The fall of Russel brand !!

[Gamisch]

Sounds to me like the system is that if you are accused, then you are guilty.

How come?

Sounds to me like a system that will thoroughly research the case , compare it with cases from the past , have discussion about the implications of the judgement and only THEN make a decision.

Or do you rather get judged by people who have zero affinity with the law and put you away for live because you rock a rough beard lol( the soccer moms) ? Cmon now..

So miscarriages of justice never happen. Ever.

Re read it please.

I clearly stated that there will never be a system that satisfies everyone, nor woll there be a waterproof system with zero mistakes. But the R brand case? Thats not a mistake, thats simply great work.

And still I rather be judged by professionals than by a bunch of soccermoms. Do you agree with the latter? I assume you do as you are a man who thinks rational rather than a person/ woman whose guided by feelings and emotions...

 

[characternote]

I think the problem with this case from the evidence that's been released, is that we could all have crystal clear CCTV of the 'rape' with audio including the background and leadup (i.e her rimming him and having a consensual threesome with him prior to the anal rape) and people would still wildly disagree about whether Brand was innocent or guilty (not only amongst men and women but also dependant on when they were born).

Wheeras in the case of someone jumping out of the bushes and raping a teen at knife point, there would be a complete consensus on a guilty verdict

 

[Westminster]

I watched the 'expose' on him a minute ago
(it was also a similar 'expose' that got the wheels turning for the Russell brand thing, so we'll see if people 'come forward' now like that did with Brand)

Won't know anything until IF other girls come forward and with more serious allegations, but from the program it seems that other than some potential 'grooming' (messaging underage gilrs, so under 16) the program mostly concentrate, and make a big deal about him trying too (and sometimes succeeding) in sleeping with lots of young, legal women

But I found myself thinking 'That's not a crime? That's just the way of the world!! Everyone knows that 'fame' is powerful and that men with fame will basically ALL 'exploit' that fame to get laid! I imagine there's probably not a 'famous' person out there who didn't do that lol. It's a bit like being angry at a good looking man for 'expoiting' his good looks to sleep with women?!

We'll see what happens, though. If it follows the same Brand pattern after his TV expose, other girls will now come forward, and depending on the claims, a police investigation will begin

My only 'suggestion' at this point, in terms of UK law, is to work out a way of classifying 'celebrity' under the same rules we have for other 'positions of authority' such as police officers and teachers and social workers, whereby the age of consent becomes 18 instead of 16.


A 'pedo' has always basically mean someone who goes after VERY young/pre pubescent girls to me. Think 9 year olds or whatever
It always annoys me when everyone says 'pedo!!' under like a facebook post of an older man trying to flirt with a 19 year old or whatever lol. Here he would likely be called a 'pedo' for banging a 16 year old, BUT it's legal! If I could be bothered, i'd ask them people 'so by your logic, the UK law allows pedophillia?'. lol

As far as I can tell, Walliams hasn't been accused of a criminal offence.

There's a lot of moral outrage and words such as grooming and inappropriate behaviour being thrown around but asking young women out, texting them or even bedding them isn't an offence if they're over 16.

All this talk of inappropriate behaviour is pernicious. If an offence (or an accusation) has taken place, so - grape, indecent exposure, assault, then say so. Otherwise 'inappropriate' can just become a stick to beat anybody with.

Having said all this, more serious allegations may emerge. Possibly even fabricated stuff from attention seekers, as it seems that it's open season on David Walliams now.

 

[Westminster]

How come?

Sounds to me like a system that will thoroughly research the case , compare it with cases from the past , have discussion about the implications of the judgement and only THEN make a decision.

Or do you rather get judged by people who have zero affinity with the law and put you away for live because you rock a rough beard lol( the soccer moms) ? Cmon now..



Re read it please.

I clearly stated that there will never be a system that satisfies everyone, nor woll there be a waterproof system with zero mistakes. But the R brand case? Thats not a mistake, thats simply great work.

And still I rather be judged by professionals than by a bunch of soccermoms. Do you agree with the latter? I assume you do as you are a man who thinks rational rather than a person/ woman whose guided by feelings and emotions...

Serious criminal offences are not decided by professionals in England. The judge runs proceedings and determines the tariff, the jury (including soccer moms) decides guilt or innocence (plus not proven in Scotland).

 

[characternote]

As far as I can tell, Walliams hasn't been accused of a criminal offence.

