El Segundo

Sorry but how does this analogy reflect the Brand situation? And again I've never said it doesn't merit criminal investigation, and potential charges, only that I don't believe there is sufficient evidence YET either way to say for certain whether he's committed a crime or not.

Yet again you're claiming something I haven't said. How many times? Where have I said I'm a fan of him getting away with it? Or am I just guilty of it because you've accused me? Is that it? You may have missed the bit in 1984 where children make accusations against their parents, neighbour against neighbour, accusing them of anti-party activity or rhetoric. Where the accusation itself is enough for condemnation and punishment, no questions asked. It's a complex and multi faceted piece, and FYI I've read it multiple times, studied it and written dissertations on it. So if you want a pissing competition about it, be my guest.

yep something that proves something - which is more than the "cracking stuff" you have offered.

Do you? How interesting.

I've already stated my opinion. Over to you.

Right so there's the nub of it, you are a proponent of trial and judgement by public opinion. AKA mob rule. LOL all you want but a reference to 1984 could hardly be more relevant. And again, where have I said he's innocent? You're arguing against something that isn't there.

Since you raised the point it would be interesting to know what alternative you would suggest that would ensure the accused gets a fair hearing. For example, if someone brought a groundless rape accusation against you.

Well pretty much actual evidence is what I would consider sufficient. You've dismissed that so what do you suggest? Perhaps you could answer the question this time instead of deflecting it.

I haven't claimed that though have I? Whereas you have just clearly claimed I've said he's not guilty, and that I 've announced there are no other critical thinkers on the thread apart from me. Neither of those are true, are they, as you well know. I repeat, my view is that I do not think I know enough with any certainty to say whether he is guilty or not, and I don't believe in trial by public opinion, rumour, accusation etc., let alone condemnation. I think some on this thread seem quite happy to do just that. It's a very slippery slope towards a very undesirable state of affairs. See 1984.

Oh dear.

So what kind of evidence would you say should suffice for a conviction?

Really? Ok show me the post or posts where I've said he's not guilty. Show me the post or posts where I've said only I am the critical thinker and no-one else is.

I wasn't referring to the Brand case in that response.

But that's pretty much what you are doing and have done. You've clearly decided that multiple accusations with no evidence are true because there is one accusation that does have some evidence - albeit I assume you haven't seen that evidence and been able to verify it or not. Not only is that one piece of evidence convincing to you, it actually constitutes a "Ton of damning evidence" against Brand. There could be multiple reasons why the Women aren't willing to press charges - the ones you've mentioned but another possibility is that the at least some of the accusations are groundless, or that they refer to bad behaviour rather than law-breaking. The ad hominem dig is a classic response to anyone who disagrees with the "party line". Predictable I suppose.

I was responding to the quote that questioned why there should need to be hard evidence required for rape convictions, not about this case.

Critical thinking is asking if the evidence is damning or not, or even if there is any evidence. From what I saw, apart from the medical records backing up the rape claim, there is no other evidence apart from the accusations themselves. And as I've said if that proves to be valid then he should pay for it. I'm just not going to decide one way or the other based on what I've been told or shown thus far.

As I said previously the rape accusation is the exception in that there appears to actually be some evidence and if that turns out to be the case then it should be his downfall. Your question related to why there are multiple accusers. One of those is a 16 year old he had a relationship with, another is by his former assistant who felt uncomfortable that he would hang around in his tighty-whiteys. A 31 year old dating a 16 year old may be distasteful, but in the eyes of the law, it' between two consenting adults. It's an accusation of morally questionable behaviour, not of a crime. The second "accusation" is just ridiculous.

So if someone randomly accused you of rape tomorrow, but had no evidence, you'd happily support a conviction for yourself based purely on the accusation?

