Rightie icon Russell Brand charged with 4 counts of rape by UK police

[shack]

You don't understand. To the despicables it is more important to say you have and to preach family values then to actually have family values. Much like it is more important to preach freedom and democracy to others than to practice freedom and democracy. See, easily understandable.

They've mastered the art of hypocrisy.

 

[Valcazar]

Why were they bad witnesses?

They talked to the press, which gave lots of material to catch them in contradictions.
They omitted material, which hurt credibility when that came out.
Two of them talked to each other, which let them get accused of conspiring to take Ghomeshi down and also put some testimony off limits because it couldn't be independent anymore.

So in the end, beyond a reasonable doubt wasn't going to happen and the judge rightfully acquitted him.

 

[mandrill]

So sounds like there's no real evidence he did anything then. Just a matter of unreliable he said/she said.

He admitted some very heavy S&M scenes, but said they were consensual. Everyone came out of it looking bad.

 

[mandrill]

As long as it's consensual I don't think anyone looks bad regardless of what they're into

He beat her so badly that he broke one of her ribs.

 

[mandrill]

All that matters is whether she consented to it. I've seen people into hardcore BDSM who get their balls kicked until they throw up blood or get them pierced with needles. Women with massive, deep black bruises on their legs and thighs. Women who enjoy black eyes. You'd be surprised what people are into.

Sorry. I think a guy who enjoys beating women so badly that they are seriously injured is a creep. There you go.

 

[Valcazar]

So sounds like there's no real evidence he did anything then. Just a matter of unreliable he said/she said.

No. He's a piece of shit who assaults women.
I'm very comfortable saying that with great confidence.
He basically admitted it when he tried to cover it up by pretending he was just being persecuted for being kinky.
And, of course, there are the 20+ women who came forward publicly with stories and the many, many more who have only told close friends.

The witnesses undermined their own reliability and so their testimony in court wasn't enough to convict him is all.

 

[Valcazar]

He admitted some very heavy S&M scenes, but said they were consensual. Everyone came out of it looking bad.

As long as it's consensual I don't think anyone looks bad regardless of what they're into

No one into S&M who isn't a piece of shit thinks his scenes were consensual.
Kinksters even came out and gave public interviews explaining how his "I'm just into S&M" excuse was shit.

He beat her so badly that he broke one of her ribs.

Which was one of those things that gave him away, since everyone who has ever done serious play knows you can't consent to be injured in Canada. (Only some sports allow that.)

 

[mandrill]

And what about the woman who is into it, is she a creep too? Fact of the matter is if two adults consented it's all good and legal and our personal preferences don't matter.

You think anyone is "into" being beaten so badly that they have broken bones??!!?!

 

[mandrill]

Yes. I do. You must be new to the internet. I can give you the names of pornstars who literally enjoy getting black eyes and male subs who have been kicked in the balls so hard they go to the hospital for internal bleeding and puking blood and still come back for more.

Nice.

They also get paid to be beaten.

 

[Valcazar]

Sounds like a bunch of hearsay to me if it's not admissible in court.

Hearsay often is admissible in court.
And I said they undermined their credibility, not that their evidence was inadmissible.

But also, what kind of idiot would use "is it admissible in court" as a standard to believe something?
We have different rules in court than in the rest of life for very good reasons.

 

[Valcazar]

Nice.

They also get paid to be beaten.

You know how it is, Mandrill.

If they couldn't get a conviction in court, it means they wanted it.

 

[Frankfooter]

All that matters is whether she consented to it. I've seen people into hardcore BDSM who get their balls kicked until they throw up blood or get them pierced with needles. Women with massive, deep black bruises on their legs and thighs. Women who enjoy black eyes. You'd be surprised what people are into.

Sounds like there was never a safe word or the safe word was never respected.
That makes it assault even if the initial act is consensual.

 

[toguy5252]

Hearsay is not admissible in court lmao!
So if they had evidence that was admissible in court, and it wasn't sufficient, then that means there is no substantial proof.



Someone with a brain?
Courts require actual evidence. In regular life people believe all sorts of nonsense without evidence, which they are free to do but that doesn't make it right or true.

So I take it from this that you don't think Joe or hunter are guilty of anything. Right?

 

[dirtyharry555]

It's wrong if he beats the shit out of women because he's a man.

It's okay if he beats the shit out of women, in sport or in a public setting, but only if he identifies as a woman beforehand.

Those are the rules in 2023. Because 2023 is the newest time, therefore we need new rules of engagement, even if the old rules make sense and the new ones don't.

Some of our venerable TERB members are still waiting on the science that demonstrates whether or not men have a physical advantage over women in feats of strength. For all we know, women are stronger than men.

 

[dirtyharry555]

That's what's so puzzling. Please keep in mind that you're arguing with people who can synthesize complicated circumstantial evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, who also have the solutions to global warming, and who understand geopolitics better than anyone, and yet they don't know what a woman is.

You could post a photo of a group of men and another of a group of women, and they'd have no idea which one is which.

Is it mass delusion, or something in the air? Are microplastics dumbing down half the population back to preschool levels of comprehension?

Fascinating times.

 

[toguy5252]

I don't subscribe to conspiracy nonsense.

Was that an answer. It was a yes or no question?

 

[Valcazar]

Hearsay is not admissible in court lmao!

Yes it is.
There are a vast number of exemptions for hearsay.
It is very common evidence in all kinds of circumstances.

So if they had evidence that was admissible in court, and it wasn't sufficient, then that means there is no substantial proof.

No.
They were considered unreliable because of their behavior.
Please pay attention.

Someone with a brain?
Courts require actual evidence. In regular life people believe all sorts of nonsense without evidence, which they are free to do but that doesn't make it right or true.

But only a deranged lunatic moron would say "it wasn't proved in court to beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore it isn't true".
I mean, think about how ridiculous that would be as a standard for real life?
Even the courts don't think everything needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - that's why they have multiple standards of evidence.

 

[Valcazar]

Sounds like there was never a safe word or the safe word was never respected.
That makes it assault even if the initial act is consensual.

The secret is to get them to agree to sex, then assault them physically.
Then claim they agreed to everything that happened in their initial consent.

 

[toguy5252]

Your question presupposes I believe the bogus claims about Hunter and Joe in the first place. Did you murder your wife because she slept with another man? Only answer yes or no.

It doesn't presuppose anything. It was a simple question and I would have thought an easy answer which you seem to be avoiding.

 

[toguy5252]

I'll answer when you tell me if you killed your wife because she cheated on you. Yes or no?

Never mind. I can see that trying to have a conversation with you is pointless.