You must log in or # to comment.
It’s always the people who you expect the most.
That’s very unsurprising
This is the guy we should be deporting.
Again?
This explains his sudden turn to Christianity last year. He’s going to try the “God forgave me” defense.
it was pretty obvious when he started to trying to hide behind the pro-rape party of conservatives.
More like “I can’t be guilty of such a crime. I’m saved!”
It’s always the ones you most suspect.
after a police investigation into allegations made following the broadcast of a Channel 4 documentary
"The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial.
Were the allegations not brought to the police before the tv documentary? Why didn’t the police investigate before? If so there should be an investigation and prosecution of those involved in the “non-investigation”.
This failure to investigate is an outrage, many people including me listened to Russel Brand in the 2010s, but the police failed to investigate and now has the gall to say “the defendant has a right to a fair trial”? Does the public not also have a right to a fail investigation and prosecution?
Its always the ones you expect
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked.
honest question here. unless there is video and audio proof. how the fuck could someone be charged for this 20+ years later over “he said she said”? like how the hell does that work. Could i just pick a random person and say they raped me in 2002 and then they will go to prison?
Could i just pick a random person and say they raped me in 2002 and then they will go to prison?
Yes, that is how it works. They will be in prison the next day.
It’s actually really easy. All you have to do is prepare some evidence, such as text messages and emails in 2002.
Then you need to have several really cool and chill interviews with detectives. You should get your family and friends to lie to the police as well – tell them to say that you described the fabricated rape to them way back in 2002.
You should also make up some fake police reports from 2002 which were not pursued.
The real trick though is getting several other women to do the same thing.
Then yeah, the next day the police will arrest the person you’ve accused and they will be jailed without trial.
You’re a fucking idiot.
Relax buddy. He was asking a genuine question, not doubting the victim.
Yeah, he’s just asking questions, what’s the big deal?
Yeah, it was a genuinely dumb question.
Edit: also, this wasn’t a genuine question. Read it again, the poster makes a bunch of ridiculous assumptions to frame this as an absurd scenario. People who ask questions like this aren’t doing it in good faith, and they should be told to fuck off with prejudice.
Sounds like a lot of not evidence to me. Also, probably bring it up sooner.
Are you ok? That is call law and order. You accuse someone, judge look into it, if there is a merit, it goes to trial, and law can determine based on evidence?
Did you read my question and comprehend it? I said other than video or audio proof how could there been be evidence in a case like this other than hearsay?
Likely there would be more evidence. Eye witness accounts of the two parties together around the time of the incident; photos taken before or after the assault; Hospital records; Police reports made that were not followed up at the time; Texts; Call logs; surveillance video. There is a lot of evidence that can support an accusation like this.
As to why it’s been so long, coming forward after events like this can be terrifying. People who have been assaulted can hold a lot of self-blame. They can feel alone in their trauma, and the chorus of “she was asking for it” and other bs would be a big deterrent from coming forward. Isolation and stigma are a big reason that powerful people have gotten away with being abusive monsters for so long. It’s also why multiple accusations seem to crop up at the same time. The claimants see others who have suffered like them and feel less isolated and more supported in their claims.
I can’t believe I bought this guys book. WTF was I thinking.
Dude has charisma and is skilled at improv. He had a story of overcoming addiction and had some good things to say about social issues back then. That kind of thing sells, so lots of scumbags put it in their bios.
How can this book be more than interesting and novel grammatical constructs saying a lot of bull shit at 200kmh?
He’ll be in Joe Rogan in about a month
Freudian slip, but true nonetheless
Wasn’t it somehow clear he did something like that?
The way he groped Vanessa Bayer on SNL, I can’t say I’m surprised
For anyone who cares to watch:
Season 36, episode 15. Air date: Feb 12, 2011. Skit: Livin’ Single.Over a decade later, it still makes me uncomfortable.
Wait, was that amount of groping not part of the sketch?
I’d imagine they had that planned out, but you never know I guess.
Age-restricted videos cannot be watched without Google login
Lol. Can’t watch evidence of allegations of pundits and politicians without giving your phone number and therefor become personally identifiable.
So you believe that Google is sharing the personal details of everyone that watches particular videos with some shady left wing cabal of pundits? Maybe it’s just an inappropriate video.
They even cited the exact episode, there are plenty of other ways to see that clip if you don’t want to log in. And isn’t it always republicans passing laws requiring ID for “adult content”?
ALL of your videos. And to and however it’s most profitable. If not now in the future. And left wing causes have little money, so no lol.
Do we know that that wasn’t consensual? Did she say later that the bit went further than they had agreed?
lol
