Amanda would know a thing or two about sleaze from her days/nights in Renards
3 Likes
I don’t think this is correct at all in a case with little evidence. That’s the problem. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar. Multiple similar accusations would push one into that area, but a single case of anything, without physical evidence, is very hard to get to that level of certainty, and as a pal of mine who is a judge said “if I was innocent, I’d want a judge, if I was guilty, I’d want a jury”.
A proper lizard
Amanda Brunker is an incredible bit of stuff.
What. A. Woman.
Couldn’t agree more
Dug out of her. Even now.
3 Likes
1 Like
I was in the same flight as her a few years back, she was rough as fuck. Maybe she’s improved since then.
And what word would she offer to describe Russell Brand?
6 Likes
Comparing apples and oranges there mate.
No, it’s the same, neither have been convicted of a crime of a sexual nature.
So you can’t arbitrarily deem one innocent and the other guilty.
Are you on drugs???
Presumption of innocence or “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal term.
Brand hasn’t yet been convicted so in a legal sense is innocent until proven guilty in court.
Savile was never convicted in court and never will be.
My non-legal view is Savile was a paedophile and Brand is a rapist.
Jimmy Saville had over 1,000 complaints of sexual assault / rape made against him. He also sexually assaulted a teenager live on tv in 1976.
Russell Brand has so far had four complaints made against him.
Bit of a difference mate.
1 Like
She has a shelf on her to balance it off.
Savile was never convicted. If you’re using the mantra of “innocent until proven guilty” in a strictly legal sense, Savile remains innocent, because he hasn’t been convicted, as is the case with Brand.
If you’re using “innocent until proven guilty” in a non-legal sense, then it has no meaning.
Again, for my money, both are guilty as fuck (in the colloquial sense of the term “guilty”).
The evidence against Saville (albeit a lot of it circumstantial) was overwhelming. The same cannot be said about Brand’s case. Apples and oranges.
You brought up the assumption of innocence or innocent until proven guilty concept. Now you’re throwing it out arbitrarily.
The evidence against Savile was overwhelming. But he died before he could be convicted.
For me the evidence against Brand is very strong. Multiple accusers, contemporaneous notes and text messages, a painstaking investigation by some of the most respected news gathering organisations in the UK. Brand has refused to respond despite being offered eight days in which to frame a response. His list of endorsers could scarcely be worse, they’re literally a who’s who of the world’s worst people.