Russell Brand

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yeah, if that's the same name I kept seeing on Reddit then it came as a surprise to me as well. Seems to be an open secret in the industry.

I suspect it is.  

[egg]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

An injunction against one of the alleged victims actually banned her from talking to the Police under any circumstances, and is technically still in effect unless he consents to lift it.

I've seen the Order. It even prevented her from speaking to a medic about it. Outrageous. 

A few barristers have offered to assist her pro bono if she wants help. 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

Not sure it's right to speculate. 

Only fools would do that.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

Not sure it's right to speculate. 

 

16 minutes ago, egg said:

I've seen the Order. It even prevented her from speaking to a medic about it. Outrageous. 

A few barristers have offered to assist her pro bono if she wants help. 

 

Well, your stance didn't last long. 🙂

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

 

Well, your stance didn't last long. 🙂

The only thing wrong about Bono is every album he's made since Joshua tree. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yeah, if that's the same name I kept seeing on Reddit then it came as a surprise to me as well. Seems to be an open secret in the industry.

On Reddit people are speculating on pretty much everyone. Same cunts in medieval times would be burning witches based on fuck all. 
Anyway I think it’s Gary Glitter

[bpsaint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

A very surprising (to me) name kept popping up when I saw reports re Walliams. 

That rumour has been doing the rounds for a number of years now, and apparently doesn’t directly involve said person. I’ll be gutted if it turns out to be be more than that and he is a wrong’un.

[AlexLaw76]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

On Reddit people are speculating on pretty much everyone. Same cunts in medieval times would be burning witches based on fuck all. 
Anyway I think it’s Gary Glitter

I hope it’s the bloke behind Mrs Browns Boys… probably the only thing that can stop this terrible show from killing the airwaves!

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, egg said:

The only thing wrong about Bono is every album he's made since Joshua tree. 

Achtung Baby was decent 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Achtung Baby was decent 

It was an improvement over Rattle and Hum, but didn't do it for me. 

[Sir Ralph]

5 hours ago, egg said:

Different cases with different facts will always have different sentences. 

Brand's sentence can be too strong or weak, and someone else's sentence can be too strong / weak. That's it. 

Fwiw, I think Brand's sentence was light. 

Ok but doesn’t answer the question I had. Your response is so generic that it doesn’t mean anything. 

Personally I think the judiciary has become increasingly politically influenced and this is an example and nobody has been able to explain what the £400 fine was justified. If I did that I’m certain I would be locked up.

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok but doesn’t answer the question I had. Personally I think the judiciary has become increasingly politically influenced and this is an example and nobody has been able to explain what the £400 fine was justified. If I did that I’m certain I would be locked up.

People have explained, you just don't agree. Big difference.

You would not expect to be locked up for smacking someone's arse. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

People have explained, you just don't agree. Big difference.

No they haven’t. Summarise for me why the chap I mentioned got away with a £400 fine. It not that I don’t agree it’s that nobody has explained it rather than incredibly generic wide ranging statements that mean nothing. I’ve broken down my rationale based on sentencing guidelines with specific reference to them. Just a reminder he touched up a 14 year old and an adult and threw a chair causing criminal damage…that is the sentence you are backing as a £400 fine. I’m at pains to reiterate that in sentencing grabbing boobs, bum or anything else is no different - it’s sexual assault. If Nigel farage touched up two women including a 14 year old and threw a chair at a restaurant you would back a £400 fine?

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

No they haven’t. Summarise for me why the chap I mentioned got away with a £400 fine. It not that I don’t agree it’s that nobody has explained it rather than incredibly generic wide ranging statements that mean nothing. I’ve broken down my rationale based on sentencing guidelines with specific reference to them. Just a reminder he touched up a 14 year old…that is the sentence you are backing

Because he smacked two people's arses, hence why in a country with a huge lack of prison space he was given a fine.

Just because he's brown he doesn't have to be put in prison.

Maybe if you can find me another case of a man being put in prison for smacking two women's arses you'll have a point. You should try that.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Because he smacked two people's arses, hence why in a country with a huge lack of prison space he was given a fine.

Just because he's brown he doesn't have to be put in prison.

What’s his colour got to do with it? You still haven’t answered why a £400 fine is justified….still. Can you explain? Answer this does a man who sexually assaults a 14 year old deserves only a £400 fine? Please answer the question directly

I’m at pains to reiterate that in the sentencing guidelines grabbing boobs, bum or anything else is no different - it’s sexual assault. If Nigel farage touched up two women including a 14 year old and threw a chair at a restaurant would you back a £400 fine? I wouldn’t and you definitely wouldn’t. If you say”no” youre lying hence double standards 

None of you can answer pretty easy questions about this. The usual suspects go into generic mode which says a lot. It’s frankly embarrassing that you think the penalty for sexually assaulting a 14 year old should be a £400 fine. 
 

I’ll await a direct response to this question which you won’t give because you know the answer undermines your case

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

22 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok but doesn’t answer the question I had. Your response is so generic that it doesn’t mean anything. 

Personally I think the judiciary has become increasingly politically influenced and this is an example and nobody has been able to explain what the £400 fine was justified. If I did that I’m certain I would be locked up.

Your question is daft.  My answer, if it wasn't clear, is that 2 entirely different cases, on different facts, cannot be compared. 

If you think Brand's sentence was too tough or lenient, that's your prerogative. What you think though isn't clear. 

If you think another, wholly unrelated offence, was too tough or lenient, that's your prerogative. If it's light, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Brand sentence (which was too light - it was anal rape ffs). 

The judiciary isn't politically influenced. That's nonsense. I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, or think it works. Do you believe that politicians send emails to judges, or appear at the judicial college, to tell judges (who's oath is to work without fear or favour) what to do to keep the government of the day sweet?

I'm intrigued - how does this political influence work? 

Edited 1 hour ago by egg

[Farmer Saint]

22 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

What’s his colour got to do with it? You still haven’t answered why a £400 fine is justified….still. Can you explain? Answer this does a man who sexually assaults a 14 year old deserves only a £400 fine? Please answer the question directly

I’m at pains to reiterate that in the sentencing guidelines grabbing boobs, bum or anything else is no different - it’s sexual assault. If Nigel farage touched up two women including a 14 year old and threw a chair at a restaurant would you back a £400 fine? I wouldn’t and you definitely wouldn’t. If you say”no” youre lying hence double standards 

None of you can answer pretty easy questions about this. The usual suspects go into generic mode which says a lot. It’s frankly embarrassing that you think the penalty for sexually assaulting a 14 year old should be a £400 fine. 
 

I’ll await a direct response to this question which you won’t give because you know the answer undermines your case

I literally answered it in the above post, here:

"Because he smacked two people's arses, hence why in a country with a huge lack of prison space he was given a fine."

[Sir Ralph]

15 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I literally answered it in the above post, here:

"Because he smacked two people's arses, hence why in a country with a huge lack of prison space he was given a fine."

So just to clarify you think a £400 fine for sexually assaulting two women including a 14 year old is appropriate. You have given your own personal opinion on this NOT based on sentencing guidelines which I have. Your personal opinion is irrelevant as is mine.  To repeat you can’t argue that grabbing a bum is any different to grabbing anything else sexually as guidelines wise it makes no difference. Prison overcrowding doesn’t explain it - very weak
 

Assume you disagree with Charlie  elphickes  sentence of 2 years then?  This will be fun 

Edited 58 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So just to clarify you think a £400 fine for sexually assaulting two women including a 14 year old is appropriate. You have given your own personal opinion on this NOT based on sentencing guidelines which I have. Your personal opinion is irrelevant as is mine.  To repeat you can’t argue that grabbing a bum is any different to grabbing anything else sexually as guidelines wise it makes no difference. Prison overcrowding doesn’t explain it - very weak
 

If Nigel farage did this you would agree to a £400 fine? If you think this sentence is reasonable for touching up a 14 year old I don’t want to live in the same society as you

Why are you bringing up Nigel Farage? What's that got to do with anything?

I can't judge if £400 is too lenient, mainly because you haven't given me a comparable case. If you did, we can debate it. I am not a judge. I have never sat and judged a sexual assault case. Therefore I can't judge. All I can do is call out the differences between the cases, which I did.

I'm not sure our judges really give a shit what a racist estate agent thinks is a relevant sentence.

 

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why are you bringing up Nigel Farage? What's that got to do with anything?

I can't judge if £400 is too lenient, mainly because you haven't given me a comparable case. If you did, we can debate it. I am not a judge. I have never sat and judged a sexual assault case. Therefore I can't judge. All I can do is call out the differences between the cases, which I did.

I'm not sure our judges really give a shit what a racist estate agent thinks is a relevant sentence.

 

Ok look this up and tell me your view compared to our mates case. I’m very interested. In your world 2 assaults including a minor deserves a £400 fine and this guy should do 2 years in jail for 3 assault but no Minors?

Edited 40 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

28 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why are you bringing up Nigel Farage? What's that got to do with anything?

I can't judge if £400 is too lenient, mainly because you haven't given me a comparable case. If you did, we can debate it. I am not a judge. I have never sat and judged a sexual assault case. Therefore I can't judge. All I can do is call out the differences between the cases, which I did.

I'm not sure our judges really give a shit what a racist estate agent thinks is a relevant sentence.

 

Naivety - read about the judiciary in the us about sentencing relating to republican and democrat related characters over the past few years. I do t know what you do but politics at every level infiltrates decisions. I spend a substantial portion of my day managing the consequences - to say the judiciary is exempt is naive

Edited 26 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

23 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok look this up and tell me your view compared to our mates case. I’m very interested. In your world 2 assaults including a minor deserves a £400 fine and this guy should do 2 years in jail for 3 assault but no Minors?

Missing the point again, he pleaded "not guilty".

"[But] bearing in mind the gross breach of your position of power... I am satisfied that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody," she said.

As with the Brand case, this is a hugely influential - far greater than the minor thing (there is no charge of Sexual assault against a minor).

[Farmer Saint]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Naivety - read about the judiciary in the us about sentencing relating to republican and democrat related characters over the past few years. 

Why don't you just post articles if you want us to read it? Then we can comment on what you want us to comment on.

Edited 24 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Missing the point again, he pleaded "not guilty".

"[But] bearing in mind the gross breach of your position of power... I am satisfied that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody," she said.

As with the Brand case, this is a hugely influential - far greater than the minor thing (there is no charge of Sexual assault against a minor).

Where is your justification in the sentencing guidelines. Pleading guilty is max 1/3 off a sentence. In the mps case that’s still 35 months versus a £400 fine. Doesn’t answer the question just because he was in the public eye. The disparity is extreme

Put another way - in a theoretical world if a pervert approached you a said he was worried about assaulting a 14 year old you would say don’t do it. He would say I’m worried about the sentence though and you would say I think a £400 fine is an appropriate consequence- correct? Difficult question. I know but that’s where you currently stand and based on your (in my opinion m) rather ridiculous stance I can’t see you would say anything else. You can agree that this would be a ridiculous stance, no judgement as we often try to make cases we realise a have taken things to far (including me today)

Edited 15 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Where is your justification in the sentencing guidelines. Pleading guilty is max 1/3 off a sentence. In the mps case that’s still 35 months versus a £400 fine. Doesn’t answer the question just because he was in the public eye. The disparity is extreme

Put another way - in a theoretical world if a pervert approached you a said he was worried about assaulting a 14 year old you would say don’t do it. He would say I’m worried about the sentence though and you would say I think a £400 fine is an appropriate consequence- correct? Difficult question. I know but that’s where you currently stand and based on your stance I can’t see you would say anything else

Yes it does, it's a massive aggravating factor FFS, abuse of power.

Did he know the girl was 14 - that is always taken into account. If he knew then I agree with you. However, if you can't prove he did then it's less of a contributory factor.

This case is similar. Not even going to court:

BBC News - Police officer barred for 'inappropriate' behaviour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjvg2rvl5366o

 

 

Edited 13 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes it does, it's a massive aggravating factor FFS, abuse of power.

This case is similar. Not even going to court:

BBC News - Police officer barred for 'inappropriate' behaviour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjvg2rvl5366o

 

 

The case you gave isn’t even comparable.  No touching of a sexual organ, one case, no minor and no criminal damage. Canyou answer my question about the situation I mentioned and your likely response based on your stance so far?

Edited 5 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The case you gave isn’t even comparable.  No touching of a sexual organ, one case, no minor and no criminal damage. Canyou answer my question about the situation I mentioned and your likely response as to me your response would be evident?

I didn't understand the question. It's very poorly written. Have another go.

Why isn't it comparable? He rubbed himself on her arse from behind and that's the same "sexual organ". That's worse than a quick grope of a bottom. The minor thing that you seem obsessed with is a real misnomer - if under 13 it makes a big difference to sentencing, like the Elphick case above, but over 13 it's far less important if he didn't know her age and no lasting effects on the "minor".

Would you prefer I smacked your arse or rubbed my cock on it? 

Anyway, I'm going to bed now, don't think we're going to agree on this one, but that's fine.

Edited 2 minutes ago by Farmer Saint