Yes, thats correct. C4 documentaries don't equate to a trial. Also, evidently women do report SA, 20 years later occasionally...he's just been summoned to a trial.
To be fair no one’s jumping the gun, just giving their opinion based on what they know and what they’ve seen. This isn’t comparable to Diamond, Brand is a serial bellend who’s crude and doesn’t appear to have much respect for women. This isn’t a trial, no one can convict him … … just saying what they think and whether or not he's guilty.
I don’t care one way or the other about him — if this is just a 'Brand is a twat' thread, then fair enough. But if it’s about the legal stuff, I’d personally temper that with a bit of due process — and the risk of looking like a twat myself if he ends up found not guilty, as in the case of Diamond and Depp. But as you rightly point out, it doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme what is said in this thread.
I don't think there's any chance of that tbh, people are basically saying he's a wrong 'un ... ... I doubt there's enough evidence to disprove that.
One of Harvey Weinstein's convictions was overturned, and they've recently started looking into more of them, anything can happen: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68899382
That's all fine but nothing will persuade me he's not a wrong un. Same goes for Saville, Al Fayed, Epstein, Brand, Jackson and Harold Shipman, etc. I don’t know how many of them went to court or whether or not they were convicted. My opinion is just my opinion, it’s not legally binding.
We probably agree then, they're definitely scumbags. Never been a fan of Russell Brandt and Harold Schipmann was evil personified, Epstein and Weinstein both evil, legally speaking it's obviously more complicated though.
His cousin, Dr. Herman von Schipmann, has just been charged with 15 murders in Berlin ... ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly161m6yj1o
