You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?
April 13 2024 7.52pm

Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 13 of 33 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

 

View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 19 Sep 23 10.08pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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.

You can be very patronising. Your first line is not a requirement to make your point. If an opinion is different to yours it could well be you who are confused !

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View HKOwen's Profile HKOwen Flag Hong Kong 19 Sep 23 10.10pm Send a Private Message to HKOwen Add HKOwen as a friend

Brand would have to show that the organisation he is suing published the statement and that it is defamatory,

The publisher has to prove the statements were true.

In this scenario, an allegation of rape would be defamatory if there was no conviction in a criminal court.

The waters are very muddied as an alleged victim may believe they were raped but the circumstances do not fall into the definition the law requires

THis will run and run until the next one comes along

 


Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 19 Sep 23 10.29pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

You can be very patronising. Your first line is not a requirement to make your point. If an opinion is different to yours it could well be you who are confused !

If you check the comment I responded to you will see it made some unjustified accusations. Hence the first line, which is actually quite a polite comment.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 19 Sep 23 10.44pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

That Brand has found a nice little earner in recent years feeding the prejudices of those who distrust authority of every kind and see conspiracies around every corner, is beyond dispute. We have seen regular evidence of it posted here.

That it is clever, or that people are entitled to believe it, is also beyond dispute as is the right of others to expose it.

None of that though has the slightest relevance to the claims now being made against him. They stand alone and to link them in any way as a basis of a defence ridiculous.

Some want to postulate, as Brand himself seems to want to, that the reason why such claims are being made is down to the ďelitesĒ not liking the criticisms he makes of them. Conspiracy theorists will always invent conspiracy theories to explain anything that they donít like.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View eaglesdare's Profile eaglesdare Flag 19 Sep 23 11.49pm Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

Not a fan of Russel Brand. I have also not watched his YouTube videos.

However...Regardless of hearsay, or potential evidence the law is Innocent until proven guilty.

With the ridiculous "evidence" put into the media before the courts it makes it almost impossible to convict. Maybe they knew he was innocent but just wanted him cancelled?

Interesting they won't do an interview or an "expose" on the Epstein client list.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 20 Sep 23 7.01am Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Not a fan of Russel Brand. I have also not watched his YouTube videos.

However...Regardless of hearsay, or potential evidence the law is Innocent until proven guilty.

With the ridiculous "evidence" put into the media before the courts it makes it almost impossible to convict. Maybe they knew he was innocent but just wanted him cancelled?

Interesting they won't do an interview or an "expose" on the Epstein client list.

With regard to your last sentence, we have said exactly the same. Interesting isnít it

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 20 Sep 23 7.46am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman 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.

The playing down and mitigation by the likes of you, of the scandal of pakistani-heritage paedophile gangs carrying out mass sexual abuse on children in several towns while the police were fully informed of what was going on, is truly sickening.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Flag Ware 20 Sep 23 9.28am Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger 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.

I'm not arguing the values of investigative journalism; when done right it's a valuable tool. But that names and reputations should be left out of it, and handed to the relevant authorities to preserve the rights of that individual(s) until such a time that guilt can be proven.

You've mentioned Jury's in another post - these are supposed to be unbiased members of the public. How can a jury be assigned to this case now (if it makes it that far) when the media have done as much they can to bias public opinion?

The stories told by mainstream media (especially when celebrity scoops are involved) cannot be relied upon. The evidence they present are designed to prove one point; their point. All without the possibility of cross examination = and people lap it up and believe every word. They (the media) have too much control and too much influence, up to a point now that I have stopped really listening to what they have to say. There is still plenty of high quality journalism out there, but its undiscernible from the sensationalist rhetoric spouted by their colleagues and peers.

 


"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
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 20 Sep 23 9.45am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Not a fan of Russel Brand. I have also not watched his YouTube videos.

However...Regardless of hearsay, or potential evidence the law is Innocent until proven guilty.

With the ridiculous "evidence" put into the media before the courts it makes it almost impossible to convict. Maybe they knew he was innocent but just wanted him cancelled?

Interesting they won't do an interview or an "expose" on the Epstein client list.

A Judge would direct a jury to disregard all they had heard or seen before and evaluate only the evidence put before them in court. This situation has occurred many times and is not a barrier to justice.

Why no list of Epsteinís clients hasnít emerged isnít known. Perhaps it was only in his head and never written down. Perhaps it was destroyed along with other computer records. Perhaps it hasnít yet been discovered. If it exists and had been found it would have leaked by now. There are more than enough outlets who would eagerly publish such data and more than enough people willing to pass it to them and get rich doing so.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 20 Sep 23 9.56am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

I'm not arguing the values of investigative journalism; when done right it's a valuable tool. But that names and reputations should be left out of it, and handed to the relevant authorities to preserve the rights of that individual(s) until such a time that guilt can be proven.

You've mentioned Jury's in another post - these are supposed to be unbiased members of the public. How can a jury be assigned to this case now (if it makes it that far) when the media have done as much they can to bias public opinion?

The stories told by mainstream media (especially when celebrity scoops are involved) cannot be relied upon. The evidence they present are designed to prove one point; their point. All without the possibility of cross examination = and people lap it up and believe every word. They (the media) have too much control and too much influence, up to a point now that I have stopped really listening to what they have to say. There is still plenty of high quality journalism out there, but its undiscernible from the sensationalist rhetoric spouted by their colleagues and peers.

Part of the reason for naming the individual is to encourage others to come forward so that a case can be put together. Itís just letting the genie out of the bottle.

A jury can be instructed to disregard all they have heard before. Itís not unusual. The Judge will tell them how to do this.

You can distrust the media all you wish but you cannot disregard the personal testimony of those making the claims. Itís for us to judge their authenticity at this stage and reach our own conclusions. Alongside that is other, hard, evidence. The texts and videos.

This wasnít done by a tabloid trying to create a splash headline. It is a lengthy, thorough piece of investigative journalism by serious newspapers and broadcasters.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 20 Sep 23 10.24am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle


As
Part of the reason for naming the individual is to encourage others to come forward so that a case can be put together. Itís just letting the genie out of the bottle.

A jury can be instructed to disregard all they have heard before. Itís not unusual. The Judge will tell them how to do this.

You can distrust the media all you wish but you cannot disregard the personal testimony of those making the claims. Itís for us to judge their authenticity at this stage and reach our own conclusions. Alongside that is other, hard, evidence. The texts and videos.

This wasnít done by a tabloid trying to create a splash headline. It is a lengthy, thorough piece of investigative journalism by serious newspapers and broadcasters.

A robust defence of Rupert Murdoch's policies.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 20 Sep 23 10.26am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Part of the reason for naming the individual is to encourage others to come forward so that a case can be put together. Itís just letting the genie out of the bottle.

A jury can be instructed to disregard all they have heard before. Itís not unusual. The Judge will tell them how to do this.

You can distrust the media all you wish but you cannot disregard the personal testimony of those making the claims. Itís for us to judge their authenticity at this stage and reach our own conclusions. Alongside that is other, hard, evidence. The texts and videos.

This wasnít done by a tabloid trying to create a splash headline. It is a lengthy, thorough piece of investigative journalism by serious newspapers and broadcasters.

If the suspect isn't a celebrity there is no genie to be let out of anywhere. Media outlets report on famous people to increase their sales not out of any kind of altruism or public spirit.

 

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

 

Page 13 of 33 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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