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

[LangleyBlue1970]

I see Perry has crawled out from recording her shit songs.

 

[jimbopm]

As with other media exposes (Weinstein, Saville, Epstein etc) it's taken a really long and concerted investigation in order to make it to the publication stage. C4/The Times would have been fully aware of the litigation risks from Brand had they not double and triple checked their sources and info. The fact that it's a supposedly right leaning newspaper and a supposedly left leaning broadcaster collaborating on the investigation was no doubt intended to rebuff any accusations of bias one way or another. Predictably Brand has tried to paint this as some sort of mainstream media conspiracy against him, but the truth is that a conspiracy can easily be unravelled by facts and evidence.

My sympathies with the victims, another case of helpless/impressionable women being coerced, forced even, into intimacy by a male with a high profile in the 'celebrity' world. Never underestimate the courage required - even under anonymity - to be able to come forward with these claims. No doubt many of these victims tried to convince themselves that there was something normal about what happened to them, maybe even blaming
themselves for what happened.

As for why not go to the police and that argument. We know how difficult it has been for our legal system to make charges of rape and sexual assault stick in the courts and going to the police means going public, fighting the case on your own against a person with a higher profile and much greater resources at their disposal. By going this way they can be protected with anonymity and as we have seen since the revelations first broke, it allows others to come forward, adding weight to the evidence and providing validation of their own experiences.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Whoah. Mate, with all due respect, you are way fucking overthinking this.

I don’t think I am.

I think many are under-thinking the implications of the sort of reasoning being used in this thread and it was one of the drivers of challenges society faces now.

Underuse of reasoning and logic is a huge problem today—in fact, the likes of Russell Brand, Alex Jones, Joe Rogab, Peirs Morgan, Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, and many others have made a career of that deficiency and we are all suffering because of it.

 

[mexico1970]

Yes, it definitely is these days. Notably so. Especially if it went to a trial, which it must have done.

Sentences for rape have gone up enormously in the last couple of decades.

There should be almost no mitigating circumstances for adults, plenty get away with light terms.

I know you say they have gone up and you obviously have more knowledge on the sentencing guidelines than I do but there are some proper wrong 'uns who are out there after short sentences.

I am proud of my son, I attended court to give him support as he sent someone he went to school with down, now the **** is getting out soon.

 

[youngbob]

As with other media exposes (Weinstein, Saville, Epstein etc) it's taken a really long and concerted investigation in order to make it to the publication stage. C4/The Times would have been fully aware of the litigation risks from Brand had they not double and triple checked their sources and info. The fact that it's a supposedly right leaning newspaper and a supposedly left leaning broadcaster collaborating on the investigation was no doubt intended to rebuff any accusations of bias one way or another. Predictably Brand has tried to paint this as some sort of mainstream media conspiracy against him, but the truth is that a conspiracy can easily be unravelled by facts and evidence.

My sympathies with the victims, another case of helpless/impressionable women being coerced, forced even, into intimacy by a male with a high profile in the 'celebrity' world. Never underestimate the courage required - even under anonymity - to be able to come forward with these claims. No doubt many of these victims tried to convince themselves that there was something normal about what happened to them, maybe even blaming
themselves for what happened.

As for why not go to the police and that argument. We know how difficult it has been for our legal system to make charges of rape and sexual assault stick in the courts and going to the police means going public, fighting the case on your own against a person with a higher profile and much greater resources at their disposal. By going this way they can be protected with anonymity and as we have seen since the revelations first broke, it allows others to come forward, adding weight to the evidence and providing validation of their own experiences.

Funny thing is as well that Brand has drifted further and further right while Channel 4 are generally still a pretty centre-left org. The Times are a fairly centre-right paper while the most "left wing" thing Brand has ever done is... endorse centrist Ed Miliband eight years ago? Almost as if there's no real correlation to anything him or his followers are suggesting, lol.

 

[Summerbuzz]

People on social media reckon their contribution to this rolling advertising hoarding is so important the casually devalue the justice system. Who would ever have seen it coming. I mean, after a year or two, it's clear nothing else is possible.

God we're appalling. And so weak!

 

[west didsblue]

We live in the UK and freedom of speech, We should never condemn anybody out of a court of law until proven innocent or guilty,

We have to stop all this crap with the media and social media sites, We are not the judge or jury
Because somebody has made a claim in the media he's instantly found guilty,

I value people views on here, but when it comes to a media witch hunt and people believe it straight away and dare members to speak out that maybe something is not right here,

It is scary that in 2023 the people on social media sites are now a jury in a court of law

It’s scary that there are still people like you that clearly think pedo priests, noncy celebrities and bent coppers should be left to get on with their crimes until someone has enough faith in the system to report them at their local police station and the police take them seriously enough to launch an investigation.

If you can’t see there’s a very real need for good investigative journalists to put together a case where otherwise the perpetrator would be practically untouchable there’s no hope for you.

 

[Coatigan]

It’s not, why would you think it is? People directly involved rarely change their minds in online media discussions!

Doesn’t mean people reading it won’t though and there’s a plethora of people today (in general rather than on here) saying it should solely be down to the police and the CPS and I just think that’s fundamentally not true and am explaining why.

Seems a bit unfair to repeatedly do it through responses to me on a point I made over a day ago though, does it not? Which let's face it is not entirely the broader point you are arguing.

 

[BobKowalski]

We live in the UK and freedom of speech, We should never condemn anybody out of a court of law until proven innocent or guilty,

We have to stop all this crap with the media and social media sites, We are not the judge or jury
Because somebody has made a claim in the media he's instantly found guilty,

I value people views on here, but when it comes to a media witch hunt and people believe it straight away and dare members to speak out that maybe something is not right here,

It is scary that in 2023 the people on social media sites are now a jury in a court of law

Brand and others like him do this all the time. It‘s their entire revenue stream. The list of people they are judge, jury and (in some cases) executioner is a long one. I assume you are just as outraged on behalf of the victims they target?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Funny thing is as well that Brand has drifted further and further right while Channel 4 are generally still a pretty centre-left org. The Times are a fairly centre-right paper while the most "left wing" thing Brand has ever done is... endorse centrist Ed Miliband eight years ago? Almost as if there's no real correlation to anything him or his followers are suggesting, lol.

Is it a left to right shift, or has he merely become anti anything he perceives has more power than it should in his mind?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Exactly that. I just don’t agree with the notion that the CPS’s ability to get a conviction is the sole arbiter of what we should deem acceptable in our society or that a court case is always needed for judgment. It is for a criminal judgment absolutely.

As it currently stands, the accusations put at him are from people across different judiciaries and from people wanting anonymity and so haven’t approached the police directly themselves. The chances of getting a conviction on anything based on that is essentially none.

What we do have though is channel 4 and the times both willing to publish those allegations. They would only do that based on extensive analysis by their lawyers into the corroborating evidence for them to believe it is true and could stand up in court if they were to be sued for defamation. We also have his agent saying publicly they believe they were deliberately misled by him.

Whatever actions Brand decides to do now may well show his guilt or innocence just as much as a criminal court case does. If he really can “refute” the allegations and has direct witnesses that contradict the evidence the Times has, then he can take it to court himself if he wants to. It’s worth bearing in mind he had eight days to respond to it though and his lawyers clearly couldn’t find anything credible enough in that time frame given they went to print, instead his approach is to describe it as a co-ordinated attack on him by the mainstream media.

Personally, I don’t have a firm opinion on whether he’s guilty of a criminal act or not yet. I did find the testimony of the women credible though and at the very least, he’s a bit of a noncey ****. There’s plenty that could happen for me to formulate a firm opinion I’m happy to stick to though without the need of a criminal case.

It’s a toss up who to reply to, you or Seb. or even bluenova.

I think Seb stated it right that there seems to be two different arguments, sorry, debates going on here.

I’m usually very careful in how I phrase my point and do hope that the subtleties don’t get lost.

I have not watched the program as I keep stating so cannot comment on it’s purpose. However allegations of him being a nonce, don’t surprise me.

I read your post above and find us largely in agreement. Whether I’d use the word ‘testimony’ or not is beside the point. I think I understand yours and everyone else’s substantive pov.

As a general concept however, I have made the point that great care is required in the type of investigative journalism that helps a victim secure a successful prosecution.
Done wrongly with perhaps more salacious motives it can hamper the pursuit of justice.
I can’t judge the CH4 program and I certainly wouldn’t criticise the MeToo movement.

From what I’ve read in here I wouldn’t regard inbetween, Coatigan or myself, blueinsa and maybe a few others as defending Brand or any other nonces you care to mention. We are supporting a tenet of the law that I feel regardless of the subject matter ie sexual offences, should not be made an exception of.
There are plenty of sensitive areas in all sorts of crime and I think you are on dangerous ground if you start picking and choosing who or what deserves the presumption of innocence.
Innocent people have been convicted of crimes they haven’t committed. Is their hurt any less than a victim of rapes?
You can’t compare or equate the two abstractly. You need detail. But the law covers each scenario equally, you would hope.

I’ll state again for the record. Never liked the bloke. The allegations don’t surprise me.
I hope the aim of this program was to get more people to come forward and strengthen the evidence against him, so that a legal process against him can commence and ultimately secure a conviction, as I think this is what serves justice best for those he has allegedly abused.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Brand and others like him do this all the time. It‘s their entire revenue stream. The list of people they are judge, jury and (in some cases) executioner is a long one. I assume you are just as outraged on behalf of the victims they target?

And is that right.
It’s another reason most of us don’t like him.

 

[SebastianBlue]

You are welcome to give me examples of my enforcing 'non-legal justice'. Tell me my life story while you are at it.

Our views on what makes good society, and the law, clearly differ.

Our views on Brand, ironically most likely do not.

I really don't know why it is so important to you that I or someone else comes to agree with you that 'social justice' is the way forward, and the law should get binned. But it is pretty clear you won't get me to. Eventhough I do enjoy Batman.

By the way, I have never said the law should be binned. In fact I have repeatedly said the opposite, so I am not sure why you are being disingenuous in your characterisations of my responses.

 

[Coatigan]

Have you ever stopped speaking to someone because they mistreated you?

Have you ever spoken negatively with others about the behaviour of someone else you found problematic or abhorrent?

Do you think Jimmy Saville is innocent?

The thing about my argument is that I don’t have to know your or anyone’s life story. I know with certainty you have enforced non-legal “justice” on others over the course of your life, because it is literally impossible not for you to have done so.

Damn it man, I wanted specific examples, not hypothetical ones!

And on that slightly light-hearted comment, I bow out and excuse myself from this discussion, with no disrespect to you or Melton.

It is clear you both mean well. It is not like I mean any harm myself. But this goes beyond the topic at hand.

I wish you both well on your crusade, but it is not for me. I've got washing to hang out.

 

[Coatigan]

By the way, I have never said the law should be binned. In fact I have repeatedly said the opposite, so I am not sure why you are being disingenuous in your characterisations of my responses.

Apologies, for taking that as implied. Having felt you were putting words in my mouth earlier, I know how it feels, and it was not my intention.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

The allegation from 2003 referred to the Met pre dates anything exposed by the TV or the Times by 3 years. They didn't go back beyond 2006.

 

[Centurions]

You think 7 years is high enough for rape? This is why it needs a rethink mate, it's nowhere near enough in my opinion.

If you'll rape someone you'll do anything.

That isn't what I said and it was in reply to the one case you mentioned. According to GDM they're much higher nowadays anyway.

 

[meltonblue]

Seems a bit unfair to repeatedly do it through responses to me on a point I made over a day ago though, does it not? Which let's face it is not entirely the broader point you are arguing.

No, I thought you were arguing and making a different point.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

No, we are arguing two completely different things.

We agree on the right of presumption of innocence within a legal framework (i.e. state enforced consequences of actions deemed illegal)—we have always agreed on that right.

But you seemingly reject that a civil society contains other forms of justice outside of the court system.

Which I do not understand, given that is pretty universally established as fact, especially as you will have enforced non-legal justice many, many times over your life.

And the understanding of that means Brand can face consequences for his actions outside of legal proceedings, as is the case for a great many people not found legally guilty of a crime, like Jimmy Saville.

Presumption of innonence in the court system does not have to be (and is not) applied to every possible type of consequence in society.

And hiding behind that right to argue that no person should face any consequences if they are not found guilty in a court of law is an ethically bankrupt stance, especially in the case of sexual abuse and rape, because the vast majority of those acts go unpunished by the justice system.

By that logic, no one should have any issue having a known (but not convicted) child abuser take care of their children. After all, the legal system chose not to enforce consequences on that person so everyone else must do the same.

I am not sure if you are necessarily taking that stance, but it does appear to be the nonsensical position of a few in this thread.

Seb, I can only speak for myself, and I think I understand your argument.
Emotively I would agree with you but I do look at the other side of the coin too.
It has to be the worst thing in the world for any man to have any such accusation made against him.
Leave Brand out of it though and think of the overall argument dispassionately.
I think the onus of proof being on the prosecution is as good a general rule as you are going to get.
The opposite doesn’t bare thinking about.

I don’t think anyone in here has defended Brand or any other nonces mentioned. Nobody is suggesting that Saville is innocent just because he wasn’t convicted while alive. In fact I think it adds to peoples frustration around the subject, the fact that justice was not served before he died.
People hate the fact he was protected and it causes great anger.

Well as I have stated, innocent people have been convicted too and this would be far more prevalent if the onus of proof of innocence was on the defence b

 

[domalino]

The allegation from 2003 referred to the Met pre dates anything exposed by the TV or the Times by 3 years. They didn't go back beyond 2006.

Pretty mad that we’re talking about 20 years ago now.

This was all out there waiting to be uncovered through all of the metoo accusations and cases in 2018 and somehow he got past that unscathed.