Celebrity Scandals

[El Segundo]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

“Pretty much actual evidence”. Cracking stuff.

Let’s end it - I doubt the Brand rape tapes will be released any time soon. 

yep something that proves something - which is more than the "cracking stuff"  you have offered.  

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

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.

And you're a fan of a serial wrong'un getting away with no consequence (socially in this case) despite evidence demonstrating his wrong'un-ness because people won't press charges against him?

You act as if this isn't a 4 year long investigation, with hundreds of sources with zero evidence presented. If the choices are criminal investigation or no investigation, then why do we have the press at all? why is there any investigative journalism at all? Because according to you, independent investigative journalism, allowing people to make up their minds about a person is 1984-esque. 

Absolutely hilarious sorry. Please read the book before quoting it.

It references the state control over the population and over-surveillance. Ministry of Truth led by the government.

Brand here is absolutely the rich establishment **** over the plebs because he can. The fact that an independent investigation from two organisations (one left wing and one right wing) was allowed to happen, and then people are allowed to freely read/watch that investigation and make their end up shows that your 1984 comparison could not be further from the truth.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

yep something that proves something - which is more than the "cracking stuff"  you have offered.  

so once again, what level of evidence/what specific example of evidence would bring you to believe he's done something wrong here? 

[StefanAVFC]

10 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

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.

The second tweet states she had multiple witnesses.

[479Villan]

9 hours ago, El Segundo said:

yep something that proves something - which is more than the "cracking stuff"  you have offered.  

Do you have to see it snow to know that it did so?

Or if you went to bed at night with the ground clear, and woke up in the morning with the ground covered with the stuff, you'd be pretty confident that it snowed right?

That's "circumstantial" evidence. You can look at what people did at the time, and what they said, and rest quite confidently in what occurred based on that.

I'd say the media reports merit criminal investigations and based on what I've seen, a charge of some nature would be pretty warranted.

[DCJonah]

3 minutes ago, 479Villan said:

Do you have to see it snow to know that it did so?

 

Or if you went to bed at night with the ground clear, and woke up in the morning with the ground covered with the stuff, you'd be pretty confident that it snowed right?

 

That's "circumstantial" evidence. You can look at what people did at the time, and what they said, and rest quite confidently in what occurred based on that.

 

I'd say the media reports merit criminal investigations and based on what I've seen, a charge of some nature would be pretty warranted.

A bit of critical thinking maybe. 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, 479Villan said:

Do you have to see it snow to know that it did so?

 

Or if you went to bed at night with the ground clear, and woke up in the morning with the ground covered with the stuff, you'd be pretty confident that it snowed right?

 

That's "circumstantial" evidence. You can look at what people did at the time, and what they said, and rest quite confidently in what occurred based on that.

 

I'd say the media reports merit criminal investigations and based on what I've seen, a charge of some nature would be pretty warranted.

I would say fortunately (as much as it means obviously guilty get off) there needs to be somebody pressing charges for this to even go anywhere legally.

Unfortunately, in sex abuse, and a lot of abuse cases involving women, this doesn't happen, due to loyalty to the person who did it, not wanting to go public and ruin lives (theirs and his) or just fear.

Brand won't be charged with anything and therefore he'll be innocent in most people's eyes, despite the evidence showing some disturbing behaviour.

Mason Greenwood is a completely innocent man, and we heard him say "I don't give a **** what you want ... I'm going to **** you, you clearing in the woods ... I don't care if you want to have sex with me ... I asked you politely, and you wouldn't do it, so what else do you want me to do? Push me again one more time and watch what happens to you" on tape.

[479Villan]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I would say fortunately (as much as it means obviously guilty get off) there needs to be somebody pressing charges for this to even go anywhere legally.

Unfortunately, in sex abuse, and a lot of abuse cases involving women, this doesn't happen, due to loyalty to the person who did it, not wanting to go public and ruin lives (theirs and his) or just fear.

Brand won't be charged with anything and therefore he'll be innocent in most people's eyes, despite the evidence showing some disturbing behaviour.

Mason Greenwood is a completely innocent man, and we heard him say "I don't give a **** what you want ... I'm going to **** you, you clearing in the woods ... I don't care if you want to have sex with me ... I asked you politely, and you wouldn't do it, so what else do you want me to do? Push me again one more time and watch what happens to you" on tape.

I can assure you, having spent a decade prosecuting people for domestic crimes (not sexual assaults), that the reasons victims do not press charges are numerous, complicated, and quite often have nothing to do with whether a crime occurred or not (it most certainly did).

Going through the courts system as a victim of sexual assault is not a visit to the Good Times Factory. It is more akin to a slaughterhouse janitorial job: at the end of the day, you did a good thing, but the things you see, smell, hear, and do along that path are traumatizing.

