Grooming and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old, raping businesswoman in his LA home, and pestering a model for sex: All the allegations facing Russell Brand as up to nine women come forward accusing him of abusive and predatory behaviour
Comedian and actor Russell Brand is facing a litany of allegations including rape and sexual assault against up to nine different women who have accused him of abusive and predatory behaviour.
Ex-model tells how Russell Brand 'stalked her through London streets demanding sex after they met in a bar forcing her to RUN to flee his advances'
Revealing the distressing incident that took place in 2005, the woman claimed Brand followed five paces behind her for what 'felt like a lifetime' and shouted to her: 'Let's just f*** right here'.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
I think that far more than 2% of cases should result in proceedings being brought. Given the enormously high bar to bring proceedings, I think that far more than 30% of those cases should lead to convictions. I think that far more than 0.7% of reported rapes (never mind all the unreported ones) should lead to convictions. I think it would be better if we lived in your World.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
I think that far more than 2% of cases should result in proceedings being brought. Given the enormously high bar to bring proceedings, I think that far more than 30% of those cases should lead to convictions. I think that far more than 0.7% of reported rapes (never mind all the unreported ones) should lead to convictions. I think it would be better if we lived in your World.
Unfortunately, I know we do not.
Me too. We will have to wait and see. Number of victims is increasing. Dont be lecturing me about sarcasm.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
AND that's the problem in cases like this. there has been so much reported that any jury will already have a bias one way or the other. Sensationalism is not in the public interest because it it creates a situation where our natural disposition towards a person is reinforced one way or another BEFORE a single presentation of evidence to those 12 men and women who are the "God's of Guilt".
Defence Counsel could almost have a reasonable appeal filed before opening statements.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
AND that's the problem in cases like this. there has been so much reported that any jury will already have a bias one way or the other. Sensationalism is not in the public interest because it it creates a situation where our natural disposition towards a person is reinforced one way or another BEFORE a single presentation of evidence to those 12 men and women who are the "God's of Guilt".
Defence Counsel could almost have a reasonable appeal filed before opening statements.
I dont dispute that. My opinion of him was swayed by the documentary. Although I wasnt keen on him before watching it. Phil is arguing that there is a less chance of a charge or a conviction because of the time lapse. I think that the time lapse is a disadvantage, but not impossible to overcome. There are many reasons why teenagers dont report sexual abuse, and some incidents were reported. I think the police will be under pressure. I would be happy to see him convicted. We will have to wait and see.
I think he is sick. Watching him joke about choking women with his d1ck, and getting their mascara to run, turned my stomach. I wonder if any of the audience would have laughed had they known that he wasnt joking about this, it was true, that derived great pleasure from it, and that he specialised in 16 year old girls, that were told to masquerade as his Goddaughter, or Niece. Sick.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
AND that's the problem in cases like this. there has been so much reported that any jury will already have a bias one way or the other. Sensationalism is not in the public interest because it it creates a situation where our natural disposition towards a person is reinforced one way or another BEFORE a single presentation of evidence to those 12 men and women who are the "God's of Guilt".
Defence Counsel could almost have a reasonable appeal filed before opening statements.
I dont dispute that. My opinion of him was swayed by the documentary. Although I wasnt keen on him before watching it. Phil is arguing that there is a less chance of a charge or a conviction because of the time lapse. I think that the time lapse is a disadvantage, but not impossible to overcome. There are many reasons why teenagers dont report sexual abuse, and some incidents were reported. I think the police will be under pressure. I would be happy to see him convicted. We will have to wait and see.
I think he is sick. Watching him joke about choking women with his d1ck, and getting their mascara to run, turned my stomach. I wonder if any of the audience would have laughed had they known that he wasnt joking about this, it was true, that derived great pleasure from it, and that he specialised in 16 year old girls, that were told to masquerade as his Goddaughter, or Niece. Sick.
