It was an obvious political hit job
this is quite a claim. can you present your evidence so we can discuss?
a successful political hit job would require a few planets to align:
you'd first need a false complaint that survives intense scrutiny by, among others, the police. the accusations would have to be fabricated, and the accusers would have to maintain them under police interview and cross-examination. four women made the original allegations, and the trial eventually involved six. these conspirators would need to recruit, coordinate and keep quiet a group who don’t know each other.
next, you need a compromised or corrupted prosecution service. crown prosecutors must be fair, objective and independent, and can charge only if there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. that test applies to each defendant on each charge, and the evidence must be usable and reliable. the conspirators would have to corrupt police investigators and the lawyers making the charging decisions.
next, you need to rig a jury. jurors are drawn at random from the electoral register by the jury central summoning bureau. the selection is done by computer. nobody can pick who sits on a particular case. to fix a verdict, someone would have to identify and nobble jurors
after they were empaneled.
next, a compliant judge and defence. the judge controls what evidence is admitted, and brand’s barristers had the chance to challenge the accusers directly.
finally, you'd need silence from lots of other people.
you can certainly, and reasonably, debate the strength of historic sexual offence cases, where there is sometimes little beyond the accusers' word. but “
the evidence was contestable” is a different claim from “
the whole thing was fixed” and you're suggesting coordination which would involve dozens of independent people across different institutions.
can you explain, in detail and with evidence, specifically how this political hit-job was successfully orchestrated?
According to the media a rape that may or may not have happened 20 years ago is a bigger story then young girls being raped by immigrants the UK
that is a false dilemma and a distraction.
Why would Russel Brand rape, when women are throwing themselves at him?
rape isn’t what people do when they can’t find consenting partners. it’s what some people do when they believe they’re entitled to take what they want. having options doesn’t stop that, and fame can even encourage it.
your argument assumes the motive is sexual desire alone. others have explained why that's generally not the case with rape. you also imply that the accusers are lying because a famous celebrity like brand wouldn't need to do this.
the jury weighed the evidence count by count and acquitted on three of the seven charges, which isn’t what you’d expect if the verdict were a foregone conclusion because of a rigged system.
He could of got consent from women to roleplay a rape
sure, he could have. but if something could have happened then it also could have not happened and that proves nothing.
"
probably did" is carrying an awful lot of weight there.
what’s your evidence?
brand’s own defense was that the encounters were consensual or misremembered, not that they were role playing. a jury heard the evidence and convicted on those counts, so you’re asking us to prefer a scenario you invented over what was tested in court.
not only that but it doesn’t fit with your earlier claim that this was a political hit job.
Now those same women have been weaponized by the government to claim they were raped.
nothing you’ve said so far shows any government involvement, since the allegations came from journalists, were investigated by police, and were tested by a jury (that also acquitted him on three counts).
inventing excuses for a convicted rapist, and casting the women as government pawns, really isn’t a good look.
alasdair
. She (well, the 3g 4mmc between us and the marathon sex session) damn nearly killed me too.Was unexpected to say the least, no regrets though.