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

[Mr Kobayashi]

That makes me equally uncomfortable. Who polices the media?

It's preferable to the previous situation through isn't it?

Where Jimmy Savile used libel laws, press insiders and corrupt cops to quell the rumours from ever becoming news. And strange nonces like Max Clifford worked us publicists.

The allegations had to clear several checks by media lawyers to make it to broadcast, Brand had a right of reply and could have shut down the publication of the articles and Dispatches programme if he had just cause.

He could sue for libel if it's all untrue.

But it seems he's abandoned that strategy and adopted dirty tactics. Seems it's because he knows he can't win any legal battles.

Let's not forget that defamation suits were used successfully to push back on factual allegations.

Jeffery Archer did indeed have an affair and Liberace was a raving homosexual. I prefer for dishonest people not to be able to sue for reputational loss from true statements.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

@gordondaviesmoustache Brand also has based most of the last few years of his work on levelling largely unsubstantiated accusations and hundreds at people and organisations.

Is the argument that he should be able to do that but substantiated accusations against him should be ignored and, once more, they should have no impact on him, despite his accusations having impacts on others?

You are again focusing the argument on Brand, when my point is a much wider one about the media.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I’m not saying the media should not be a factor in these things, and to expect that to be the case is wholly unrealistic, I just don’t like the fait accompli that we are being presented with and its profound consequences - without any extraneous due process being engaged. You appear to be more comfortable with the unchecked power the media have.

I think I simply don’t think the power the media has is unchecked.

I also think this is not a common situation most people will face. In fact, the data supports it is not, so the slippery slope argument is false.

If anything, the current data supports that the media are actually just as feckless as the police when it comes to ensuring those perpetrating sex crimes are actually held to account.

 

[paulchapo]

Why are so many men worried about this, as if a four year investigation involving many, many legal checks and hundreds of people resulting in numerous credible accusations against them could happen to them at any time?

The slippery slope argument is quite disingenuous, especially when the legal system (and largely culture itself) is literally structured to protect the accused and punish the accusers in these types of cases.

I put this to you, as well, in addition to my other inquiry.

They don't have to. It doesn't need a four year investigation to fetch your world crashing down around your ears. If a person goes to the police and accuses you of a crime the police have to investigate it. If it's a serious accusation such as rape they'll more than likely turn up at your home or workplace, arrest you and take you away in handcuffs. Curtains will be twitching and gossip starting. They'll probably search your home and workspace and seize all your internet devices and items of clothing. You could face months or years before a decision is made whether to prosecute you. In that time your name may come out in the public domain. Your home will probably be attacked and you yourself if seen out and about. You will be suspended from work.

If eventually they decide not to.proceed or if they do and you are found not guilty your life as you knew it will be ruined. There will always be the "No smoke without fire" comments and the stigma, not to mention the emotional trauma and stress of the whole ordeal.

It's happened before and it will happen again.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's preferable to the previous situation through isn't it?

Where Jimmy Savile used libel laws, press insiders and corrupt cops to quell the rumours from ever becoming news. And strange nonces like Max Clifford worked us publicists.

The allegations had to clear several checks by media lawyers to make it to broadcast, Brand had a right of reply and could have shut down the publication of the articles and Dispatches programme if he had just cause.

He could sue for libel if it's all untrue.

But it seems he's abandoned that strategy and adopted dirty tactics. Seems it's because he knows he can't win any legal battles.

Let's not forget that defamation suits were used successfully to push back on factual allegations.

Jeffery Archer did indeed have an affair and Liberace was a raving homosexual. I prefer for dishonest people not to be able to sue for reputational loss from true statements.

I can’t argue with any of that other than to say that for me the current situation is just as undesirable as the previous one you describe. I’ve not said the programme shouldn’t have been made or aired, I just have concerns about the immediate impact, and worry about where that will take us as a society if we glibly accept it as ‘just the way it is’.

 

[SebastianBlue]

You are again focusing the argument on Brand, when my point is a much wider one about the media.