My critical thinking on the situation is that accusations are just that, they are not evidence and they are not proof, and I choose not to judge or condemn someone based on them alone, simply because I find him, his past behaviour or his views distasteful. I don't subscribe to guilty by public opinion, guilty by accusation, guilty because someone's a bit of an arse, guilty by the rule of "no smoke without fire" or guilty until proven innocent. I prefer to keep an open mind, let the evidence be revealed and let any proceedings play out. Then an informed opinion can be formed.

But my point is that some people don't seem to just be basing their condemnations on the evidence as shown, rather that there's apparent personal prejudice at play. I fully agree the alleged rape, backed up by medical evidence, looks pretty damning for Brand, and so it should be if it proves to be true. Everything else in that programme came across as an attempt to paint Brand as the kind of person that would do such a thing, to establish a pattern of Weinstein-like behaviour, without much actual substance to it. I’d say little or none of it would stand up to scrutiny in court. One might find it distasteful that he had a fling with a 16 year old, and maybe it is, but in the eyes of the law that was two consenting adults. She may have felt controlled or manipulated, but that doesn’t mean she was. The former assistant moaning about how disgusting it was that she would often find him in his underpants came across like something from Brass Eye.

Exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. The fact that you earlier included Jordan Peterson in your list of right wing reprobates just shows how little research you've done into the subject.

It’s hard to get past the impression that some have not come to the debate with an entirely open mind, or armed with any critical thinking. There seems to be a strong bias against Brand on the basis that he’s an annoying C*** and/or expresses political and other views many don’t agree with. In my experience it’s very typical of new Left attitudes to dismiss anyone who espouses non-mainstream views as Alt-right, Conspiracy Theorists etc and therefore obviously a wrong’un. Ad hominem attacks as opposed to actually coming up with some rational counter arguments. And there’s a hint of doing likewise to other posters who present a different view as well. I’d rather hoped VT would be better than the torches and pitchforks school of debate.

I thought it was a pen but can see why there were some doubts, and I'd probably go the other way if it were against us. An element of karma maybe after we had a pen wrongfully awarded against us at Selhurst Park last year which cost us the game, not to mention the Grealish "dive" incident a few seasons ago. Torres is still not quite at it defensively, Watkins looks short on confidence, and Zaniolo I thought wanted to hold on to the ball a bit too long and take too many touches when he could have played others in earlier. I think today showed we have to be patient when teams sit deep. For 20 minutes we couldn't seem to figure out what to do, and it's probably where we miss a tricky no 10 type like Buendia or Coutinho. But then we created 4 or 5 chances and should have gone in a couple ahead - Cash had a mare in front of goal, Watkins fluffed yet another good chance, and Diaby was unlucky with the offside. Second half started with mistake after mistake, caught in possession, giving it away, slips, defensive lapses all over the place, not creating much. At about 70 minutes it looked so much like it just wasn't going to be our day that I said I'd happily take a draw. But then I think our sloppiness eventually led to the game opening up a bit as Palace saw a chance to kill the game with a second (which they almost did a coupe of times). Fair play to Unai for the subs, and to the players for not giving up. Duran's Benteke-style thunderbastard was worth the wait.

I was one of those who thought Hogan was making good runs but was poor because the other players were not on his wavelength. I thought similar of Weimann and thought he could be a top level striker in the right setup. In contrast I did like Peter Crouch and could see there was way more of a player in there than someone to just lump long balls up to. Loved Petrov's debut, thought we had acquired a cracking attacking or box to box midfielder, but everything after that disappointed me, even when he loads of others eventually took to him.

Bang on, the high line can and does work well but absolutely depends on pressing from the front so they don't have time or space to play the ball over the top or through gaps for runners. Not applying that pressure leaves a high defence exposed at the best of times, but to give so much time and space to one of the best long passers in the game was a recipe for disaster. It's one aspect of the game that Watkins is much vaunted for but he was woeful at it yesterday. Much worse than Newcastle where I thought we pretty much matched them and played some very decent stuff until Konsa's error deflated us. Yesterday the whole team seemed lethargic and slow from the off, and there are far fewer positives to take from it.