Sunday Times & C4 due to drop a big story [Russell Brand]
Discussion
Unreal said:
Driver101 said:
What a day for this thread. Criticising victims for taking years to come forward and then going back down the false accusations route.
Why does rape and sexual assault accusations always lead to victim shaming?
It also highlights why so many victims are fearful of coming forward.
It doesn't always lead to victim shaming.Why does rape and sexual assault accusations always lead to victim shaming?
It also highlights why so many victims are fearful of coming forward.
Unfortunately in many cases it's a case where it's two adults, there may be no physical evidence, any physical evidence that exists is not evidence of violence and there are no witnesses. As is being discussed, the alleged offence may also have taken place long ago and it may be difficult to establish if the accused and accuser were where they said they were at that time.
In those circumstances, and if you were innocent, yet accused of one of the most horrible crimes that can be committed and where the very core of your character is being questioned, I think it's entirely understandable that someone would want to delve very deeply into the character of their accuser. There is no way of stopping the guilty doing the same thing of course but it is indisputable that however rare they are, false accusations occur, along with the existence of dishonest investigators and incompetent defence counsel. At the end of that, people are wrongly convicted, from where it can prove staggeringly difficult to undo a miscarriage of justice.
I wish I knew what alternative exists. Perhaps you have some ideas that don't compromise the presumption of innocence that surely must be protected.
People don't know who they are criticising. People don't know the accusers, but instantly want to attack their credibility. There is no substance to do this.
I don't think there has been any doubt that the victims have come forward have met Brand. There has been text messages shown, an incident discussed on radio immediately after it happened, and if the 16 year old was chauffeured around by the BBC that will be backed up too.
Driver101 said:
Unreal said:
Driver101 said:
What a day for this thread. Criticising victims for taking years to come forward and then going back down the false accusations route.
Why does rape and sexual assault accusations always lead to victim shaming?
It also highlights why so many victims are fearful of coming forward.
It doesn't always lead to victim shaming.Why does rape and sexual assault accusations always lead to victim shaming?
It also highlights why so many victims are fearful of coming forward.
Unfortunately in many cases it's a case where it's two adults, there may be no physical evidence, any physical evidence that exists is not evidence of violence and there are no witnesses. As is being discussed, the alleged offence may also have taken place long ago and it may be difficult to establish if the accused and accuser were where they said they were at that time.
In those circumstances, and if you were innocent, yet accused of one of the most horrible crimes that can be committed and where the very core of your character is being questioned, I think it's entirely understandable that someone would want to delve very deeply into the character of their accuser. There is no way of stopping the guilty doing the same thing of course but it is indisputable that however rare they are, false accusations occur, along with the existence of dishonest investigators and incompetent defence counsel. At the end of that, people are wrongly convicted, from where it can prove staggeringly difficult to undo a miscarriage of justice.
I wish I knew what alternative exists. Perhaps you have some ideas that don't compromise the presumption of innocence that surely must be protected.
People don't know who they are criticising. People don't know the accusers, but instantly want to attack their credibility. There is no substance to do this.
I don't think there has been any doubt that the victims have come forward have met Brand. There has been text messages shown, an incident discussed on radio immediately after it happened, and if the 16 year old was chauffeured around by the BBC that will be backed up too.
In the same way people criticise accusers without knowing them, the same happens with the accused. Brand is widely disliked and guilty without trial in the eyes of many. Much like Farage's recent banking dispute. Some people don't care if he was wronged because they don't like the man.
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
Unreal said:
I agree no-one should be criticised for the timing of their complaint. There might be an exception but I can't think of one.
In the same way people criticise accusers without knowing them, the same happens with the accused. Brand is widely disliked and guilty without trial in the eyes of many. Much like Farage's recent banking dispute. Some people don't care if he was wronged because they don't like the man.
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
What has Farage's banking issues have to do with this? In the same way people criticise accusers without knowing them, the same happens with the accused. Brand is widely disliked and guilty without trial in the eyes of many. Much like Farage's recent banking dispute. Some people don't care if he was wronged because they don't like the man.
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
Brand is widely disliked?
We don't know Brand personally, but some things he has done that we know about has overstepped the mark. There is a lot of solid facts and too much smoke.
Everything you are posting is trying to attack the credibility of people and leaping to the defence of Brand.
Driver101 said:
Unreal said:
I agree no-one should be criticised for the timing of their complaint. There might be an exception but I can't think of one.
In the same way people criticise accusers without knowing them, the same happens with the accused. Brand is widely disliked and guilty without trial in the eyes of many. Much like Farage's recent banking dispute. Some people don't care if he was wronged because they don't like the man.
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
What has Farage's banking issues have to do with this? In the same way people criticise accusers without knowing them, the same happens with the accused. Brand is widely disliked and guilty without trial in the eyes of many. Much like Farage's recent banking dispute. Some people don't care if he was wronged because they don't like the man.