You are correct, but 16 IS NOT illegal, so as far as the sexual assault goes it's a case of he said, she said. Same with the rape allegation. The problem now is proving that consent wasn't given, Brand doesn't have to prove it was.
This has all the markings of sowing the field in order to reap the rewards of a civil lawsuit.
I have a question and it's actually a serious one. why did none of the women he choked with his d1ck bite down. I'm serious about that, because that's game over right there, and before anybody says I'm being flippant, I'm pretty sure his defence will ask the same questions.
Oh and if you admit to being swayed by the documentary, surely that's proof that a fair and balanced trial should one occur is not possible.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
AND that's the problem in cases like this. there has been so much reported that any jury will already have a bias one way or the other. Sensationalism is not in the public interest because it it creates a situation where our natural disposition towards a person is reinforced one way or another BEFORE a single presentation of evidence to those 12 men and women who are the "God's of Guilt".
Defence Counsel could almost have a reasonable appeal filed before opening statements.
I dont dispute that. My opinion of him was swayed by the documentary. Although I wasnt keen on him before watching it. Phil is arguing that there is a less chance of a charge or a conviction because of the time lapse. I think that the time lapse is a disadvantage, but not impossible to overcome. There are many reasons why teenagers dont report sexual abuse, and some incidents were reported. I think the police will be under pressure. I would be happy to see him convicted. We will have to wait and see.
I think he is sick. Watching him joke about choking women with his d1ck, and getting their mascara to run, turned my stomach. I wonder if any of the audience would have laughed had they known that he wasnt joking about this, it was true, that derived great pleasure from it, and that he specialised in 16 year old girls, that were told to masquerade as his Goddaughter, or Niece. Sick.
You are correct, but 16 IS NOT illegal, so as far as the sexual assault goes it's a case of he said, she said. Same with the rape allegation. The problem now is proving that consent wasn't given, Brand doesn't have to prove it was.
This has all the markings of sowing the field in order to reap the rewards of a civil lawsuit.
I have a question and it's actually a serious one. why did none of the women he choked with his d1ck bite down. I'm serious about that, because that's game over right there, and before anybody says I'm being flippant, I'm pretty sure his defence will ask the same questions.
Oh and if you admit to being swayed by the documentary, surely that's proof that a fair and balanced trial should one occur is not possible.
I am not certain about the fair trial aspect. The documentary, plus the media coverage is unlikely to be in his favour. Although the other thing to bear in mind is that he does have a lot of fans, some of whom are currently sticking up for him. I think it difficult to predict what will happen. The media coverage doesnt look like it is about to die down anytime soon. As an unbiased observer I would be happy to see him charged, convicted, jailed, and skint. I am sure he would be quite popular in prison. Maybe some of the prisoners may wish to see how he copes with a similar bit of choking.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
AND that's the problem in cases like this. there has been so much reported that any jury will already have a bias one way or the other. Sensationalism is not in the public interest because it it creates a situation where our natural disposition towards a person is reinforced one way or another BEFORE a single presentation of evidence to those 12 men and women who are the "God's of Guilt".
Defence Counsel could almost have a reasonable appeal filed before opening statements.
I dont dispute that. My opinion of him was swayed by the documentary. Although I wasnt keen on him before watching it. Phil is arguing that there is a less chance of a charge or a conviction because of the time lapse. I think that the time lapse is a disadvantage, but not impossible to overcome. There are many reasons why teenagers dont report sexual abuse, and some incidents were reported. I think the police will be under pressure. I would be happy to see him convicted. We will have to wait and see.
I think he is sick. Watching him joke about choking women with his d1ck, and getting their mascara to run, turned my stomach. I wonder if any of the audience would have laughed had they known that he wasnt joking about this, it was true, that derived great pleasure from it, and that he specialised in 16 year old girls, that were told to masquerade as his Goddaughter, or Niece. Sick.
