Sunday Times & C4 due to drop a big story [Russell Brand]

[Graveworm]

Castrol for a knave said:

I think there is a confusion between the common usage of the word victim and the legal interpretation.

Strictly speaking, "victim" presupposes that guilt has been found, whereas in reality until such time, they are making the accusation that they have been the victim of a crime.

Victim is the general usage but I do think that care has to be taken not to infer guilt until the court has decided such.

In crime reporting they are a victim if a crime is alleged. The person who is allleged to have committed the crime is the suspect and if they are changed or another disposal they become an accused.
Care may be taken, but anyone is free to infer guilt no matter what a court may or may not decide.

[SWoll]

Oakey said:

SWoll said:

In those circumstances the person being accused is the victim

Edited by SWoll on Wednesday 8th November 12:04

So you accept that the person making a false allegation is committing a crime at the point they make the false allegation?

No, I accept once it has been proven to be a fake accusation that the accused is the victim as per my post.

SWoll said:

Unreal said:

It might. Sometimes the allegation is proven to be false, in which case there wasn't a victim

In those circumstances the person being accused is the victim

Proven is the key point here, up until that it's all just accusation and allegation.

[Oakey]

Crimes are still crimes the moment they are committed. If someone goes out and murders someone in cold blood and that case goes unsolved, that person is still a murderer even if the state hasn't convicted them.

[SWoll]

Oakey said:

Crimes are still crimes the moment they are committed. If someone goes out and murders someone in cold blood and that case goes unsolved, that person is still a murderer even if the state hasn't convicted them.

You're conflating wildly different scenarios and contexts in a desperate attempt to justify your position.

Graveworm said:

In crime reporting they are a victim if a crime is alleged. The person who is allleged to have committed the crime is the suspect and if they are changed or another disposal they become an accused.
Care may be taken, but anyone is free to infer guilt no matter what a court may or may not decide.

To infer requires actual evidence be considered in order to come to a conclusion.

If you're happy that a statement with nothing to back it up meets the definition of actual evidence then infer away. I consider it nothing more than an allegation personally.

Edited by SWoll on Thursday 9th November 10:29

[Lester H]

105.4 said:

Guybrush said:

Epstein's client list perhaps?

Hell will freeze over first.

Far too many people of self importance on that list for it to ever be released.

What an accurate usage of “ self important”. The celebrity world is irrelevant to the vast majority of people. At least if something is hushed up we will see fewer pictures of R.B.

[eldar]

Russell Brand: BBC says it received five complaints about presenter https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-6734...

[Graveworm]

SWoll said:

Oakey said:

Crimes are still crimes the moment they are committed. If someone goes out and murders someone in cold blood and that case goes unsolved, that person is still a murderer even if the state hasn't convicted them.

You're conflating wildly different scenarios and contexts in a desperate attempt to justify your position.

Graveworm said:

In crime reporting they are a victim if a crime is alleged. The person who is allleged to have committed the crime is the suspect and if they are changed or another disposal they become an accused.
Care may be taken, but anyone is free to infer guilt no matter what a court may or may not decide.

To infer requires actual evidence be considered in order to come to a conclusion.

If you're happy that a statement with nothing to back it up meets the definition of actual evidence then infer away. I consider it nothing more than an allegation personally.

Edited by SWoll on Thursday 9th November 10:29

Many people are in prison based on statements with nothing (else) to back them up. Why isn't a statement evidence?

[Eric Mc]

The Met had him in for formal questioning under caution on Thursday.

[otolith]

SWoll said:

To infer requires actual evidence be considered in order to come to a conclusion.

If you're happy that a statement with nothing to back it up meets the definition of actual evidence then infer away. I consider it nothing more than an allegation personally.

It’s unlucky for rapists and kiddy fiddlers that the law doesn’t see it quite that way.

[The Count]

Nothing yet on RB...

I see months after being accused, he's turned to Christianity and is being baptised over the weekend.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/the-co...

https://www.christianpost.com/news/russell-brand-a...

