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

[stonerblue]

Where is the evidence that YouTube and Paramount were pressured to do so by a government minister?

All over yesterday papers

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I guess this logic means we can’t form an opinion on Savile either, given that all the evidence we have seen was through the media.

Do you think, had he lived, that Saville would have faced justice in court?
There is no doubt he was protected, but would this have lasted as more of what we know now came to light?
Honest question. I don’t know the answer, but suspect he couldn’t escape forever.

That makes me equally uncomfortable. Who polices the media?

GDM, I find myself leaning firmly towards your perspective in this argument, while at the same time, having no concern if Brand is cancelled by the exact same media that he exploits gullible people on.
It is what it is. And yes , who police’s it? Exactly why I have no interest in this kind of social media.

But left to fester as is, I think it is by no means guaranteed that in the long term he won’t find another audience. Those following him will be even further down the rabbit hole at that stage. It leads to further extremes.

 

[stonerblue]

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.

Rupert murdoch loves this post

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Do you think, had he lived, that Saville would have faced justice in court?

No one knows. Presuming he would have is as valid opinion as him being found not guilty, should it have ever got that far, of course.

There was no guarantee that the victims would have all come out when he was still alive, as they didn’t. (Barring a very few)

 

[meltonblue]

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.

I agree with the sentiment absolutely, society’s judgment (particularly nowadays!) is so polarised that it is harder.

By society though, I was more referring to what I still believe is the vast majority of people that capable of rational thought and evaluating each thing on individual merit.

He may well still prosper even if he comes out and openly admits to some of it. He’ll be even further away from mainstream society than he is now if he does though and that’s still some form of justice and acceptance for those impacted at least.

 

[SebastianBlue]

All over yesterday papers

Do you have a link to reports about YouTube and Paramount making their decisions based on a letter from a government minister?

I saw reports about Rumble and a few others receiving letters, but nothing regarding YouTube or Paramount, and no indications from them that a letter was the reason the former demonetised Brand’s channel or the latter halted production on Brand’s shows.

I may have missed it, though.

 

[kaz7]

As a lover of big brother i watched him getting in womens faces, saying vulgar things , touching them and sitting in their laps unasked by the young women , asking vanessa felch (sp)if he can shag her teenage daughters . All on live tv , if he was doing that in public what was his attitude to women, young women , in private

A four year investigation and cleared by the lawyers to put it out on tv would seem to me that he has done something wrong, sending a car to pick up a just turned sixteen year old girl is a massive red flag, the text where he apologised for his behaviour , on record

I will bet my house that he has done some bad things and he wont sue the women , C4 or the times newspaper

Those making excuses for him are cunts

 

[SebastianBlue]

Rupert murdoch loves this post

He loves hard data of what is actually happening, rather than anecdotal evidence mostly based on fear and angst?

I genuinely never knew!

But I take your point about Murdoch having far too much influence of the masses. Brand being a case in point, as without the foundation Murdoch built, his career would have likely fizzled out completely.

Beyond that, though, as many argue with the formal legal system, I don’t think it is reasonable to argue the destructive exploits of certain powerful individuals should lead to an entire sector being ignored.

And the simple fact we are having this discussion shows not even Murdoch’s power is “unchecked”, especially in the face of the payouts his company has been ordered to payout in the last year across many jurisdictions.

Hope the fucker hates retirement, by the way.

 

[paulchapo]

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.

That's because some have and some have actually served time in prison before it was proved the accusations were false. Not being as high profile a person as Brand they won't have had a documentary made about them though, at least not before the event.

Absolutely anybody can be falsely accused for a variety of reasons. Even you. We simply don't know regarding Brand. The judge and jury of social media does though, the majority verdict is guilty. As it was in Mendy's case. At the moment he's been accused in a TV documentary and newspaper article. Not by the police and he hasn't been charged. It doesn't look good for him and will now lead to a police investigation. He may be charged. He may go to trial. We have to wait and see.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

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.

You did make that clear very early on.
Certainly to myself anyway.

 

[SebastianBlue]

That's because some have and some have actually served time in prison before it was proved the accusations were false. Not being as high profile a person as Brand they won't have had a documentary made about them though, at least not before the event.

