Police have got more allegations,

They are at last investigating past
sex offences.

Not all were Consensual

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66918331

Of course

Going off topic for a second, but why was Gregg struggling mentally on SCD? It's only a silly Dancing contest.

He found it
that hard

World boxing champ Glenn McCrory, 59, is CLEARED of sexual assault charges
brought by waitresses after court ruled he used the word 'pet' as a 'term of
endearment' and 'was not flirting when he touched their elbow'

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/09...5920406621.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aitresses.html

:whistle:

Mate how can you compare.

McCrory literally did call her pet and touch her elbow, he never disputed that. But harmless actions being harmless aren't the same as actual assault.

why did he get to court?

And yet they are letting rapist’s off with a warning if they apologise to the victim.

Waiting with baited breath for the explanation of how this has anything to do with Russell Brand.

Touching an elbow/rape, what's the difference TS? :shrug:

It went to court so that they could decide if the undisputed facts constituted a criminal offence; they decided that it was not.

Which is a completely different scenario to gathering evidence to take a disputed described series of events to trial, which requires sufficient corroborating evidence.

You don't need to gather any more evidence when the series of events isn't in dispute? He had said, "yes those things happened". The case was only to decide if that was over the threshold of being an assault.

It's just bizarre because you can't even take it as a "look, this guy was cleared sometimes women LIE!" because that's not even what went on here... it's not been disputed that what they said was true :think:. He just wasn't found guilty of any actual crime. It doesn't relate to the accusations against Brand even vaguely...

the issue in that case was the prosecution service deciding to take it to trial when violent rapists are walking free on a regular basis

What it shows is how pathetic the system is
Would this man went to court if he was a regular bloke, hell no

The fact it was three waitresses that gave statements and the most serious was that he touched an elbow

It shows that that they can’t get thousands of rape victims justice by getting the scum bags in court but they can get a case to court when it’s someone famous

I have no real issue with the idea that establishment politicians are dodgy or that the media is manipulated but the idea that Trump represents a counter-narrative is absolutely ****ing unhinged. If you believe the overall narrative is true, the only reasonable conclusion is that Trump is part of it.

However: None of this has anything to do with Brand's sex crimes. Should be a separate thread LT.

Sky News Text :
[Metro leads on comedian Russell Brand
being questioned by police over
allegations of sex offences.]


https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/l...0c4b68308c.png

[Russell Brand has been questioned
by the Metropolitan Police in relation to
allegations of historical sex offences.

An investigation by the Sunday Times,
the Times and Channel 4's Dispatches revealed
allegations of rape, sexual assaults and
emotional abuse against
the British comedian and actor.

Brand has previously denied the claims.

The Met has confirmed that a man in his
40s attended a police station in south London
on 16 November, as first reported
by the Times newspaper.

The force said he was interviewed under caution
by detectives in relation to allegations
of "three non-recent sexual offences".

It said inquiries were continuing.]


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67469301

At this point five different claims doesn't look good for him.

But then I said this about Benjamin Mendy with 8 claims (I think it was) and he was cleared of them all, so I'm not sure anymore.:joker: