Another one bites the dust?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 CrazyBadger  Ware 20 Sep 23 10.30am |
  |
|---|---|
|
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. It’s just letting the genie out of the bottle. A jury can be instructed to disregard all they have heard before. It’s 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. It’s 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 wasn’t 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 a moderator to this post |
  |
| Badger11 Beckenham 20 Sep 23 10.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
A judge should actually make that decision on a case by case basis.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CrazyBadger Ware 20 Sep 23 11.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 20 Sep 23 11.21am |
 |
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 20 Sep 23 11.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| eritheagle Erith 20 Sep 23 11.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
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) I’m just surprised that he didn’t get lawyers to take out a super injunction like all the other “celebrities “ do
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 20 Sep 23 11.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Was it speaking out against big Pharma that nailed Russell B ? I believe so.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 20 Sep 23 12.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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 a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 20 Sep 23 1.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It’s hilarious to me that anyone thinks Russel Brand is important or influential enough that the ‘establishment’ would need or want to take him down. He’s a relative nobody in recent years, and unless you actively seek out the sort of content he produces (anti-establishment, conspiratorial type stuff), I’d 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 they’d coordinate a campaign against him is beyond childish. Whatever you think about the allegations, that theory is a nonsense.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 20 Sep 23 1.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
On the allegations themselves; I just never really understand why people work so hard to disbelieve this stuff (well I think I do, but it’s a fairly depressing reality to confront) - there’s 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, I’m quite happy to say on the balance of probability I think it’s much more likely true than not. I think at best he’s a creep and an abuser, at worst he’s an outright rapist - regardless of where he ends up in that range, that’s 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. I’ve also said before that I don’t 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 who’ve been falsely accused, and yet everyone seems convinced the latter is a more likely outcome.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 20 Sep 23 3.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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 it’s a fairly depressing reality to confront) - there’s 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, I’m quite happy to say on the balance of probability I think it’s much more likely true than not. I think at best he’s a creep and an abuser, at worst he’s an outright rapist - regardless of where he ends up in that range, that’s 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. I’ve also said before that I don’t 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 who’ve 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 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 a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 20 Sep 23 3.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I don't disagree with most of what you say but I would point out 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 ‘equally culpable’ is probably a stretch. Having said that, if C4 were purely in the business of trying to deflect attention away, they wouldn’t have put out the program at all - of course they’re 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 a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.