Jump to content

What's going on ?


Observer II

Recommended Posts

Seems trial by media gossip has supplanted trial by jury.  The latest frenzy over the Russel Brand allegations makes a mockery of any pretence of law and justice .   It's quite simple imo, if someone is raped, they report it immediately to the Police, who will investigate and if there is a case to answer, take it to a court of law.  But what we seem to have now, are allegations via the media, that go back years, and builds into pile ons, as others add their allegations. So much so, that the alleged perp can be cancelled, without any forensic investigation, just gossip.  😠

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in law it is innocent until proven guilty.

in social media it is guilty until proven innocent based on the old phrase, "there is no smoke without fire"

people will readily believe what they see on social media despite it being totally opposite of what is actually true.

This jumping on the band wagon is not new, look how many people came out of the woodwork when the revelations over certain 'celebrities' were announced. ok those were substantiated and verified but some went back twenty odd years or more in some cases.

sadly social media is seen as a place to air ones 'revelations' without reference to any physical proof other than i said so.

if it turns out that there is no case to answer then the person has a great chance of pursuing monetary reparation with regards to casting a slur on their character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me Sid, is this time lag, between the alleged offence and the revelation,  which imo amounts to a form of blackmail or opportune revenge.  If a crime is committed, it should be reported to the Police immediately, not ten years later when the alleged perp is more famous and wealthy, and thus able to pay substantial compen.    😠

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not to mention the money for selling the story to the media and subsequent guest appearances on various shows.

a lot of these allegations seem to come from a long time back.

i am not saying they should not be investigated but it should be done without any publicity to avoid conviction by the media.

if the so called victim does release details in the public domain then the case should be thrown out of court or never come to court as a fair trial would not be possible.

the Americans have a statute of limitations on certain crimes usually so many years and the offense is 'written'' off' and the offender cannot then be tried for that particular crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should have something similar here. If an event happened where the victim didn’t want to press charges for whatever reason then that should be the end of it. Claiming something happened years later when the alleged has gained fame or fortune is clearly just an attempt to extract money and should be an offence in itself.

Bloomin good job I never got rich or famous 😉 😊 😊

 

Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole legal set up needs revisiting imo,  anonimity should apply to all parties up to a conviction, any allegations that not proven in court should result in perjury charges, any action against a suspect by other bodies (eg Youtube v Brand) should be outlawed, to stop this "cancelling" nonsense. , and finally, a statute of limitations imposed on a range of alleged crimes.  I was listening to the excuses for not reporting rape to the Police and subsequent court case; and it seems women claim the process is like experiencing the crime all over again.   Well sorry ladies, but in order to establish the truth DNA evidence will be required and individuals cross-examined.  Sometimes seeking justice can be a painfull experience, but the only place for it imo, is in a court of law.   😠

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems the Brand saga has taken a sinister turn. The Tory Chair of the telecom cttee has written to various platforms to try a get Brand de-platformed. Youtube gave in, but Rumble replied with an admirable defence of free speech, and it's share price has suffered as a result.  But the Tory Chair has recently shepherded an online safety bill through the commons, which will allow Gov to censor online expression.  Now the sinister aspect to this, is the fact that her husband is second in command of the Army Intelligence Unit, responsible for information warfare, responsible for creating a Gov narrative, as used in Ukraine to-date.  This shows the direction of travel of propaganda and thought control we are being subjected to, where anyone with an independent view can be cancelled.   💀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2023 at 10:34 AM, Observer II said:

Seems trial by media gossip has supplanted trial by jury.  The latest frenzy over the Russel Brand allegations makes a mockery of any pretence of law and justice .   It's quite simple imo, if someone is raped, they report it immediately to the Police, who will investigate and if there is a case to answer, take it to a court of law.  But what we seem to have now, are allegations via the media, that go back years, and builds into pile ons, as others add their allegations. So much so, that the alleged perp can be cancelled, without any forensic investigation, just gossip.  😠

This is truly a bad day for the Forum, I find myself agreeing with Obs, call me old fashioned, but I still hold with innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not the age that is the issue but the age difference according to some.

it has been put forward that two sixteen year olds with consent is "fine". a sixteen year old and somebody up to the age of eighteen is "fine". the reasoning being that they are of a similar age group and "maturity".

the big problem is that brand's past behaviour has done him no favours when it comes to this sort of allegation and people are willing to believe whatever rumour is banded about true or not about him. being in the public eye makes him an easy target for this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite my point Sid - I'm alluding to the whole question of age qualification for maturity.  Whilst accepting that everyone differs, the science suggests on average that the brain doesn't fully develop till age 25,  and I think at age 16 naivity and susceptibility, can present risks, which have been demonstrated by the various grooming incidents recently.  My point is, if 16 makes youngsters at risk to grooming,  it also includes grooming by political parties.  With differing legal age qualifications for various activities, it would seem sensible to settle on a qualifying age for adulthood applied across the board, ie: 18.    :unsure:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The age verification thing isn't real of course, it is just to stop shoppers biting a assistants heads off. You can always have sport by asking them whether they are over 18 and legally able to serve you if they take the mick. Unlike the the states where they take is all way too seriously, remember being asked for age ID in a restaurant in Virginia when I was 60 by a young waitress!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can work the other way round of course if your unfortunate enough to look as old and grumpy as me. For many years before I retired I was often asked if I qualified for pensioner rates. A quick look in the mirror though and that explained everything. 😊

 

Bill 😊

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...