Dispatches/Sunday Times investigation: Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

[mexico1970]

Indeed. That’s also why these allegations have to be taken with a lot of consideration though. Brand didn’t even respond to them let alone try to block them and the times and channel 4 lawyers wouldn’t have let it get anywhere near publication without doing a lot of checking.

I think Brand is a wrong 'un, there is more and more smoke appearing and even if a few of the allegations are correct he should be locked up and forgotten about.

The BBC sending cars out to schools to pick up schoolgirls?

Production companies aiding and abetting him be helping him acquire victims?

Powerful male and female presenters and celebrities saying nothing as this was going on, Saville was the tip of the iceberg looks like it's a picnic for the wrong 'uns in telly land.

 

[Coatigan]

Not trying to bait, just trying to better understand.

Many people do seem to be genuinely arguing that a person should not face any sort of consequence (and that we should not pass judgement or even offer our opinion on the matter) unless they have been found guilty of the allegations in question in a court of law.

Which is a stance that not only contradicts reality but what is necessary for a civil society, especially in the case of instances of sexual abuse and rape, because of the extreme failings of said formal justice system for those crimes.

And I thought—apparently mistakingly— you were in part arguing that.

I see.

The law is there to protect people from such, potentially unjust, consequence of unproven allegations and, let's call it angry mob rule. I accept that.

For me, that is essential for a functioning society.

If your view is that society cannot function without it, and the law is bullshit and should be ignored, by all means, grab your pitchfork and torch, and go a-hunting.

I will equally claim you are entitled to your rights under the law when someone thinks you should suffer the consequences of your social justice actions, without due process. And it won't be 'taking your side'.

Think that is pretty clear, and that we have exhausted this particular item.

Edit, goes without saying, I absolutely do hope all victims get their justice through the right process.

 

[inbetween]

Logically following your argument would save a fortune in prison costs because no one would ever need to be remanded in custody because they can be assumed to be innocent until their trial is over. Not sure that many trials for serious crimes would take place though due to lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of the accused.

My argument is to follow legal process which involves victims going to the Police and not journalists who have their own agenda. Remand is just a possible part of that legal process but you have to start the process to get to that.

Remember that someone can only be remanded when charges are brought against them but no charges have been brought against Brand. Until then in the eyes of the law he hasn't done anything wrong and he hasn't possibly done anything wrong either. If he wanted to do a runner then there is nothing to stop him. Unfortunately that's how our legal system works, the burden falls on the Police and CPS.

So again this is why women should go to the Police first and the media last. The Police have the power to bring cases into the media too, for example to try and attract witnesses to come forward. Allowing journalists to set the agenda in public instead has never ended well.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Allowing journalists to set the agenda in public instead has never ended well.

Saville, Weinstein, Catholic Chruch peado ring ?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Indeed. That’s also why these allegations have to be taken with a lot of consideration though. Brand didn’t even respond to them let alone try to block them and the times and channel 4 lawyers wouldn’t have let it get anywhere near publication without doing a lot of checking.

I will almost guarantee that Brand (really his legal team, whatever form that took) will not have acted to block the reporting because doing so would trigger legally required discovery, which would be even more a damaging to him.

For instance, I am sure he was hoping many of the women coming out with additional allegations now would stay quiet with just his response and the online backlash from his followers.

It is why I will be very surprised if he actually attempts to fight the allegations in court, for the same reason Rubiales hasn’t really done so in his scandal: any actual legal proceedings to refute or counter prosecute the accusations would open Brand up to scrutiny he would struggle to control.

 

[mexico1970]

My argument is to follow legal process which involves victims going to the Police and not journalists who have their own agenda. Remand is just a possible part of that legal process but you have to start the process to get to that.

Remember that someone can only be remanded when charges are brought against them but no charges have been brought against Brand. Until then in the eyes of the law he hasn't done anything wrong and he hasn't possibly done anything wrong either. If he wanted to do a runner then there is nothing to stop him. Unfortunately that's how our legal system works, the burden falls on the Police and CPS.

So again this is why women should go to the Police first and the media last. The Police have the power to bring cases into the media too, for example to try and attract witnesses to come forward. Allowing journalists to set the agenda in public instead has never ended well.

Once he's charged or is it arrested the papers can't fill their papers full of allegations can they? Best to allow social media to feast before he gets arrested and faces the beak.

 

[mexico1970]

Saville, Weinstein, Catholic Chruch peado ring ?

All still going on unabated is my bet mate, there are enough people in fact most people who work in the industry to be complicit in turning a blind eye.

Maybe they all have different moral values compared to the rest of the public?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Allowing journalists to set the agenda in public instead has never ended well.