You are correct, but 16 IS NOT illegal, so as far as the sexual assault goes it's a case of he said, she said. Same with the rape allegation. The problem now is proving that consent wasn't given, Brand doesn't have to prove it was.
This has all the markings of sowing the field in order to reap the rewards of a civil lawsuit.
I have a question and it's actually a serious one. why did none of the women he choked with his d1ck bite down. I'm serious about that, because that's game over right there, and before anybody says I'm being flippant, I'm pretty sure his defence will ask the same questions.
Oh and if you admit to being swayed by the documentary, surely that's proof that a fair and balanced trial should one occur is not possible.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
AND that's the problem in cases like this. there has been so much reported that any jury will already have a bias one way or the other. Sensationalism is not in the public interest because it it creates a situation where our natural disposition towards a person is reinforced one way or another BEFORE a single presentation of evidence to those 12 men and women who are the "God's of Guilt".
Defence Counsel could almost have a reasonable appeal filed before opening statements.
I dont dispute that. My opinion of him was swayed by the documentary. Although I wasnt keen on him before watching it. Phil is arguing that there is a less chance of a charge or a conviction because of the time lapse. I think that the time lapse is a disadvantage, but not impossible to overcome. There are many reasons why teenagers dont report sexual abuse, and some incidents were reported. I think the police will be under pressure. I would be happy to see him convicted. We will have to wait and see.
I think he is sick. Watching him joke about choking women with his d1ck, and getting their mascara to run, turned my stomach. I wonder if any of the audience would have laughed had they known that he wasnt joking about this, it was true, that derived great pleasure from it, and that he specialised in 16 year old girls, that were told to masquerade as his Goddaughter, or Niece. Sick.
You are correct, but 16 IS NOT illegal, so as far as the sexual assault goes it's a case of he said, she said. Same with the rape allegation. The problem now is proving that consent wasn't given, Brand doesn't have to prove it was.
This has all the markings of sowing the field in order to reap the rewards of a civil lawsuit.
I have a question and it's actually a serious one. why did none of the women he choked with his d1ck bite down. I'm serious about that, because that's game over right there, and before anybody says I'm being flippant, I'm pretty sure his defence will ask the same questions.
Oh and if you admit to being swayed by the documentary, surely that's proof that a fair and balanced trial should one occur is not possible.
Woman who claims she was sexually assaulted by Russell Brand was gagged by courts
Over the course of his career, Brand has been the subject of frequent media coverage and controversy for issues such as his promiscuity, drug use, political views, provocative behaviour at various award ceremonies, his dismissal from MTV and resignation from the BBC
So I guess this explains a few things ok he probably is guilty. I mean its part of the course there.
In the UK, there is no legal time limit on bringing Criminal cases. It's just that the evidential burden makes it ever less likely. Reckon a 20-yr-old claim with no obvious reason for the delay is likely to end with a conviction?
Civil claims is where the victims get money. Where Lawyers make serious money. And certain American Lawyers may make very serious money.
I am not sure you can say that either. I think the authorities will decide on whether to charge or not, on the merits of each particular case. And juries are likely to convict or not based on the weight of evidence.
Of course I can. Simply because that is the reality.
About 67,000 rapes were recorded by the police on England and Wales last year. There were 1,276 Rape Charges brought last year. And, in 2021, there were 467 convictions.
Do you think the "merits of the particular case" don't include the enormous delay in collating evidence? It is central to both "merits" and "weight of evidence".
Unless, of course, you think proving something "beyond reasonable doubt" (the Criminal Standard of proof) as opposed to "more likely than not" (the Civil Standard) is simple?
I think that juries will convict based on the weight of evidence, rather than how old the case is. I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
I think that far more than 2% of cases should result in proceedings being brought. Given the enormously high bar to bring proceedings, I think that far more than 30% of those cases should lead to convictions. I think that far more than 0.7% of reported rapes (never mind all the unreported ones) should lead to convictions. I think it would be better if we lived in your World.
