4 minutes ago, Felton Jarvis said:

Frequently, these kinds of charges are an attempt to extract money from the accused. I take these "me too" accounts with a grain of salt. I have always enjoyed Russell Brand's perspective.

These are criminal charges brought by the CPS.

 

There is no means for the accuser to extract money from the accused in a criminal trial.

 

31 minutes ago, Keeps said:

I hope he gets what he deserves. A horrible, despicable, narcissistic misogynist.

Perhaps he'll get the acquittal that he could deserve?

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Perhaps he'll get the acquittal that he could deserve?

So long as he gets the justice he deserves.

 

Trial in open court, the right to legal representation, the right to full and open judicial process.

29 minutes ago, FriscoKid said:

Agreed. A full fledged nasty bit of work. How does he explain away something like this to his children though, let alone his wife?

If he's innocent he'll easily explain it.   What makes you say that he's a "full-fledged nasty bit of work"?

No flys on you are there Lou. "What you reap you will sow" is slightly bemusing don't you think?

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Perhaps he'll get the acquittal that he could deserve?

Chances of that are pretty unlikely. Statistically no more than 30%. But you could help him out by setting up a GoFundMe for his legal fees.

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I would not be at all surprised if his narcissism gets the better of him and he chooses to represent himself while playing the ‘political persecution’ card.

Not a chance of his going pro se.

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m am however sure he’ll receive a spirited defense on the forum.

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

Those that magically appear decades later can prove they were raped and didn't have consensual sex?

 

 

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What makes you say that he's a "full-fledged nasty bit of work"?

To get the measure of the man you could look at 'Sachsgate' where he and another bell-end, Jonathan Ross,  made lewd phone calls live on air to the actor Andrew Sachs. During these phone calls, Brand left intimate details of what he supposedly had done sexually to Sachs granddaughter.

 

You may have already known this but then you wouldn't have been able to post one of your quarrelsome messages would you?

19 minutes ago, FriscoKid said:

Incidents like an attempted assault in a radio station bathroom and his vile comments to women were public knowledge at the time.

Was he convicted of the attempted assault or anything else related the that circumstance? 

 

Is making "vile comments" to women an offence?

18 minutes ago, FriscoKid said:

if he's guilty of these crimes then he deserves to pay for them.

Well, no one's going to disagree with that.

Several mentions that there are hopes that Brand gets legal representation. From what I now understand, he is not short of a few quid so why would he not retain his own legal council? Just sayin.

So, you mean, he's a comedian?

 

3 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 must consider him innocent until the verdict comes down.

 

Anyone else can make their own mind up.

Just like there are those in this thread who make assumptions on the motives of his accusers.

There are however some who habitually rush to support men accused of sexual crimes against women, I doubt through any sense of justice.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

25 minutes ago, Felton Jarvis said:

Frequently, these kinds of charges are an attempt to extract money from the accused. I take these "me too" accounts with a grain of salt. I have always enjoyed Russell Brand's perspective.

These are criminal charges brought by the CPS.

 

There is no means for the accuser to extract money from the accused in a criminal trial.

Doubtless, he meant "allegations.

If the establishment wants you in, you're in, and if the establishment wants you out, you're out. Guilt is not the primary metric in these issues. Do the establishment's bidding and enjoy a life of impunity like Jimmy Saville. Speak against the establishment and it will endeavour to destroy you.

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

21 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Perhaps he'll get the acquittal that he could deserve?

So long as he gets the justice he deserves.

That's what I said.  You seem to want him to get the justice you think he deserves, though!

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Doubtless, he meant "allegations.

They are no longer ‘allegations’ they are now ‘criminal charges’.

 

There is a subtle but important distinction.

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

If the establishment wants you in, you're in, and if the establishment wants you out, you're out. Guilt is not the primary metric in these issues. Do the establishment's bidding and enjoy a life of impunity like Jimmy Saville. Speak against the establishment and it will endeavour to destroy you.

And do the conspiracy nonsense starts.

20 minutes ago, Sierra Tango said:

No flys on you are there Lou. "What you reap you will sow" is slightly bemusing don't you think?

No, I don't.

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That's what I said.  You seem to want him to get the justice you think he deserves, though!

I described the justice I know he deserves and support him receiving.

 

I have made absolutely no comment on what the outcome of that justice will be.

 

Nor shall I until the verdict is passed down.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I don't.

You may have missed my attempt at humour there Lou. Loosen up brother, you are starting to lash out at everyone.

17 minutes ago, Keeps said:

You may have already known this but then you wouldn't have been able to post one of your quarrelsome messages would you?

There you go again, correlating rational opinions with "quarrelsome messages".  Some people may think that your posts are just "quarrelsome messages", has that ever occurred to you?  Do you really think that this forum is intended to be a one-way street of opinions?

1 minute ago, Sierra Tango said:

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I don't.

You may have missed my attempt at humour there Lou. Loosen up brother, you are starting to lash out at everyone.

You're right, it was hilarious, my deepest apologies.

Confession innit. 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You're right, it was hilarious, my deepest apologies.

That's better now go and make yourself a cup of tea and take a sarcasim tablet.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Doubtless, he meant "allegations.

They are no longer ‘allegations’ they are now ‘criminal charges’.

 

There is a subtle but important distinction.

At the time of potential money extractions to which he clearly was referring, they would have been allegations.  There is a subtle but important distinction.

17 minutes ago, Sierra Tango said:

Several mentions that there are hopes that Brand gets legal representation. From what I now understand, he is not short of a few quid so why would he not retain his own legal council? Just sayin.

You're right, he will.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

At the time of potential money extractions to which he clearly was referring, they would have been allegations.  There is a subtle but important distinction.

You are struggling today Lou.

 

’Potential’ money extraction by filing a police complaint.

That would be short cut to prison.

 

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.

 

 Careful though with the police, filing a false claim risks criminal prosecution.