Russell Brand charged with rape and sexual assault

[Doc Holliday]

Yes it's a witch hunt, even Stevie Wonder can see it.

Any chance you could answer my full question?

So it's a witch-hunt then and he didn't rape anyone and shouldn't be prosecuted?

[Jerboa]

Any chance you could answer my full question?

I very much doubt he's raped anyone, he was a egotistical wanker, but I see the allegations as pure lawfare.

[Doc Holliday]

I very much doubt he's raped anyone, he was a egotistical wanker, but I see the allegations as pure lawfare.

Thanks for clarifying your opinion about him. He has accusers and lawfare or not, it is for court to decide.

Only a very small percentage of reported rape/sexual assaults reach court, maybe around just 5%. Most cases are not even reported.

So for it to get that far the prosecution must feel the case is strong enough. Of those cases which do get to court, around 60% are found guilty. They are difficult cases and not best suited to anyone with a lawfare motive. There are often better legal options to pursue.

[Jerboa]

Thanks for clarifying your opinion about him. He has accusers and lawfare or not, it is for court to decide.

Only a very small percentage of reported rape/sexual assaults reach court, maybe around just 5%. Most cases are not even reported.

So for it to get that far the prosecution must feel the case is strong enough. Of those cases which do get to court, around 60% are found guilty. They are difficult cases and not best suited to anyone with a lawfare motive. There are often better legal options to pursue.

Yes percentages of rape cases prosecuted are small, but my argument is that the CPS is not neutral, but a politicised weapon that is wielded against the states enemies, at the time and place of their masters choosing.

[timsussex]

Thanks for clarifying your opinion about him. He has accusers and lawfare or not, it is for court to decide.

Only a very small percentage of reported rape/sexual assaults reach court, maybe around just 5%. Most cases are not even reported.

So for it to get that far the prosecution must feel the case is strong enough. Of those cases which do get to court, around 60% are found guilty. They are difficult cases and not best suited to anyone with a lawfare motive. There are often better legal options to pursue.

or the prosecution fancy getting their name attached to a big case ?

I suspect that the figure of 5% might be different for shall we say "B listers  and some A listers " or for those that we (and most Plod are human) feel intuitively are wrong-uns

and of course The A*  including princes (at the time ) get away with a lot more

[DastardlyDick]

Yes percentages of rape cases prosecuted are small, but my argument is that the CPS is not neutral, but a politicised weapon that is wielded against the states enemies, at the time and place of their masters choosing.

I don't think Russell Brand has or will attain "enemy of the state" status. He was a celebrity at the time, now he's a A listed separately trying to maintain his place on the celebrity gravy train by being vocal about certain issues.

[Doc Holliday]

or the prosecution fancy getting their name attached to a big case ?

I suspect that the figure of 5% might be different for shall we say "B listers  and some A listers " or for those that we (and most Plod are human) feel intuitively are wrong-uns

and of course The A*  including princes (at the time ) get away with a lot more

There is of course a valid discussion around that, but my main point is that they are difficult cases to successfully prosecute if evidence is lacking and it becomes largely 'he said she said'.

If the accused is an an average Joe Bloggs they are unlikely to be able to engage the calibre of defence barrister that an A lister can. This reduces even further the chances of a conviction of those who have money.

Whether CPS has ulterior motives or not they won't take a sexual offences case to court as first choice. If you have someone in your sights you are best to choose your battle and find some other misdemeanour to prosecute them with.

That said if it does come down to who a jury believes then Brand is at a disadvantage being an obnoxious prat.

We will of course find out in due course.

[webpunter]

If its one or two women it can be she said he said
Doubt it would even make it to Court
Its not its 6 women over a 10 year period
And the testimonies have a consistency to them
His admission to his flat mate doesn't help him
He's shagged loads of women & most will be consensual
Whats coming out IMO but the tip of the iceberg
He said he's crossed the line
He's not got a scooby that a line exists
Lets see what his defence comes up with
& the trauma that the women giving evidence will face under cross examination 
It will be like they are living it all again
I'm 110% sure that its never left them 

[webpunter]

@DH i had the post in draft
Overlooked posting
She said he said we are on the same page

[timsussex]

I do wonder, in the current climate, if just about anyone who has shagged as many women as he is alleged (or claims) could not find a few prepared to claim rape especially given his fame. And as he is, as DH put so eloquently, such an obnoxious prat, not too difficult to find a jury to convict

To be clear I expect and hope he will be found guilty but I will count it as a triumph for our system if gets off  - proving even he can get a fair trial   

ps
On the other hand perhaps proof that money buys good lawyers 

[bigden40]

Separately from Brand, I read that a “well-known” individual is seeking a High Court injunction to stop ITN, and The Guardian from naming him and publishing serious claims about his conduct over several years, including sexual misconduct.

External Link/Members Only

I tried google search to work out who this was but computer said no.

[RedKettle]

I don't think Russell Brand has or will attain "enemy of the state" status. He was a celebrity at the time, now he's a A listed separately trying to maintain his place on the celebrity gravy train by being vocal about certain issues.

enemy of the state for Brand is a ridiculous claim.  If we called every nutter making stupid claims on the internet just to promote their own ego and/or earning power we would have millions of them, including a few members on here posting bollocks on political and other threads.

[webpunter]

Separately from Brand, I read that a “well-known” individual is seeking a High Court injunction to stop ITN, and The Guardian from naming him and publishing serious claims about his conduct over several years, including sexual misconduct.

External Link/Members Only

I tried google search to work out who this was but computer said no.

External Link/Members Only

Lawyers tell high court that client could harm himself if serious allegations against him are made public

This approach being accepted would set a very very bad precedent
Oooh i might top myself
Well do us all a favour try a bit harder next time
But only after you've been put before a Court & if found guilty in addition to being banged up those affected can sue & hopefully bankrupt whoever it is

My computer says yes
Credit to our besties looks like they've nailed it 
Providing this link
External Link/Members Only
Paragraph 2
& for once i agree with our besties well those posting take on the matter

The efforts to continue the indefinite injunction will be in the bin next couple of days
In the public domain
& making the individual look even more guilty than he already does

Clue for you = Little Britain

[webpunter]

@bd40
The penny has dropped
I owe you an apology
Very subtle & very klevva 

[DastardlyDick]

External Link/Members Only

Lawyers tell high court that client could harm himself if serious allegations against him are made public

This approach being accepted would set a very very bad precedent
Oooh i might top myself
Well do us all a favour try a bit harder next time
But only after you've been put before a Court & if found guilty in addition to being banged up those affected can sue & hopefully bankrupt whoever it is

My computer says yes
Credit to our besties looks like they've nailed it 
Providing this link
External Link/Members Only
Paragraph 2
& for once i agree with our besties well those posting take on the matter

The efforts to continue the indefinite injunction will be in the bin next couple of days
In the public domain
& making the individual look even more guilty than he already does

Clue for you = Little Britain

I wonder what a holding company has been up to for a "celebrity" to seek a permanent injunction against being associated with them? 

[myothernameis]

Separately from Brand, I read that a “well-known” individual is seeking a High Court injunction to stop ITN, and The Guardian from naming him and publishing serious claims about his conduct over several years, including sexual misconduct.

I tried google search to work out who this was but computer said no.

Funny thing is injunctions only work in the UK, so how will the perp stop his name coming out in European newspapers

[webpunter]

Funny thing is injunctions only work in the UK, so how will the perp stop his name coming out in European newspapers

It might take them a day or so to pick up on it give it the once over & then publish
Brand could have a temporary respite from the front pages when it breaks here, pages 2, 3 etc