Russell Brand

[Turkish]

I wish we wouldn’t see Narindar Kaur for a decade or two, she’s in her element over this. 

[benjii]

10 hours ago, Turkish said:

nor should it!! He's going to have a hell of a time in the click too, they dont tend to like sex offenders.....

I saw a clip of Jimmy Carr....

"I think Russell Brand's attitude towards consensual sex is about to undergo a radical shift".

[benjii]

7 hours ago, Turkish said:

I wish we wouldn’t see Narindar Kaur for a decade or two, she’s in her element over this. 

You would, though?

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, benjii said:

You would, though?

Only if she consented 

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, benjii said:

I saw a clip of Jimmy Carr....

"I think Russell Brand's attitude towards consensual sex is about to undergo a radical shift".

"I think Russell Brand is going to jail for something he didn't do.......

...ask consent".

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I've not followed the trial in depth. But I was curious, with low conviction rates, what questions the jury were asked to decide upon for the verdicts. With historical allegations, there's little to no forensic evidence.

From the questions, you can see what the defence would call "public trawling" for more incidents is important. The various victim testimony builds up a pattern of actions and behaviour. The reinforcement of predatory behaviour; the personality shift moving consensual encounters into rape.

All supported by a wide selection of witnesses who can confirm that behaviour.

This is for a well known figure. Looking at the questions it's a reminder of how difficult it can be, if there's not a number of victims, and not a lot of people who can talk about the behaviour, and incidents, to secure a conviction.

 

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/russell-brand-trial-close-jury-wife-b3076395.html

[rallyboy]

A whole valley constantly full of smoke tends to confirm that there is a fire.

[benjii]

Well, that's weird.

 

In all seriousness, chaps, if you're a father, try to do a good job.

Musk, Trump....  weird/abusive fathers. Don't fuck your kids up.

 

 

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, benjii said:

Well, that's weird.

 

In all seriousness, chaps, if you're a father, try to do a good job.

Musk, Trump....  weird/abusive fathers. Don't fuck your kids up.

 

 

Well fucked up. I have always found it weird people wanting to talk to others about what they did with a woman. 

[Osvaldorama]

I just hope this harsh sentence is the start of a new justice system that punishes sexual crimes appropriately.

Seen far too many lenient rulings in the last few years:

 

[AlexLaw76]

Russell Brand should have read the 'leaflets' at the time...

[Holmes_and_Watson]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Well fucked up. I have always found it weird people wanting to talk to others about what they did with a woman. 

I might not have been listening closely to the bit I bothered with  (because, eeeeewwwww) but there was a moment I thought they were at least within earshot of each other. For extra creepiness.

[whelk]

Just now, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I might not have been listening closely to the bit I bothered with  (because, eeeeewwwww) but there was a moment I thought they were at least within earshot of each other. For extra creepiness.

Yeah who doesn’t shag a woman with their dad doing the same on an adjacent bed

[AlexLaw76]

Thing is with Brand, many public figures and people with significant influence in the media have been hinting/known about about his behaviour for years, yet no one stepped up (publicly at least). Why?

Sean Lock had his card marked a long time ago...

http

 

[benjii]

10 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Thing is with Brand, many public figures and people with significant influence in the media have been hinting/known about about his behaviour for years, yet no one stepped up (publicly at least). Why?

Sean Lock had his card marked a long time ago...

http

 

Fear of litigation, I guess. If you know it but can't prove it.

[benjii]

25 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I just hope this harsh sentence is the start of a new justice system that punishes sexual crimes appropriately.

Seen far too many lenient rulings in the last few years:

 

No, it's the exact sort of sentence people have, and will, continue to get for rape.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 minutes ago, benjii said:

Fear of litigation, I guess. If you know it but can't prove it.

I heard that about the likes of Seville.

But to still give them jobs and contracts? There must be a way of politely declining to hire a presenter, without letting them know what you think of them.

"We're moving the format in a new direction, you rapist scumbag."

Hmmm, it is tougher than I thought. Definite urge to hold them to account.

 

[Farmer Saint]

31 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I just hope this harsh sentence is the start of a new justice system that punishes sexual crimes appropriately.

