The fall of Russell Brand is no victory for women

submitted by jet199 from spiked-online.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Just like you don't have any proof that Russell Brand has ever raped anybody.

I have pretty good evidence.

guilty until proven innocent."

Lol

Am I jailing him? Did you think that perhaps u/site_sux works for his majesty's prisons service?

Well I don't work for them, so for me, the level of evidence is enough to believe his victims.

You'll notice that he isnt in jail right now, which must be strange and confusing for you, because apparently you believed that he is determined criminally guilty and has to now prove his innocence. It must be quite confusing for you to learn that criminal justice still works how you remember it used to, and we didn't make the switch to guilty-until-proven-innocent

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

I have pretty good evidence.

You have literally no evidence. You have claims. Claims are not evidence.

You'll notice that he isnt in jail right now

No, he's not locked behind bars. But based on decades-old claims alone, he's been banned from most social media, pulled from YouTube, pulled from network TV - his career has just abruptly ended.

And it's entirely possible he didn't even do anything wrong. But that's what we do. If someone makes a claim against a man, we destroy that man. It doesn't matter whether the claim has even the tiniest bit of merit or not.

People lie. People lie a lot. Especially when there's money involved. And there's money involved here.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

No, he's not locked behind bars

Oh. But I thought you said, that you thought he had been found guilty and was now having to prove his innocence. It must be confusing for you to hold two contrasting views at once.

You have literally no evidence

First hand testimony is classed as evidence in every fucking human jurisdiction on earth you dipshit

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Oh. But I thought you said, that you thought he had been found guilty and was now having to prove his innocence.

Indeed. Based on just a claim, he's been found guilty in the court of public opinion, people like you are demanding that he never work again, and the networks are immediately complying. No trial, no evidence, just an abrupt end of a man's career based on an accusation.

First hand testimony is classed as evidence in every fucking human jurisdiction on earth you dipshit

Oh, "first-hand testimony"? So you've spoken with these women? You've asked them questions? I had no idea you were so deeply involved in the case.

Or do you mean to tell me that you're confusing first-hand testimony with media hearsay?

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Is English your first language?

I can go gentler on you, if not

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I'm actually not sure you speak English, since you think "I read a story on the Internet" is the same as "I heard it firsthand."

You might want to look up the word "firsthand."

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to ridicule you so I'll just politely say, sir, "firsthand testimony" is a legal and common vernacular phrase to refer to the testimony provided by a witness who was directly involved.

Just for example, if you watch a person on the TV news say "I was walking down the road last week and I saw a huge car crash" - you're getting first hand testimony of what happened. Even though you're experiencing it through TV or whatever. Because that's what 'first hand testimony' means.

When someone provides first hand testimony of events, that's evidence that the events happened.

We can weigh the evidence, assess it's credibility and whatnot, but it's absolutely true to say that we have firsthand testimony that Brand raped someone, and that testimony counts as evidence.

So, when you wrote this

You have literally no evidence

You were totally wrong, because first hand testimony is evidence. Even if you want to weigh or discount the evidence.

Were there any other terms or phrases I used that confused you, or that you want to ask about

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

No, sorry, you're just not right. "Firsthand testimony" means the witness appears on the stand, and delivers testimony under both direct examination and cross-examination.

If I tell you that Joe told me he saw Ron climbing the fence, you do not have Joe's firsthand testimiony. You have hearsay. It doesn't matter how "vernacular" you want to be; all you have is hearsay and it isn't admissible in any court of law.

And what you have read in the Brand case is secondhand and thirdhand hearsay, reported by a party according to its own self-interest. You have a third party selectively telling you the juiciest parts of what some women said, with no possibility of any kind of further cross-examination.

That is not evidence. You have not seen a single shred, read a single word, of evidence in this case. Do not delude yourself otherwise. And stop uncritically believing everything you read.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Joe told me he saw Ron climbing the fence

That's not hearsay; Jon literally saw it with his own eyes.

If you said "Jon told me that Ron said Ron had climbed the fence" then it's hearsay because Jon is repeating what he heard.

You're wrong. If Jon says "I saw Ron climbing", then that's evidence that Ron done did it.

If Jon is talking to a reporter who writes up the story, "on a sunny morning in May I met with Jon, who told me over coffee about when he saw Ron climb the fence"....and I am sat at home, reading the story in the paper....then I have evidence and I have first hand testimony, that Ron climbed the fence

Edit, sorry, no I dont

I would have second hand testimony in that case

If I read a line in the newspaper that says "as Jon put down his coffee he turned to me and said 'i saw Ron climb the fence'" then I would have first hand testimony

But the version presented above would be second hand, unless the journalist takes care to preserve the exact wording.

So I guess I also have second hand testimony in this case, not only first, sorry

A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was 31 and she was 16 and still at school. She said he referred to her as “the child” during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship that lasted for about three months, and that Brand once “forced his penis down her throat”, making her choke. She says she tried to push him off and said she had to punch him in the stomach to make him stop.

Here, we have both first and second hand testimony

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

If I read a line in the newspaper that says "as Jon put down his coffee he turned to me and said 'i saw Ron climb the fence'" then I would have first hand testimony

No. You absolutely would not. You would have secondhand testimony.

If Jon told you what he saw, that's firsthand testimony.

If someone told you what Jon told them he saw, that's secondhand testimony. Whether that someone is a reporter or not.

Reporters want you to believe they're dogged and careful pursuers of truth - that if they say it, you can be assured that it's the truth and the complete truth and nothing but - but that just isn't how the industry works. Reporters are on insane deadlines. They make mistakes. They have biases. They fuck up, frankly, all the time. And sometimes they're all too happy to fuck up; a fuckup that brings in a million clicks is better for the paper than a true story that brings in a hundred.

Here, we have both first and second hand testimony

No, you have secondhand and thirdhand testimony. You don't even have "a second woman's" name. You don't know who this person is. All you have is a story, told by an overworked journalist with all kinds of personal biases and professional demands, that is literally being written for profit.

And you're just like "Oh, a story, told to me by a professional writer. Well, that's the same as firsthand testimony."

Like I said: you gotta stop just uncritically believing everything you read.