Comedian Russell Brand found guilty by UK court of rape and sexual assaults

[BaronOfHair]

It's the current powerful taking down either the old powerful (Brand) or the potential new powerful (Tommy Robinson, Danny Tommo).

A story as old as time...

Another explanation:

-As a species, we're not predisposed towards giving those who physically resemble the rabble more strongly than they do the glitterati benefits of the doubt. It's long been joked that Brand somehow looks as if he's never come within 500 miles of a bath tub, despite being a multimillionaire

-Nothing provides The 5-0 and our judiciary with stronger PR than excising those who seem "too different" from "the norm" out of general society

-General society, on some level, also yearns for a Messianic force that'll "keep us safe" from such individuals. It's not a coincidence that what Radley Balko has dubbed The Rise Of The Warrior Cop began around '73, when Middle America no longer found The Counterculture cute

-ESPECIALLY if that individual is famous for trying to appear like the smartest person in the room, or/and more righteous than the rest of us mere mortals art

-Washed up/Near Washed up celebrities who meet one or both these criterias are prime targets for such takedowns

Whether or not he's guilty of the charges he's been convicted, the public image Brand designed essentially inked him up in a full-body target. Had such accusations been hurled at someone like Zac Efron, public support for the accusers would be considerably less powerful, and the prosecution would've found making these charges stick a far more daunting task than they did Brand



-

 

[Slowhandluke]

I didnt read the whole thread, but I think Elon makes women sign a contract before sleeping with them. Its been working. Also, I hear NFL players record the sexual act. if you have money, I guess thats what needs to be done.

 

[Westminster]

Another explanation:

-As a species, we're not predisposed towards giving those who physically resemble the rabble more strongly than they do the glitterati benefits of the doubt. It's long been joked that Brand somehow looks as if he's never come within 500 miles of a bath tub, despite being a multimillionaire

-Nothing provides The 5-0 and our judiciary with stronger PR than excising those who seem "too different" from "the norm" out of general society

-General society, on some level, also yearns for a Messianic force that'll "keep us safe" from such individuals. It's not a coincidence that what Radley Balko has dubbed The Rise Of The Warrior Cop began around '73, when Middle America no longer found The Counterculture cute

-ESPECIALLY if that individual is famous for trying to appear like the smartest person in the room, or/and more righteous than the rest of us mere mortals art

-Washed up/Near Washed up celebrities who meet one or both these criterias are prime targets for such takedowns

Whether or not he's guilty of the charges he's been convicted, the public image Brand designed essentially inked him up in a full-body target. Had such accusations been hurled at someone like Zac Efron, public support for the accusers would be considerably less powerful, and the prosecution would've found making these charges stick a far more daunting task than they did Brand



-

There are perhaps elements of that but the main reason for the Brand saga is, in my mind, related to a more general shift in the social and cultural zeitgeist, especially in the Anglophone nations.

The point being that all our institutions - media, government, education, social services, policing, law etc. - are now overwhelmingly liberal in outlook and basically anti-male in their operations.

I have no idea whether Brand is guilty or not but there is not enough evidence to convict him in English criminal law (ie. beyond reasonable doubt) and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been found guilty 20 or 30 years ago. But it seems that men are presumed guilty nowadays if accused by a woman, whatever the alleged crime may be. It's the same in family law.

It is actually highly unlikely that Brand would have even come to trial years ago as nobody ever went to the police to complain about him. This whole sandal only broke due to a TV documentary and complaints solicited by its maker. Then the whole thing gathered pace from there.

 

[Identikit_Radiohead]

There are perhaps elements of that but the main reason for the Brand saga is, in my mind, related to a more general shift in the social and cultural zeitgeist, especially in the Anglophone nations.

The point being that all our institutions - media, government, education, social services, policing, law etc. - are now overwhelmingly liberal in outlook and basically anti-male in their operations.

I have no idea whether Brand is guilty or not but there is not enough evidence to convict him in English criminal law (ie. beyond reasonable doubt) and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been found guilty 20 or 30 years ago. But it seems that men are presumed guilty nowadays if accused by a woman, whatever the alleged crime may be. It's the same in family law.

