El Segundo Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 13 minutes ago, bobzy said: There’s a difference between “no evidence” and the seeming hard evidence people appear to want; like some sort of rape sex tape that they can go “aye, he did it” to. So what kind of evidence would you say should suffice for a conviction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 1 minute ago, El Segundo said: So what kind of evidence would you say should suffice for a conviction? What evidence would you like to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 If we’re saying visit to a crisis centre and a text exchange is insufficient, then I guess it needs the police to film it and Brand to autograph the dvd. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 Just now, chrisp65 said: If we’re saying visit to a crisis centre and a text exchange is insufficient, then I guess it needs the police to film it and Brand to autograph the dvd. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 17, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted September 17, 2023 19 minutes ago, bobzy said: There’s a difference between “no evidence” and the seeming hard evidence people appear to want; like some sort of rape sex tape that they can go “aye, he did it” to. We had a recording and graphic pictures with Greenwood and he wasn’t charged. I reckon even if there was a video of Brand doing something it would be explained away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 4 minutes ago, bobzy said: What evidence would you like to see? Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 1 minute ago, El Segundo said: Oh dear. What, you're taking umbrage with me saying that it's galling people asking for hard evidence in rape cases... ...but then don't want to indulge us with the sort of evidence you'd consider sufficient? How predictable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Show me the post where I said he's guilty? I haven't claimed that though have I? Whereas you have just clearly claimed I've said he's not guilty, and that I 've announced there are no other critical thinkers on the thread apart from me. Neither of those are true, are they, as you well know. I repeat, my view is that I do not think I know enough with any certainty to say whether he is guilty or not, and I don't believe in trial by public opinion, rumour, accusation etc., let alone condemnation. I think some on this thread seem quite happy to do just that. It's a very slippery slope towards a very undesirable state of affairs. See 1984. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 6 minutes ago, bobzy said: What, you're taking umbrage with me saying that it's galling people asking for hard evidence in rape cases... ...but then don't want to indulge us with the sort of evidence you'd consider sufficient? How predictable. Well pretty much actual evidence is what I would consider sufficient. You've dismissed that so what do you suggest? Perhaps you could answer the question this time instead of deflecting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 Just now, El Segundo said: Well pretty much actual evidence is what I would consider sufficient. You've dismissed that so what do you suggest? Perhaps you could answer the question this time instead of deflecting it. Why do I need to answer? My opinion is that I find it galling people want hard evidence in rape cases. For some reason, you've challenged that so presumably disagree. @chrisp65 summarises nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 17, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted September 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, El Segundo said: I haven't claimed that though have I? Whereas you have just clearly claimed I've said he's not guilty, and that I 've announced there are no other critical thinkers on the thread apart from me. Neither of those are true, are they, as you well know. I repeat, my view is that I do not think I know enough with any certainty to say whether he is guilty or not, and I don't believe in trial by public opinion, rumour, accusation etc., let alone condemnation. I think some on this thread seem quite happy to do just that. It's a very slippery slope towards a very undesirable state of affairs. See 1984. So if he's not guilty by the law, because he isn't charged, then he's completely innocent. All this critical thinking just seems to be tangling yourself in knots. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term. It means nothing in the court of public opinion. Much like 'freedom of speech', it means legally. It doesn't mean freedom of speech with no consequence. People are entitled to view the evidence that's been presented (and that's exactly what it is, evidence) and decide whether they think Brand committed the acts he committed. Whether or not he ends up in prison is of absolutely no consequence. He clearly isn't being 'cancelled' because he has more followers than ever and they believe him, and he has a lot of very powerful people defending him. The 1984 reference is just, lol. Up there with Lawrence Fox quoting the 'first they came for the trade unionists' poem in relation to this affair. Trial by public opinion is all there is in cases like this, when the chance of getting a conviction is so low, and would come at huge personal cost to the women involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 17, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted September 17, 2023 4 minutes ago, El Segundo said: Well pretty much actual evidence is what I would consider sufficient. You've dismissed that so what do you suggest? Perhaps you could answer the question this time instead of deflecting it. What is your definition of actual evidence? We recently had another high profile rape case in the UK, which had even stronger evidence. Dismissed. Do you think it's unfair Mason Greenwood was shipped out to Spain if he's innocent by a legal definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 1 minute ago, bobzy said: Why do I need to answer? My opinion is that I find it galling people want hard evidence in rape cases. For some reason, you've challenged that so presumably disagree. @chrisp65 summarises nicely. Since you raised the point it would be interesting to know what alternative you would suggest that would ensure the accused gets a fair hearing. For example, if someone brought a groundless rape accusation against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 Just now, El Segundo said: Since you raised the point it would be interesting to know what alternative you would suggest that would ensure the accused gets a fair hearing. For example, if someone brought a groundless rape accusation against you. No, no. You challenged my opinion and can go first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 13 minutes ago, El Segundo said: I haven't claimed that though have I? Whereas you have just clearly claimed I've said he's not guilty, and that I 've announced there are no other critical thinkers on the thread apart from me. Neither of those are true, are they, as you well know. I repeat, my view is that I do not think I know enough with any certainty to say whether he is guilty or not, and I don't believe in trial by public opinion, rumour, accusation etc., let alone condemnation. I think some on this thread seem quite happy to do just that. It's a very slippery slope towards a very undesirable state of affairs. See 1984. Bet you were fuming about the #metoo movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: So if he's not guilty by the law, because he isn't charged, then he's completely innocent. All this critical thinking just seems to be tangling yourself in knots. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term. It means nothing in the court of public opinion. Much like 'freedom of speech', it means legally. It doesn't mean freedom of speech with no consequence. People are entitled to view the evidence that's been presented (and that's exactly what it is, evidence) and decide whether they think Brand committed the acts he committed. Whether or not he ends up in prison is of absolutely no consequence. He clearly isn't being 'cancelled' because he has more followers than ever and they believe him, and he has a lot of very powerful people defending him. The 1984 reference is just, lol. Up there with Lawrence Fox quoting the 'first they came for the trade unionists' poem in relation to this affair. Trial by public opinion is all there is in cases like this, when the chance of getting a conviction is so low, and would come at huge personal cost to the women involved. Right so there's the nub of it, you are a proponent of trial and judgement by public opinion. AKA mob rule. LOL all you want but a reference to 1984 could hardly be more relevant. And again, where have I said he's innocent? You're arguing against something that isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 5 minutes ago, bobzy said: No, no. You challenged my opinion and can go first. I've already stated my opinion. Over to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 17, 2023 Author Share Posted September 17, 2023 (edited) mod edit. Quoted Sweary tweet removed As someone who has sat on a jury of a trial of a very serious and violent sexual assault, and was part of a unanimous verdict of acquittal, for a defendant who everyone in the room was "pretty sure" was guilty, I'm confident that the reason cited isn't correct. It's because, as this thread proves, there is a big difference between "pretty sure" and the level of proof that the judge tells you in advance is required for conviction. Edited September 18, 2023 by blandy Quoted swearing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 3 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Bet you were fuming about the #metoo movement. Do you? How interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted September 17, 2023 Share Posted September 17, 2023 4 minutes ago, El Segundo said: I've already stated my opinion. Over to you. “Pretty much actual evidence”. Cracking stuff. Let’s end it - I doubt the Brand rape tapes will be released any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts