| Russell Brand is guilty 15:54 - Nov 5 with 17971 views | E17hoop |
Good, I hope he really suffers in clinky wink. |  |
| |  |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:31 - Nov 11 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:20 - Nov 11 by plasmahoop |
Very good point. Whilst I've always disliked Walliams, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's just allegations at the moment. |
There hasn't even be a complaint made to the police yet. |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:33 - Nov 11 with 0 views | wombat |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 11:35 - Nov 11 by daveB |
She made an excellent point in that what Walliams did was not illegal, as a man in his 40's and 50's there is no law to say you can't have sex with a 17 year old but really there should be one. |
agree about theage being reduced , imagine a lot of pop stars and people in that industry will also crapping themselves in there boots about historical claims about them as well , could happen to any man walking thr planet if somebody had a axe to grind from there past , as somebody said about walliams no formal charge has been lodged yet his career is down the crapper already ,
Wasnt the law that if somebody was accused of this sort of charge the name would remain secret until the case was finished ? unless you are in the publci eye then it seems to be open season [Post edited 11 Nov 13:35]
|  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:03 - Nov 11 with 0 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:20 - Nov 11 by ChrisNW6 |
My jury service at Southwark started on the same day as the Brand trial and I was selected as one of the initial 50 jurors. Around 6 jurors we immediately excused as they had prior knowledge of Times article and C4 programme. I had a work trip booked and paid for, early Nov, so I knew if selected I couldn't commit to a possible 11 week trial. I didn't make the initial 30 selected jurors anyway. But really interesting watching the process unfold.
Really glad I wasn't selected, as it would have been a pretty grim trial. Also missed out on Tommy Robinson the following Monday.
I was pretty much an unused sub for the 5 days I was required to attend. |
This is what I was talking about last night to the other half.
With the iTV Walliams programme.
If the CPS ever do bring a criminal case, hasn't this programme hurt the jury selection process?
Now only people who actively chose to ignore the Walliams coverage will be able to participate.
Surely this skews the demographic of the jurors? |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:28 - Nov 11 with 0 views | ChrisNW6 |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:03 - Nov 11 by nick_hammersmith |
This is what I was talking about last night to the other half.
With the iTV Walliams programme.
If the CPS ever do bring a criminal case, hasn't this programme hurt the jury selection process?
Now only people who actively chose to ignore the Walliams coverage will be able to participate.
Surely this skews the demographic of the jurors? |
A barrister friend (also a QPR fan) advised me to have a holiday or trip booked, as this limits the length of trial you can commit to. The work trip was a lucky coincidence.
I guess most complex trials end up with high % of retired, unemployed or people in between jobs and in Brands case non Sunday Times readers or C4 watchers.
You are correct, if Walliams does end up in court in a couple of years time, it will be a real challenge to find a totally impartial jury. |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:42 - Nov 11 with 0 views | kensalriser |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:33 - Nov 11 by wombat |
agree about theage being reduced , imagine a lot of pop stars and people in that industry will also crapping themselves in there boots about historical claims about them as well , could happen to any man walking thr planet if somebody had a axe to grind from there past , as somebody said about walliams no formal charge has been lodged yet his career is down the crapper already ,
Wasnt the law that if somebody was accused of this sort of charge the name would remain secret until the case was finished ? unless you are in the publci eye then it seems to be open season [Post edited 11 Nov 13:35]
|
Oh, poor men. Most of us manage to get through life OK without being accused of sexual assault or predatory behaviour.
And again, you do know that false accusations are outnumbered by never-reported assaults by a gazillion to one, right?
Walliams deserves to lose his career for a being a creepy groomer/predator. |  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:46 - Nov 11 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:03 - Nov 11 by nick_hammersmith |
This is what I was talking about last night to the other half.
With the iTV Walliams programme.
If the CPS ever do bring a criminal case, hasn't this programme hurt the jury selection process?
Now only people who actively chose to ignore the Walliams coverage will be able to participate.
Surely this skews the demographic of the jurors? |
The celebrity thing cuts both ways.
I remember reading an account of Gary Glitters first trial which was held in a small court in the West country (Hereford, I think). Anyway, the court was packed with his fans and it was such a small court that there were loads more outside cheering on their "Leader".
And if you go on Twitter now you will still find plenty of right wing Americans (assuming they're not bots) defending Brand and trying to dismiss his convictions as a sham or part of some conspiracy.
