| Russell Brand is guilty 15:54 - Nov 5 with 20609 views | E17hoop |
Good, I hope he really suffers in clinky wink. |  |
| |  |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:32 - Nov 12 with 0 views | robith |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:22 - Nov 12 by Bluce_Ree |
While Walliams hasn't been charged, I don't believe that innocent until proven guilty fully applies here.
His publisher, who were making an absolute killing off of his books, dropped him because of how he acted with younger, female members of staff. If that isn't proof enough, I don't know what is because I'm sure that, as a business, letting go of him wasn't something they initially wanted at all.
It'll be interesting to see who this latest injuction is. Rumours have been Noel Fielding, Jonathan Ross and David Jason. I can't see it being JR, he's been married for ages. Noel Fielding is coming up a lot. He's shit and unfunny but I don't think he seems too predatory. Someone mentioned Stephen Fry but that's too heartbreaking to think about.
Not sure what the word on Del Boy is. |
It's weird cos on the one hand I think the subject is too serious to turn into tittle tattle, but on the other hand I think it's important abusers are exposed.
I think David Jason is a historical thing that he let his house to a mate while he was away filming Frost and said mate was in fact the leader of a paedo ring who used it as a base of operations. Jason wasn't mentioned in the trial and there's no insinuation that he knew, but it will always come up if you search him.
My sister works in TV and met him once and said he was very pleasant, bar odd low key homophobic comments he kept making.
Ross had a penchant for flashing his genitals early in his career but I doubt it's him, he's attached at the hip to his wife.
Fielding, well. I don't want to cast aspersions but I was quite into the scene we now call "indie sleaze" and female friends telling me Fielding was hanging out in the women's toilets at indie clubs happened at least 3 times. I also saw him in a restaurant in Kentish Town with a girl who was very very young, but hey they could've been relatives |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:38 - Nov 12 with 0 views | Sonic_Hoop |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:30 - Nov 12 by nick_hammersmith |
No I agree and I'm not defending Walliams or Brand. It was clear that both of them have miss-used their elevated positions.
Having done Jury service many years ago, when they call you out of the waiting room at the start of the case you are asked some questions.
So, for example on one of the cases I did a juror excused themselves because they had been mugged recently and felt they couldn't be impartial.
My original point was that if Walliams does face some future charges and is bought to court, even if its something that wasn't mentioned in that programme, then any potential juror who has seen that programme, or followed some coverage on social media might already have a ready formed opinion about Walliams, so may be unable to perform their task correctly.
If you whittle the demographic down to those that can do the task, does that skew their beliefs or the result of the verdict?
I think another poster mentioned that the demographic can be older retired people or unemployed people on some of those longer cases.
Does that change the result for people?
Its interesting really, as like with Brexit you can get a result that a lot of people don't agree with if only a certain demographic turn up to vote (or are in the jury) |
The opposite view would be that the press can (and often are) at the vanguard of opening the floodgates for victims to have the confidence to come forwards. But being mindful that the press have their own conflicts - the Times investigating Brand but not Walliams formerly of Harper Collins - both the Times and Harper Collins Murdioch owned. |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:45 - Nov 12 with 0 views | Superhoop83 |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 09:26 - Nov 12 by PlanetHonneywood |
Having advised many women when signing confidentiality agreements in the workplace setting (although none involving high-profile celebs) we shouldn't ignore the fact that if you're an employer signing off on the other side of such agreements, then you really are on notice that you have a problem that needs addressing in terms of certain individuals and/or your workplace culture.
Frequently the women involved just wanted to put it behind them and get on with their lives/careers, which avoiding the hassle and risk of publicity a court case might create is a genuine consideration. Very hard to advise someone that pursuing justice - whatever that means for them - potentially carries burdens beyond the litigation risks.
Had one case involving a systemic campaign by older male colleagues who became aware that a female colleague had been raped as a young woman, and was now coming forward in a criminal trial. Not only had she to revisit the rape, but was subjected to a few years of harassment by her loathesome colleagues after the trial.
My client showed incredible bravery to face up to all of this not once, but twice. So this is the thing many don't appreciate: the mental traumas rape/sexual assault survivors face to confront what happened to them in a courtroom setting, with the spectre of publicity hanging over them. This is why it can take years to come forward, why it can be moderately easier if you're not the sole complainant, and why some rightly and understandably say, I can't do it.
But to go back to the post I'm replying to, I'm aware of a celeb who inappropriately behaved towards a friend in a bar. Minutes later, this bloke came up to her claiming to be the celeb's lawyer and asking her to sign a NDA! Two things from this: if you need to go out with your lawyer clutching a load of NDAs on a night out, you've got a big problem. Secondly, if the person was a lawyer or not, then you really would need to rethink your career path if this is your job!!! |
On your last comment, a solicitors at Schillings threatened action against one of the complainants, writing that she would be "at significant risk of committing a serious civil offence" if she repeated her allegations.