Absolutely anybody can be falsely accused for a variety of reasons. Even you. We simply don't know regarding Brand. The judge and jury of social media does though, the majority verdict is guilty. As it was in Mendy's case. At the moment he's been accused in a TV documentary and newspaper article. Not by the police and he hasn't been charged. It doesn't look good for him and will now lead to a police investigation. He may be charged. He may go to trial. We have to wait and see.

But my point has been there is no data supporting the position that this could likely happen to any of us, at any time. Men are not being falsely accused of sexual assault and imprisoned at any significant rate.

In fact, the data indicates the opposite; most men perpetrating sex crimes face no consequences.

So, again, why are so many men so worried about something that rarely happens because one self-confessed horrible **** (Brand has literally said this on a number of occasions when talking about his years as a sex and drug addict) has had a four year investigative journalism program bring substantiated accusations of sexual assault and potential rape against him?

 

[meltonblue]

That's because some have and some have actually served time in prison before it was proved the accusations were false. Not being as high profile a person as Brand they won't have had a documentary made about them though, at least not before the event.

Absolutely anybody can be falsely accused for a variety of reasons. Even you. We simply don't know regarding Brand. The judge and jury of social media does though, the majority verdict is guilty. As it was in Mendy's case. At the moment he's been accused in a TV documentary and newspaper article. Not by the police and he hasn't been charged. It doesn't look good for him and will now lead to a police investigation. He may be charged. He may go to trial. We have to wait and see.

Don’t think most of it will form a police investigation will it, unless somethings changed? They’re investigating other allegations that have been made since.

In terms of the response, you’ll have some that have already made their mind up - they’ll be the ones on the edges that’ll either support him regardless or think he’s guilty as sin.

For most people though, I think they’ll be making a judgment based on what happens still and how Brand responds. As it currently stands, reading the times investigation and watching the doc, most will think that the witnesses came across as very credible and the supporting evidence makes it even more so.

They’ll also probably think some of his actions if true, for the ones that may not be illegal, will mean they judge him as a twat at the very least.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I agree with the sentiment absolutely, society’s judgment (particularly nowadays!) is so polarised that it is harder.

By society though, I was more referring to what I still believe is the vast majority of people that capable of rational thought and evaluating each thing on individual merit.

He may well still prosper even if he comes out and openly admits to some of it. He’ll be even further away from mainstream society than he is now if he does though and that’s still some form of justice and acceptance for those impacted at least.

Fair point.

 

[SWP's back]

The shear tonnage of what you don’t know but continually confidently talk about could hault a battalion of panzers in their tracks.

Ironically.

Preach.

 

[meltonblue]

I think there’s a wider and worthwhile debate around the impact that has had on Brand, especially in terms of his right to earn a living, without any legal proceedings yet being commenced.

I’m not suggesting it’s a straightforward issue, but I am uneasy that his income has been cut off in the way it has, and ministers are publicly commenting on this, based, as we currently are, simply on a TV programme and a newspaper story. That doesn’t sit right with me.

Whilst I don’t seek to undermine this documentary or necessarily challenge its veracity (or merit) that’s all we have at the moment. We are heading down a very dangerous path where that alone is sufficient to impact on someone’s life in this way, in the absence of anything else (as is currently the case).

Whilst I dislike Brand for lots of reasons, this isn’t just about him, and I am uncomfortable more generally about the power of the media to influence public opinion in a way that appears to be wholly unchecked, and extremely dangerous for us all.

I agree to an extent with this about the power of the media. I do think there’s a difference though between when they attempt to influence public opinion through continued castigation and demonisation of an individual and constantly writing editorials about them against when they publish allegations about individuals along with evidence.

The former goes unchecked, I don’t think the latter does as much. I’d much rather they do more of the latter, it’s what investigative journalists are there for and I think they can play a very important part in a healthy society. I would agree with the sentiment the lines can get more blurred with some nowadays though (the Huw Edwards one I think falls into that more than this one).

 

[SebastianBlue]

Do you think, had he lived, that Saville would have faced justice in court?
There is no doubt he was protected, but would this have lasted as more of what we know now came to light?
Honest question. I don’t know the answer, but suspect he couldn’t escape forever.

