Russell Brand criminally charged with rape...

[Liverpool Lou]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

25 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Any reason that an, as yet, innocent man should not receive support?

You are confused on ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

It does not exist outside the criminal justice system.

He’s accused, the police, the judge and the jury mut consider him innocent until the verdict comes down.

"You are confused on ‘innocent until proven guilty’".

No, I am not.

 

"He’s accused, the police, the judge and the jury must consider him innocent until the verdict comes down".

Cobblers.  The police (the prosecution) do not have to consider him innocent.  Seems as though you're the confused one!

[BangkokReady]

I mean no offence to anyone who likes to put it about, but it always seems like these playboy/pick up artist types, who use lies, trickery and pressure to get women into bed, are kind of close to the line.

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, Keeps said:

And he supports West Ham.......

 

Better than Millwall!

[Chomper Higgot]

The police press release indicates several accusers.

 

https://news.met.police.uk/news/russell-brand-charged-by-the-metropolitan-police-service-495944

[rattlesnake]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And do the conspiracy nonsense starts.

 

And "do" it does indeed. Fortunately, the voices of reason are here, keep it up.

[Patong2021]

1 hour ago, Celsius said:

 

I LIKED HIM

 

Of course you would.

[Liverpool Lou]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you have evidence of any of his accusers attempting to extract money in the basis of the allegations they have laid against Brand send it to both the Met and Brand’s legal team.

Did I say that I had?  No, I did not, I was supporting another poster's comment.

[Sierra Tango]

So, just thinking aloud here and reflecting on some recent comments that have been posted. One that I can not seem to get my head around, says that "they are no longer allegations, they are criminal charges". In my mind, the allegations still exist even though charges have been layed (laid?). Because,.... ah bugger it I'm gonna have another Rum.

[Nick Carter icp]

54 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

That maybe so but reputation alone is not proof of guilt.

 

   That is why there are having a Court case 

[Patong2021]

34 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I mean no offence to anyone who likes to put it about, but it always seems like these playboy/pick up artist types, who use lies, trickery and pressure to get women into bed, are kind of close to the line.

 

Keep in mind that he  was a longstanding junkie.. Drug addicts are quite adept at lying.

In his case, he used his celebrity status and acted as if he was untouchable. He'sjust a nasty evil piece of business. One look at his eyes and vacant souless stare, and you see all you need to know about him. 

[Cameroni]

55 minutes ago, Celsius said:

 

I LIKED HIM

 

Well, we all know you have questionable taste.

 

But I can see why, he's not stupid. Just a thoroughly reprehensible horny goat.

[GanDoonToonPet]

5 hours ago, FriscoKid said:

 

A total of four women are involved in the five sexual assault related charges, two of which are rape. It’s going to be much harder for him to wiggle out of this when multiple women are testifying to the same pattern of behavior. This isn’t just his word against one woman, where he could claim it was consensual and try to undermine her credibility. Hope they nail his arseholio. 

 

The very definition of a witch hunt!

[GinBoy2]

I'm sure Tim Westwood will be having a few sleepless nights after this!

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, FriscoKid said:

 

A total of four women are involved in the five sexual assault related charges, two of which are rape. It’s going to be much harder for him to wiggle out of this when multiple women are testifying to the same pattern of behavior. This isn’t just his word against one woman, where he could claim it was consensual and try to undermine her credibility. Hope they nail his arseholio. 

I don't like him personally, but taking 26 year old cases is BS.

 

I'm sure that if Brand was richer a lot more than 4 women would be lining up for a payout.

 

In 26 years he must have had more than 4 women stupid enough to do him, and they are not claiming naughtiness.

 

Seems we have a fair number of posters that are females masquerading as men that automatically assume any man is guilty of sexual naughtiness. What else explains the rush to judgement when the court case hasn't even begun?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, we all know you have questionable taste.

 

But I can see why, he's not stupid. Just a thoroughly reprehensible horny goat.

but women must like such, given the number of men being banged up on phony decades ago cases. Only rich and famous men of course. No point in accusing Joe Blow the unemployed  bricklayer as they won't have enough of the readies.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

I mean no offence to anyone who likes to put it about, but it always seems like these playboy/pick up artist types, who use lies, trickery and pressure to get women into bed, are kind of close to the line.

I look at it from the point of view that the women that fall for such lies, trickery and pressure must be rather thick in the brain department. Not that that's any excuse for actual rape- consent is consent, but perhaps guys should start getting it in writing.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"You are confused on ‘innocent until proven guilty’".

No, I am not.

 

"He’s accused, the police, the judge and the jury must consider him innocent until the verdict comes down".

Cobblers.  The police (the prosecution) do not have to consider him innocent.  Seems as though you're the confused one!

The prosecution DOES have to consider if a jury would find the accused guilty. If in doubt, the case would likely be refused.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, Sierra Tango said:

So, just thinking aloud here and reflecting on some recent comments that have been posted. One that I can not seem to get my head around, says that "they are no longer allegations, they are criminal charges". In my mind, the allegations still exist even though charges have been layed (laid?). Because,.... ah bugger it I'm gonna have another Rum.