Seen far too many lenient rulings in the last few years:

 

Did you listen to the sentencing, and what each part of the sentence was for?

[Sir Ralph]

42 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I just hope this harsh sentence is the start of a new justice system that punishes sexual crimes appropriately.

Seen far too many lenient rulings in the last few years:

 

On January 28, 2025, Salihi followed and slapped the bottom of a 42-year-old woman on Lombard Street. Later that same day, he groped a 14-year-old girl who was on a Harry Potter sightseeing tour with her family in Leadenhall Market. Following the second incident, the girl's family confronted him inside a nearby restaurant, where he threw a chair through a window.

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

On January 28, 2025, Salihi followed and slapped the bottom of a 42-year-old woman on Lombard Street. Later that same day, he groped a 14-year-old girl who was on a Harry Potter sightseeing tour with her family in Leadenhall Market. Following the second incident, the girl's family confronted him inside a nearby restaurant, where he threw a chair through a window.

What a prick, but far less serious than the sexual assaults that Brand got 18 months for. Don't forget there are also aggravating factors, such as humiliation as it was done in front of an audience.

Edited 3 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What a prick, but far less serious than the sexual assaults that Brand got 18 months for.

Brand got 9 months for grabbing a breast and 8 months for laying his head on a women’s lap. I’d say in that context what this guy did is worse in the context of those sentences. How does the judiciary square that off. Our mate also threw a chair through a window. His assault also involved a minor

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Brand got 9 months for grabbing a breast and 8 months for laying his head on a women’s lap. I’d say in that context what this guy did is worse in the context of those sentences. How does the judiciary square that off

 

No he didn't, this is what he did:

Your victim in count 3 was a professional woman at the party of a man you both knew. It was July 2004, and she had seen you on the television and wanted to be introduced to you, as she thought you were funny. You were told there was a woman who wanted to meet you. That was all you needed to feel entitled to grab her breasts as she sat talking to you. In your trial, you said you had never touched a woman sexually without her consent, and that included this woman. In light of the jury’s verdicts, that was one of a series of lies you told. The effect on her had her wandering the streets of London, phoning a friend in the middle of night, tearful and distressed. I accept I need to be cautious in assessing her reaction, as the jury acquitted you of a later attack on the same woman, but something caused her that great upset. In her victim impact statement, which she read to the court this morning, she spoke of being extremely upset and traumatised, feeling vulnerable every time she went out for the evening, and feeling sick on the many occasions she saw you in newspapers or on the television. In terms of the relevant guideline, that offence falls into category 3B. It displayed your casual, arrogant disregard of any woman’s right to say “no” to you. In my view, the degree of upset caused to the victim is significantly above that which would normally follow from a sexual assault in the 3B category, so this is an occasion where I am satisfied it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to go above the prescribed sentencing range.

Around the same time, the victim in count 5 was doing her job. You appeared with an entourage of a woman and two or three men. In the trial, the victim gave an account which I accept without reservation. She said:

 

“He said, “aye, aye”, and grabbed me by my face and started to kiss me. He was pushing his body against mine, walking me backwards so my back was against the wall. The three men and a woman were stood there. He was just kissing me, he was very frenzied, no greeting, no time for me to understand what went on. This was a perfect stranger who just grabbed me and ran his hands over my body while I had my back against the wall.

 

“The kiss was hard and sloppy, he kissed me all down my neck, and his hands were, at that same time, all over me. He touched my bum and my breasts, with his other hand just pinning me against the wall with his body pressed up against me, so I was not able to move. It was rough, very, very rough. I was in shock.

 

“The others did nothing. I looked at the woman; I looked at her; she didn’t say anything, nor did the men, they did not move. It was the middle of my working day. There was a point where I somehow managed to put my hand and I pushed him and told him to “f*** off”, quite loud, then he kind of stumbled back and he made like a sound like it was funny, and there was a guy by the door, he started to laugh.”

That offence falls into the upper part of category 2B as it was sustained, there was the added humiliation of you assaulting her in front of an audience and the laughter afterwards, and the violence used to pin her to the wall was beyond the force that any sexual assault will involve.

