind of rational explanation for this level of effort. Emotive claims, which given the numbers of people who had to be interviewed to even come up with those, do not make a 90-minute expose on prime Saturday night TV.

Leaving the possibility that somebody within the Media world hates Brand with a passion and has made it their life goal to try and bring him down because he slighted them a long time ago.

Very Shakespearean. And very human, despite how pathetic it actually is. A dark part of my soul actually rather admires the need for vengeance.

Edited by Matov (19 Sep 2023 8.02am)

A lot of people haven't actually heard Brand on politics or his approach to things and go off of his personality....which is very marmite.

But I've watched his content and I have time for Brand, not because of his politics so much....though I agree on some holistic elements of it...but because he wants a future without a pile of skulls....in other words where nobody particularly wins the culture and people get to live their lifes without overarching state control......He is a lefty libertarian. So I'll always have time for peacemakers.....people who seek a way out the maze for everybody, not just their tribe.

While I criticise libertarianism...it's not for its ideals, like most I crtiticise it because it fails down to the same reason socialism/communism/egalitarianism fails....it deals unrealistically with human nature and seeks to punish it more than reward it. It's the exact reason why capitalism succeeds, even though we may not like aspects of it.

So while libertarianism doesn't work within power structures I do respect the ideals....it's similar to egalitarianism, though the latter is far more dangerous as it attracts far more and thus is significantly more dangerous in its resultant failings.

But there's a reason these ideas attract people and it's because they strive for virtue.....Very few of us start out deliberately malign.

Fool's gold will always attract buyers.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Sep 2023 5.47pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Flag Ware 19 Sep 23 4.59pm Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I know both the first two statements.

Savile has not been given the benefit of doubt because he wasnít convicted in a court. Brand has the opportunity to issue denials, sue for defamation and defend himself if prosecuted.

That the Nazis were given the chance to defend their actions doesnít mean that people held no opinions on them before they were tried.

I have never owned a rental property with gas appliances and my care home was heated by oil, with a service contract in place as a legal requirement.

But that's the point. He shouldn't have to issue denials and sue for defamation in the public eye. It should have been passed to the police for prosecution without his name being made public.

The only reason it was made public is that "another celebrity investigated for sexual Assaults" doesn't sell as many papers.

 


"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 19 Sep 23 5.07pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

If found innocent he will become an even richer prat than he is now. He would gain multi millions in compensation without even having to sue and his reputation within his target audience would sore.

Will he? Is Kevin Spacey richer than he was?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 19 Sep 23 5.11pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Very unlikely. Most of us can tell that which is made from straw from that which is made from brick.

And some of us can make up our mind in five minutes which is even more impressive.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 19 Sep 23 5.16pm Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Should you do so you would be sued for defamation as we both know itís untrue and that no evidence exists. You would lose a lot of money and my reputation would not be impacted. No one that matters would believe it, especially as I sold my care home 20 years ago and retired completely more than 10 years ago.

Itís a ridiculous analogy.

The Brand matter must have substance or the corporate oversight of the various media companies would not have allowed publication. They simply would not permit such a risk to be taken no matter how much pressure their editorial arm exerted to get the story out there.

There is no evidence in the Brand case. Nor is there currently legal re-dress in process. Yet the story currently saturates the media to the extent the things that matter are in the small print on the inside pages.
You seemingly support trial by media ? Many people saying it is Karma for the telephone call he made to Andrew Sachs regarding his daughter.
The guy behaved like a total t055er in that instance, and many others. It does not deny him the right to due process, especially given the criminal nature of the allegations.

Wisbech, you pick and chose due process when it suits you. You championed the Government's right not to be judged by media reporting and wait for the Covid Inquiry findings. Yet you are willing to see a man destroyed because you don't like what he's done,...according to the media.

 


,,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 19 Sep 23 5.59pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by YT

How do you reach that conclusion when the record compensation for defamation in the UK is £1.5 million, and that was in 1989?

I would imagine any claim that succeeded in this case would obliterate any previous one given the level of publicity and 34 years is a long time ago.

I am not expecting it to be tested though.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 19 Sep 23 6.03pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I would imagine any claim that succeeded in this case would obliterate any previous one given the level of publicity and 34 years is a long time ago.

I am not expecting it to be tested though.

Because there's no need for a trial. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean much does it? In fact the trial doesn't matter when he's guilty before an arrest has been made.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 19 Sep 23 6.12pm Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I would imagine any claim that succeeded in this case would obliterate any previous one given the level of publicity and 34 years is a long time ago.

I am not expecting it to be tested though.

Then I think you are deluded.

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 11 of 30 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?