General News Chat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason89

Nobody would have a football message board account, if they didn’t like a bit of gossip. It’s not that I love it, it’s that I find the reactions to these cases fascinating.

You can tell a lot about someone from it, particularly if there’s noncing involved

---

And you've decided he is guilty without any real criminal investigation taking place. Says a lot about someone when their mind is made up by media clickbait.

I tend to agree with your stance on human rights, feeedoms etc. But you must admit that, by taking the guilty until proven innocent stance, you are being manipulated by the Internet gods in the way you are always accusing DD of being a sucker to.

Do you just have something against Russell Brand, or do you believe anyone who is accused of being a s*xual predator is guilty through accusation?

Again, there is a good chance he is guilty, but there is also a good chance he is innocent. None of us know him and what went on so we can't lap up a sensational headline as gospel.

But when you have Andrew Tate backing you things don't look good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason89

The age of consent is set at 16, so 16 year olds don’t get criminalised for pumping each other. It’s not for folk in their 30s to send their BBC chauffeur to the school gates to pick them up, just because it’s legal

Legally obviously it’s black and white. Morally, it’s miles away from a grey area.

---

Playing devil's advocate here, I think it's actually because it is the age the courts (rightly or wrongly) decide someone is mature enough to make their own decisions. That aside, I agree it is totally morally reprehensible for anyone in their 30s - 20s even - to take advantage of a vulnerable t*en.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhenTattieFlooredChas

And you've decided he is guilty without any real criminal investigation taking place. Says a lot about someone when their mind is made up by media clickbait.

---

I’ve decided there’s enough out there already to know he’s a total tadger. I’d imagine there’s a lot of legal hoops to jump through before that program gets anywhere near going out. There’s more substance to it than media clickbait

You’re right though, there hasn’t been any criminal investigation, which is odd in itself. Wonder if any more complaints surface from back then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhenTattieFlooredChas

Playing devil's advocate here, I think it's actually because it is the age the courts (rightly or wrongly) decide someone is mature enough to make their own decisions. That aside, I agree it is totally morally reprehensible for anyone in their 30s - 20s even - to take advantage of a vulnerable t*en.

---

Apropos of nothing really but I learned I had no right to see any medical notes or discuss possible remedial action for my 16 year old son when he was seriously ill in hospital.
That fairly shocked me initially until I considered he was an adult in the eyes of the law.

I'm not going to touch the current topic with a bargepole, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason89

The age of consent is set at 16, so 16 year olds don’t get criminalised for pumping each other. It’s not for folk in their 30s to send their BBC chauffeur to the school gates to pick them up, just because it’s legal

Legally obviously it’s black and white. Morally, it’s miles away from a grey area.

---

The reverend Mason strikes again.
I agree with you regarding the morals but you have to accept it is your favourite subject, you just love it.


He looks a right tösser to me, but that doesn't mean he's guilty.

Folk have to be careful about accusing famous folk, who are being chased every day by jailbait, about misdemeanours from ages ago.

It’s the General News Chat thread. The thread to chat about general news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason89

They only had an hour. Was there not a caption up that said they’d checked all the sources? I watched it pished so I might well be talking rubbish. I would’ve thought that they’ve quadruple checked all this before putting it out though

---

There was nothing stating that they had even tried to track down those potential witnesses never mind got them to confirm her story. Not that I don't believe her of course.

I also find it a bit too hypocritical that it was The Times that was partly involved in the investigation and of course it was their sister paper that was giving Brand their 'top shagger' award back in the day.

Agree with you about the Sun but I just can’t imagine the documentary being shown if they hadn’t done their homework.

Just like the police would never arrest anyone who was innocent?

Nae smoke without fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donsdaft

Just like the police would never arrest anyone who was innocent?

Nae smoke without fire.

---

The police don’t seem in any rush to arrest him. I don’t think they would’ve touched it with a barge pole