It is actually highly unlikely that Brand would have even come to trial years ago as nobody ever went to the police to complain about him. This whole sandal only broke due to a TV documentary and complaints solicited by its maker. Then the whole thing gathered pace from there.

Yeah, I'm sure if Brand was reported in 1999 instead of 2020's it would of never been brought to court.

His Vape charge of 9 years was harsh. A consnesual sex act that "got a bit rough" and he went for the backdoor donut. She was regularly having sex with him as well, not just once.

Do men need to take a checklist of sexual things they would want to do with a woman and she either ticks a box for a [] "yes" or [x] for a "no", and then signs it with her signature? In any event she could still lie about it. So men need cameras and audio on now during every consensual sex act? See how clown worldly it gets.

The Police also like a lack of evidence in sex cases. Too much evidence which will acquit the accused means it'll never go to court/trial. So the police have to drop the case.

 

[Westminster]

Yeah, I'm sure if Brand was reported in 1999 instead of 2020's it would of never been brought to court.

His Vape charge of 9 years was harsh. A consnesual sex act that "got a bit rough" and he went for the backdoor donut. She was regularly having sex with him as well, not just once.

Do men need to take a checklist of sexual things they would want to do with a woman and she either ticks a box for a [] "yes" or [x] for a "no", and then signs it with her signature? In any event she could still lie about it. So men need cameras and audio on now during every consensual sex act? See how clown worldly it gets.

The Police also like a lack of evidence in sex cases. Too much evidence which will acquit the accused means it'll never go to court/trial. So the police have to drop the case.

It's not the police who decide whether a case goes to court. They gather the evidence and submit it to the CPS, which then decides whether to charge.

 

[Identikit_Radiohead]

It's not the police who decide whether a case goes to court. They gather the evidence and submit it to the CPS, which then decides whether to charge.

Is hearsay or "she said, he said" enough for the Police to submit it to the CPS?

Look at the Gemma beale case where several men who were strangers, were jailed

Jemma Beale: Rape claim 'liar' loses conviction appeal

Jemma Beale was jailed in 2017 for making false rape and sexual assault allegations against men.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Westminster]

Is hearsay or "she said, he said" enough for the Police to submit it to the CPS?

Look at the Gemma beale case where several men who were strangers, were jailed

Jemma Beale: Rape claim 'liar' loses conviction appeal

Jemma Beale was jailed in 2017 for making false rape and sexual assault allegations against men.

www.bbc.co.uk

The police are meant to make a prima face judgement before they submit anything to the CPS. So, anything that lacks credibility or is obviously fabricated should not go forward. The police are, however, under significant pressure to pursue sex offences against women, so I am sure things go to the CPS now that wouldn't have done so twenty years ago.

"She said, he said" cases are less likely to go to the CPS than if there is corroborating evidence, but cases where there are multiple accusations are more likely to go to the CPS than one-off cases.

ps. Yes, I think I have seen that case before. It makes you wonder how many innocent men are in jail for such offences.

 

[user2827]

I didnt read the whole thread, but I think Elon makes women sign a contract before sleeping with them. Its been working. Also, I hear NFL players record the sexual act. if you have money, I guess thats what needs to be done.

I've heard similar with the NBA, telling the players that if they have sex to use a condom and after to tie it up and throw it out somewhere else, because of the risk that the women will try to get pregnant.

 

[Identikit_Radiohead]

I've heard similar with the NBA, telling the players that if they have sex to use a condom and after to tie it up and throw it out somewhere else, because of the risk that the women will try to get pregnant.

Or she could get the condom out the bin and smear it on her dress/pants/clothes. Keep that item of clothing for 10+ years and claim you raped her 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years in the future. Now they have DNA evidence on her clothes from years ago.

 

[BaronOfHair]

The point being that all our institutions - media, government, education, social services, policing, law etc. - are now overwhelmingly liberal in outlook and basically anti-male in their operations.

Overwhelmingly PROGRESSIVE, and not remotely liberal in the sense described here

1:00 -1:25

The typical Bible humping, Fox Non-News adled Conservative actually shares The Progressive's predilection for believing/"protecting" women and everyone who's labelled marginalized. Even when said protection = "Protecting" said folks from the truth