Off-topic discussion thread / moved as clogging other threads

im drinking kahlua!
 
You wouldn't make much of a lawyer. There is nothing in that text message exchange that is an admission of rape.

And nor would you. I mean, anyone reading it can see it's as near as an admission of rape you can get without actually saying it. Plus, there are medical records, the testimony of other victims, the testimony of multiple witnesses, multiple famous accusers who worked closely with Russell Brand. It all makes for a compelling case, and I can imagine that the Times and Channel 4 have had access to even more evidence, albeit not as strong, that they haven't presented in their reporting.

Like any large organisation, the Times, the Sunday Times and Channel 4 would have run all of this material and evidence by their own legal counsel as well as outside legal counsel, so I think it's safe to say that what they have reported is fairly strong, can be corroborated by evidence and other witnesses. They wouldn't have reported this, knowing there's potential for a libel/defamation case, without verifying the strength of the evidence first.
 
Last edited:
Germaine Greer put it very well I thought that so much of this 'me too' stuff is just people having 'bad sex' and then feeling unhappy after. The documentary had very much the feel of that. And that's why so few rape allegations even lead to criminal charges, let alone a conviction, because they relate to just that, 'bad sex'.
 
And nor would you. I mean, anyone reading it can see it's as near as an admission of rape you can get without actually saying it. Plus, there are medical records, the testimony of other victims, the testimony of multiple witnesses, multiple famous accusers who worked closely with Russell Brand. It all makes for a compelling case, and I can imagine that the Times and Channel 4 have had access to even more evidence, albeit not as strong, that they haven't presented in their reporting.
She said a lot of things, but the 'no means no' is the rape accusation that he did not deny, and he is apologizing, which means he knows he did something wrong. Also the part about no condom that she did not consent to, these all add up to some good evidence against him. He is not going to say 'yes, I raped you', but he should certainly be saying he did not, if he did not, when he is being outright accused. A lot of times it's what the person does not say that is the real evidence.
 
And nor would you. I mean, anyone reading it can see it's as near as an admission of rape you can get without actually saying it. Plus, there are medical records, the testimony of other victims, the testimony of multiple witnesses, multiple famous accusers who worked closely with Russell Brand. It all makes for a compelling case, and I can imagine that the Times and Channel 4 have had access to even more evidence, albeit not as strong, that they haven't presented in their reporting.
The text message exchange could be read in all sorts of ways. Brand apologises for being 'selfish'. The anonymous person says, no means no, and talks about getting tested. It could relate to all sorts of things.
 
The text message exchange could be read in all sorts of ways. Brand apologises for being 'selfish'. The anonymous person says, no means no, and talks about getting tested. It could relate to all sorts of things.
You seem biased in Brand’s favour to me.
 
Truthfully, I don't know enough about Savile except that Johnny Rotten outed it years before anything was done. Sounds like Weinstein and Spacey here? Both were sort of open secrets.
I'm not sure if this is available for you but there's a Netflix documentary, "Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story" which covers it in depth. In short, it was an open secret for decades that he was a rapist and paedophile - many, many people tried to report him and he was eventually questioned but most concerns were smothered because he was "in" with the highest levels of the BBC, NHS, Government, Royal Family.

He was bribing a network of police officers and other officials to protect him. Using his fame, he got jobs in hospitals as a "volunteer porter" with his own keys and his own room, then he raped patients with learning disabilities and even told staff that he abused corpses. Read this if you've got a strong stomach. He would go on TV shows and laugh about the allegations and say that he was "feared in every girls' school in the country" and that he did charity marathons because "when I die and I see Saint Peter at those gates and my list of bad deeds is read out, I'll have good deeds to balance it". The full truth only came out after the bastard was dead and the number of victims is estimated at 450 aged between 5 and 75.
 
The text message exchange could be read in all sorts of ways. Brand apologises for being 'selfish'. The anonymous person says, no means no, and talks about getting tested. It could relate to all sorts of things.