This is probably why it takes celebrity misdeeds so long to come to court. It's very hard work to build a case strong enough to get a conviction against someone who is broadly popular with the public. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:06 - Nov 11 with 0 views | numptydumpty |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:28 - Nov 11 by ChrisNW6 |
A barrister friend (also a QPR fan) advised me to have a holiday or trip booked, as this limits the length of trial you can commit to. The work trip was a lucky coincidence.
I guess most complex trials end up with high % of retired, unemployed or people in between jobs and in Brands case non Sunday Times readers or C4 watchers.
You are correct, if Walliams does end up in court in a couple of years time, it will be a real challenge to find a totally impartial jury. |
The first time I got called up for Jury Service, I was still at school doing my 'A' levels. Had only just turned eighteen, so that was my way out. The other more relevant point of that stage of my life, I knew nothing about nothing. Not exactly worldly wise and probably would have just been itching to get away and be around my mates again, instead of a stuffy old intimidating court room.
And yes clearly so difficult for a nationally known person to not have people going in with their own agendas on certain characters. One of our very old "friends" Mr H Redcrapp was absolutely bricking it when the jury in his case adjourned for their deliberations - his main concern being how many Arsenal fans could be on the jury !
If Wailliams does get charged, personally I would already predict an extremely high chance of a guilty sentence, as some members of the jury would be already thinking that pre trial and in their own minds he is guilty already. Think justice in these circumstances, if its trial by jury, could so easily be wrong either guilty or not guilty.
Personally feel if a person is very well known - trial by jury could very easily end up with convictions based on presumed personality as against the real hard core evidence that has been presented. [Post edited 11 Nov 16:16]
|  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:12 - Nov 11 with 0 views | Beckenhamhoop |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:34 - Nov 11 by kensalriser |
Well done for highlighting a highly unusual and extremely rare instance of false accusation, which of course never got near a trial. It was an absurd story and the major warning sign was there was one person making accusations against a number of claimed perpetrators and no other evidence.
Set against that, everyone knows there are numerous other predators still operating in plain sight, and the number of sexual assaults that go unreported (never mind unprosecuted) is an enormous factor higher than false accusations. |
You’re right, it never got near a trial but everyone knows all about it. How is that the case??
You’ve rather missed the point of my post which wasn’t about false allegations but the role of the media in cases like these. The only reason you know about Operation Midland is because the press were all over the case for months and months. What if that case had gone to trial? How is any defendant going to get a fair trial after it’s been splashed all over the front page repeatedly.
I personally don’t think it’s the medias job to search for or convince people to make criminal allegations. I also don’t think it’s the media’s job to, for example, have a helicopter filming the Police searching the house of a high profile celebrity who was never charged and subsequently found to have done nothing wrong. The role of the Police in that particular instance was also a disgrace.
The point I’m making is that the media are often not campaigning angels determined to see Justice done. The phone tapping scandal another example of how low they’ll sink. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:25 - Nov 11 with 0 views | numptydumpty |
The mainstream media are all in cohoots with each other.
For many months, the mainstream media was obsessed day after day with blanket coverage of the Epstein files, and then Trump went in with Israel against Iran. From that moment on, its almost as if the Epstein files that the media were pushing for day after day after day, well its hardly been mentioned ever since and was exactly the reason for Trumps decision to take his country into this conflict in the first place, shall we say, allegedly.
Not that long ago, everyone around me was getting COVID and you would not have even known about it - not mentioned at all. But there was a big upturn in cases for a period.
As they say yesterdays day's news is today's fish and chips wrapping paper !! [Post edited 11 Nov 16:28]
| |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:29 - Nov 11 with 0 views | W7Ranger |
I got called up for Jury Service around 15 years ago. Old Bailey! I was absolutely buzzing! At least 2 weeks off work and a potentially big juicy case.
Then on the Thursday before, I was told that I had go to a Civil Court located just around the corner from the Old Bailey instead, which was disappointing. Then on the Friday I was called and was told that the case that was due to take place at the Civil Court was settled out of Court. So I asked if I now needed to go back to the Old Bailey? They said no I wasn't needed, and that was that - no Jury Service.
I think around that time there a few foiled bomb plots going through the Old Bailey, so might have got one those. Who knows. Either way, I was gutted. :-( |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:47 - Nov 11 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:29 - Nov 11 by W7Ranger |
I got called up for Jury Service around 15 years ago. Old Bailey! I was absolutely buzzing! At least 2 weeks off work and a potentially big juicy case.
Then on the Thursday before, I was told that I had go to a Civil Court located just around the corner from the Old Bailey instead, which was disappointing. Then on the Friday I was called and was told that the case that was due to take place at the Civil Court was settled out of Court. So I asked if I now needed to go back to the Old Bailey? They said no I wasn't needed, and that was that - no Jury Service.