Count 7 shows yet again your staggering arrogance, and it shows how your entourage indulged your dreadful behaviour. Towards the end of 2009, you were making an advertisement for a DVD of your work. You were there with two men who were your friends or associates. The victim was a woman, helping produce the advertisement. You got into a bad mood and she was then told by one of the men with you that you would not continue unless she gave you a massage. She was taken aback but felt she had no choice. You then entered the room and placed your face in her lap, positioned so that when you told her to get on with it, she could feel your breath on her vagina. She reluctantly pressed her thumbs into your shoulders, then exclaimed how bony you were, leading your acolytes to laugh (possibly at you rather than her), and you to leap up and start insulting her with childish but sexualised comments about whether she had a “fanny”. Those insults, in front of an audience, said after the assault, amount to an additional humiliation. The whole episode reeks of casual disrespect and your belief that fame meant you could act how you liked, when you liked, unhindered by the rules by which decent people live. Your victim for that offence wrote, in her impact statement, of being left upset, losing her trust in people and not feeling safe in her workplace: That count falls into category 2B of the guidelines, and her words are a reminder that even in crimes which, under the guidelines I have to follow, are not the most serious, the consequences for the victim are profound and lasting.

 

 

I think you just don't understand how the law works.

Edited 3 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No he didn't, this is what he did:

Your victim in count 3 was a professional woman at the party of a man you both knew. It was July 2004, and she had seen you on the television and wanted to be introduced to you, as she thought you were funny. You were told there was a woman who wanted to meet you. That was all you needed to feel entitled to grab her breasts as she sat talking to you. In your trial, you said you had never touched a woman sexually without her consent, and that included this woman. In light of the jury’s verdicts, that was one of a series of lies you told. The effect on her had her wandering the streets of London, phoning a friend in the middle of night, tearful and distressed. I accept I need to be cautious in assessing her reaction, as the jury acquitted you of a later attack on the same woman, but something caused her that great upset. In her victim impact statement, which she read to the court this morning, she spoke of being extremely upset and traumatised, feeling vulnerable every time she went out for the evening, and feeling sick on the many occasions she saw you in newspapers or on the television. In terms of the relevant guideline, that offence falls into category 3B. It displayed your casual, arrogant disregard of any woman’s right to say “no” to you. In my view, the degree of upset caused to the victim is significantly above that which would normally follow from a sexual assault in the 3B category, so this is an occasion where I am satisfied it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to go above the prescribed sentencing range.

stood there. He was just kissing me, he was very frenzied, no greeting, no time for me to understand what went on. This was a perfect stranger who just grabbed me and ran his hands over my body while I had my back against the wall.

 

“The kiss was hard and sloppy, he kissed me all down my neck, and his hands were, at that same time, all over me. He touched my bum and my breasts, with his other hand just pinning me against the wall with his body pressed up against me, so I was not able to move. It was rough, very, very rough. I was in shock.

 

“The others did nothing. I looked at the woman; I looked at her; she didn’t say anything, nor did the men, they did not move. It was the middle of my working day. There was a point where I somehow managed to put my hand and I pushed him and told him to “f*** off”, quite loud, then he kind of stumbled back and he made like a sound like it was funny, and there was a guy by the door, he started to laugh.”

That offence falls into the upper part of category 2B as it was sustained, there was the added humiliation of you assaulting her in front of an audience and the laughter afterwards, and the violence used to pin her to the wall was beyond the force that any sexual assault will involve.

