Russell Brand expecting accusations soon.

chic said:
I'm not defending RUSSELL but anyone who is accused but not charged with anything. Isn't our system of justice based on the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty? I cannot answer your question because I don't know how nine women could prove that they had been raped. Usually rape kits are used. But if LE did not investigate what can we prove? I don't think a person can be charged based on something similar to hearsay. I'm not a lawyer but any DA worth anything would feel the case lacks hard evidence.
Click to expand...
Rape kits can't be used 10 years after the fact... what is required is that everyone who knows him, and that includes people who worked with him come forward and tell what they know about him.. and believe me they have. These are not women who he attacked but women who saw that he was being predatory to other women at the studios...
 


In the UK there is due process of law. That means individuals have a right by law to be treated fairly by the state… due process can be traced in English law back to the Magna Carta.

Due Process protects individuals, for example even if someone is caught red-handed robbing a bank, that person must still have their day in Court and be represented by a lawyer.

The reason Brand has not been arrested is to date, no evidence has materialised, and so, the police can do nothing until then.
 
The BBC was this morning accused of trying to avoid revealing details of complaints made about Russell Brand.

An investigator behind the scandal currently engulfing the star said the corporation had used 'Freedom of Information Act law exemption' to swerve answering.

It comes after it was claimed BBC management were made aware in 2019 of claims Brand had exposed himself to a woman in an LA office where he was recording a radio show.

Dispatches’ investigations editor Alistair Jackson told Sky News this morning: ‘One of the things that is important since the film has been broadcast, only yesterday we see this allegation being made, an allegation in the BBC's LA Studios or in the surroundings of that.

‘According to that report the BBC were informed about that in 2019.

‘I think it’s important to remember we offered the BBC to look and see if there had been any complaints.

‘They used an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act laws to not be clear about that in their responses to the programme.
‘They haven’t been clear about that now. Now we learn BBC management were informed about it in 2019.

‘There’s a building case for the BBC and other organisations to tell us what they knew and when.’
 

Paco Dennis said:
Brand still has a presence on Rumble, a video site popular with some conservatives and far-right groups, where his channel has 1.4 million followers. He also has 11.2 million followers on X, formerly known as Twitter, and 3.8 million on Instagram. there is something about his message that is very important to many people. One may not like him personally ( I can't take watching him for long ), but this action by big media shows who is in control of the public dialogue. They have censored his message not his errant behavior years ago.
Click to expand...


Rumble, has accused a parliamentary committee of “deeply inappropriate” behaviour after it asked whether the site would suspend payments to Brand.

Caroline Dinenage, the Conservative chair of the culture, media and sport committee, wrote this week to Rumble’s chief executive, Chris Pavlovski, to express concern that Brand “may be able to profit from his content on the platform”.

Rumble posted its response on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, claiming that it was “deeply inappropriate and dangerous” of parliament to “attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so”.

What a darn cheek to ask this of a company that's nothing to do with the UK…a Canadian company. Being part of the Commonwealth, does not mean the Brits get to tell countries what to do.
I'm a Brit by the way!
 
Your Constitution was not part of my opinion. I referenced the remark about some British Gov’t officials, the ensuing remark about being glad one is American, followed by remarks about rights, and wish that British gov’t wake up soon. To this Canadian, clearly political.
 
Here is a quote from the US Constitution. The reader can make of it what he/she will.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Click to expand...
For those who don’t know what a Bill of Attainder is I offer this definition:

  1. A legislative act that pronounces a person guilty of a crime and imposes an attainder. The US Constitution prohibits bills of attainder.
  2. A legislative determination imposing punishment without trial; prohibited under the United States Constitution.
  3. A legislative act finding a person guilty of treason or felony without a trial.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t give a fig about Mr. Brand. But, I care about our rights. I do not want the finding by a government authority of a person to be guilty of a crime and then be punished without a trial, spreading to the USA.
 
Last edited:
Brookswood said:
When you read that some British government officials want social media to deplatform Mr. Brand or remove his ability to earn money be glad if you are an American. The Constitution forbids this nonsense. It’s called a Bill of Attainder and it is forbidden


I don’t give a fig for Mr. Brand. But, I care about our rights. I hope the British wake up soon.
Click to expand...
Yep.... I agree and the funny thing is the PM Mr Sunak himself said he was not getting involved. So it seems (as usual) there is a lot of discord in the British Parliament.... sigh....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top