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

[Eric Mc]

youngsyr said:

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.

So physical scars can be counted as evidence but mental scars cannot?

[98elise]

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?

[Eric Mc]

Also, if a genuine victim of an assualt (of whatever type) reports it to the authorities, are the authorities justified in saying "Where'e the evidence? Nobody has been convicted. Get lost".

How on earth can the justice system work without some investigation of a victim's claims?

[Mr Pointy]

Eric Mc said:

Also, if a genuine victim of an assualt (of whatever type) reports it to the authorities, are the authorities justified in saying "Where'e the evidence? Nobody has been convicted. Get lost".

How on earth can the justice system work without some investigation of a victim's claims?

Alleged victim. There's plenty of people been arrested & put on trial on the basis of a false accusation. I'm not saying Brand's accusers are untruthful, but until he is found guilty in court they are alleged victims.

[Oakey]

youngsyr said:

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.

Says who? You? How do we know you didn't fall down some stairs? Or maybe you decided to go all Jussie Smollett?

[Unreal]

Mr Pointy said:

Eric Mc said:

Also, if a genuine victim of an assualt (of whatever type) reports it to the authorities, are the authorities justified in saying "Where'e the evidence? Nobody has been convicted. Get lost".

How on earth can the justice system work without some investigation of a victim's claims?

Alleged victim. There's plenty of people been arrested & put on trial on the basis of a false accusation. I'm not saying Brand's accusers are untruthful, but until he is found guilty in court they are alleged victims.

That's the way to do it and is fair to both parties. Or say the the person was the victim of an alleged assault.

[Graveworm]

Unreal said:

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.

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...

If it's really an honestly held opinion and not trying to circumvent libel laws then opinions no matter how damaging are protected.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 6th November 02:57

Sure, there are defences. The press like to use the public interest one. Some they win, some they lose.

Yes honestly held opinion is a defence. Defamation is interested in defamatory statements of fact, not opinion so your characterisation of "Libel laws" was incorrect.

[Unreal]

Graveworm said:

Unreal said:

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.

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...

If it's really an honestly held opinion and not trying to circumvent libel laws then opinions no matter how damaging are protected.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 6th November 02:57

Sure, there are defences. The press like to use the public interest one. Some they win, some they lose.

Yes honestly held opinion is a defence. Defamation is interested in defamatory statements of fact, not opinion so your characterisation of "Libel laws" was incorrect.

I didn't characterise libel laws. That was someone else. I didn't mention defamation. No idea who that was. Who cares.

[youngsyr]

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?

Not if the alleged assaulter denied it ever happened and there was no other evidence either way.

Why would you believe one person's story over another's?

[youngsyr]

Eric Mc said:

youngsyr said:

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.

So physical scars can be counted as evidence but mental scars cannot?

Pgysical scars that match a witness's story can be and are used as supporting evidence, just as mental trauma can.

[youngsyr]

Oakey said:

youngsyr said:

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.

Says who? You? How do we know you didn't fall down some stairs? Or maybe you decided to go all Jussie Smollett?

Because flogging typically leaves very distinct injuries that are easily discernible from the blunt force trauma of a fall.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/01/med...

You should probably have read up on it before using it as your example.

[Graveworm]

Unreal said:

Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.

Unreal said:

I didn't characterise libel laws

[Graveworm]

youngsyr said:

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?

Not if the alleged assaulter denied it ever happened and there was no other evidence either way.

Why would you believe one person's story over another's?

We are entitled to do exactly that and to decide who and what we find credible. It may end up being exactly what determines the civil case being brought.

[98elise]

youngsyr said:

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?

Not if the alleged assaulter denied it ever happened and there was no other evidence either way.

Why would you believe one person's story over another's?

I have been a victim of minor crimes that I haven't even reported to the police. The crimes took place and I was the victim. How is there any doubt?

[turbobloke]

98elise said:

youngsyr said:

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?

Not if the alleged assaulter denied it ever happened and there was no other evidence either way.

Why would you believe one person's story over another's?

I have been a victim of minor crimes that I haven't even reported to the police. The crimes took place and I was the victim. How is there any doubt?

Is it not a Court that establishes whether an offence has been committed and whether the evidence against any suspect is sufficient for a guilty verdict against the accused?.The police and CPS take a view but they aren't acting as a Court.

The 'victim' may know, however, is it not a Court that decides formally whether allegations are founded and proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Even then, a guilty verdict doesn't guarantee that a suspect committed the crime, and a not guilty verdict doesn't prove they didn't do it. It depends on the evidence available, hence appeals sometimes succeed and sometimes don't.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 7th November 17:20

[Oakey]

youngsyr said:

Oakey said:

youngsyr said:

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.

Says who? You? How do we know you didn't fall down some stairs? Or maybe you decided to go all Jussie Smollett?

Because flogging typically leaves very distinct injuries that are easily discernible from the blunt force trauma of a fall.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/01/med...

You should probably have read up on it before using it as your example.

Dude, I didn't mean a literal flogging...

turbobloke said:

Is it not a Court that establishes whether an offence has been committed

Er, no? Crimes are crimes the moment they're committed. If I rob a a bank and get away with it / get acquitted the bank was still robbed, a crime was still committed and I know I'm guilty.

[youngsyr]

Oakey said:

youngsyr said:

Oakey said:

youngsyr said:

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.

Says who? You? How do we know you didn't fall down some stairs? Or maybe you decided to go all Jussie Smollett?

Because flogging typically leaves very distinct injuries that are easily discernible from the blunt force trauma of a fall.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/01/med...

You should probably have read up on it before using it as your example.

Dude, I didn't mean a literal flogging...

turbobloke said:

Is it not a Court that establishes whether an offence has been committed

Er, no? Crimes are crimes the moment they're committed. If I rob a a bank and get away with it / get acquitted the bank was still robbed, a crime was still committed and I know I'm guilty.

"Dude" you're posting on an Internet forum to a complete stranger, don't post something and expect me to mind read that you actually mean something else.

[Oakey]

So when I said "flogged by a roadman" you imagined what exactly? A road worker suddenly deciding to whip you on the hard shoulder of the M25?

[Unreal]

Graveworm said:

Unreal said:

Fortunately freedom of speech is constrained by libel laws, so stating opinions that are damaging and without merit may have consequences.

Unreal said:

I didn't characterise libel laws

Nope, but who cares?

[isaldiri]

98elise said:

I have been a victim of minor crimes that I haven't even reported to the police. The crimes took place and I was the victim. How is there any doubt?

There is if the person you are accusing of a crime denies it happened I suppose then it becomes a question of who to believe when it's your word against that person.