Count 7 shows yet again your staggering arrogance, and it shows how your entourage indulged your dreadful behaviour. Towards the end of 2009, you were making an advertisement for a DVD of your work. You were there with two men who were your friends or associates. The victim was a woman, helping produce the advertisement. You got into a bad mood and she was then told by one of the men with you that you would not continue unless she gave you a massage. She was taken aback but felt she had no choice. You then entered the room and placed your face in her lap, positioned so that when you told her to get on with it, she could feel your breath on her vagina. She reluctantly pressed her thumbs into your shoulders, then exclaimed how bony you were, leading your acolytes to laugh (possibly at you rather than her), and you to leap up and start insulting her with childish but sexualised comments about whether she had a “fanny”. Those insults, in front of an audience, said after the assault, amount to an additional humiliation. The whole episode reeks of casual disrespect and your belief that fame meant you could act how you liked, when you liked, unhindered by the rules by which decent people live. Your victim for that offence wrote, in her impact statement, of being left upset, losing her trust in people and not feeling safe in her workplace: That count falls into category 2B of the guidelines, and her words are a reminder that even in crimes which, under the guidelines I have to follow, are not the most serious, the consequences for the victim are profound and lasting.

So our mates case which also involved two assaults, including a minor and violence should get a £400 compared to brands total of 17 months in jail? I’m sure the 14 year old girl was very upset too

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So our mates case which also involved two assaults, including a minor and violence should get a £400 compared to brands total of 17 months in jail? I’m sure the 14 year old girl was very upset too

What violence was there against the person? Have you read the full ruling from that case?

Edited 3 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What violence was there against the person? Have you read the full ruling from that case?

I’ve read the detail of what he did. He threw a chair against the window when confronted. He also assaulted a MINOR. The judges ruling you need to pay for. Are you defending the £400 fine for these assaults? You get more for a speeding offence

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He threw a chair against the window when confronted. He also assaulted a MINOR. The judges ruling you need to pay for. Are you defending the £400 fine for these assaults?

I think you've just proved my point, you know nothing about how the law works. The fact that you do not understand that violence against a person is very, very different to violence against an inanimate object is flabbergasting, and further cements your reputation on here.

I'm not defending anything, as I haven't read the case notes or the judgement, but the legal definition of a minor in a sexual assault case is under 13, due to the mental inability to consent.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think you've just proved my point, you know nothing about how the law works. The fact that you do not understand that violence against a person is very, very different to violence against an inanimate object is flabbergasting, and further cements your reputation on here.

I'm not defending anything, as I haven't read the case notes or the judgement. 

I understand that but it was an additional criminal damage charge in addition to the two assaults for which he received a £400 fine. It’s flabbergasting you don’t understand that and it cements your reputation on here. Based on what you have read of the assaults do you think that the judiciary got it right? Don’t sit on that fence for too long

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I understand that but it was an additional criminal damage charge in addition to the two assaults for which he received a £400 fine. It’s flabbergasting you don’t understand that and it cements your reputation on here. 

Yup, you just don't get it - that's fine, we can just add the Law to Business, Economics and Politics.

Amazing the straws people will grasp at just because someone has brown skin.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yup, you just don't get it - that's fine, we can just add the Law to Business, Economics and Politics.

Enlighten me then. That response says nothing and doesn’t justify your patronising stance. Are you saying the criminal damage point wasn’t part of his sentencing? You are still on that fence after my question. Your bum must be aching 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

51 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Did you listen to the sentencing, and what each part of the sentence was for?

Him listen to facts, no chance

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Enlighten me then. That response says nothing and doesn’t justify your patronising stance. Are you saying the criminal damage point wasn’t part of his sentencing?

It might have been, but what's your point?  He touched two women's bottoms. How is that comparable to 3 assaults, groping breasts, forced kissing with sexual violence, putting his face in someone's vagina and two counts of humiliation? Do you not understand tariffs and aggravating factors?

You are seriously showing yourself up here.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

It might have been, but what's your point?  He touched two women's bottoms. How is that comparable to 3 assaults, groping breasts, forced kissing with sexual violence, putting his face in someone's vagina and two counts of humiliation?

The 17 months in jail for brand for two of the assaults was for grabbing a women’s breast in a bar (9 months) and placing his head in a women’s groin (8 months).
 

Are you saying that grabbing two women’s bums, including a 14 year old, and criminal damage on top of that should be given a £400 fine compared to Brands 17 months in jail for those two specific assaults?

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Him listen to facts, no chance

Good use of the comma there. 10/10

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The 17 months in jail for brand for two of the assaults was for grabbing a women’s breast in a bar (9 months) and placing his head in a women’s groin (8 months).
 

