1996

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@CapelLofft You say this is logical product of post 60s sex values. Have abuses of power with sexual undertones/ ulterior motives not occurred in pre-60s western societies?

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@CapelLofft there seems to be alleged an exploitation of power and control. A liberal could reasonably chastise this in multiple settings, work, relationships etc. even if it’s not illegal. Nobody is calling for him to be prosecuted for non-crimes.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@TommyLaRussoLLC A jury found him guilty, not the judge. The judge sentenced him appropriately. His race isn’t relevant.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@RadhaStirling No. Witnesses that came forward. Testified. The jury were sure on 4 counts. It really is that simple.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@RadhaStirling “Mud-slinging” it was multiple direct witnesses. “Trivial cases” it was a rape and sexual assault case. As for anonymity, that is to reporting. The victims still had to come to court and answer questions.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@WallStreetMav Making random shit up. Muslims are disproportionately Represented as prisoners in the UK. And the evidence against Brand was multiple witness accounts, his own book, his old friend, and his own inconsistent evidence. You are defending a rapist.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@brightwell2013 No actually plenty are defending him. Nobody “walks free”

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@TheHRH It’s about rape dumbass

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@vetementsiaga Or rather, why is it a problem they’re treated with similar harshness?

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@vetementsiaga Who said it was the same as serious intentional GBH? The max sentence for both is life. And you’re downplaying a violent anal rape.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@eleanorzjames She said stop. And going straight to anal sex is more than just “going with the flow”

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@gary_robertson No offence is barred from being found simply because there is “only” witness evidence to prove it. Plus you’re conveniently leaving out ALL the evidence in the case. Multiple independent women. Brand’s own book and inconsistent evidence. The non-victim witnesses.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@MikhailaFuller @The_M_95 Direct witness evidence is not hearsay. You are spreading uneducated lies because you don’t understand the law. It may be best to stop

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@MikhailaFuller It’s not insane. Check the UK sentencing guidelines for rape, which you clearly haven’t read. The judge took his children into account. But if you’ve raped someone, you deserve a serious sentence. It’s pretty simple actually but people like you just want to talk about gangs

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@remigrationbob @AngryBootneck What’s the evidence she did without consent? And you’re making wildly illogical leaps as to consent. She said she said no at the time. Doesn’t matter what happened before. God forbid you end up on a jury

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@remigrationbob @AngryBootneck Just because someone is promiscuous, it doesn’t mean they consent to everything being done to them.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@remigrationbob @AngryBootneck Hilarious irrelevant comment. She wasn’t on trial for sexual assault.

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@Ollie9032810461 @AngryBootneck He got justice and fair play. He got a trial by jury and they were sure he was guilty of 4 offences, and not sure about the others. It’s not like they were just out to get him. Otherwise they would have found him guilty of all three rapes plus everything else

[1996 @QadriRayan]

@Ollie9032810461 @AngryBootneck Having listened to the reporting of the evidence, which includes not only that women’s allegations, but OTHERS, Brand’s own confessions, his inconsistencies in evidence, yes. I’m not saying you HAVE to be to. But I am saying it’s clear why others might. Including the jury.