There is no such thing as a civil offence and I have no doubt that the solicitor knew that and was trying to give the impression that police action would be taken if she ever spoke about it again. It is disgusting and another form of abuse of power. [Post edited 12 Nov 13:46]
|  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:09 - Nov 12 with 0 views | Beckenhamhoop |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 22:06 - Nov 11 by kensalriser |
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? |
Well call me old fashioned but I think allegations of criminality should be examined and adjudicated on in a Court room after full disclosure of the facts, not on the front page of the Sun or Guardian (There’s a another question around payments to people for their stories). Their job is to sell papers and there is no obligation to present the full facts in a way that may be slightly less sensational. To me, unless someone is convicted in a Court then it’s little more than tittle tattle which invariably leads to an unseemly torches and pitchforks scenario. It’s the modern equivalent of ghouls going to watch a public execution for the fun of it. [Post edited 12 Nov 14:15]
|  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 15:47 - Nov 12 with 0 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 14:09 - Nov 12 by Beckenhamhoop |
Well call me old fashioned but I think allegations of criminality should be examined and adjudicated on in a Court room after full disclosure of the facts, not on the front page of the Sun or Guardian (There’s a another question around payments to people for their stories). Their job is to sell papers and there is no obligation to present the full facts in a way that may be slightly less sensational. To me, unless someone is convicted in a Court then it’s little more than tittle tattle which invariably leads to an unseemly torches and pitchforks scenario. It’s the modern equivalent of ghouls going to watch a public execution for the fun of it. [Post edited 12 Nov 14:15]
|
Then again, if it wasn't for investigative journaliam, such things as: Watergate, My Lai, the post office scandal, Manchester City (possible criminality), Perdue/Opiod crisis, Savile et al, so on and so forth, might never have come to light.
We shouldn't rule out how the work of top quality journalists has played a crucial role in bringing illegal, immoral, and down right wrong matters to light. In the case of Walliams, there's enough there for the police to invite complainants to come forward to help them investigate whether there's been criminality and assess thereafter, whether it meets the criminal burden of proof. Of course, jury selection will be a challenge!! |  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 15:53 - Nov 12 with 0 views | Boston |
How many more days ‘til football again? | |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:59 - Nov 12 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:45 - Nov 12 by Superhoop83 |
On your last comment, a solicitors at Schillings threatened action against one of the complainants, writing that she would be "at significant risk of committing a serious civil offence" if she repeated her allegations.
There is no such thing as a civil offence and I have no doubt that the solicitor knew that and was trying to give the impression that police action would be taken if she ever spoke about it again. It is disgusting and another form of abuse of power. [Post edited 12 Nov 13:46]
|
Breaking any law is termed an "offence", so technically the language was correct, even if it was just a crude attempt at intimidation.
Criminal offences often have an equivalent in civil law. So rape is often termed as battery or trespass against the person in civil law actions.
I mention it because Russell Brand was only convicted on one of the three counts of rape that he was charged with. But notwithstanding him being acquitted of two of the rape charges all three women could still bring a civil action against him. And civil courts have a lower burden of proof so it would be easier to win a case - assuming the women in the Brand case were willing to go through the ordeal again.
This has happened before in Scotland. A woman was awarded £100,000 in a civil court against two footballers who were never tried in a criminal court because the prosecutor didn't think there was enough evidence for a criminal conviction.
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/new |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 17:08 - Nov 12 with 0 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 15:53 - Nov 12 by Boston |
How many more days ‘til football again? |
Come on now Boston this thread is really cooking and the posters so well educated and non aggressive it might actually survive the golden lock .
Horrible subject but lots of interesting takes and pretty good insight about stars and reactions .
Still looking for an answer on here about the actual smoking gun evidence that put Brand away from almost 20 years ago or was it just his ugly pattern of behaviour |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Russell Brand is guilty on 17:25 - Nov 12 with 0 views | Beckenhamhoop |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 15:47 - Nov 12 by PlanetHonneywood |
Then again, if it wasn't for investigative journaliam, such things as: Watergate, My Lai, the post office scandal, Manchester City (possible criminality), Perdue/Opiod crisis, Savile et al, so on and so forth, might never have come to light.
We shouldn't rule out how the work of top quality journalists has played a crucial role in bringing illegal, immoral, and down right wrong matters to light. In the case of Walliams, there's enough there for the police to invite complainants to come forward to help them investigate whether there's been criminality and assess thereafter, whether it meets the criminal burden of proof. Of course, jury selection will be a challenge!! |
I agree, there are areas where it is perfectly valid for investigative journalists to do incredibly important work. Corruption and cover ups need the brightest of lights shone on them and all power to them. This however is a completely different set of circumstances dealing with matters that sit firmly and rightly with the Police to investigate fully, impartially, without publicity and where no money passes hands between journalist and anyone willing to tell their story rather than the Police ( CICA payments aside). | |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 18:48 - Nov 12 with 0 views | hubble |
Where's Chris Morris when you need him?
 |  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 20:38 - Nov 12 with 0 views | Superhoop83 |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:59 - Nov 12 by KensalT |
Breaking any law is termed an "offence", so technically the language was correct, even if it was just a crude attempt at intimidation.
Criminal offences often have an equivalent in civil law. So rape is often termed as battery or trespass against the person in civil law actions.
I mention it because Russell Brand was only convicted on one of the three counts of rape that he was charged with. But notwithstanding him being acquitted of two of the rape charges all three women could still bring a civil action against him. And civil courts have a lower burden of proof so it would be easier to win a case - assuming the women in the Brand case were willing to go through the ordeal again.
This has happened before in Scotland. A woman was awarded £100,000 in a civil court against two footballers who were never tried in a criminal court because the prosecutor didn't think there was enough evidence for a criminal conviction.
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/new |
Pedant Alert.
There is no such thing as a civil offence and a civil claim, e.g. for defamation, has nothing to do with breaking the law. I'm a solicitor and no solicitor should ever write in such a misleading and intimidatory way.
I agree about the difference between civil and criminal trials, and decisions not to prosecute or not guilty verdicts don't mean that alleged rapes and sexual assaults didn't occur. [Post edited 12 Nov 20:41]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.