Are you saying that grabbing two women’s bums, including a 14 year old, and criminal damage on top of that should be given a £400 fine compared to Brands 17 months in jail for those two specific assaults?

What you on about, he was convicted of 3 assaults for a total of 18 months? DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH YOU LAZY PRICK.

"I pass a sentence of imprisonment for 9 months for count 3, 18 months for count 5 (reduced from 2 years to allow for totality), and 8 months for count 7: Those sentences are all concurrent to one another to further allow for totality, but consecutive to the sentence for rape."

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Good use of the comma there. 10/10

👍

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What you on about, he was convicted of 3 assaults?

"I pass a sentence of imprisonment for 9 months for count 3, 18 months for count 5 (reduced from 2 years to allow for totality), and 8 months for count 7: Those sentences are all concurrent to one another to further allow for totality, but consecutive to the sentence for rape."

This is hard work. Yes three assaults by brand I’ve never disputed that. I’m comparing (a) the individual Brand sentences for two of them: 9 months for breast grab and 8 months for head in groin with (b) the two assaults  our mate did. 

i know the sentences were concurrent but each one received their own jail time. Our mate also assaulted two women sexually by touching them, including a minor, and criminal damage. He got a £400 fine

I’m asking whether you consider that proportionate in the context of the brand case when you compare the two sentences

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is hard work. Yes three assaults by brand I’ve never disputed that. I’m comparing the individual sentences for two of them: 9 months for breast grab and 8 months for head in groin with the two anssaults  our mate did. 

i know the sentences were concurrent but each one received their own jail time. Our mate also assaulted two women sexually by touching them, including a minor, and criminal damage. He got a £400 fine

I’m asking whether you consider that proportionate in the context of the brand case when you compare the two sentences

Yes, in the absence of the case law I probably would. Slapping two women's arses is definitely far less egregious than fondling breasts and then putting your face in someone's vagina with added humiliation.

Would you expect to get 8 months for slapping a woman's arse? Or would you expect a fine of £400 if you groped a woman's breast?

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes, in the absence of the case law I probably would. Slapping two women's arses is definitely far less egregious than fondling breasts and then putting your face in someone's vagina with added humiliation.

Would you expect to get 8 months for slapping a woman's arse? Or would you expect a fine of £400 if you groped a woman's breast?

In law touching a breast or bum is no different in terms of severity and grading for sentencing so that argument falls away for sentencing. In the context of the guidelines for sentencing, knowing this, do you think our mates sentence is proportionate to brands sentencing in respect of the two assaults I mentioned (and our mates criminal damage and assaulting a minor)? 
 

For the record I believe touching any minor is worse. I think most people do

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

In law touching a breast or bum is no different in terms of severity and grading for sentencing so that argument falls away for sentencing. In the context of the guidelines for sentencing, knowing this, do you think our mates sentence is proportionate to brands sentencing?

I see where your issue is now. However, you've missed a very, very obvious reason as to why the sentences are very different. I'll give you 3 guesses as to what that reason is.

[Sir Ralph]

One plead guilty the other didn’t. Doesn’t explain the huge difference in sentencing though. The gap is so great and doesn’t account for one of our mates victim being 14

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

One plead guilty the other didn’t. Doesn’t explain the huge difference in sentencing though. The gap is so great and doesn’t account for one of our mates victim being 14

Yes it does, that's how sentencing works? You plead guilty you tend to get massive tariff reductions. That would have been agreed before the case even started. "Plead guilty and you'll get a fine".

What difference do you think the girl being 14 makes?

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

21 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes it does, that's how sentencing works? You plead guilty you tend to get massive tariff reductions. That would have been agreed before the case even started. "Plead guilty and you'll get a fine".

What difference do you think the girl being 14 makes?

Pleading guilty allows for a maximum 1/3 off a sentence so that would mean brand had 12 months sentence for the two assaults discussed (rather than 17 months) if he also plead guilty, with our mate only getting a £400 fine by comparison. So that closes the difference slightly but even when applying the guidelines to their maximum doesn’t explain the huge disparity either.

