Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russell Brand: rape and sexual abuse allegations, grifting and general dodginess - discussion

planetgeli said:
Victim testimony is never enough.

(You also mentioned in another post about no paper trail. There is DNA in rape trials and it's still he said she said - that's where the problem lies. Belief. And...well, you know why it's the woman who is less often believed).

But back to my first line. I was on jury for the most obvious case of stealing you've ever seen in your life. Enough, easily, for the CPS to bring it to trial. Not caught red-handed, because he got away, but chased from the home red-handed for a long way. Picked out separately by two people in that line-up thing they do. Guilty as fuck.

Not guilty.

Prosecution? Poor Bangladeshi family with CPS shit lawyers.

Defence? Son of a magistrate with the best (most fucking boring to be honest) lawyer money could buy. Spent a whole day discussing the colour of the guy's curtains.

It's not about evidence. It's about lawyers (and patriarchy in rape cases).
Click to expand...
Totally. The lad who was up for rape when I was a juror had money in the family. He turned up for his police interview fully lawyered up, with a pre-prepared statement. His barrister was amazing. Totally pickled all the defense witnesses and half the jurors just with dates and times, flitting back and forth till they couldn't tell you the day of the week.
 
Last edited:
edcraw said:
I corrected it in my reply to you by quoting Wikipedia which states the law correctly. Seems to be a few people on here that jump on anything here for points rather than bother to be civil.
Click to expand...
Not at all..
I didn't jump on you. And I rarely engage in pile ons.

I just spent my working life working with teenagers and understanding how the law and Child Protection actually works when it comes to underage sexual activity. It's too important to understand that the "lee way " afforded to certain cases amongst consenting teenagers is not actually legalising their activity or underage sex. It is so that they are not prosecuted. It still doesn't allow all 15 to 17 yr olds freedom to break the law and it is looked at in terms of individual cases.

Admittedly this scenario rarely comes to prosecution but there have been times when I heard social workers debate that certain cases should be prosecuted. Ultimately it either goes on to Gardai or it is investigated by TUSLA who either refer on to Gardai or step back.
 
nogojones said:
Totally. The lad who was up for rape when I was a juror had money in the family. He turned up for his police interview fully lawyered up, with a per-prepared statement. His barrister was amazing. Totally pickled all the defense witnesses and half the jurors just with dates and times, flitting back and forth till they couldn't tell you the day of the week.
Click to expand...
Read this at the weekend re: rape & sexual assault @ universities.

www.theguardian.com

‘It’s a power game’: students accused in university rape hearings call in lawyers

Parents of young men facing conduct panels over assaults are raising the stakes by bringing barristers to them, academics say
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
nogojones said:
I think advertisers would be slightly more inclined to use his vids as the audience are going to be generally a bit more gullible.
Click to expand...

I don't think advertisers pick what YT channels they appear on, that's down to how YT's system places the ads, which is why there's been reports over the years of advertisers objecting to how YT is placing their ads, and insisting their ads are withdrawn from being shown against certain content.

Much like advertisers being surprised that their ads are appearing on GB News, because Sky Media as the 'sales house' for almost every TV channel except those operated by ITV & C-4, bundles up all the smaller channels in cheap packages that are sold per 'x' number of viewers, and the advertisers have to opt out of being shown on GB News, after they get complaints on twitter that they are supporting GB News.
 
cupid_stunt said:
I don't think advertisers pick what YT channels they appear on, that's down to how YT's system places the ads, which is why there's been reports over the years of advertisers objecting to how YT is placing their ads, and insisting their ads are withdrawn from being shown against certain content.

Much like advertisers being surprised that their ads are appearing on GB News, because Sky Media as the 'sales house' for almost every TV channel except those operated by ITV & C-4, bundles up all the smaller channels in cheap packages that are sold per 'x' number of viewers, and the advertisers have to opt out of being shown on GB News, after they get complaints on twitter that they are supporting GB News.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, those spotting the adverts on GB News are also supporting GB News by watching the adverts. :D
 
Aladdin said:
It still doesn't allow all 15 to 17 yr olds freedom to break the law and it is looked at in terms of individual cases.
Click to expand...