It can only be read as anything other than a near admission of rape (he apologised, so he knew he did something wrong) if you're going out of your way to an excuse a rapist.

Again, this isn't the only piece of evidence that has been presented, nor is "Nadia" the only victim/witness.
 
She said a lot of things, but the 'no means no' is the rape accusation that he did not deny, and he is apologizing, which means he knows he did something wrong. Also the part about no condom that she did not consent to, these all add up to some good evidence against him. He is not going to say 'yes, I raped you', but he should certainly be saying he did not, if he did not, when he is being outright accused. A lot of times it's what the person does not say that is the real evidence.
he's not exactly going to say "i did not rape you" if she didnt say "you raped me." and she didnt. a lot of the times it's what the person does not say that is the real evidence.

no wonder you're a bargain bin lawyer.
 
You seem biased in Brand’s favour to me.
Nah, I'm just sceptical of historical allegations of this nature. And any man with a promiscuous history could end up facing allegations of this nature. Everyone who is promiscuous has had 'bad sex' at some time. It goes with the territory. Moz was probably very wise to abstain as a young man.
 
I'm not sure if this is available for you but there's a Netflix documentary, "Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story" which covers it in depth. In short, it was an open secret for decades that he was a rapist and paedophile - many, many people tried to report him and he was eventually questioned but most concerns were smothered because he was "in" with the highest levels of the BBC, NHS, Government, Royal Family.

He was bribing a network of police officers and other officials to protect him. Using his fame, he got jobs in hospitals as a "volunteer porter" with his own keys and his own room, then he raped patients with learning disabilities and even told staff that he abused corpses. Read this if you've got a strong stomach. He would go on TV shows and laugh about the allegations and say that he was "feared in every girls' school in the country" and that he did charity marathons because "when I die and I see Saint Peter at those gates and my list of bad deeds is read out, I'll have good deeds to balance it". The full truth only came out after the bastard was dead and the number of victims is estimated at 450 aged between 5 and 75.
Thank you, I have a lot of UK friends on FB and they have talked about it but not enough for me to really know a lot about it. I will try to find that and consider reading the rest that you posted, and thank you for the warning with it.
I am in Massachusetts, but in New Hampshire, the child protective system (a joke of a name for it) has allowed and covered up horriffic abuse of children and allegations are constantly brought to light and it's kind of happening again and it's sort of put me in this space where I am wondering just who and what we are as human beings that any of us could do such things or look the other way. Evil will always exist, and I don't mean that in a religious context, there is true evil in some people.
 
Nah, I'm just sceptical of historical allegations of this nature. And any man with a promiscuous history could end up facing allegations of this nature. Everyone who is promiscuous has had 'bad sex' at some time. It goes with the territory. Moz was probably very wise to abstain as a young man.

Yeah, promiscuity isn't the same as sexual assault, and your attempt to conflate the two is worrying. Lots of people have promiscuous, "bad" sex without it resulting in rape - it certainly doesn't go with the territory as you say, unless you yourself have been accused of sexual assault. To suggest that accusations of rape is just bad sex is horrifying and disgusting, and says a lot about you.
 
It can only be read as anything other than a near admission of rape (he apologised, so he knew he did something wrong) if you're going out of your way to an excuse a rapist.

Again, this isn't the only piece of evidence that has been presented, nor is "Nadia" the only victim/witness.
Not true. In the state of California, as in most jurisdictions, rape is defined as non-consensual sexual intercourse. Other sexual acts would not constitute rape. So the text message exchange could be read in all sorts of ways.
 
Nah, I'm just sceptical of historical allegations of this nature. And any man with a promiscuous history could end up facing allegations of this nature. Everyone who is promiscuous has had 'bad sex' at some time. It goes with the territory. Moz was probably very wise to abstain as a young man.
“bad sex” isn’t the same as sexual assault or rape.
 
Back
Top Bottom