maomao
普費斯
So we need two threads 'Russell Brand - rapist' and 'Russell Brand - Nonce` and you'll defend him on the nonce one?I clearly demarked that as a separate topic you donut
So we need two threads 'Russell Brand - rapist' and 'Russell Brand - Nonce` and you'll defend him on the nonce one?I clearly demarked that as a separate topic you donut
I fail to see the logic that a public persona should have any allegations made in public. We all know it's driven by our own interest, fuelling the media etc etc
Logically, the only factor that should forego anonymity in these matters is that of risk to others. There is nothing here in that regard
I would defend the definition of legality with regard to the "Nonce" element, absolutelySo we need two threads 'Russell Brand - rapist' and 'Russell Brand - Nonce` and you'll defend him on the nonce one?
I would defend the definition of legality with regard to the "Nonce" element, absolutely
You linking the 2 to a personality is childlike
I watched the documentary. A woman making a public accusation of rape, as one woman did, is wide open to being sued if the accusation is false. If Brand was innocent, writs would be being issued. They don't appear to be. From that, conclusions may be drawn.paul mckenna
This is a really important part of the issue in my opinion.
If a private citizen is being accused of rapey stuff by the people around him, then it’s a good idea to respect and maintain the anonymity of that citizen especially beyond the parameters of the place in which those allegations are happening. It’s then incumbent on the people with authority to examine and explore those allegations, to see if charges should be laid.
So if a teacher is the target of the allegations, suspend the teacher and investigate but don’t broadcast the allegations. If it’s untrue, it gives them a chance to get back to a normal life.
But if the person is in the public eye, has influence and and audience, those allegations need to be aired more widely. Because if a public person has allegations like this laid against them by people outside their immediate circle, it’s always in the context of their public persona, their public behaviour. As such, silencing the rumours shades into collusion.
The silence around this stuff perpetuates the issue, and further supports rape culture.
This is obviously problematic though. What if a public person gets a bad rep or bad press because they‘re non-conforming or a bit left field. The idiocy about drag artists reading in libraries for instance.
What I’m saying is that RB doesn’t get to claim victim status here. There’s enough noise to support the idea that he’s creepy and inappropriate and problematic and therefore needs to be under scrutiny. He’s not a private person, he’s very public, and as such his behaviour is part of the public domain and needs to be kept under observation. Regardless of anything that results from the current furore.
He’s a whole field of red flags.
Red flags don’t condemn the individual, they alert the people who might be in their sphere of influence.
Again, not reputation. The act of someone being villified as a "nonce" when they literally don't fit the lawful defintion. There's a line and ignoring it is what breaks down reasoned discussionSo…
you’re saying that because he didn’t fuck her when she was under 16 you’re going to stand up and defend his reputation?
Nowt harmful at all with a 30 something celebrity getting a 16 year old girl out of school so he could shag her. We’d all do it given the chance, eh lads?
Fucking hell.
people are ignoring the fact here that i'm explicitly discussing the aspect of relationship with the 16 year oldI watched the documentary. A woman making a public accusation of rape, as one woman did, is wide open to being sued if the accusation is false. If Brand was innocent, writs would be being issued. They don't appear to be. From that, conclusions may be drawn.
"Nonce" is not a legal term.Again, not reputation. The act of someone being villified as a "nonce" when they literally don't fit the lawful defintion. There's a line and ignoring it is what breaks down reasoned discussion
It's a good job then we're talking about common law here then and not everyone's daughtersA 31 year old hanging round my 16 year old daughter would have been strongly encouraged not to. A few years age difference is one thing, fifteen years is entirely another. If both parties had been older, fair enough, but a 16 year old is in many ways still a child.
Again, not reputation. The act of someone being villified as a "nonce" when they literally don't fit the lawful defintion. There's a line and ignoring it is what breaks down reasoned discussion
Yes. As might every lawyer in the country
According to this he approached her in the street, was aware of her age & got her to deceive her parents.Again, all your language is pre-judgmental. Who knows how they met etc etc. I think it's distasteful etc but it's a world apart from real harmful practices
Arranged marriages, child brides etc. There's no possiblility of consensuality here where whole families coerce young women.
Where are the long threads about this
It's a good job then we're talking about common law here then and not everyone's daughters
What is the lawful definition of “nonce”? The dictionary one includes child molester which fits here.Again, not reputation. The act of someone being villified as a "nonce" when they literally don't fit the lawful defintion. There's a line and ignoring it is what breaks down reasoned discussion
A 31 year old hanging round my 16 year old daughter would have been strongly encouraged not to. A few years age difference is one thing, fifteen years is entirely another. If both parties had been older, fair enough, but a 16 year old is in many ways still a child.
He'd bang on his cell door.I wonder how Russ would react when his daughters turn 16 and if a 30yo starts sniffing around
The keep your uninformed opinions to yourself instead of wasting everyone's time here.Story. Not accusations.
There wasn't a current Russell Brand story. Now there is.
TBH though I haven't had time to watch the TV programme or read the Article yet.
Which I agree with. If an organisation is prepared to publish this, then they would have to be extremely confident the story is true.I watched the documentary. A woman making a public accusation of rape, as one woman did, is wide open to being sued if the accusation is false. If Brand was innocent, writs would be being issued. They don't appear to be. From that, conclusions may be drawn.
Don't know what he will face, but most rape accusations don't come from multiple people, or come with a starter-pack of evidence compiled by a team of journalists over the course of a year.But, how do we feel about trial by media? Given the police prosecute 5% of rape cases - is this the only court he will face ?
What's your thoughts on this?happy to stand aside now this smaller point has been cleared up
2012
A woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall at his Los Angeles home in July 2012 after she refused to join him in sexual activity with “a friend” of Brand. She alleges that she told Brand to get off her and that she wanted to leave, but he carried on and briefly blocked the door to prevent her from leaving afterwards.
She told the Sunday Times she was treated at a Rape Treatment Centre that same day, and had therapy treatment there for five months. Records seen by the Sunday Times show she contemplated criminal or civil proceedings but ultimately decided against it.
After the incident, Brand sent her text messages apologising for what happened and describing his behaviour as “crazy and selfish”. It happened the same month that Brand’s divorce from the singer Katy Perry was finalised.