Law russell brand allegations

[giusti825]

You mean, like the medical records the Times says it has and which I already mentioned? Are you high?

Ok...... One allegation out of 4......25% ain't bad for a government harassing platforms and advertisers to try and destroy a man's livelihood without due process of law....

My problem isn't so much the allegations, it's government overreach with regards to attempting to enact financial punishments on a man who hasn't had his day in court.

The UK government hasn't been the only one doing this over the last few years.

Government coersion to stifle dissident voices is becoming a serious problem in western democracies.

Notice how selective it is.... You parrot the government narratives, you get due process; you challenge the state narrative, and they will stay up all night writing letters to lobby your employers to take away your money.

 

[Andy Capp]

I can't speak for how the Californians do it, but I would expect the report would contain a first account of the woman, a nurses forensic strategy based on that report, then the swabs, body mapping, images, clothing seizures etc.

I don't have much of a clue about that myself but it's irrelevant to my point, yet again. The point is it's a crazy stupid thing for the Times to lie about. Period. End of story. They claim to have records. They do or they don't, plain and simple. Why would an institutional newspaper obliterate its credibility with this of all things?

 

[Andy Capp]

Ok...... One allegation out of 4......25% ain't bad for a government harassing platforms and advertisers to try and destroy a man's livelihood without due process of law....

One is bad enough, don't you think? And it's enough to establish the likely credibility of the other accusers.

 

[Andy Capp]

this guy gets it ^^^^^^

there has never been a legitimate newspaper story that relied on anonymous sources. they just don't exist.

LOL OK so you really are totally hamming it up in here; love it. Deep Throat says hi.

 

[The Big Yin]

I don't have much of a clue about that myself but it's irrelevant to my point, yet again. The point is it's a crazy stupid thing for the Times to lie about. Period. End of story. They claim to have records. They do or they don't, plain and simple. Why would an institutional newspaper obliterate its credibility with this of all things?

The point is the term medical records could mean anything. They could have her general medical records which state "attended rape crisis centre" only, or they could have a full blown account, body mapping...the works.

Both would be true, but only one adds substantial weight to the allegations.

 

[avenue94]

The term medical records is misleading. When somebody attends a rape crisis centre, the only material generated are swabs, the medical report by the examining nurse and photographs.

Since I'm led to believe this was not reported to police, these items are in fact the property of the nurse seizing/producing. The woman would not be able to get access to the nurses report as this is not standard NHS stuff. It's often a private company called Mountain Healthcare.

The womens own GP medical records may indicate she attended a rape crisis centre. These she should be entitled to obtain a copy of under subject access, but they won't contain any detail of the offence of scope of the examination.

You also get months of notes from the therapist the woman was talking to, which is pretty important contemperaous corroboration.

 

[Andy Capp]

The point is the term medical records could mean anything. They could have her general medical records which state "attended rape crisis centre" only, or they could have a full blown account, body mapping...the works.

Both would be true, but only one adds substantial weight to the allegations.

If it's dated the day of, that's the important evidentiary part, don't you think?

 

[avenue94]

this guy gets it ^^^^^^

there has never been a legitimate newspaper story that relied on anonymous sources. they just don't exist.

I'm usually joking when I bring up Nixon and Watergate, but if we're being serious, these kind of people in the thread are 1000% the ones who would have defended Nixon to their dying breathe and screamed how it was a hippy hit job.

Notice how selective it is.... You parrot the government narratives, you get due process; you challenge the state narrative, and they will stay up all night writing letters to lobby your employers to take away your money.

You didn't reply to my post about those 2 other commentators, who got the same treatment from the MP.

 

[emefer]

Then ignore my post as I thought this took place in the UK

The woman apparently went for therapy after it happened and was struggling with whether she should go to the police or not.

 

[The Big Yin]

If it's dated the day of, that's the important evidentiary part, don't you think?

It certainly adds some weight to an account. But playing devil's advocate, she attends, provides an account but doesn't name Brand directly. Since they were in a relationship, forensics are null and void. She may not have even provided even a basic account. Any decent defence could argue that report related to anyone.

For a criminal complaint this long after the event, she needs to have directly named him as the offender and provided a full account.

Once again, the Times could be telling 100% the truth in that they have her records, but evidentially they add very little.

Or they could be absolute dynamite. I don't know.

 

[The Big Yin]

You also get months of notes from the therapist the woman was talking to, which is pretty important contemperaous corroboration.