I think around that time there a few foiled bomb plots going through the Old Bailey, so might have got one those. Who knows. Either way, I was gutted. :-( |
Jury trials are very rare in civil cases.
You might have missed out on a juicy libel or fraud. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 17:14 - Nov 11 with 0 views | Beckenhamhoop |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:29 - Nov 11 by W7Ranger |
I got called up for Jury Service around 15 years ago. Old Bailey! I was absolutely buzzing! At least 2 weeks off work and a potentially big juicy case.
Then on the Thursday before, I was told that I had go to a Civil Court located just around the corner from the Old Bailey instead, which was disappointing. Then on the Friday I was called and was told that the case that was due to take place at the Civil Court was settled out of Court. So I asked if I now needed to go back to the Old Bailey? They said no I wasn't needed, and that was that - no Jury Service.
I think around that time there a few foiled bomb plots going through the Old Bailey, so might have got one those. Who knows. Either way, I was gutted. :-( |
I’m sad to say I’ve never done jury service. Would love to do it. | |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 17:19 - Nov 11 with 0 views | wombat |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 17:14 - Nov 11 by Beckenhamhoop |
I’m sad to say I’ve never done jury service. Would love to do it. |
just reading another person has got an injunction in place in relation to allegations that maybe coming out in the coming weeks | |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 17:50 - Nov 11 with 0 views | numptydumpty |
Regards Brand and now also likely to be the case with David Wailliams, its incredible how quickly friends and acquaintances in the celebrity world drop out of people's lives like the proverbial stones.
Suddenly they are friendless, despite probably many being in the know or previously being thick as thieves.
There are no real friends in celebrity circles. Only people that can get you up the ladder or likewise sliding down !
Very strange industry that attracts its fair number of undesirables..... [Post edited 11 Nov 17:51]
| |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 17:53 - Nov 11 with 0 views | robith |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:20 - Nov 11 by plasmahoop |
Very good point. Whilst I've always disliked Walliams, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's just allegations at the moment. |
We can't apply the burden of criminal proof to every interaction though can we?
I used to work in a work place where two senior men had a very, very bad reputation which ranged from improper comments to pinning people against walls and touching them against their will, and threatening their employment status to be silent.(both eventually lost those jobs, but continue to occupy senior positions in the industry, one is regularly on the news giving his opinions, which turns my stomach).
Young women who started were warned to avoid being alone with them. But they're innocent until proven guilty? Should we not have warned them to avoid besmirching their good name?
We can't imprison people based on what we've seen revealed so far. Doesn't mean I wanna watch a TV show with him in |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 19:18 - Nov 11 with 0 views | daveB |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:03 - Nov 11 by nick_hammersmith |
This is what I was talking about last night to the other half.
With the iTV Walliams programme.
If the CPS ever do bring a criminal case, hasn't this programme hurt the jury selection process?
Now only people who actively chose to ignore the Walliams coverage will be able to participate.
Surely this skews the demographic of the jurors? |
They can't bring a criminal case on anything mentioned in the show because they never said he did anything illegal. It was showing a pattern of having access to young people and grooming them before having sex with them when they reached a legal age.
Are we seriously saying the Guardian and ITV should not have shown this and kept quiet about it? Like the initial programme on Brand and Jimmy Saville this will allow victims to come forward to the police if anything illegal happend.
What happens to him I couldn't care less but what I hope changes from this is that it is made illegal for men or women over the age of 30 to have sex with a teenager and that famous people are not given such easy access to young people, the safeguarding has to be so much better. |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 20:10 - Nov 11 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 19:18 - Nov 11 by daveB |
They can't bring a criminal case on anything mentioned in the show because they never said he did anything illegal. It was showing a pattern of having access to young people and grooming them before having sex with them when they reached a legal age.
Are we seriously saying the Guardian and ITV should not have shown this and kept quiet about it? Like the initial programme on Brand and Jimmy Saville this will allow victims to come forward to the police if anything illegal happend.
What happens to him I couldn't care less but what I hope changes from this is that it is made illegal for men or women over the age of 30 to have sex with a teenager and that famous people are not given such easy access to young people, the safeguarding has to be so much better. |
The Guardian article clearly states that he took a 15 year-old called Jade to his home. He kissed and fondled her and suggested they have sex, which she refused.
I'm not going to copy and paste the salacious bits. Anyone who wants to read the article can look here:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv
But Jade says:
"Walliams agreed to stop. She recalls him saying “that we should wait until I’m 16 and then said to keep in contact … I remember him saying that. That comment will always stick out in my mind. That’s a very strange thing to say.”"