Unfortunately, I know we do not.
Me too. We will have to wait and see. Number of victims is increasing. Dont be lecturing me about sarcasm.
I watched the documentary tonight. It seems clear he crossed the line with a number of women as a result of some kind of complex personality disorder.
It wouldn't surprise me if he's slept with 10,000 women, so the number who will come forward will be huge. A lot of the younger people at work who lived in London 10+ years ago all know somebody who has slept with him.
So I have not got round to watching the documentary and likely wont for a week or so i got a phone call on monday just before work to book in an ultra sound for my live for tuesday first thing so had to wake up early on tuesday after two long 12 hour shifts in a row. I mean I am talking about 7 am early thats like 2/3 hours after I go to bed early so I spent yesterday in and out sleep throughout the day. today is cleaning day and then go up to girlfriends folks for a while then come back and work for 2 12 hour shifts again.
However I don't think I need to watch the documentary really see now this will sound controversial but hear me out. Firstly I want to say if he is guilty Hang him, if he isn't then he has been hard done by. Do I think he is a good person no not really.
Now that I have that disclaimer out the way ultimately whether he is or is not guilty is irrelevant. Had he kept his head down and not commented on the corruption of rich and powerful people like bill gates and the government and moderna none of this would have happened. the accusations were old and were buried. He spoke out against the wrong people they are now out everywhere.
Do you really think these rich and powerful corrupt elites care either way if he is guilty or not or if he goes down or not regardless of whether he is guilty? lets be clear he is been sentenced for speaking out against the wrong people not the alleged rape.
does that mean he is innocent? no of course not nor does it mean he is guilty. If they actually have dirt on him to get rid of him why make stuff up why not just use what is out there? I mean for Alex Jones they had a lot of actual dirt on him so did not need to make stuff up. Did Alex Jones deserve his fate? yes absolutely. However he only got this because amongst all his nonsense stuff he actually pointed out genuine corrupt stuff related to Saudi Arabia had he never done that he never would have had any issues or been taken out. Same for Russel Brand, Russel Brand i get the impression is guilty and should hang for it if he is. However he is been hanged for speaking out not for rape.
there are numerous cases of people who were proven innocent in the end who had their lives and more importantly their platforms taken down for speaking out.
“Christ, I’m going to need people to defend me on social media when this comes out, I better shift a bit to the right, as they LOVE a nonce and will publicly defend me when needed"
I havent watched it yet, there are dramatic stories in tomorrows papers.
On Twitter last night, Lawrence Fox (King of the conspiracy theorists) was defending him. When the only ones defending you are nutjob conspiracy theorists, you are in serious trouble.
I strongly suggest you watch the programme. It's astounding.
Comments
Comedian and actor Russell Brand is facing a litany of allegations including rape and sexual assault against up to nine different women who have accused him of abusive and predatory behaviour.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12534701/Grooming-sexually-assaulting-raping-LA-sex-allegations-Russell-Brand-women-abusive-predatory-behaviour.html
Ex-model tells how Russell Brand 'stalked her through London streets demanding sex after they met in a bar forcing her to RUN to flee his advances'
Revealing the distressing incident that took place in 2005, the woman claimed Brand followed five paces behind her for what 'felt like a lifetime' and shouted to her: 'Let's just f*** right here'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12533551/Ex-model-tells-Russell-Brand-stalked-London-streets-demanding-sex-met-bar-forcing-RUN-flee-advances-Woman-report-incident-police-C4-insiders-say-Big-Brother-bosses-knew-predator.html
I think in many rape cases this will depend on who they believe.
Given the enormously high bar to bring proceedings, I think that far more than 30% of those cases should lead to convictions.
I think that far more than 0.7% of reported rapes (never mind all the unreported ones) should lead to convictions.
I think it would be better if we lived in your World.
Unfortunately, I know we do not.
We will have to wait and see.