I don't work in any aspect of law / law enforcement or child protection, but I have a feeling that the system in england doesn't often prosecute consenting activity where both participants are close to age of consent - it's certainly not something that gets reported often. there is a concept of 'not in the public interest to prosecute'.

but (from what i can remember when there were arguments some years back about equalising age of consent for same-sex activity) i'm aware that some countries do have a two-tier AoC, with (broadly) a lower age below which nothing is allowed, an upper age where anything is allowed, and a few years in between where it's only allowed if there's a small age gap. the concept in england of person in position of authority and 16/17 year old being illegal is relatively new.
 
cupid_stunt said:
I don't think advertisers pick what YT channels they appear on, that's down to how YT's system places the ads, which is why there's been reports over the years of advertisers objecting to how YT is placing their ads, and insisting their ads are withdrawn from being shown against certain content.

Much like advertisers being surprised that their ads are appearing on GB News, because Sky Media as the 'sales house' for almost every TV channel except those operated by ITV & C-4, bundles up all the smaller channels in cheap packages that are sold per 'x' number of viewers, and the advertisers have to opt out of being shown on GB News, after they get complaints on twitter that they are supporting GB News.
Click to expand...
You... going around and spoiling things with your facts :rolleyes:
 
bimble said:
i know i'm being annoying, with the evidence thing. It's coming from a glum place of thinking about how the really hard part isn't reforming the police or fiddling about with consent law its how to deal with the fact that people like brand (and his famous supporters) they dont just get tolerated they're adored, admired and celebrated and rewarded, so it feels like what needs to change is so big.
Click to expand...
I thought similarly earlier in the thread, ie no evidence, unlike there'd be prosecution. However the LA woman actually went to a rape center afterwards. I think this is the strongest case, except it's in the US.
 
girasol said:
I thought similarly earlier in the thread, ie no evidence, unlike there'd be prosecution. However the LA woman actually went to a rape center afterwards. I think this is the strongest case, except it's in the US.
Click to expand...
What is the effect of statute of limitations on that case, which is alleged to have occurred in 2012? It's only indefinite, afaict, for offenses committed on or after 1 January 2017. IANAL but suspect that case may be time-barred.
 
bluescreen said:
What is the effect of statute of limitations on that case, which is alleged to have occurred in 2012? It's only indefinite, afaict, for offenses committed on or after 1 January 2017. IANAL but suspect that case may be time-barred.
Click to expand...
Google suggests that California has no time-limit in rape cases. Gathering evidence over a decade later may present difficulties, I suppose.
 
How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.
 
NoXion said:
How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.
Click to expand...
You are Captain Renault. I claim my 5 francs
 
NoXion said:
How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.
Click to expand...

Previous convictions cannot be taken into account in terms of reaching a verdict at any type of criminal case - each is tried separately.
 
NoXion said:
How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.
Click to expand...

fairly long established bit of english (UK?) law - a defendant's previous convictions aren't allowed to be told to the jury during a trial, whether that's burglary or sexual offences or what.

there are past cases (not necessarily sexual offences) where police have pretty much decided that because Mr X has a record, they will fit him up for this crime.
 
And they tend to become known to the court during sentencing, if someone has been found guilty of this particular crime, because they may have a bearing on sentencing.
But no bearing on whether someone is guilty or not guilty of this particular crime that is being tried. That has to stand or fall on the evidence and merits (or otherwise) of that particular case.
 
NoXion said:
How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.
Click to expand...

ok without just linking Sex offenders

to keep a trail free and open and not based they don't bring up someone previous convictions till after they been found guilty


otherwise any copper with a problem could just look at a bunch of people records and link them to that case because of previous convictions

it is quite a sensible rule :hmm:
 
I was talking about the courts, not the police. If the cops want to fit someone up then they don't need any previous convictions in order to do so.
 
Petcha said:
He's developed his own revenue stream, I don't think he'll give much of a fuck about two gigs being cancelled. It will be interesting to see what the social media channels do about this given he's not been found guilty or even charged with anything. I think he makes most of his money out of YouTube.
Click to expand...
That’s a lot of money he’s missing out on, plus if YouTube ban him that’s the majority of his income gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elpenor
Rewatching the 1997 General Election (bbc iplayer) and memories of it
2 3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
5K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
G
Kemi Badenoch discussion
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
495
Views
22K
pbsmooth
P
Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Jeff Robinson
Jeff Robinson
tim
Politicians and sexual abuse.
Replies
4
Views
465
cupid_stunt
cupid_stunt
phildwyer
Tory MP Arrested For Rape, Drugs
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
andysays
andysays
Back
Top Bottom