Can the trust the Police ?



[Production runner, Rachel, 24, worked
alongside Brand on Big Brother's EFourum,
later Big Mouth.
Weeks after she started the role,
Brand is said to have focused his
attention on her.

Rachel said: 'It's difficult to say when
the line was crossed.
' She added that producers often asked
her to deliver unfavourable news
to Brand to 'soften the blow'.

She said the pair went on to have sex,
which he told her was a breach
of his contract.]


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ale-staff.html

Exactly, and it's not even hard to understand why it often doesn't get a conviction (and more often than not, not even charges that go to trial). How do you prove lack of consent? It is literally one person's account of events vs another. Believing that person is on a balance of probabilities, but the nature of a jury trial is that even if most of the jury believes the victim that's not enough to convict. "Doubt" doesn't mean thinking the victim is lying, it just means what it means. 90% sure that someone is telling the truth is still "doubt".

On top of that, I've seen notes from a case where the perpetrator had told witnesses (his own friends, who testified!) that he was going to rape someone before he did it, AND there were text messages from him to multiple people afterwards saying that he had committed a rape ... and the jury still returned a not guilty verdict.

I find the whole thing legitimately terrifying.

Unless there were witnesses they now have little chance in bringing this to court. Of course they should have gone to the Police at the time but thats easier said than done when you are young and intimidated and threatened by people like RB.
Doing this programme is the only justice they will get because he is now tarnished.
If he is not guilty of these things then it is utterly unfair and incriminating...however being the articulate, intimidating knob he is...it wouldnt surprise me if it was all true.

He has incriminated himself because he used the material in his 'comedy' shows,choking women during blow jobs, liking that it made them gag and their mascara run etc, of course you could argue the women took these situations from his shows to use it against him, but it is highly unlikely and either way he made fun of humiliating women during sex...so

Pretty sure it was the other way around ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The thing is, I found some of the worst of it to be his behaviour and pursuit in the first place of the young 16 year old girl - and most of it either wasn't actually illegal, or wouldn't be considered illegal (he'd argue he thought it was "consensual rough sex" which is again almost impossible to DISprove when it's a usually-willing sexual partner). He will have convinced her it was fine, maybe even said sorry later, the relationship probably continued... no way you could get a criminal conviction there.

But his treatment of that girl, a 16 year old kid, is absolutely hideous. It doesn't have to be criminal to be "criminal".

I can understand that as something like only 1% of rape prosecutions manage to get a guilty verdict ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cp...rand1.jpg.webp

Last night at Wembley.

No, apparently the Sunday paper went to them. That's what their own article says

I wonder what Katy Perry thinks?

And you don't give a stuff about men. Infact you hate them. You'd happily see an innocent person incarcerated just because they have a cock and balls and no other reason. Pure evil.

The Times reporter
speaking on Times Radio DAB & free online
they spoke to all these women
independently.

Bev Turner
is no longer on her own
as she is not good enough on her own.

Utter nonsense Alf, I just happen to think that your idea of "real men" (****ing demogogues like Trump and abusive sex trafficking losers like Andrew Tate) are not real men at all.

I thoguht I read that one of the accusers could prove she had recevied a rape kit. I would have thought there would also be a police report. IF there isnt then we have to ask why not?

I've not read much on the case but I'm already turned off by the 'mainsteam media are out to get him' narrative. Theres a certain level of self importance with this stance.

So they've been investigating him "for years", the "Most recent allegation is 10 years old" ... and yet "it's all been made up by the MSM because he's part of the counter-culture".

Something that he's only gained a following with in the last couple of years. How odd! The MSM was investigating allegations of sexual abuse by Brand, and had multiple women invent allegations against him, before he was even an "anti MSM voice"!

They're psychic :omgno:

MyStic Meg D: :omgno:



... Not even checking your own posts for internal inconsistencies at this point LT. Poor show. Poor, poor show. Alf behaviour that.

Rape kits are done by medical professionals in the NHS, the victim doesn't have to report to the police unless they want to, and the reasons "why not" should be obvious. Less than 1% conviction rate. And if you believe (like LT and co) that 99% of rape allegations are false ... well, I actually don't think for a second anyone actually believes that.

I did not post that Toby Young did and JP commentated. And i belive his point is why has it emerged now just as RB is exposing certain big Pharma and MSM relics

(oh and insulting members as you know isnt allowed)

This story is not going to touch the sides of the RB Brand, his followers will not be bothered by this at all, it will be business as usual, so the idea that the MSM will bring him down is just nonsense

I appreciate that less than 1% leads to a conviction but I'm thinking more of evidence that can be used against Brand. At the moment there doesnt seem to be much that can be used if there were court proceedings.

I work in a job where we attempt to prove coerscion, intimidation and controlling behaviour so I know how hard it is to prove. Many times we cannot prove anything and thus have to let the behaviour continue as we have to assume the parties have agreed to the behaviour. Brands comments about his own promicsuity and drug taking may be the things that can be used against him.

What are your feeling regarding any evidence that can be used against Brand?

No one actually believes that you repost tweets on here as anything other than a mouthpiece for a point you want to make yourself, I don't know why you're bothering to pretend otherwise, it's not even vaguely convincing and you're not a politician. You don't need plausible deniability on TiBB.

Why it's emerged now is far less relevant than the veracity of the claims. I have no issue at all with the idea that the media has been sitting on this and not bothered to unearth it until Brand became a "person of interest" for them. That's a totally separate issue and one that I'm absolutely open to.

My contention is in the idea that the claims are fabricated, made up, that no misconduct took place, or that it doesn't matter "cos they're out to get him". That it's all lies and a conspiracy. As I said even the stuff you're tweeting makes that entirely illogical -- because it means they started investigating him BEFORE he became an anti-MSM voice, and the women who have come forward "made stuff up about him" on instruction before there was ever any reason for him to be being "framed". It's illogical nonsense.

It can however be BOTH true that he is an abysmal sexual predator, and that they're outing him NOW (despite having known about it for years) as something targetted. It doesn't make what he did to those women any less serious, or any less important.

And yes the same goes for Tate, Trump, and whoever else. The spotlight ends up on them because of their rising profile. It doesn't mean that the grime that's illuminated wasn't already there.