There's a lot of moral outrage and words such as grooming and inappropriate behaviour being thrown around but asking young women out, texting them or even bedding them isn't an offence if they're over 16.

All this talk of inappropriate behaviour is pernicious. If an offence (or an accusation) has taken place, so - grape, indecent exposure, assault, then say so. Otherwise 'inappropriate' can just become a stick to beat anybody with.

Having said all this, more serious allegations may emerge. Possibly even fabricated stuff from attention seekers, as it seems that it's open season on David Walliams now.

you're basically right. 95% of the program centered around how walliams would spend all of his time 'scouting' pretty teengers (16 and over), getting their details through his 'contacts', send her a letter, and askig her out and trying to bang her at his flat. That's completely legal. Even if they are 16.

The only illegal stuff the program centered on was a 'grooming' charge where he'd do the same thing, but to girls who were like 12-15, and then once they were 16 he'd bang them

Another illegal charge was apparently sexually groping a 15 year old who agreed to go with him to his flat

So that charge alone COULD actually land him in jail if they want to make and example of him. For example, there was a footballer here some years back who done like 5 years in jail, and it was a huge case, BUT if you look into the specifics as to what happened with his teenage victim (can't remember but i think she was 15) he only kissed her! (but that's of course counted as sexual assault and they threw the book at him)

So based on that case even now Wallimas 'could' be looking at a stretch

But probably more worrying for him is the potential that this program does exactly what the russell brand program done. Inspires hundreds of other girls to come forward and share their stories. And that's when, if that happens and there's some more serious ones in there, Walliams will also be looking at a long stay in the big house

I iguess i'm wondering does it matter who they make a program abouit adn how do they decide! Becasue I imagine you could throw a thousands celeb names in a hat, pull one out, and if you made a similar hit piece program about them, i'd bet against there'd be tonnes of girls coming out (because famous men will always exploit that fame to get laid)

 

[Gamisch]

Serious criminal offences are not decided by professionals in England. The judge runs proceedings and determines the tariff, the jury (including soccer moms) decides guilt or innocence (plus not proven in Scotland).

Can you provide an example please? And preferably the exact way a jury existing out of regular civilians putting R Brand away in jail?

And do or don't you agree that its a faulty system and way to let soccermoms with zero judicial experience make such important decisions ?

I love to learn so bring it on!

 

[Westminster]

you're basically right. 95% of the program centered around how walliams would spend all of his time 'scouting' pretty teengers (16 and over), getting their details through his 'contacts', send her a letter, and askig her out. That's completely legal. Even if they are 16.

The only illegal stuff the program centered on was a 'grooming' charge where he'd do the same thing, but to girls who were like 12-15, and then once they were 16 he'd bang them

Another illegal charge was apparently sexually groping a 15 year old who agreed to go with him to his flat

So that charge alone COULD actually land him in jail if they want to make and example of him. For example, there was a footballer here some years back who done like 5 years in jail, and it was a huge case, BUT if you look into the specifics as to what happened with his teenage victim (can't remember but i think she was 15) he only kissed her! (but that's of course counted as sexual assault and they threw the book at him)

So based on that case even now Wallimas 'could' be looking at a stretch

But probably more worrying for him is the potential that this program does exactly what the russell brand program done. Inspires hundreds of other girls to come forward and share their stories. And that's when, if that happens and there's some more serious ones in there, Walliams will also be looking at a long stay in the big house

I iguess i'm wondering does it matter who they make a program abouit adn how do they decide! Becasue I imagine you could throw a thousands celeb names in a hat, pull one out, and if you made a similar hit piece program about them, i'd bet against there'd be tonnes of girls coming out (because famous men will always exploit that fame to get laid)

I remember the footballer case. He played for Sunderland or a similar relatively big club. He got some fairly serious porridge I think. Several years.

 

[Westminster]

Can you provide an example please? And preferably the exact way a jury existing out of regular civilians putting R Brand away in jail?

And do or don't you agree that its a faulty system and way to let soccermoms with zero judicial experience make such important decisions ?

I love to learn so bring it on!

In court a prosecution barrister makes the accusations and a defence barrister defends the accused. A jury made up of randomly selected members of the public listens to the allegations and defence, retires and then comes to their decision. Not the judge.

The judge manages these procedures and then decides what penalty is meted out should the defendant be found guilty.

In English law, those accused of serious offences have always had a right to be tried in front of their peers (a jury). On balance, I prefer that to one man's decision (as in a civil court) but it's a difficult one, I admit.

 

[Gamisch]

In court a prosecution barrister makes the accusations and a defence barrister defends the accused. A jury made up of randomly selected members of the public listens to the allegations and defence, retires and then comes to their decision. Not the judge.

The judge manages these procedures and then decides what penalty is meted out should the defendant be found guilty.

In English law, those accused of serious offences have always had a right to be tried in front of their peers (a jury). On balance, I prefer that to one man's decision (as in a civil court) but it's a difficult one, I admit.

So its basically similar to the US system? I never knew that, I'll research it and if I'm wrong, im wrong obviously!

 

[zekko]

How come?

If a woman said you put it in her rear 17 years ago, how would you prove your innocence?

 

[Westminster]

So its basically similar to the US system? I never knew that, I'll research it and if I'm wrong, im wrong obviously!

I can assure you, it is as I describe.

 

[Gamisch]

If a woman said you put it in her rear 17 years ago, how would you prove your innocence?

By staying OUT of such situations in general.

We can downplay the case to " just the wrong hole oopsie" or we can use our common sense and gauge that a man who gets a 10 year prison sentence must've done SOMETHING wrong.

Allegedly

Would you be happier if he got away scotch free?

 

[Westminster]

If a woman said you put it in her rear 17 years ago, how would you prove your innocence?

Herein lies the problem. In English criminal law it is up to the prosecution to prove to the jury that you are guilty - and it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt.

You shouldn't need to prove your innocence - and, on that basis, Brand should not have been convicted.

 

[Westminster]

By staying OUT of such situations in general.

We can downplay the case to " just the wrong hole oopsie" or we can use our common sense and gauge that a man who gets a 10 year prison sentence must've done SOMETHING wrong.

Allegedly

Would you be happier if he got away scotch free?

In civil law, guilt is on the balance of probability, in criminal law, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt.

On the civil criteria, Brand is guilty. In criminal law, its more murky, especially with no forensics, photos, witnesses, CCTV. But he was never going to get away with this, the bandwagon was too strong.

 

[Gamisch]

In civil law, guilt is on the balance of probability, in criminal law, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt.

On the civil criteria, Brand is guilty. In criminal law, its more murky, especially with no forensics, photos, witnesses, CCTV. But he was never going to get away with this, the bandwagon was too strong.

Thats why I advice men to think about the consequences when doing anything in life..

Arguably we are "animals " and we would like to simply drag a hot woman back to our cave. And Arguably some women like that too. But in "reality " the coin might just fall to the side you didn't want it to .. Russell now gets plenty of time to rethink his life choices, and he is a "martyr" who teaches all of us a wise lesson.

A win win win situation in my book!

 

[Westminster]

Thats why I advice men to think about the consequences when doing anything in life..

Arguably we are "animals " and we would like to simply drag a hot woman back to our cave. And Arguably some women like that too. But in "reality " the coin might just fall to the side you didn't want it to .. Russell now gets plenty of time to rethink his life choices, and he is a "martyr" who teaches all of us a wise lesson.

A win win win situation in my book!

Being a Don Juan can be a dangerous game to play nowadays, no doubt.

 

[Gamisch]

Being a Don Juan can be a dangerous game to play nowadays, no doubt.

If I'm being honest one of the best arguments the bluepill has against the redpill...

Stds, knowing your offspring is yours, a healthier way of forming relationships..

Every(new) woman you deal with is a new liability. And you NEVER know 1. Who you'll be in 15 years from now and 2. How a woman's scorn might come back to haunt you when you do actually become someone..

If Russel would've been a blue pill beta biitxh he wouldn't be in this predicament.

 

[Westminster]

If I'm being honest one of the best arguments the bluepill has against the redpill...

Stds, knowing your offspring is yours, a healthier way of forming relationships..

Every(new) woman you deal with is a new liability. And you NEVER know 1. Who you'll be in 15 years from now and 2. How a woman's scorn might come back to haunt you when you do actually become someone..

If Russel would've been a blue pill beta biitxh he wouldn't be in this predicament.

I know exactly what you mean!

 

[zekko]

We can downplay the case to " just the wrong hole oopsie"

I never said anything of the sort. I'm saying the judge sentenced him to hard time when no one really knows what happened.

 

[zekko]

A win win win situation in my book!

Tell that to Brand.