Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Russell Brand
77 Answers
Why is all this suddenly coming out years later?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by smurfchops. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
roadman - // you said you think he is innocent andy hughes at 1233 you are taking a stance before it has been through trial 👀 //
No roadman, I am not saying i think he is innnocent, I am saying he is innocent, because he has not yet been charged.
If he is charged, and if he goes to court, and if he is convicted, then he will be guilty.
Until then he remains innocent.
That's how the law works, I can't help it if you think it's wrong.
roadman - // and i say rubbish to that andy if i see someone shoplift they are guikty whether they are charged or not get a grip mate //
And if I saw Russell Brand assault or rape a woman, he would be guilty, but I haven't so I can't assume he is, even if you feel you can.
You are using faulty logic to bolster your argument, and because it is faulty, it fails to hit the mark.
You cannot use an entirely different ficticious scenario to make your point correct.
Innocence is presumed until guilt is established under due process, based on evidence, and a court case, where that evidence is presented and debated.
I can only repeat, the fact that you wish it was not so does not change the fact that it is.
The more that is written about and spoken of Brand by his non-fan base it would appear that his personna becomes sleazier by the day. I think my ambivalence is shifting from neutral... though I thoroughly enjoyed his character portrayal of Flash in St. Trinians :)
To balance that it does seem as though Brand has never shied away from admitting his preoccupation for basing most of his material on sexual matters.
However, I completely agree with those who say we should wait and see if he is charged, goes to court and receives a judicial outcome.
One way or another, I am finding all the press releases quite unwelcome just for feeding the general public something upon which to pontificate.
I am abhorrent of all cases of rape. We have seen more than enough cases of malicious claims of rape by women and that is something I try and keep in mind each time a new case comes to the public's attention.
smurfchops, in answer to your question we do have other examples where it has taken years for this type of "news" to break to the public's general, whereupon people in, say, the entertainment section" claim such-and-such was always well known. What is more important is that a full investigation should be made where there have been claims and due processes are undertaken.
roadman - // youre talking about the law im talking about if he did it or not and if the accusers are telling the truth 😂 //
Again no.
I am simply stating the way the law works, for everyone.
And we should be grateful that it does, otherwise people like you would be pronouncing guilt because you feel like it.
he has made jokes about him raping women and now women have come forward and said they were assulted then tie that with him being so promiscuous it paints a bad picture
andy all i will say is four women have said one thing and one man has said another and you are taking the stance that he is innocent because a judge hasnt told you to think otherwise
thats a wet stance
roadman - //
andy all i will say is four women have said one thing and one man has said another and you are taking the stance that he is innocent because a judge hasnt told you to think otherwise
thats a wet stance //
At the risk of reading like the proverbial cracked record -
Mr Brand is innocent until proven guilty, that's a fact in law, it is nothing to do with what a judge 'hasn't told' me - that's simply more of your not so much faulty, as without substance, 'logic'.
It may be 'wet' to you, but it is now the law works.
If a police officer knocked on your door and accused you of running down an individual, even though you don't possess a licence, much less a car, you might be grateful that the 'innocent until proven guilty' system operates in your favour, and not that you are off to prison because a stranger thinks you are guilty.
roadman - // ok so big if he goes to court and is decided as guilty then was he guilty before he went to court or innocent because he wasnt ruled as guilty //
As you pointed out, any criminal is guilty from the moment they commit a crime.
Whether or not they are convicted of that crime depends on the application of due process.
That means they are accused of a the crime, and sufficient evidewnce is deemed available for a trial to take place, the evidence to be heard, and a judge and / or a jury to make a decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused, based on the evidence they have heard.
Their verdict is due legal process, and it does not mean that the offender is actually guilty of not guilty, it means that they have been found so by a court.
Clearly that means that a guilty accused can go free, and an innocent accused can go to prison.
But that is the system we work under, because, flawed though it is, it is the best system that several hundred years of society's evolution has been able to establish.
I've always thought he's come across as a sleazy scumbag full of his own righteous self-importance with intellectual pretensions.
Thank god somebody has come out now, as it's saved all the others that followed....oh, hang on!
Assuming it's all true of course, and whilst it does appear in cases like this of always believing the 'victims', I'd rather wait for the result of any court case.
I still maintain the Brand/Ross/Sachs thing was radio gold though.
