Grendel
Well-Known Member
I suppose playing devils advocate a bit I’m sure the programme will have been designed to avoid that being easy
John Leslie is an example of someone presumed guilty but never actually having been found guilty of anything
Russell Brand (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter napolimp
- Start date
I suppose playing devils advocate a bit I’m sure the programme will have been designed to avoid that being easy
John Leslie is an example of someone presumed guilty but never actually having been found guilty of anything
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ignoring the rape stuff for a minute. I don’t see how him as a well known star fucking a 16 was legal. He was in a position of trust over her arguably more so than a police officer or teacher in many ways. No one worries the pervy geography teacher will sue them into oblivion.
tisza
Well-Known Member
even if they do get "justice" under defamation process it can take a long time & court action. Cliff Richard springs to mind, years of rumours then the media articles and a hugely publicised raid on his house then 4/5 years of court action to get his name cleared and some financial compensation.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
There’s some claims of sexual indiscretion heading in his way so he’s preemptively sowing the seed that he’s the victim?
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
That both are now viewed as reprehensible after years of being silently 'tolerated'? I mean, the comparison would be trite but apt if so.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I suppose Michael Barrymore is also one(!)
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Which is a good point. Society for the most part has moved forward and for the most part no longer offers sexual offenders a hiding place. In the 70’s society turned such a blind eye to it that Iggy Pop could write and release a song about how he had sex with one of the so called Baby Groupies when she was 13 years old just to taunt the girls parents. It wasn’t just Iggy either, Bowie, most of Led Zeppelin, most of the Rolling Stones etc etc were all at it. In plain sight too and at no point did anyone say this is wrong. Society has moved on meaning that the perpetrators have got to be clandestine with their behaviour and if it does come out play the victim.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
I think most people would turn a blind eye even now. Surely some of the perpetrators need to be brought to book?
Do these people lock themselves away when one of their peers is called out?
Chris Evans went through a rough patch when he was ‘fingered’ for exposing himself at staff parties.
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
Surely you only need to see his whole demeanor to realize he has a few skeletons in his cupboard?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
We’re 2 weeks away from him claiming that reporting rape and sexual assault is ‘woke’
Alan Dugdales Moustache
Well-Known Member
I think Brand's moral compass points in the same direction as Jimmy Savile
JAM See
Well-Known Member
I think the 'Pound shop Enoch Powell' line is one of the greatest putdowns I've ever seen.
So disappointed that someone I admired in the day (and cards on the table, I did admire him) has turned out to be a wrong 'un.
(See also Morrissey, and no doubt countless others)
So disappointed that someone I admired in the day (and cards on the table, I did admire him) has turned out to be a wrong 'un.
(See also Morrissey, and no doubt countless others)
Last edited:
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
I would have a problem with the general age of consent, criminalising perfectly legitimate adolescent activity. I think the predation on under 18s by older people should not be limited to those in a position of power/responsibility as it is currently. But where to draw a hard and fast line is always going to be controversial.
My take on the Brand story is that once the story has been broken (by the Times and Dispatches), the profile has been raised, giving other people who may have been victims of Brand to come forward, either to the police or the media. What i find troubling is the subsequent onslaught of reporting of additional accusations (this morning on 5Live being just one example). This is the definition of "trial by media" and COULD lead to a defence of sub judice or at least an inability to recruit an unbiased jury.
I have never liked the bloke and have always thought he is a likely sex pest, but he deserves the right to a fair trial as much as anyone.
That is also my problem with the historic nature of many allegations. Yes, i understand that it takes a great deal of bravery and courage for a woman to come forward to make a complaint, but surely it is impossible for a defendant to be expected to have 20/20 recall of where they were, who they met, what they were doing 10+ years ago. Obviously, if you were raping someone in a hotel bedroom, or the swimming pool at your luxury villa in LA, you might have SOME recollection ...
Women don't come forward because of a lack of trust that the police will investigate their case properly. Only 1-2% of rape cases lead to a successful prosecution, but that may be because the trail of evidence has gone cold if left for too long. It's a vicious circle which is very difficult to break down, particularly when it is further fuelled by collapsed high-profile trials of public figures (were the allegations false and malicious, was there simply a lack of evidence, or did the defence barrister simply do a better job?).
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
You can leave school at 16, but you have to undergo formal training or education in some form until the age of 18 nowadays.Can you, or can you not leave school at 16 and work?
If you're going to argue, at least do it with the wrong I did get wrong as opposed to arguing against something which is correct.
Legal age of marriage in England and Wales rises to 18
Vulnerable children across England and Wales will be better protected from the damaging impact of forced marriage as the legal age of marriage rises to 18 in England and Wales.www.gov.uk
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Can you leave school at 16 and work? Yes is the answer
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Sorry if i have ignored intervening responses, but i'm just catching up on this thread.
Certainly under health & safety law (which i assume is consistent with other general Acts and Regulations), someone is a "Young Person" under the age of 18 and a "Child" below the age of 16. So a "Young Person who is not a Child" is aged 16 or 17 and still requires special provision to be made for their vulnerability.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Correct ... provided that you also carry on formal education or training.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Thankyou. Which was my point... days ago!
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Is it that the position of trust has to be a formal one? He has no duty of care towards someone unless he is their boss, i would have thought.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
(which i didn't see at the time - sorry!) ... however, they are still afforded additional protections in many areas of life, including the workplace, until 18.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah, you have to basically be responsible. Teacher, someone looking after them, etc, MP. I’d argue it should apply to anyone with significant social power and that would even extend to just a much older normal citizen. But then I’d raise the age to 18 all round anyway. I’d also make it 21 to be in porn.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
So between the BBC being told in 201 about him exposing himself, Katherine Ryan's Roast Battle attack on him, her comments in that interview, Fern Brady's Me Rapey Wape tweets and others it seems it was common knowledge a long time ago.
Plus as said a 31 year old man dating a 16 year child is also weird.
Plus as said a 31 year old man dating a 16 year child is also weird.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
When I was younger it wasn’t uncommon, looking back there were loads of wrong ‘uns about chasing girls from our wider group (we were going out to pubs at clubs from 14 though) but these guys knew how old they were.
Last edited:
That’s what the people would of said about the witches they hung