Allowing journalists to force accusations to be investigated has historically been the only way to get most of them to be investigated in the first place. Arguing women should go to the police instead of journalists (especially when journalists are going to the women, rather than being sought by them) is just arguing for the status of quo of most sexually abuse going on investigated and unpunished.

And I have already explained why most women do not go to the police when they are sexual abused or raped (for very good reason that are not motivated by “education”).

@inbetween I saw your reply to me but now it has disappeared for some reason, but I wanted to say that the vast majority of women choose not to go to the police when they have been sexually abused or raped for many, many reasons that “education” will have very little impact on.

These reasons include:

1) the abuse is often perpetrated by someone they know (often their romantic or legal partner) so there are very real, very immediate consequences for reporting the abuse to the police.

2) even when the abuser is not known by the accused, historically reporting the abuse or rape to the police, even immediately, has lead to no consequences for the perpetrators and very real negative consequences for the victims.

3) even when charges are brought against perpetrators, historically very few cases have lead to convictions because the standard of proof is well beyond simply “did they likely do it”; perpetrators also often get off on technicalities, frequently because of the ineptitude of investigators (i.e. they may make procedural mistakes that lead to evidence being barred from being used in proceedings).

4) the police or other authorities have historically not taken accusations of sexual abuse and rape seriously and/or they have been unable to properly investigate the accusations due to poor training, staffing, or resourcing (for example, many authorities—including local clinics—still do not have valid “rape kits” and proper storage for them on premises).

And again, beyond all that, historically, many instances of sexual abuse and rape were only even investigated by authorities after they were reported in the media, even though some instances had been officially reported months or years earlier.

See my post above.

If everyone were to wait for an accused person to be charged before reporting on or discussing it, the vast majority of sexual abuse would continue to go unreported or discussed, and consequently not investigated or punished.

The public pressure is what causes most charges to be brought in the first place. And is why so few charges were brought in the past: the accusations were kept out of public awareness and the accusers were often protected from inquiry.

Once he's charged or is it arrested the papers can't fill their papers full of allegations can they? Best to allow social media to feast before he gets arrested and faces the beak.

 

[argyle]

Why haven't they gone to the police!!!

 

[Bazzmand Show]

Met Police receives Russell Brand sex assault claim dating back to 2003 - as live shows postponed

It comes after four women made sexual abuse allegations against the comedian between 2006 and 2013 as part of an investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches. He denies the claims.

news.sky.com

This is about to get real.

 

[inbetween]

Saville, Weinstein, Catholic Chruch peado ring ?

What is the conviction rate for the tens of thousands of women every year who are raped and in desperation go to the papers but are ignored or don't exactly make the front page? The only differentiation for these women is they weren't raped by a celebrity.

That says all you need to know about the media and their real view on these issues. To them this is a story to sell clicks, views and newspapers so their opinion and stake is entirely secondary in my opinion.

 

[Bazzmand Show]

It was reported to police in 2003

They received it yesterday. It was alleged to have taken place in 2003.

 

[meltonblue]

I think Brand is a wrong 'un, there is more and more smoke appearing and even if a few of the allegations are correct he should be locked up and forgotten about.

The BBC sending cars out to schools to pick up schoolgirls?

Production companies aiding and abetting him be helping him acquire victims?

Powerful male and female presenters and celebrities saying nothing as this was going on, Saville was the tip of the iceberg looks like it's a picnic for the wrong 'uns in telly land.

Saw a thing last night about the culture in the noughties and even this recently after it, it’s pretty shocking looking back now.

My argument is to follow legal process which involves victims going to the Police and not journalists who have their own agenda. Remand is just a possible part of that legal process but you have to start the process to get to that.

Remember that someone can only be remanded when charges are brought against them but no charges have been brought against Brand. Until then in the eyes of the law he hasn't done anything wrong and he hasn't possibly done anything wrong either. If he wanted to do a runner then there is nothing to stop him. Unfortunately that's how our legal system works, the burden falls on the Police and CPS.

So again this is why women should go to the Police first and the media last. The Police have the power to bring cases into the media too, for example to try and attract witnesses to come forward. Allowing journalists to set the agenda in public instead has never ended well.

Of course it has, there’s been plenty of occasions where there would not be a case for the police to investigate or the CPS to try and prosecute without investigative journalists doing the job they’re there to do in the first place. Thats just doing exactly what Brand is trying to get his followers to do and see the media as just one big blob to detract from anything valuable it might still do.

There’s absolutely valid reasons for women to not want to go to the police first. They can’t speak with anonymity, they don’t have the empowerment of having a collective voice, they know the statistics of successful convictions being three straight away. The hope when things like this are published is that it empowers them further to be willing to do that next step. Just looking at some of the reactions already online though shows exactly why plenty would choose not to.