I am making two different arguments, in response to the two different you were making (one debate thread regarding the nature of media power and how the media, legal system, and culture are all still structured to protect the accused and punish the accusers; another debate regarding Brand himself and the double standard being applied to him for some reason).

If you read back the thread, you’ll see I have been arguing on a far bigger scope than brand from practically the start. At times, I was one of the few that was doing so.

I see this as less a topical debate and more an existential one, and have said that many times throughout the thread.

 

[mexico1970]

That’s for the police and CPS to ascertain.

It’s just a bit weird to ignore what has been said about him and suggest others do until he’s been through a court case.

Did he do the same with Prince Andrew?

Maybe he did who cares? Being attacked and being told you support rape because you want to see this at trial is ridiculous.

 

[SebastianBlue]

They don't have to. It doesn't need a four year investigation to fetch your world crashing down around your ears. If a person goes to the police and accuses you of a crime the police have to investigate it. If it's a serious accusation such as rape they'll more than likely turn up at your home or workplace, arrest you and take you away in handcuffs. Curtains will be twitching and gossip starting. They'll probably search your home and workspace and seize all your internet devices and items of clothing. You could face months or years before a decision is made whether to prosecute you. In that time your name may come out in the public domain. Your home will probably be attacked and you yourself if seen out and about. You will be suspended from work.

If eventually they decide not to.proceed or if they do and you are found not guilty your life as you knew it will be ruined. There will always be the "No smoke without fire" comments and the stigma, not to mention the emotional trauma and stress of the whole ordeal.

It's happened before and it will happen again.

Yes, and my point is that the data simply doesn’t support that happening at any frequency worthy of angst.

~98% of sexual assaults reported to police in 2022 lead to no charges whatsoever, and those are a fraction of those that actually occurred by all reputable estimates.

So why are you and many other men so worried about this happening?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Maybe he did who cares? Being attacked and being told you support rape because you want to see this at trial is ridiculous.

I am not sure most in the thread are doing that.

I think some of the comments trying to diminish the seriousness of the accusations are what is being called in to question.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Oh do fuck off you cretin.

I am asking because your own comments would indicate you would have to hold that position because Saville was never convicted of anything.

If you don’t hold that position, then why, then, does that logic apply to Brand, who has a very similar mounting body of evidence against him via media investigations and reports.

I am not sure why that makes me a cretin.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Maybe he did who cares? Being attacked and being told you support rape because you want to see this at trial is ridiculous.

It’s not that. It’s not having empathy with the women too scared to come forwards without anonymity.

From what information we have, Brand‘s allegations are far worse than Prince Andrew’s. For whatever reason, Brand has got some sympathy, whereas Prince Andrew didn’t. Perhaps he should start a YouTube channel questioning society using flowery rhetoric. That’ll get Laurence Fox on his side.

 

[paulchapo]

Yes, and my point is that the data simply doesn’t support that happening at any frequency worthy of angst.

~98% of sexual assaults reported to police in 2022 lead to no charges whatsoever, and those are a fraction of those that actually occurred by all reputable estimates.

So why are you and many other men so worried about this happening?

Have I said I'm personally worried? Have any others on this thread?

The statistics can say what they like. If you were one of those statistics that lead to no charges whatsoever I bet they didn't think it was a trivial matter or not worthy of any angst.

 

[mexico1970]

I am not sure most in the thread are doing that.

I think some of the comments trying to diminish the seriousness of the accusations are what is being called in to question.

He didn't reply to the most he answered a direct question from someone who suggested he supports rape.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I don’t think anyone would argue that ideally justice is best served through the legal system. The two challenges to that are there’s cases where that’s not viable, particularly where there’s a lack of physical evidence. Sometimes it needs the weight of multiple voices to establish the behaviour, but even that doesn’t necessarily lead to an improved chance of conviction (particularly when they’re across different judiciaries).

The other thing is a lot of things only end up in court because of investigative journalism identifying the issue and reporting on it in the first place. Contrary to some opinion, with things like this they do not do it lightly or purely based on hearsay.