I see the subtle but important distinction evaded you.

[Chomper Higgot]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but women must like such, given the number of men being banged up on phony decades ago cases. Only rich and famous men of course. No point in accusing Joe Blow the unemployed  bricklayer as they won't have enough of the readies.

Let the jury hear the evidence and we’ll get to see what is and is not phony.

[FriscoKid]

Anyone still banging on about how these four women are just financially motivated, trying to profit off him, blah blah blah, it’s complete idiocy. This is a criminal case being brought by the state. In criminal cases, there is no financial payout. It’s not a civil suit, it’s not personal. The only possible outcome is jail time. That’s it. That’s the “reward.”

 

So for all of you pearl-clutching clowns insisting this is about money, do yourselves a favor, crack open a book or two and learn how the criminal justice system actually works. And no, he can’t just pay them off and make this disappear. That’s not how this works either. The more you foolishly push that angle, the more you show how ignorant you are and how little you understand, and frankly, you’re just embarrassing yourselves.

[it is what it is]

36 minutes ago, FriscoKid said:

Anyone still banging on about how these four women are just financially motivated, trying to profit off him, blah blah blah, it’s complete idiocy. This is a criminal case being brought by the state. In criminal cases, there is no financial payout. It’s not a civil suit, it’s not personal. The only possible outcome is jail time. That’s it. That’s the “reward.”

 

So for all of you pearl-clutching clowns insisting this is about money, do yourselves a favor, crack open a book or two and learn how the criminal justice system actually works. And no, he can’t just pay them off and make this disappear. That’s not how this works either. The more you foolishly push that angle, the more you show how ignorant you are and how little you understand, and frankly, you’re just embarrassing yourselves.

 

absolutely, the CPS would not sanction charges without sufficient evidence

[fredwiggy]

8 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

I mean no offence to anyone who likes to put it about, but it always seems like these playboy/pick up artist types, who use lies, trickery and pressure to get women into bed, are kind of close to the line.

Exactly the work of a narcissist that was raised thinking the world owes them, and their primary targets are others of the opposite sex. Love bombing in many forms gets them fooled, and they're soon to be the next victim.

[fredwiggy]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't like him personally, but taking 26 year old cases is BS.

 

I'm sure that if Brand was richer a lot more than 4 women would be lining up for a payout.

 

In 26 years he must have had more than 4 women stupid enough to do him, and they are not claiming naughtiness.

 

Seems we have a fair number of posters that are females masquerading as men that automatically assume any man is guilty of sexual naughtiness. What else explains the rush to judgement when the court case hasn't even begun?

A lot of women are afraid to come forward with rape charges as they know they can be put through the wringer by defense attorneys and made to feel like it was consensual. When one finally gets up the nerve to charge him, others think they'll have a more fair time seeing it's not only them but others who are saying the same things. More credible with numbers, especially seeing this is a civil case and no money is to be made. Bill Cosby had others also thinking it was a witch hunt, and the more women come forward and complain, the better chance these sick predators will be put behind bars and get a taste of their own medicine. These aren't just allegations but charges, which means there's at least some hard evidence. Of course a good defense attorney can get off many guilty parties, as they have before, especially regarding rape charges, but the more victims that come forward makes it a lot harder to convince a jury the perp isn't guilty.

[quake]

Ah, Guilty until proven innocent.

Nice one, lads of AN. 

[Jim Blue]

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The bloke is now a full on Christian nutter. Not a fan but I'm not a guilty until proven innocent type unlike some of the above posters. To me it smells of a "me too" thing. 

Christian ... where are the loaves and fishes ?

[quake]

15 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

Christian ... where are the loaves and fishes ?

 

Who cares, we just want the Red Wine. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

 

He is being sent for trial on 2nd May at Westminster Magistrates Court, which is a non-jury court, and presided over by either a district judge or 3 magistrates; however, serious cases are often sent on to a Crown court for trial before a jury.

 

Jury selection would be an issue in this case, as he is well known in the UK and viewed in a bad light by many. He is also believed to be in the US at the present time, although he has said he will attend court. If he does not, I think his extradition would be straightforward.

 

 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let the jury hear the evidence and we’ll get to see what is and is not phony.

 

 

He is being sent for trial at Westminster Magistrates Court; in the UK we do not have a jury in a Magistrates court. However, his case could be sent on by the Magistrates court  to a Crown court, where a jury would hear the evidence and decide.

 

 

 

 

[Harrisfan]

10 hours ago, PomPolo said:

He's got the second most annoying voice in the world after old Oracle Face. be good not to hear from him for a while

Yes he's unbearable plus a complete nutter.

[rough diamond]

5 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

I'm sure Tim Westwood will be having a few sleepless nights after this!

Who/why?