Edited September 17, 2023 by 479Villan
Clarification of metaphor

[Stevo985]

I’m not a lawyer so can someone explain when 5 women coming forward, records of text messages, police reports, medical reports and witness/family corroboration stopped being counted as “actual evidence”

[El Segundo]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

And you're a fan of a serial wrong'un getting away with no consequence (socially in this case) despite evidence demonstrating his wrong'un-ness because people won't press charges against him?

You act as if this isn't a 4 year long investigation, with hundreds of sources with zero evidence presented. If the choices are criminal investigation or no investigation, then why do we have the press at all? why is there any investigative journalism at all? Because according to you, independent investigative journalism, allowing people to make up their minds about a person is 1984-esque. 

Absolutely hilarious sorry. Please read the book before quoting it.

It references the state control over the population and over-surveillance. Ministry of Truth led by the government.

Brand here is absolutely the rich establishment **** over the plebs because he can. The fact that an independent investigation from two organisations (one left wing and one right wing) was allowed to happen, and then people are allowed to freely read/watch that investigation and make their end up shows that your 1984 comparison could not be further from the truth.

Yet again you're claiming something I haven't said.  How many times? Where have I said I'm a fan of him getting away with it?  Or am I just guilty of it because you've accused me? Is that it? 

You may have missed the bit in 1984 where children make accusations against their parents, neighbour against neighbour,  accusing them of anti-party activity or rhetoric.  Where the accusation itself is enough for condemnation and punishment, no questions asked.  It's a complex and multi faceted piece, and FYI I've read it multiple times, studied it and written dissertations on it. So if you want a pissing competition about it, be my guest. 

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The second tweet states she had multiple witnesses.

I don't see how that means that her barrister is able to second-guess the motivations and thought-processes of jurors in other, unrelated trials with whom (s)he will not have spoken. 

[479Villan]

1 minute ago, El Segundo said:

've read it multiple times, studied it and written dissertations on it. So if you want a pissing competition about it, be my guest. 

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

FYI I've read it multiple times, studied it and written dissertations on it. So if you want a pissing competition about it, be my guest. 

**** me, all that time and effort to still completely not understand it. I feel for you mate, truly.

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, 479Villan said:

I can assure you, having spent a decade prosecuting people for domestic crimes (not sexual assaults), that the reasons victims do not press charges are numerous, complicated, and quite often have nothing to do with whether a crime occurred or not (it most certainly did).

Going through the courts system as a victim of sexual assault is not a visit to the Good Times Factory. It is more akin to a slaughterhouse janitorial job: at the end of the day, you did a good thing, but the things you see, smell, hear, and do along that path are traumatizing.

I'm agreeing with you. Which is why I can't subscribe to this 'if Brand did something wrong he'll face justice in the courts' mentality of some in this thread.

[El Segundo]

12 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

so once again, what level of evidence/what specific example of evidence would bring you to believe he's done something wrong here? 

 

13 minutes ago, 479Villan said:

Do you have to see it snow to know that it did so?

 

Or if you went to bed at night with the ground clear, and woke up in the morning with the ground covered with the stuff, you'd be pretty confident that it snowed right?

 

That's "circumstantial" evidence. You can look at what people did at the time, and what they said, and rest quite confidently in what occurred based on that.

 

I'd say the media reports merit criminal investigations and based on what I've seen, a charge of some nature would be pretty warranted.

Sorry but how does this analogy reflect the Brand situation? 

And again I've never said it doesn't merit criminal investigation, and potential charges, only that I don't believe there is sufficient evidence YET either way to say for certain whether he's committed a crime  or not.  

[El Segundo]

6 minutes ago, 479Villan said:

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Yes that makes perfect sense in this context.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, El Segundo said:

And again I've never said it doesn't merit criminal investigation, and potential charges, only that I don't believe there is sufficient evidence YET either way to say for certain whether he's committed a crime  or not.  

And I asked what evidence would be sufficient for you?

[StefanAVFC]

I must have missed the bit in 1984 where somebody accused of something could post his defence freely to millions on a platform where the billionaire owner supports him, get hundreds of millions of views on it, and make thousands in the process.

I must have also missed where this person doesn't have any consequence at all to the above arrangement based on this accusation.

Perhaps I should write a dissertation on it and I would understand it better.

Edited September 17, 2023 by StefanAVFC

[479Villan]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'm agreeing with you. Which is why I can't subscribe to this 'if Brand did something wrong he'll face justice in the courts' mentality of some in this thread.

I know you are, I was just adding onto the point based on what you brought up. Thanks!

[El Segundo]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

**** me, all that time and effort to still completely not understand it. I feel for you mate, truly.

OK.  Explain how I haven't understood it then.  Go on, educate me. Or are you simply resorting to insults now because you are running out of sensible arguments?