Brand has ways to show his innocence, it doesn’t necessarily need a criminal court case for that. Ditto society doesn’t need a criminal court case to judge or subsequently punish him by other means.

Again, without going over old ground MB. I think yourself and Seb know where I stand.
I have absolutely no issue with anything you say here and would commend any investigative journalism no matter the subject.
My only concern is your last sentence.
Society doesn’t need a court case, you are correct. Society can be influenced by multiple sources not just the initial investigation that is being praised however.

I’m talking in general now, not specifically about Brand, but in the analysis that Seb provided, my reservations are around those multiple media influences that law has no jurisdiction over what people are fed and why.
There is always that risk of polarisation and manipulation of whatever part of society you belong to. The right or the wrong side. Who decides when things are left up in the air.
The law is not infallible but by and large it is absolute. If your proven to be on the wrong side of it, there are consequences.

I think the argument in here is that social justice dishes out it’s own consequences. He’ll be judged and hit financially?

Well that remains to be seen. As I said the conclusions I draw from the exact same analysis that Seb provided are different but we both seem to agree of what may happen in the social media world.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I think that is all fair comment, but my observation isn’t solely, or even principally aimed at Brand, it is about the unchecked power of the media, which is both real and troubling.

I follow the media so little I don’t really know how unchecked they are.

 

[kaz7]

Reprehensible behaviour yes. Rape no.

Wow

 

[paulchapo]

I am asking because your own comments would indicate you would have to hold that position because Saville was never convicted of anything.

If you don’t hold that position, then why, then, does that logic apply to Brand, who has a very similar mounting body of evidence against him via media investigations and reports.

I am not sure why that makes me a cretin.

Saville died before all his crimes became public knowledge. I have seen an interview by one of the leading investigators on his case and he was told to drop it, in spite of having plenty of evidence to.proceed. When asked why his superior said the order had come from the highest level, the very top and that was the end of that.

As for Saville had he been alive and a documentary accusing him of his crimes aired, then yes until he went to trial and was convicted he'd have to be presumed innocent. As mentioned above he was protected so it didn't.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Have I said I'm personally worried? Have any others on this thread?

The statistics can say what they like. If you were one of those statistics that lead to no charges whatsoever I bet they didn't think it was a trivial matter or not worthy of any angst.

Others have definitely expressed a concern about innocent men being treated the same way as Brand in this scenario.

And across the internet that is one of the main defences of him: if we don’t let whether a conviction is obtained be the sole determinate of his guilt or innocence then we are all at risk of being falsely accused.

I thought that was part of what you were arguing based on your posts, but I apologise if I misread them.

 

[paulchapo]

Wow

Why wow? Do you think I'm saying rape isn't a serious crime or defending him if he's guilty, which so far he isn't? He is guilty of reprehensible behaviour to women on many occasions, he himself admits that. Rape he isn't, yet. He's been accused, that's the difference.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Saville died before all his crimes became public knowledge. I have seen an interview by one of the leading investigators on his case and he was told to drop it, in spite of having plenty of evidence to.proceed. When asked why his superior said the order had come from the highest level, the very top and that was the end of that.

As for Saville had he been alive and a documentary accusing him of his crimes aired, then yes until he went to trial and was convicted he'd have to be presumed innocent. As mentioned above he was protected so it didn't.

But Saville doesn’t now have to be presumed innocent? If so, why not now, given no conviction could be achieved?

Do you see where there may be a conflict in the standard being applied to Saville and the one being applied to Brand?

And it’s interesting you reference that admission by the investigator that he was told to drop the inquiry from the highest levels, as I have been thinking about it throughout this debate—doesn’t it support the need for oversight of the legal system, almost always undertake by the media (even if one element of media may have been involved in covering up Saville’s sex crimes)?

By the way, you and I generally agree on most topics and I think I have been very respectful in our discussion, so I am quite surprised and disappointed that you would call me a “cretin”.