Number of victims is increasing.
Dont be lecturing me about sarcasm.
AND that's the problem in cases like this. there has been so much reported that any jury will already have a bias one way or the other. Sensationalism is not in the public interest because it it creates a situation where our natural disposition towards a person is reinforced one way or another BEFORE a single presentation of evidence to those 12 men and women who are the "God's of Guilt".
Defence Counsel could almost have a reasonable appeal filed before opening statements.
My opinion of him was swayed by the documentary.
Although I wasnt keen on him before watching it.
Phil is arguing that there is a less chance of a charge or a conviction because of the time lapse.
I think that the time lapse is a disadvantage, but not impossible to overcome.
There are many reasons why teenagers dont report sexual abuse, and some incidents were reported.
I think the police will be under pressure.
I would be happy to see him convicted.
We will have to wait and see.
I think he is sick.
Watching him joke about choking women with his d1ck, and getting their mascara to run, turned my stomach.
I wonder if any of the audience would have laughed had they known that he wasnt joking about this, it was true, that derived great pleasure from it, and that he specialised in 16 year old girls, that were told to masquerade as his Goddaughter, or Niece.
Sick.
This has all the markings of sowing the field in order to reap the rewards of a civil lawsuit.
I have a question and it's actually a serious one. why did none of the women he choked with his d1ck bite down. I'm serious about that, because that's game over right there, and before anybody says I'm being flippant, I'm pretty sure his defence will ask the same questions.
Oh and if you admit to being swayed by the documentary, surely that's proof that a fair and balanced trial should one occur is not possible.
The documentary, plus the media coverage is unlikely to be in his favour.
Although the other thing to bear in mind is that he does have a lot of fans, some of whom are currently sticking up for him.
I think it difficult to predict what will happen.
The media coverage doesnt look like it is about to die down anytime soon.
As an unbiased observer I would be happy to see him charged, convicted, jailed, and skint.
I am sure he would be quite popular in prison.
Maybe some of the prisoners may wish to see how he copes with a similar bit of choking.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/woman-claims-she-sexually-assaulted-205523471.html
So I guess this explains a few things ok he probably is guilty. I mean its part of the course there.
It wouldn't surprise me if he's slept with 10,000 women, so the number who will come forward will be huge. A lot of the younger people at work who lived in London 10+ years ago all know somebody who has slept with him.
However I don't think I need to watch the documentary really see now this will sound controversial but hear me out.
Firstly I want to say if he is guilty Hang him, if he isn't then he has been hard done by. Do I think he is a good person no not really.
Now that I have that disclaimer out the way ultimately whether he is or is not guilty is irrelevant. Had he kept his head down and not commented on the corruption of rich and powerful people like bill gates and the government and moderna none of this would have happened. the accusations were old and were buried. He spoke out against the wrong people they are now out everywhere.
Do you really think these rich and powerful corrupt elites care either way if he is guilty or not or if he goes down or not regardless of whether he is guilty? lets be clear he is been sentenced for speaking out against the wrong people not the alleged rape.
does that mean he is innocent? no of course not nor does it mean he is guilty. If they actually have dirt on him to get rid of him why make stuff up why not just use what is out there? I mean for Alex Jones they had a lot of actual dirt on him so did not need to make stuff up. Did Alex Jones deserve his fate? yes absolutely. However he only got this because amongst all his nonsense stuff he actually pointed out genuine corrupt stuff related to Saudi Arabia had he never done that he never would have had any issues or been taken out. Same for Russel Brand, Russel Brand i get the impression is guilty and should hang for it if he is. However he is been hanged for speaking out not for rape.
there are numerous cases of people who were proven innocent in the end who had their lives and more importantly their platforms taken down for speaking out.
the Lesson is simple dont speak out.
“Christ, I’m going to need people to defend me on social media when this comes out, I better shift a bit to the right, as they LOVE a nonce and will publicly defend me when needed"