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
Brand is widely disliked?
We don't know Brand personally, but some things he has done that we know about has overstepped the mark. There is a lot of solid facts and too much smoke.
Everything you are posting is trying to attack the credibility of people and leaping to the defence of Brand.
Unreal said:
Driver101 said:
Unreal said:
I agree no-one should be criticised for the timing of their complaint. There might be an exception but I can't think of one.
In the same way people criticise accusers without knowing them, the same happens with the accused. Brand is widely disliked and guilty without trial in the eyes of many. Much like Farage's recent banking dispute. Some people don't care if he was wronged because they don't like the man.
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
What has Farage's banking issues have to do with this? In the same way people criticise accusers without knowing them, the same happens with the accused. Brand is widely disliked and guilty without trial in the eyes of many. Much like Farage's recent banking dispute. Some people don't care if he was wronged because they don't like the man.
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
Brand is widely disliked?
We don't know Brand personally, but some things he has done that we know about has overstepped the mark. There is a lot of solid facts and too much smoke.
Everything you are posting is trying to attack the credibility of people and leaping to the defence of Brand.
I only questioned your posts and made an observation.
Driver101 said:
Everything you are posting is trying to attack the credibility of people and leaping to the defence of Brand.
No he hasn't. Unreal, like many fair-minded people on here has asked for a modicum of reason, to let the facts be presented to an authority and be judged accordingly. That isn't sticking up for Brand, but for the due process of our legal system.b
hstewie said:
How much is she suing him for?hstewie said:Unreal said:
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
Presumption of innocence is a right afforded to defendants in a criminal court during trial, outside of that people can form whatever opinion they want about someone based on the information available. turbobloke said:
Evercross said:
There needs to be more balance for sure, whatever happened to the ABC of objective investigation: Assume nothing, Believe nobody, Challenge everything. 'We must believe X or Y' is prevalent and wrong-minded at any time.Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 4th November 19:57
Oakey said:
Unreal said:
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
Presumption of innocence is a right afforded to defendants in a criminal court during trial, outside of that people can form whatever opinion they want about someone based on the information available. Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.
This case could be informative:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6728...
Unreal said:
Yes and quite right too. Freedom of thought is as important as the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.
Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.
This case could be informative:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6728...
Which is why you can presume The Times and C4 have done their due diligence, the fact they published / broadcast suggests they are confident in defending their claims. Has Brand issued proceedings yet?Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.
This case could be informative:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6728...
Oakey said:
Unreal said:
Yes and quite right too. Freedom of thought is as important as the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.
Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.
This case could be informative:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6728...
Which is why you can presume The Times and C4 have done their due diligence, the fact they published / broadcast suggests they are confident in defending their claims. Has Brand issued proceedings yet?Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.
This case could be informative:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6728...
Unreal said:
Oakey said:
Unreal said:
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
Presumption of innocence is a right afforded to defendants in a criminal court during trial, outside of that people can form whatever opinion they want about someone based on the information available. Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.
This case could be informative:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6728...
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 6th November 02:57
Driver101 said:
What a day for this thread. Criticising victims for taking years to come forward and then going back down the false accusations route.
Why does rape and sexual assault accusations always lead to victim shaming?
It also highlights why so many victims are fearful of coming forward.
Exactly, we are seeing examples on this thread. It makes me wonder what the behaviour of some posters towards women is like.Why does rape and sexual assault accusations always lead to victim shaming?
It also highlights why so many victims are fearful of coming forward.
Graveworm said:
Unreal said:
Oakey said:
Unreal said:
Fortunately these things won't be decided by public opinion but by people who have access to all of the facts and ultimately by a jury. I'll ask again, do you have any ideas about how things could be improved without compromising the presumption of innocence inherent in our system?
Presumption of innocence is a right afforded to defendants in a criminal court during trial, outside of that people can form whatever opinion they want about someone based on the information available. Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.
This case could be informative:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6728...
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 6th November 02:57
youngsyr said:
voyds9 said:
They are not victims until the case has been proved, at this time they are accussers
Well said. It is not victim shaming to insist on following due process before concluding that an allegation is true and the alleged is guilty.Oakey said:
youngsyr said:
voyds9 said:
They are not victims until the case has been proved, at this time they are accussers
Well said. It is not victim shaming to insist on following due process before concluding that an allegation is true and the alleged is guilty.In a flogging (bonus points for going for an extreme) there is clear physical evidence that it actually occured, quite often decades after the event.
Oakey said:
youngsyr said:
voyds9 said:
They are not victims until the case has been proved, at this time they are accussers
Well said. It is not victim shaming to insist on following due process before concluding that an allegation is true and the alleged is guilty.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff