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

[Alan Harper's Tash]

What was that thing Einstein said?…

Some nonsense about energy being equal to mass and how fast light travels squared.

Probsbly after a huge absinthe session.

 

[hammocity]

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

So sorry to hear that Kaz, it’s a shocking crime.

A friend and colleague of mine Julie, was raped by her alcoholic husband about 16 years ago. I went to my office and found slumped on the floor hiding from others, absolutely shaken up and mentally distraught from the incident, I wanted her inform the Police but she wouldn’t, she left him that day taking the 3 kids with her. Anyway, thankfully he died a few years later from his love of Vodka and Julie got her house back. She’s now happily married to a really lovely guy who supported her through hew divorce. Julie’s husband was a rag and so was her son, however I called at her house one day and she said to her son who was in his bedroom “Mark’s here, come down and show him your new football kit”. He came into the room wearing a brand new City kit, he’d switched sides because he hated how his Dad was treating his Mum. He’s mid 20’s now.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I’m very much in agreement with this and agree with the sentiment of being very careful. As I said, the times and channel 4 lawyers would have worked very hard (and at considerable cost) before they’d have gone to publication on this and ultimately they are staking a lot both reputationally and financially themselves by doing it.

My point on the presumption of innocence wasn’t that it goes straight away, more that it doesn’t necessarily need a CPS prosecution in order for that to go aside from purely thinking from a judicial lens. Sometimes it doesn’t even need a court case at all, a settlement can be effectively an admission of guilt even if the record states the opposite (which it usually does to stop further attempts at prosecution).

I’m also not sure what people think consequences should be in the absence of a criminal conviction of this too. If the
presumption of innocent until proven guilty is extended to of anything unless a court of law says so, is that insinuating he should have no consequences at all if that doesn’t happen? Do people that think that think Greenwood should be still employed and playing for United for example?

Just to further clarify, I’m purely talking about the criminal courts, not the civil courts.

 

[BobKowalski]

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

I dispute the false equivalence.

Putting out unfounded allegations based on nothing more than the voices in your own head and (for example) pursuing a vendetta against victims of gun crime ala Alex Jones is not right as a court recently established.

Properly researched journalism over months, and sometimes years, with lawyers scrutinising everything prior to publication is a different beast. Again, there is redress in a court of law if published allegations are false.

Brand, Jones and others operate by spewing copious amounts of shite on a daily basis with aim of wearing the audience down. Pushing back, taking the fight to them with properly researched revelations is essential. In short, fuck Brand, Jones, Peterson etc and the horse they rode in on.

 

[meltonblue]

Just to further clarify, I’m purely talking about the criminal courts, not the civil courts.

Ah, in which case then I don’t think anyone would disagree on that at all. There seems to be quite a few (not on here though) that are extending that further than the criminal courts, which is where I disagree :)

 

[mexico1970]

No, I said "I wouldn't consider 7 years low TBH," so I don't know why you'd deliberately change it.

Either way you can argue with someone else bud because I won't be replying to you if you can't be arsed reading a post.

You think saying you wouldn't consider 7 years low?

That's what you wrote, that's what i referred to.

Read your own fucking posts.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

All fair enough, and I agree there are two different debates going on.

I will say, to your point about “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”, that I don’t think @bluenova, @meltonblue, or I are doing that.

We are simply pointing out that the presumption of innocence within the formal justice system only applies to legal determination and subsequent consequences enforced by the state. We all agree that is vital for protecting citizens against injustice perpetrated by state administered authorities.

But—for the same reason no right minded person thinks Jimmy Saville is “innocent” because he was never found guilty in a court of law—that presumption does not have to apply outside of the formal justice system. The concept of “innocence” or “guilt” is not solely confined to formal legal proceedings.

In fact, it is universally accepted that it isn’t, and for very good reason: primarily because formal justice systems (and the law enforcement apparatus supporting it) is necessary but insufficient to ensure all forms of consequences for negligent, malicious, unethical, or outright illegal behaviour are enforced.

If everyone presumed everyone else to be innocent of any action unless they were found guilty by a court of law society would actually breakdown pretty quickly.

And, once more, in the case of sexual abuse and rape, it would be even more rare (it is already shockingly rare) that the offences would ever be investigated, much less prosecuted.

That is because the sort of presumption of innocence by the public-at-large that is seemingly being argued is proper—which should apparently bar members of the public from debate or scrutiny of the accusations—is what most often causes the allegations to be investigated at all.

No one is advocating for binning the courts or fucking off the law. We’re just trying to inject realism and sociological facts in to the discussion. As much as certain segments of people have tried to make “social justice” a nasty term, it is actually a fundamental element of human existence, playing out at all times across each person’s day, being undertaken by each person (whether they are aware of it or not), and it has to happen for life to go on. Sometimes it goes too far, to be sure. But that does not mean it is inherently bad or that it does not exist, same as the formal justice system.

And I think it is important to make these points for the reason we are even having this discussion now: because people like Russell Brand have acted to devalue and degrade basic reasoning and logic in public discourse to attain influence, then used that influence to allegedly abuse other people, and subsequently used the “I am innocent until proven guilty” argument in bad faith, knowing those that have been influenced to disregard basic reasoning and logic will accept it, in an attempt to shield themselves from potential consequences.

TL;DR

Legal presumption of innocence is fundamental to protecting the rights of a citizen against abuses of the state. I believe most of us agree on that.

But a requirement of a presumption of innocence outside of the legal framework is not only not a realistic expectation, it would be a very problematic expectation for society given the insufficiency of formal justice systems to enforce negative consequences for all actions society deems unacceptable.

All very sane but I do have a slight concern with the concept of social justice over the actual law.
The law has rules and regulations that need adhering to.
Who police’s social justice? Who decides what too far is?
I’ve said before, I don’t know the details and I’ve probably as much a bias against Brand as anyone in here, but I’d argue the opposite of the concept you outline above, that socially a mere accusation of a sexual nature and especially where children are involved, follows you for the rest of your life even if found not guilty. There’s always that doubt over you.
I can’t think of anything worse to be honest.

And I’ll reiterate I’m not talking about the civil courts and settlements being made, I’m talking about the criminal courts.

Leave Brand or Saville out of the conceptual argument. Leave sexual abuse out of the argument. I’m old enough to remember the days when you were pulled aside at customs for being Irish. People were arrested in Britain on the flimsiest and indeed manufactured evidence and the media were more than complicit in the injustice.
A totally different issue?
I don’t think so when it comes to how the law should treat all people equally.
Social media doesn’t come up to the same standards of proof and the civil courts don’t demand the same high standards either.

Again Seb, I think we are widely in agreement but I just see inherent dangers in some of the more emotive conclusions being drawn when discussing social justice.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I dispute the false equivalence.

Putting out unfounded allegations based on nothing more than the voices in your own head and (for example) pursuing a vendetta against victims of gun crime ala Alex Jones is not right as a court recently established.

Properly researched journalism over months, and sometimes years, with lawyers scrutinising everything prior to publication is a different beast. Again, there is redress in a court of law if published allegations are false.

Brand, Jones and others operate by spewing copious amounts of shite on a daily basis with aim of wearing the audience down. Pushing back, taking the fight to them with properly researched revelations is essential. In short, fuck Brand, Jones, Peterson etc and the horse they rode in on.

Fair point. No problem with that.

 

[SebastianBlue]

All very sane but I do have a slight concern with the concept of social justice over the actual law.
The law has rules and regulations that need adhering to.
Who police’s social justice? Who decides what too far is?
I’ve said before, I don’t know the details and I’ve probably as much a bias against Brand as anyone in here, but I’d argue the opposite of the concept you outline above, that socially a mere accusation of a sexual nature and especially where children are involved, follows you for the rest of your life even if found not guilty. There’s always that doubt over you.
I can’t think of anything worse to be honest.

And I’ll reiterate I’m not talking about the civil courts and settlements being made, I’m talking about the criminal courts.

Leave Brand or Saville out of the conceptual argument. Leave sexual abuse out of the argument. I’m old enough to remember the days when you were pulled aside at customs for being Irish. People were arrested in Britain on the flimsiest and indeed manufactured evidence and the media were more than complicit in the injustice.
A totally different issue?
I don’t think so when it comes to how the law should treat all people equally.
Social media doesn’t come up to the same standards of proof and the civil courts don’t demand the same high standards either.

Again Seb, I think we are widely in agreement but I just see inherent dangers in some of the more emotive conclusions being drawn when discussing social justice.

I think we are again talking about two different things.

The examples of the state abusing their power falls squarely into the formal justice system realm, not “social justice”. We agree the law should treat everyone equally, even if it doesn’t actually do that.

“Social justice” is inherent to the functioning of the civil society. You undertake it everyday, even if you are not aware of it. So do I. And it actually contributes to checking the abuse of power by the state and forcing the formal justice system to treat everyone more equally.

In fact, “social justice” is the only thing that has ever caused anything to change when it comes to governmence. No government, of any type, has ever suddenly decided to change because of sudden epiphany.

Again, it can be used for evil, just as the formal justice system can be. But it has also lead to wonderful progress in society: ending slavery, removing racist policies, repealing anti-gay laws, putting a check on anti-immigrant actions, etc.). Everything that occurred in the formal justice system to see those changes realised were driven by “social justice” movements.

Without “social justice”, society would breakdown, just as it would without formal justice systems.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I think we are again talking about two different things.

The examples of the state abusing their power falls squarely into the formal justice system realm, not “social justice”. We agree the law should treat everyone equally, even if it doesn’t actually do that.

“Social justice” is inherent to the functioning of the civil society. You undertake it everyday, even if you are not aware of it. So do I. And it actually contributes to checking the abuse of power by the state and forcing the formal justice to treat everyone more equally.

In fact, “social justice” is the only thing that has ever caused anything to change when it comes to governmence.

Again, it can be used for evil, just as the formal justice system can be. But has also lead up the wonderful progress in society: ending slavery, removing racist policies, repealing anti-gay laws, putting a check on anti-immigrant actions, etc.).

Without “social justice”, society would breakdown.

Thanks for the clarification.
Im probably more concerned with trial by media especially in the times we live in now with social media being so influential.
I think accusations of this nature follow you for the rest of your life regardless of the truth of them. Certainly in the high profile cases of miscarriages of justice in the seventies and eighties, I would argue that public opinion was swayed or indeed manipulated by the media and that danger is worse now if anything.

If I am reading you right, when you use the term social justice, you are talking about not merely people power, but the weight of opinion to have a crime investigated? That includes investigative journalism and programs of the nature of the CH4 made. Am I correct?

If so, I would agree that this weight of opinion can cause enough pressure to get the right thing done.

 

[Coatigan]

All very sane but I do have a slight concern with the concept of social justice over the actual law.
The law has rules and regulations that need adhering to.
Who police’s social justice? Who decides what too far is?
I’ve said before, I don’t know the details and I’ve probably as much a bias against Brand as anyone in here, but I’d argue the opposite of the concept you outline above, that socially a mere accusation of a sexual nature and especially where children are involved, follows you for the rest of your life even if found not guilty. There’s always that doubt over you.
I can’t think of anything worse to be honest.

And I’ll reiterate I’m not talking about the civil courts and settlements being made, I’m talking about the criminal courts.

Leave Brand or Saville out of the conceptual argument. Leave sexual abuse out of the argument. I’m old enough to remember the days when you were pulled aside at customs for being Irish. People were arrested in Britain on the flimsiest and indeed manufactured evidence and the media were more than complicit in the injustice.
A totally different issue?
I don’t think so when it comes to how the law should treat all people equally.
Social media doesn’t come up to the same standards of proof and the civil courts don’t demand the same high standards either.

Again Seb, I think we are widely in agreement but I just see inherent dangers in some of the more emotive conclusions being drawn when discussing social justice.

If he does go through the court and is proven guilty, he will go to jail.

Where he will probably then get some of this social justice as well.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Thanks for the clarification.
Im probably more concerned with trial by media especially in the times we live in now with social media being so influential.
I think accusations of this nature follow you for the rest of your life regardless of the truth of them. Certainly in the high profile cases of miscarriages of justice in the seventies and eighties, I would argue that public opinion was swayed or indeed manipulated by the media and that danger is worse now if anything.

If I am reading you right, when you use the term social justice, you are talking about not merely people power, but the weight of opinion to have a crime investigated? That includes investigative journalism and programs of the nature of the CH4 made. Am I correct?

If so, I would agree that this weight of opinion can cause enough pressure to get the right thing done.

I'm with you on the trial by media thing. Not saying those affected are innocent by any means, but celebs are usually 'sentenced' by twitter etc long before any case gets to court. Unfair if they are innocent, doubly unfair if they get off because media/social media makes a fair trial impossible.
I feel we're rapidly approaching the point where we might as well dispense justice to celebs on Saturday night TV with a telephone vote and some **** like Davina McCall or Simon Cowell presiding.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Thanks for the clarification.
Im probably more concerned with trial by media especially in the times we live in now with social media being so influential.
I think accusations of this nature follow you for the rest of your life regardless of the truth of them. Certainly in the high profile cases of miscarriages of justice in the seventies and eighties, I would argue that public opinion was swayed or indeed manipulated by the media and that danger is worse now if anything.

If I am reading you right, when you use the term social justice, you are talking about not merely people power, but the weight of opinion to have a crime investigated? That includes investigative journalism and programs of the nature of the CH4 made. Am I correct?

If so, I would agree that this weight of opinion can cause enough pressure to get the right thing done.

Yes, I include the public pressure to have state authorities act to investigate and potentially prosecute in what many class as “social justice”. It is an incredibly important check on the behaviour of both the state and powerful private entities.

It can absolutely go too far and it can lead to horrible outcomes when it is used irresponsibly. And I have and will continue to denounce people and entities that do that. And hold myself to account when I realise I am contributing to those bad outcomes.

Like all complex systems, it has its benefits and its drawbacks. The same is true for formal justice systems. In fact, some of the problems we are facing can be traced to various social justice movements being co-opted by malicious entities to sow discord and misinformation. Again, that is the case for formal justice systems, as well—just look at the state of our and the US’s highest courts right now.

But both types of “justice” are necessary for society to function.

And it is our duty to ensure both are utilised and continually modified to do the greatest amount of good possible, and their drawbacks are mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

I see the degradation of public discourse—largely fuelled by the devaluation and/or abandonment of basic reasoning and logic—driven by people like Russell Brand, to be a fundamental danger to that effort. And people like him successfully avoiding being held to account only intensifies that danger.

As I said, the only thing that has every changed anything when it comes to societal systems—namely forms of governance—is the “social justice” so many deride.

Governments do not suddenly change themselves.

 

[Crouchinho]

I'm a bit lost with all this. These victims didn't go to the police and they all went to channel 4 and telegraph who decided they were doing their own criminal investigation? The police are now asking for the victims to come forwards.

There is no doubt that Brand is a bit shady, he's admitted having a sex and heroin addiction in the past, but the timing and documentary without trial/criminal case seems a bit odd to me.

The plod should be getting these women in ASAP

 

[Bazzmand Show]

I'm a bit lost with all this. These victims didn't go to the police and they all went to channel 4 and telegraph who decided they were doing their own criminal investigation? The police are now asking for the victims to come forwards.

There is no doubt that Brand is a bit shady, he's admitted having a sex and heroin addiction in the past, but the timing and documentary without trial/criminal case seems a bit odd to me.

The plod should be getting these women in ASAP

It's called investigative journalism, channel 4 and the times have no authority to put Brand in prison.

 

[Crouchinho]

It's called investigative journalism, channel 4 and the times have no authority to put Brand in prison.

A bit like the Cook Report I guess, except he made excellent telly!!

 

[mackenzie]

I think the problem these days is that whenever any broadcasting channel thinks it has a "hit" on its hands then the "golden goose" becomes untouchable.

An ultra competitive industry that will protect anything that brings viewing figures and/or revenue.

 

[Tuearts right boot]

I'm with you on the trial by media thing. Not saying those affected are innocent by any means, but celebs are usually 'sentenced' by twitter etc long before any case gets to court. Unfair if they are innocent, doubly unfair if they get off because media/social media makes a fair trial impossible.
I feel we're rapidly approaching the point where we might as well dispense justice to celebs on Saturday night TV with a telephone vote and some **** like Davina McCall or Simon Cowell presiding.

So if Davina McCall is presenting the show could we put her up for trial on her own show ?? Just a thought....

 

[Tuearts right boot]

It's called investigative journalism, channel 4 and the times have no authority to put Brand in prison.

I think you could also call it ' cheap telly '

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Yes, I include the public pressure to have state authorities act to investigate and potentially prosecute in what many class as “social justice”. It is an incredibly important check on the behaviour of both the state and powerful private entities.

It can absolutely go too far and it can lead to horrible outcomes when it is used irresponsibly. And I have and will continue to denounce people and entities that do that. And hold myself to account when I realise I am contributing to those bad outcomes.

Like all complex systems, it has its benefits and its drawbacks. The same is true for formal justice systems. In fact, some of the problems we are facing can be traced to various social justice movements being co-opted by malicious entities to sow discord and misinformation. Again, that is the case for formal justice systems, as well—just look at the state of our and the US’s highest courts right now.

But both types of “justice” are necessary for society to function.

And it is our duty to ensure both are utilised and continually modified to do the greatest amount of good possible, and their drawbacks are mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

I see the degradation of public discourse—largely fuelled by the devaluation and/or abandonment of basic reasoning and logic—driven by people like Russell Brand, to be a fundamental danger to that effort. And people like him successfully avoiding being held to account only intensifies that danger.

As I said, the only thing that has every changed anything when it comes to societal systems—namely forms of governance—is the “social justice” so many deride.

Governments do not suddenly change themselves.

Largely scale social / legal change should be just that though and not driven on the back of outrage caused by a few abusive celeb wrong un's.
For me I think we got the full measure of brands character and moral compass with the quite calculated cruelty of the 'prank call' to Andrew Sachs and public treatment of his grand daughter. That's why I shouldn't be on any future jury deciding his fate, and calls for 'social justice' we want on the back of a TV program at the weekend are wrong.