You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?
March 5 2024 9.43am

Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 12 of 33 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 19 Sep 23 7.33pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

I like Carlin's response when people imply that what happens is organic.

Sure, lots of stuff is, 100 percent....and then there is this.

[Link]

 


'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 Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 19 Sep 23 8.36pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

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.

In a perfect world where abused women had complete confidence in a police force with the time, skills and resources to thoroughly, sympathetically and anonymously investigate every complaint and no media company was motivated by a desire to sell newspapers or attract viewers, that might be true.

We don't live in such a world. So enabling the stories of possible victims to be told and evaluated through the work of investigative journalists who have been given the time and resources to investigate can be seen as a responsible compromise. If it throws up evidence that causes the police to investigate so much the better.

I remain convinced that no media company would risk publishing this kind of story unless they were totally sure the evidence was there to support it.

Never forget what happened with the "grooming gang" stories. Some here were full of praise for the newspapers who were headlining them, and indeed for Yaxley-Lennon's videos, but scornful of the police. Can you see the hypocrisy and double standards being employed? Especially when the police were investigating and resented the stories because they resulted in them having to divert resources. Nevertheless, these stories did ensure more attention was given and the police were criticised, somewhat unfairly in my own opinion given their under-resourcing. I criticised some of the stories, not because they were highlighting criminal behaviour but because of the way the tabloids spun them.

There is no such spinning involved here.

 

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 8.44pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

In a perfect world where abused women had complete confidence in a police force with the time, skills and resources to thoroughly, sympathetically and anonymously investigate every complaint and no media company was motivated by a desire to sell newspapers or attract viewers, that might be true.

We don't live in such a world. So enabling the stories of possible victims to be told and evaluated through the work of investigative journalists who have been given the time and resources to investigate can be seen as a responsible compromise. If it throws up evidence that causes the police to investigate so much the better.

I remain convinced that no media company would risk publishing this kind of story unless they were totally sure the evidence was there to support it.

Never forget what happened with the "grooming gang" stories. Some here were full of praise for the newspapers who were headlining them, and indeed for Yaxley-Lennon's videos, but scornful of the police. Can you see the hypocrisy and double standards being employed? Especially when the police were investigating and resented the stories because they resulted in them having to divert resources. Nevertheless, these stories did ensure more attention was given and the police were criticised, somewhat unfairly in my own opinion given their under-resourcing. I criticised some of the stories, not because they were highlighting criminal behaviour but because of the way the tabloids spun them.

There is no such spinning involved here.

The difference is that in those cases the police knew offences had been committed but didn't act even though they were on-going and not ten years in the past. Not to say past crimes should go unpunished but there is a difference.

 

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 8.46pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Will he? Is Kevin Spacey richer than he was?

Kevin Spacey has not sued for defamation, as far as I am aware.

Will he? If so would he succeed? He was cleared of the charges against him which required he be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Proving defamation requires another standard of proof. If he is unsure would he risk it? Best let it lie!

If Brand is so certain everything that was done was consensual and that the hard evidence of texts and videos can be explained then he has a golden opportunity to profit. We will see.

 

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 8.54pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The difference is that in those cases the police knew offences had been committed but didn't act even though they were on-going and not ten years in the past. Not to say past crimes should go unpunished but there is a difference.

That is a common misconception. That they were aware is true, but not that they didn't act. Their actions were to try to work with social services to eradicate the evil at source. A policy which has since been widely discredited but nonetheless was an action. I sympathise with the over-stretched police commanders who are trying to spread thin resources over many societal problems. They are inevitably going to fall through some gaps and be condemned as a consequence.

 

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 8.59pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

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.

The Judge would soon put an end to any such possibility in the minds of the jury. Who are the only ones who matter.

Whatever the Court of Public Opinion has previously decided is irrelevant to the outcome of a court case. Should he be found not guilty his reputation would quickly be restored and that of the media making the claims ruined.

 

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 9.01pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

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

About the existence of evidence yes.

About the fact that he is a prat, long before I started to watch anything.

 

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 9.09pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

About the existence of evidence yes.

About the fact that he is a prat, long before I started to watch anything.

That's the benefit of an open mind.

 

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 9.10pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The Judge would soon put an end to any such possibility in the minds of the jury. Who are the only ones who matter.

Whatever the Court of Public Opinion has previously decided is irrelevant to the outcome of a court case. Should he be found not guilty his reputation would quickly be restored and that of the media making the claims ruined.

And how would the judge do that? Put yourself on the jury.

 

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 9.13pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That is a common misconception. That they were aware is true, but not that they didn't act. Their actions were to try to work with social services to eradicate the evil at source. A policy which has since been widely discredited but nonetheless was an action. I sympathise with the over-stretched police commanders who are trying to spread thin resources over many societal problems. They are inevitably going to fall through some gaps and be condemned as a consequence.

An action which allowed future suffering for an unknown number of children over the course of several years.

 

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 9.14pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Kevin Spacey has not sued for defamation, as far as I am aware.

Will he? If so would he succeed? He was cleared of the charges against him which required he be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Proving defamation requires another standard of proof. If he is unsure would he risk it? Best let it lie!

If Brand is so certain everything that was done was consensual and that the hard evidence of texts and videos can be explained then he has a golden opportunity to profit. We will see.

Had Spacey been accused on national television he might have done.

 

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 9.27pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

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.

You seem very confused about this.

There is lots of evidence. Some of it is hearsay but of a type by which patterns can be established and the probability of truth being established. There is also hard evidence by way of text messages, recorded phone calls and videos.

Whether and when this moves to a legal process seems to me to be only a matter of time. You don't turn up and publish this kind of evidence without being sure it can be substantiated.

How news editors decide to treat it is a matter for them. You are free to disagree with their judgement but don't have their job at the moment.

I don't support trial by media. I want to see due process being followed, the claims and defence tested and justice done.

That it needed a piece of investigative journalism to bring that about might be regrettable but it's a reflection of the world we live in.

To conflate my view over Covid with this is ridiculous. I have no problem with people wanting to criticise past Government policy if they wish to. I just think it's a pointless waste of time and effort and the only place we can actually learn useful lessons is via an objective analysis such as the current enquiry is intended to facilitate.

If Brand is destroyed by this then it will only be because he brought it upon himself. If he has a believable defence he is free to make it. I am quite sure it would be given every opportunity. Especially if and when it reaches a court where should be acquitted, he would emerge with an enhanced reputation.

Brand has nothing to fear but himself.

 

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

 

Page 12 of 33 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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