Isn't that the problem though? The law isn't involved as yet. Their first thought was not to hand the dossier to the police, but to go straight to the court of public opinion which always finds everyone guilty.
Off Topic Russell Brand
- Thread starter rooch 3
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Isn't that the problem though? The law isn't involved as yet. Their first thought was not to hand the dossier to the police, but to go straight to the court of public opinion which always finds everyone guilty.
To be fair, people are entitled to say or write anything they believe to be true and name the person. For all we know the aggrieved women may have found the police unwilling, or unable, to prosecute and want their revenge in some way.
The accusers, and possibly the newspaper, are leaving themselves wide open to slander or libel both of which are criminal offences.
There's also no doubt the women's identities will energe so you could argue there's an element of bravery in outing yourself as a victim of rape.
Whatever the case there's, as yet, no police action so it's not the case that the state has named Brand ...
... hopefully justice will out and, if he's guilty, will be suitably punished.
Err.......no they aren't. That's where the laws on slander and libel come into play
Sorry to argue but, yes they certainly are entitled.
It's only slander or libel if it's untrue.
I have the right to accuse you of being a sheep shagger, and you have the right to challenge me in court ...
... but if I produce a dossier of photos and a written statement from Dolly you lose.
So, what you should have said is that people have the right to accuse someone of doing something IF they have the proof to back it up. Otherwise you can get sued for slander/libel where applicable
"Entitlement" is a subjective and expansive term
No, people are actually entitled to say whatever they want after which the onus is on them to prove their case if there's a denial.
It's for a court to decide if the evidence is reliable and sufficient or not.
Like I say, "entitlement" is subjective. You may think you are "entitled" to say what you like and I have to disprove it, but from a moral standpoint that is a horrific way for a person to live their life.
I did chuckle at thatWritten statement from Dolly ffs
It's irrelevant, we all have the right to say whatever we choose, it's called freedom of speech.
No-one can stop us but we may have to take the consequences.
Fully agree, the freedom of speech is there for all.
Innocent until proven otherwise, that said, l have no liking for him or Jonathan Ross for their live on air piss take of Andrew Sach. Privilege Scum.
What I find really odd whenever something like this happens, is the ordinary folk who go out of their way to support the accused. I saw pictures of people at his latest gig holding up banners saying things like "stay strong, we love you Russell", etc. As of right now, nobody knows whether he's innocent or guilty (except for him and the alleged victims). There's basically a 50:50 chance that the bloke's a rapist. I'm not saying he is one, but that's a hell of a lot higher chance than probably 95% of the population.
Of all the people to pile adulation on, some folk decide that the person who really deserves it is the rich bloke who is significantly more likely to be a rapist than anyone else they know. Blows my mind.
Of all the people to pile adulation on, some folk decide that the person who really deserves it is the rich bloke who is significantly more likely to be a rapist than anyone else they know. Blows my mind.
Good point and, quite often, it becomes a little fanatical.
Being a drug addict, who happily boasts about it, or whatever doesn't seem to be a problem.
The social media comments regarding Russell Brand, Phillip Schofield and How Edwards are quite contrasting.
The one accused of the most serious crimes is the one being defended most.
People who were quite happy to throw their views about and have a trial by media with the other 2 are now calling for due process.
Firstly, no surprise at all that someone or his stature and character is being linked to these sorts of allegations, the shoe would seem to fit. Secondly, weird timing considering his more recent content, the media seem unusually in sync also, as if they're all orchestrating in unison, the BBC homepage displayed two separate articles at the same time on him earlier.
I actually find that funny, seeing as it’s him
As I've said I'm not a fan of brand but I'd rather see the likes of bozo Johnson, Roland rat sunak and all the tory lying cùnts, Prince Andrew etc brought to book first .
But the privileged are exempt.
Why didn’t these bitches go to the cops at the time?
Quite happy to be shagged by the bloke at the time no doubt!!
Now looking for any compo that can get.
Any police involvement yet?
Thought so!!!
Bart
Quite happy to be shagged by the bloke at the time no doubt!!
Now looking for any compo that can get.
Any police involvement yet?
Thought so!!!
Bart
Never could stand the bloke. From the first he always struck me as being depraved. Certainly never seemed to consider other peoples feelings.
If I was a Mod I'd ban you for a month.
You're usually idiotic but harmless, this post is shameful and not how this forum should be imo.