Assaulting a minor attracts an additional aggravating factor (in my view a significant one) for our mate due to the vulnerability of the child. I assume you agree with that? 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Pleading guilty allows for a maximum 1/3 off a sentence so that would mean brand had 12 months sentence for the two assaults discussed (rather than 17 months) if he also plead guilty, with our mate only getting a £400 fine by comparison. So that closes the difference but even when applying the guidelines to their maximum doesn’t explain the huge disparity either.

Assaulting a minor attracts an additional aggravating factor (in my view a significant one) for our mate due to the vulnerability of the child. I assume you agree with that? 

Is there a concept of sexually assaulting a minor? There is the concept of sexually assaulting an under 13 for sure. I finished my degree in 2004 and didn't do Criminal Law in my last year, so couldn't tell you.

The likelihood is he would have got a plea deal for a fine, hence why it went to magistrates court. It's not the simple third off as sexual assault starts at a community order for least serious offences and goes up to 10 years for most serious. I would have thought he'd have got two very light (maybe 1 to 2 month) sentences if it had gone to court properly.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Is there a concept of sexually assaulting a minor? There is the concept of sexually assaulting an under 13 for sure. I finished my degree in 2004 and didn't do Criminal Law in my last year, so couldn't tell you.

The likelihood is he would have got a plea deal for a fine, hence why it went to magistrates court. It's not the simple third off as sexual assault starts at a community order for least serious offences and goes up to 10 years for most serious. I would have thought he'd have got two very light (maybe 1 to 2 month) sentences if it had gone to court properly.

There is a specific offence for assaulting a minor if under 16 so the age of the 14 year old is very relevant and wasn’t relevant to brand.

Our mates case was sentenced in the crown court not a magistrates court. He also admitted criminal damage which also wasn’t relevant to brand, although I acknowledge this is a less serious charge than assault, albeit still an additional crime.
 

Im struggling to identify the reason for the difference in sentencing particularly the large disparity and I think you are also, if we are honest.

If I walked out of my house and grabbed two women by the bum, including a school girl, then smashed up the bus stop. Told a crown court judge I was sorry I think that 99% of the population would say a £400 fine is taking the piss, particularly when you then ask Russell brand the length of his sentence for two assaults.

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

There is a specific offence for assaulting a minor if under 16 so the age of the 14 year old is very relevant and wasn’t relevant to brand.

What was he charged with? What is the offence called?

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[benjii]

FFS.

Patting passing women on the bum is not as bad as prolonged grabbing of their breasts or fanny.

If you rape someone you get years. Whether you're Pakistani, Afghan or faux-Victorian comedian come Jesus warrior.

If you genuinely think the institutions of the UK are set up to treat white British people worse than immigrants or racial minority Brits then you're an idiot of the highest order.

[Farmer Saint]

14 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Our mates case was sentenced in the crown court not a magistrates court. He also admitted criminal damage which also wasn’t relevant to brand, although I acknowledge this is a less serious charge than assault, albeit still an additional crime.
 

Im struggling to identify the reason for the difference in sentencing particularly the large disparity and I think you are also, if we are honest.

If I walked out of my house and grabbed two women by the bum, including a school girl, then smashed up the bus stop. Told a crown court judge I was sorry I think that 99% of the population would say a £400 fine is taking the piss, particularly when you then ask Russell brand the length of his sentence for two assaults.

As said before, I have no real issue with the disparity - completely different cases, judges, pleads, profiles and aggravating factors. There is no link between the cases apart from the fact both are sexual assaults which is a very wide remit.

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, benjii said:

FFS.

Patting passing women on the bum is not as bad as prolonged grabbing of their breasts or fanny.

If you rape someone you get years. Whether you're Pakistani, Afghan or faux-Victorian comedian come Jesus warrior.

If you genuinely think the institutions of the UK are set up to treat white British people worse than immigrants or racial minority Brits then you're an idiot of the highest order.

I've tried to tell him.

[AlexLaw76]

Sweep stake for when Walliams is sent down, and for how long!!!

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Sweep stake for when Walliams is sent down, and for how long!!!

The worst kept secret is out then