If Jade's allegations are true then that is a sexual offence as defined by the CPS:
"Contact child sexual abuse
Contact abuse involves physical sexual contact with a child. It can include:
- Penetrative offences – when someone puts a body part or an object into a child’s vagina, bottom, or mouth.
- Non-penetrative offences – when someone touches a child in a sexual way with a body part or object, including through clothing. This includes kissing a child in a sexual way."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/types-c
If Jade's account is true then that is a criminal offence.
Unless there is some corroborating evidence that the Guardian is keeping back this boils down to his word against hers, which might be why this allegation wasn't broadcast on TV. But it is still detailed in the Guardian article. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 20:46 - Nov 11 with 0 views | numptydumpty |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 17:19 - Nov 11 by wombat |
just reading another person has got an injunction in place in relation to allegations that maybe coming out in the coming weeks |
Oh flip. I thought I had got away with it Wombat...
There are clearly upsides to celebrity life but also downsides. If people have been stupid enough and bad enough to overstep the mark, then they deserve to get whats coming. However, I can't help but think if they had done such things which were borderline abuse at the time the crimes were committed and they hadn't been prosecuted at the time, but twenty years later, any non celebrity would not need to concern themselves anymore with bad stuff they had done so long ago.
Would think any man who is even a minor celebrity but feels they potentially may have overstepped rightful boundaries in the last two decades, they could well feel under pressure right now.
Hope this doesnt go the way operation yewtree went, when about half the celebs that were initially arrested, were later proven to have not received any criminal indictements, as had done no wrong. It ended up as a witch hunt and a high number of male celebrities from the 70s and 80s were investigated and we all knew who too, even if no charges were brought forward.
The last time it seemed all were fair game and was almost like the authorities were making up for the inadequacies of the past that prevented these crimes becoming visible.
Although false accusations - John Terry - I dont mind injustices sometimes !!! [Post edited 11 Nov 20:59]
| |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 21:07 - Nov 11 with 0 views | daveB |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 20:10 - Nov 11 by KensalT |
The Guardian article clearly states that he took a 15 year-old called Jade to his home. He kissed and fondled her and suggested they have sex, which she refused.
I'm not going to copy and paste the salacious bits. Anyone who wants to read the article can look here:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv
But Jade says:
"Walliams agreed to stop. She recalls him saying “that we should wait until I’m 16 and then said to keep in contact … I remember him saying that. That comment will always stick out in my mind. That’s a very strange thing to say.”"
If Jade's allegations are true then that is a sexual offence as defined by the CPS:
"Contact child sexual abuse
Contact abuse involves physical sexual contact with a child. It can include:
- Penetrative offences – when someone puts a body part or an object into a child’s vagina, bottom, or mouth.
- Non-penetrative offences – when someone touches a child in a sexual way with a body part or object, including through clothing. This includes kissing a child in a sexual way."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/types-c
If Jade's account is true then that is a criminal offence.
Unless there is some corroborating evidence that the Guardian is keeping back this boils down to his word against hers, which might be why this allegation wasn't broadcast on TV. But it is still detailed in the Guardian article. |
yeah I shouldn't have said nothing illegal meant more nothing that is going to end up in court, I do think a lot more will be coming out which may put him there.
I think a lot of credit should go to these journalists for putting the work in to find this out, he of course denies it all so I'm not going to be his jury on here but it's shone a light on a big issue in society that really needs to be dealt with. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 22:06 - Nov 11 with 0 views | kensalriser |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:12 - Nov 11 by Beckenhamhoop |
You’re right, it never got near a trial but everyone knows all about it. How is that the case??
You’ve rather missed the point of my post which wasn’t about false allegations but the role of the media in cases like these. The only reason you know about Operation Midland is because the press were all over the case for months and months. What if that case had gone to trial? How is any defendant going to get a fair trial after it’s been splashed all over the front page repeatedly.
I personally don’t think it’s the medias job to search for or convince people to make criminal allegations. I also don’t think it’s the media’s job to, for example, have a helicopter filming the Police searching the house of a high profile celebrity who was never charged and subsequently found to have done nothing wrong. The role of the Police in that particular instance was also a disgrace.
The point I’m making is that the media are often not campaigning angels determined to see Justice done. The phone tapping scandal another example of how low they’ll sink. |
I don't necessarily disagree with all of that, but the media isn't a big monolith that acts as one. It's a litany of competing organisations that have different priorities and approaches. Some will go stoop to criminal activity to get the story, some will exercise careful due diligence before going public. The Guardian/ITV collaboration looks like the latter, don't you think? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.