Russell Brand - In Plain Sight

[Jamie_B]

13 minutes ago, btb said:

Bit off-topic but I seem to remember reading at the time of the Alex Salmond trial that there was a principle where the number of accusations eventually became cumulative and counted against the accused - is that distinct to Scottish Law and am I even remembering correctly?

It's not so much that they become cumulative, it's that they can cross-corroborate one another if they are similar in time/method/that kind of thing. There are very specific circumstances in which it operates.

[Sergeant Wilson]

38 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

That was Sweet Loretta Martin.

Jojo was just a loner who smoked weed.

You're right of course.

[btb]

 

14 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

It's not so much that they become cumulative, it's that they can cross-corroborate one another if they are similar in time/method/that kind of thing. There are very specific circumstances in which it operates.

Thanx - googled and it's called the Moorov Doctine...

Quote

The Moorov doctrine is a doctrine that deals with similar fact evidence in Scots law, arising from the case of Moorov v HM Advocate in 1930. The Moorov doctrine can be used where a series of crimes have been committed and are closely linked by time, character, circumstance and place of commission as to constitute a course of conduct by the accused.^[11] The accused must be positively identified in each case. There may only be one witness to each individual crime who can identify the accused but where the offences are sufficiently similar the witness for one offence can corroborate the account of a witness for another offence.

 

[carpetmonster]

2 hours ago, GHF-23 said:

Was Kate not the woman who got struck off as a nurse after some tasty COVID takes?

Tastier than a bottle of old recipe Irn Bru the morning after 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kate-shemirani-son-covid-prosecuted-164015596.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALeXOTVuUyu0uOlTC24ekTaQ7zIM5sK-we9CHYKqSRlE0UAhH7GiKsg1gcTl_q52fHG2oYKOP5CpLXQ1rDVCBpfMd2ieBWAvbQeD4nh5pmDWDyJhju_Hv-Pe_9OX6Uf4dU3Gp6fI14Jp-lmA8dY_zkxgnJq1B6fwHMKIRBv_DUAu

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 hours ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

That was Sweet Loretta Martin.

Jojo was just a loner who smoked weed.

He only thought he was a loner

 

[StellarHibee]

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

[welshbairn]

24 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

Who are you thinking of?

[Netan Sansara]

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

No evidence like the things collected at the rape centre in the states after the alleged LA attack?

[Rugster]

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

Ooooft. 

[Wee-Bey]

It's also possible to think that based on the credible evidence and his own (oft admitted) patterns of behaviour, that he's probably guilty of some awful behaviour and to think that this is being revealed now because he's no longer useful and an opponent of the main stream media who encouraged and enabled his behaviour previously.

[StellarHibee]

  

3 minutes ago, Netan Sansara said:

No evidence like the things collected at the rape centre in the states after the alleged LA attack?

Then why was nothing made of it at the time? Why is it that in these kinds of situations, a multitude of women just so happen to simultaneously come forward at precisely the same time decades later? I'm not saying Brand was a good person in the past. The guy had a multitude of problems, particularly with drug and alcohol use. So I can certainly believe that he was involved in risky behaviour scenarios. But that doesn't automatically equate to rape. The man had celebrity status and a whole lot of money behind him. Hardly a stretch that women would get involved with him sexually due to the money and status, then perhaps have regrets about it later. Which again, doesn't automatically equate to rape or sexual assault.

[sophia]

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

 

1 minute ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

It's also possible to think that based on the credible evidence and his own (oft admitted) patterns of behaviour, that he's probably guilty of some awful behaviour and to think that this is being revealed now because he's no longer useful and an opponent of the main stream media who encouraged and enabled his behaviour previously.

I thoroughly agree and if they think we're fooled by this, then I for one will make a stand.

Just to get me straight, who are the high level conspirators.

[velo army]

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

I can understand this sort of thinking when it comes to, say, Assange. That was a proper truth teller and I do think he was properly stitched up.

However, Brand was a conspiracist nutbag by the end and was not at risk of blowing the whistle on anything. If the "powers that be" were interested in discrediting him the best thing to do would have been to leave him to his own devices.

[sophia]

1 minute ago, StellarHibee said:

  

Then why was nothing made of it at the time? Why is it that in these kinds of situations, a multitude of women just so happen to simultaneously come forward at precisely the same time decades later? I'm not saying Brand was a good person in the past. The guy had a multitude of problems, particularly with drug and alcohol use. So I can certainly believe that he was involved in risky behaviour scenarios. But that doesn't automatically equate to rape. The man had celebrity status and a whole lot of money behind him. Hardly a stretch that women would get involved with him sexually due to the money and status, then perhaps have regrets about it later. Which again, doesn't automatically equate to rape or sexual assault.

Indeed

Oh my word 

[StellarHibee]

1 minute ago, velo army said:

I can understand this sort of thinking when it comes to, say, Assange. That was a proper truth teller and I do think he was properly stitched up.

However, Brand was a conspiracist nutbag by the end and was not at risk of blowing the whistle on anything. If the "powers that be" were interested in discrediting him the best thing to do would have been to leave him to his own devices.

The man has followers in the millions. Your personal view of him being a conspiracist nutbag is irrelevant. As there have been millions of people online who have followed and rated his content over the years.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, StellarHibee said:

Never been a fan of Brand. But I believe him here. How hard is it to pay a few people to "come forward" and claim something happened to them decades ago, where they'll conveniently be no definitive evidence to back any of it up? The targets always seem to be people who encourage other people to question the way things are, particularly when they have sizeable followings.

 

50 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Who are you thinking of?

Second attempt.

[StellarHibee]

Just now, welshbairn said:

 

Second attempt.

I would have thought Assange, but he's already been mentioned.

[Zetterlund]

6 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

It's also possible to think that based on the credible evidence and his own (oft admitted) patterns of behaviour, that he's probably guilty of some awful behaviour and to think that this is being revealed now because he's no longer useful and an opponent of the main stream media who encouraged and enabled his behaviour previously.

Pretty much my thoughts on it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the accusations are true given Brand's past behaviour, but I also think nobody in the MSM or the 'establishment' cared about it until they wanted to shut him up. 

The powers that be don't give a f**k about sexual offences - if they did there are much bigger fish to fry than Russell Brand. Jeffrey Epstein's clients for one thing, but I suspect society would pretty much collapse if the whole truth about that ever became public knowledge.

[velo army]

Just now, StellarHibee said:

The man has followers in the millions. Your personal view of him being a conspiracist nutbag is irrelevant. As there have been millions of people online who have followed and rated his content over the years.

I prefer Chomsky's take on conspiracy theories in that they're in the interests of those in power as they tend to keep people distracted and busy looking in the wrong places. 

You linking his follower numbers (following on Instagram and youtube doesn't imply active engagement or even endorsement of beliefs either) to him being a threat to those in power is also a personal view by the way. Given that he hasn't organised any protests or done anything other than put out videos of him talking it wouldn't make him some kind of Fred Hampton figure that needs taking out. 

 

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

I would have thought Assange, but he's already been mentioned.

Good shout with Assange, but he was actually revealing classified information, not some social influencer "just asking questions". Anyone else in the last 5 years or so?

Edited September 23, 2023 by welshbairn