[eldar]

The Count said:

Nothing yet on RB...

I see months after being accused, he's turned to Christianity and is being baptised over the weekend.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/the-co...

https://www.christianpost.com/news/russell-brand-a...

Just another conspiracy theory to add to his bag.

[CoolHands]

He is the next coming

[Durzel]

He already looked like am dram Jesus so why not go all in?

[OzzyR1]

I don't like RB from what I've seen/heard from him via mainstream media or his own channels - find him irritating in the extreme.

That said, in a way I admire the level of utter bulls**t he is capable of and combined with his personality, think he is quite capable of gathering a cult following if he goes down a religious route as a self-declared leader and mouthpiece.

In 2024, the amount of people still prepared go to war and kill others on behalf of their chosen belief system is crazy to me.
The last hundred years has been non-stop tech advancement compared to centuries before, but millions live their lives according to texts which are by their own admission, several hundred if not thousands of years old.

If that wasn't enough, there is infighting within religions; lets say Islam & Sunni / Shia as an example. My knowledge is limited but as I understand it, the dispute concerns whether the Prophet did not declare a successor, or if he designated a cousin/son-in-law.

If I had the fairytale 3 genie wishes, one would be to remove religion from the world and erase any previous memory of it.

Caused too many wars already.

[Ridgemont]

OzzyR1 said:

That said, in a way I admire the level of utter bulls**t he is capable of and combined with his personality, think he is quite capable of gathering a cult following if he goes down a religious route as a self-declared leader and mouthpiece.

Uhuh. And then you said.

you said:

In 2024, the amount of people still prepared go to war and kill others on behalf of their chosen belief system is crazy to me.
The last hundred years has been non-stop tech advancement compared to centuries before, but millions live their lives according to texts which are by their own admission, several hundred if not thousands of years old.

Oh well.

And then:

you said:

If I had the fairytale 3 genie wishes, one would be to remove religion from the world and erase any previous memory of it.

Caused too many wars already.

Remind me how many deaths the famed atheists Stalin, Hitler and Mao Zedung were responsible for…

Ever thought that mass murder maybe a psychopathic human condition?

[Who_Goes_Blue]

So months down the line he has no case to answer to. Can we surmise it was just crap media hatchet job?

[tim0409]

Who_Goes_Blue said:

So months down the line he has no case to answer to. Can we surmise it was just crap media hatchet job?

How can you come to that conclusion without knowing if the Police have finished their various investigations? The fact that months have elapsed since complaints were made and he was questioned doesn’t mean they are not still working on it.

[Douglas Quaid]

98elise said:

youngsyr said:

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.

So if you get flogged in the street by a random roadman wearing a balaclava and nobody is caught then you're not a victim?

False equivalence, but nice try.

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.

bks. If you are a victim of a crime then you are a victim.

Evidence or a conviction (or lack of) does not change that. If a woman was sexually assaulted and there was no physical evidence would you say she wasn't a victim?

The point is that at this point no one really knows whether there was a sexual assault or not. If there was an assault then yes she’s a victim. If there wasn’t then she isn’t. At the moment he says he didn’t do it, the woman or women are saying he did. I have no idea whether he did or didn’t and neither do you. A court will try and work it out based on whatever evidence is available.

People do lie, the women may be lying or he may be lying. The women could be victims, or he could be a victim. At this point none of us can say with 100% conviction either way.

[bitchstewie]

People form views of people all the time without "did a court find he committed a crime?" being the test.

If your view of Brand is that he's a top bloke because he hasn't been found guilty of anything in court I'd still say you have stty judgement.

[Rufus Stone]

bhstewie said:

People form views of people all the time without "did a court find he committed a crime?" being the test.

If your view of Brand is that he's a top bloke because he hasn't been found guilty of anything in court I'd still say you have stty judgement.

Some do, and project that judgement on anyone that they don't agree with. As you perfectly illustrate.

What ever happened to politeness stewie?