 

[argyle]

My argument is to follow legal process which involves victims going to the Police and not journalists who have their own agenda. Remand is just a possible part of that legal process but you have to start the process to get to that.

Remember that someone can only be remanded when charges are brought against them but no charges have been brought against Brand. Until then in the eyes of the law he hasn't done anything wrong and he hasn't possibly done anything wrong either. If he wanted to do a runner then there is nothing to stop him. Unfortunately that's how our legal system works, the burden falls on the Police and CPS.

So again this is why women should go to the Police first and the media last. The Police have the power to bring cases into the media too, for example to try and attract witnesses to come forward. Allowing journalists to set the agenda in public instead has never ended well.

I guess unless you've been sexually assaulted or know someone who has been destroyed by it and had to deal with the very really feeling of shame, guilt, anger etc then you'll never know why people are reluctant to tell anyone let alone the police.

Plus, it's been widely reported the last few years that some of the police have prayed upon women reporting sexual assault etc.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

1st case from 2003 referred to the Met.
Good to see the legal process beginning.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

They received it yesterday. It was alleged to have taken place in 2003.

My mistake

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

What is the conviction rate for the tens of thousands of women every year who are raped and in desperation go to the papers but are ignored or don't exactly make the front page? The only differentiation for these women is they weren't raped by a celebrity.

That says all you need to know about the media and their real view on these issues. To them this is a story to sell clicks, views and newspapers so their opinion and stake is entirely secondary in my opinion.

These women are scared of Brand. Hence they are keeping their anonymity. This rules out their motive being money.

 

[argyle]

I am a product of rape in a marriage , coersive control and bullying , my mum really suffered . Some have a problem with the concept of rape by a husband , indeed it was considered not a crime in the not too distance past

Brand was a real letch when he did the big brother show , literally touching and sitting on young women , he may not be guilty in a court , that of course is a tough ask to get a conviction in rape cases and the victims are turned into the hunted , but he is a nonce and predatory man

Sending strength to you Kaz. These stories aren't good to read at the best of times let alone what you've been through.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I see.

The law is there to protect people from such, potentially unjust, consequence of unproven allegations and, let's call it angry mob rule. I accept that.

For me, that is essential for a functioning society.

If your view is that society cannot function without it, and the law is bullshit and should be ignored, by all means, grab your pitchfork and torch, and go a-hunting.

I will equally claim you are entitled to your rights under the law when someone thinks you should suffer the consequences of your social justice actions, without due process. And it won't be 'taking your side'.

Think that is pretty clear, and that we have exhausted this particular item.

Edit, goes without saying, I absolutely do hope all victims get their justice through the right process.

No, my view is that society intrinsically functions on forms of justice being enforced outside of the legal system. And that is how it has to function because the legal system is necessary but not sufficient for a fully functioning civil society.

And, once more, you have enforced those non-legal forms of justice many times over your life and so arguing that that it is wrong to do so is arguing that you are yourself wrong for doing so.

If “justice” was only ever enforced via the courts, people would be doing and allowing all manner of horrible things. Which I admit they are now, unfortunately, but at even higher rates than we see now.

It is a pretty universally established fact in sociology that “justice” is not merely enforced through formal systems created and administered by state entities. And that it can’t be, as formal systems aren’t sufficient in themselves to maintain functioning civil societies (they are not large enough, robust enough, or present enough to do so).

Literally all evidence supports that.

It is not an argument against legal systems and state enforced justice. It is merely an acknowledgment of the nearly universally accepted reality that civil societies require other forms of “justice” to function, as well. And all societal consequences cannot be simply predicated on whether someone has been found legally guilty in a state administered legal system.

If that were the case, most offences would never be punished in any way, whether breaking off ties with someone that has abused or mistreated you, or consequences being enforced with the likes of Jimmy Saville.

You are a member of a civil society, you have enforced consequences on others that have never been found guilty in a court of law of the offence you are effectively punishing them for, so I don’t really understand why we are even arguing this point.

 

[meltonblue]

I see.

The law is there to protect people from such, potentially unjust, consequence of unproven allegations and, let's call it angry mob rule. I accept that.

For me, that is essential for a functioning society.

If your view is that society cannot function without it, and the law is bullshit and should be ignored, by all means, grab your pitchfork and torch, and go a-hunting.

I will equally claim you are entitled to your rights under the law when someone thinks you should suffer the consequences of your social justice actions, without due process. And it won't be 'taking your side'.

Think that is pretty clear, and that we have exhausted this particular item.

Edit, goes without saying, I absolutely do hope all victims get their justice through the right process.

But the law gives Brand that exact same opportunity now too, he can sue Channel 4 and the times for defamation if he chooses to.

Not everything is decided in a court, and more so not a criminal court.