It's hearsay evidence. Therapy records belong to the therapist and are a record of what the therapist was told. They're rarely used in support of the prosecution and often more damaging as undermining material for the defence, as any deviations are picked apart.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Once again

*Completely unrelated*

Expect Dame Dinenage to go after GB News for defending the principle of due process and calling out her absolutely inappropriate conduct over the past week.

Look for anchors to be fired, advertisers to be pressured to pull money and a full blown attempt by Dame Dinenage to cancel the network.

The same guy who is willing to defend chemical attacks because the guy behind them gave money to a podcaster he likes is now shilling for an anti-vaxer and possible rapist because he agrees with his politics. What a shock.

 

[avenue94]

It's hearsay evidence. Therapy records belong to the therapist and are a record of what the therapist was told. They're rarely used in support of the prosecution and often more damaging as undermining material for the defence, as any deviations are picked apart.

They belong to the clinic and have been shared with the Times. They are pretty valuable corroboration that the allegations aren't a money grab or some recent plot and that they are a longstanding sincerely held belief (which obviously isn't the same as the factual truth). Criminal court isn't the only evidentiary scale we're working with here.

But playing devil's advocate, she attends, provides an account but doesn't name Brand directly.

They name Brand.

Or they could be absolute dynamite. I don't know.

You could also just read the reporting you're commenting on since you haven't.

 

[The Big Yin]

They belong to the clinic and have been shared with the Times. They are pretty valuable corroboration that the allegations aren't a money grab or some recent plot and that they are a longstanding sincerely held belief (which obviously isn't the same as the factual truth). Criminal court isn't the only evidentiary scale we're working with here.

They name Brand.

You could also just read the reporting you're commenting on since you haven't.

I'm not as heavily invested in this topic as you, so I'll leave this to your expert opinion. I'll look forward to his seamless arrest, charge and imprisonment

 

[avenue94]

I'm not as heavily invested in this topic as you, so I'll leave this to your expert opinion. I'll look forward to his seamless arrest, charge and imprisonment

So you're invested enough to play devil's advocate and comment on it on a karate forum, but not invested enough to spend a couple minutes reading a pretty short news piece? It sounds like less of an issue of investment and more just ignorance ad tucking tail when you're challenged for being wrong on something.

Who said anything bout arrest? There's plenty of other sanctions and relationships that don't fall under the purview of the criminal justice system.

 

[ringking1982]

Well good thing cause this thread is now about trannies

What a surprise, transradicals hijacking something? Free speech, elementary schools, women's sports and bathrooms and now this thread.... what a shocker.

 

[ringking1982]

What facts made up your mind Russell is a bad guy and raped woman

There are actually no facts at this point. Haters who hate Brand will hate no matter what. It's like arguing with flat earthers and transradicals. Leads nowhere.

 

[I Am Legion]

So you're invested enough to play devil's advocate and comment on it on a karate forum, but not invested enough to spend a couple minutes reading a pretty short news piece? It sounds like less of an issue of investment and more just ignorance ad tucking tail when you're challenged for being wrong on something.

Who said anything bout arrest? There's plenty of other sanctions and relationships that don't fall under the purview of the criminal justice system.

I think he did as good a job as anyone else in here did. Just wondering why you are so quick to dismiss what he says and are so quick to assume Brands guilt? Do you not think people can falsely accuse others for financial gain or revenge?

 

[avenue94]

I think he did as good a job as anyone else in here did.

A good job is basing your argument on verifiably wrong assumptions because you didn't bother to read the reporting you're commenting on is a good job? Reading the article you're commenting on is a really low bar.

ust wondering why you are so quick to dismiss what he says and are so quick to assume Brands guilt?

Because his arguments are based on unsupported conclusions that could have been easily checked if he bothered to read a short piece of reporting.

I haven't assumed Brand's guilt. I've said the claims are credible and in sum if I had to guess if he was guilty or not, I'd lean toward the former based on the evidence we've been prevented with spanning a decade.

Do you not think people can falsely accuse others for financial gain or revenge?

I think if you're going to do that, you wouldn't do it like in such an elaborate and convoluted way that would have fabricate multiple allegations going a decade back and get dozens or hundreds of people to go along with it while they risk getting sued and losing their jobs. Assuming that's the leading explanation, or even a likely one, in this scenario is laughably dumb and ill informed.

 

[GoldenWolf87]

So now they are running hit pieces on Rumble since they are refusing to demonize someone based on accusations.
Its concerning why the British govt is now getting itself mixed into this.