You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?
December 3 2023 1.03am

Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 14 of 33 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

 

View CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Flag Ware 20 Sep 23 10.30am Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger 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.

Maybe so, but it's not the Media that should be building the case, it's the police. As such the name should ONLY be released when the police have given the OK to do so.

Edited by CrazyBadger (20 Sep 2023 10.31am)

 


"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 Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 20 Sep 23 10.50am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

Maybe so, but it's not the Media that should be building the case, it's the police. As such the name should ONLY be released when the police have given the OK to do so.


Edited by CrazyBadger (20 Sep 2023 10.31am)

A judge should actually make that decision on a case by case basis.

 


One more point

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 11.14am Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

A judge should actually make that decision on a case by case basis.

Interesting, so even the Police do not have the authority to do that? That surprises me.

 


"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 Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 20 Sep 23 11.21am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

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.

Well said.

Degenerate and disgusting.

 


'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 Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 20 Sep 23 11.40am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

Interesting, so even the Police do not have the authority to do that? That surprises me.

I think you misread my comment, that is not what happens today.

I meant that the police regularly release people's names e.g. Cliff Richard and often for the wrong reasons, so I don't trust them with that power.

The argument for publicity is that people like Saville could hide the true extent of their crimes.

My preference is that all sex crimes should be anonymous (until they are charged) but if the police have reason to suspect that there are other victims they should ask permission from a judge to release the name.

Edited by Badger11 (20 Sep 2023 11.41am)

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View eritheagle's Profile eritheagle Flag Erith 20 Sep 23 11.41am Send a Private Message to eritheagle Add eritheagle as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

Maybe so, but it's not the Media that should be building the case, it's the police. As such the name should ONLY be released when the police have given the OK to do so.

Edited by CrazyBadger (20 Sep 2023 10.31am)

Iím just surprised that he didnít get lawyers to take out a super injunction like all the other ďcelebrities ď do

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 20 Sep 23 11.56am Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

Was it speaking out against big Pharma that nailed Russell B ? I believe so.

 


inŠr n-aonar i Anerley,

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 20 Sep 23 12.52pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

Was it speaking out against big Pharma that nailed Russell B ? I believe so.

It opens up a very large can of worms.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 20 Sep 23 1.35pm Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Itís hilarious to me that anyone thinks Russel Brand is important or influential enough that the Ďestablishmentí would need or want to take him down.

Heís a relative nobody in recent years, and unless you actively seek out the sort of content he produces (anti-establishment, conspiratorial type stuff), Iíd imagine the vast majority of people have absolutely no exposure to it.

His YouTube videos average about half a million views, which is a global audience - the idea that those type of numbers are so worrying to the powers that be that theyíd coordinate a campaign against him is beyond childish.

Whatever you think about the allegations, that theory is a nonsense.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 20 Sep 23 1.48pm Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

On the allegations themselves; I just never really understand why people work so hard to disbelieve this stuff (well I think I do, but itís a fairly depressing reality to confront) - thereís hardly a huge list of examples of these type of stories being completely made up, and based on everything we know of Brand, and the small amounts of evidence shown, Iím quite happy to say on the balance of probability I think itís much more likely true than not.

I think at best heís a creep and an abuser, at worst heís an outright rapist - regardless of where he ends up in that range, thatís not someone I will rush to defend.

Legally, absolutely he is entitled to due process and presumption of innocence, but the burden of proof to just form an opinion as an ordinary person does not need be anywhere near as high - this is a multi year investigation conducted by big organisations who would be very aware of the risks of a defamation case if their story was not solid.

Iíve also said before that I donít have anywhere near as much faith as many seem to in a legal system which convicts at a rate lower than 1% for this particular allegation - there are far more blokes who have never been convicted but very clearly done wrong than there are blokes whoíve been falsely accused, and yet everyone seems convinced the latter is a more likely outcome.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 20 Sep 23 3.10pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow

On the allegations themselves; I just never really understand why people work so hard to disbelieve this stuff (well I think I do, but itís a fairly depressing reality to confront) - thereís hardly a huge list of examples of these type of stories being completely made up, and based on everything we know of Brand, and the small amounts of evidence shown, Iím quite happy to say on the balance of probability I think itís much more likely true than not.

I think at best heís a creep and an abuser, at worst heís an outright rapist - regardless of where he ends up in that range, thatís not someone I will rush to defend.

Legally, absolutely he is entitled to due process and presumption of innocence, but the burden of proof to just form an opinion as an ordinary person does not need be anywhere near as high - this is a multi year investigation conducted by big organisations who would be very aware of the risks of a defamation case if their story was not solid.

Iíve also said before that I donít have anywhere near as much faith as many seem to in a legal system which convicts at a rate lower than 1% for this particular allegation - there are far more blokes who have never been convicted but very clearly done wrong than there are blokes whoíve been falsely accused, and yet everyone seems convinced the latter is a more likely outcome.

I don't disagree with most of what you say but I would point out
he has been investigated by C4 who are equally culpable for employing him and are now doing their Pontius Pilate act.

The C4 boss statement today was pure hypocrisy, she may not have been involved at the time but she is doing her best to deflect attention away from the obvious question why on earth did they ever give him a job.

About the only line she didn't use was "society is to blame".

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 20 Sep 23 3.15pm Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I don't disagree with most of what you say but I would point out
he has been investigated by C4 who are equally culpable for employing him and are now doing their Pontius Pilate act.

The C4 boss statement today was pure hypocrisy, she may not have been involved at the time but she is doing her best to deflect attention away from the obvious question why on earth did they ever give him a job.

About the only line she didn't use was "society is to blame".

I completely agree that questions should be asked of the broadcasters, although I think Ďequally culpableí is probably a stretch.

Having said that, if C4 were purely in the business of trying to deflect attention away, they wouldnít have put out the program at all - of course theyíre going to try and put their own spin on it and paint themselves as positively as they can, but ultimately they have published something which they know also opens themselves up to massive criticism - that just makes the story more credible, to me.

 

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

 

Page 14 of 33 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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