GDM, I find myself leaning firmly towards your perspective in this argument, while at the same time, having no concern if Brand is cancelled by the exact same media that he exploits gullible people on.
It is what it is. And yes , who police’s it? Exactly why I have no interest in this kind of social media.

But left to fester as is, I think it is by no means guaranteed that in the long term he won’t find another audience. Those following him will be even further down the rabbit hole at that stage. It leads to further extremes.

As much as I find it to be a trite crutch these days, I think the adage “live by the sword, die by the sword” very much applies to Brand, if we are discussing him specifically, rather than the broader debate.

His recent years have been almost entirely based on levelling unsubstantiated accusations against all sort of people and organisations, some pretty abhorrent and dangerous in the context of the wellbeing of the public, screaming conspiracy when really any far-right entity has been held to account, and constantly speaking of an amorphous “truth” that the sheep couldn’t accept.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

As a lover of big brother i watched him getting in womens faces, saying vulgar things , touching them and sitting in their laps unasked by the young women , asking vanessa felch (sp)if he can shag her teenage daughters . All on live tv , if he was doing that in public what was his attitude to women, young women , in private

A four year investigation and cleared by the lawyers to put it out on tv would seem to me that he has done something wrong, sending a car to pick up a just turned sixteen year old girl is a massive red flag, the text where he apologised for his behaviour , on record

I will bet my house that he has done some bad things and he wont sue the women , C4 or the times newspaper

Those making excuses for him are cunts

Kaz, apart from a brief Wumming interlude last night, which I just can’t be doing with, I personally don’t really see people defending him in here.
Maybe I read people differently, especially people I don’t know from Adam.
I like to give the benefit of the doubt.

What I do see is concern from people about trial by media and I’m not saying that’s what this program is. As I’ve said several times, I didn’t watch it, but I have no reason to believe that it isn’t a sound piece of investigative journalism and perhaps performs a public service.

I see defence of the courts and the proper legal channels. This is a general argument and not particular to the man himself.

I don’t see concerns of this nature as being exclusive to the condemnation of Brand.

You may have issues with individuals that I’m not aware of, but I just thought I’d put my observations here anyway.

 

[paulchapo]

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”.

Saville is dead but was undeniably guilty, the evidence against him was overwhelming and if it had proceeded to court he would have been found so. It didn't as he was protected at the very top. The question is why? That's for another discussion.

Brand is alive. The accusations are out there. If the police decide there is enough evidence to proceed he will get his day in court. I doubt he will get his case pulled like Saville did.

That's an interesting point. If the women had gone to the police at the time this discussion probably wouldn't be taking place as it could have gone to trial. As they didn't the journalists started to probe deeper. In Savilles case women did go to the police but him being protected their claims were dismissed. Also like in the Asian grooming gangs cases a lot of these kids and women were sadly from broken and children's homes so their claims discredited because of that.

I'm tired and techy I haven't slept well. Since I came on here I've had to deal with wild claims I'm defending Brand, which I'm not, to even worse I'm defending the act of sexual assault and rape. It's making me a touch grouchy.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Saville is dead but was undeniably guilty, the evidence against him was overwhelming and if it had proceeded to court he would have been found so. It didn't as he was protected at the very top. The question is why? That's for another discussion.

Brand is alive. The accusations are out there. If the police decide there is enough evidence to proceed he will get his day in court. I doubt he will get his case pulled like Saville did.

That's an interesting point. If the women had gone to the police at the time this discussion probably wouldn't be taking place as it could have gone to trial. As they didn't the journalists started to probe deeper. In Savilles case women did go to the police but being protected their claims were dismissed. Also like in the Asian grooming gangs cases a lot of these kids and women were sadly from broken and children's homes so their claims discredited because of that.

I'm tired and techy I haven't slept well. Since I came on here I've had to deal with wild claims I'm defending Brand, which I'm not, to even worse I'm defending the act of sexual assault and rape. It's making me a touch grouchy.

Fair enough. Never meant to question your character, just respectfully counter some of your assertions.

I think the media can be a destructive force, but so can the police and the courts (both egregiously bad influences are on show in the Saville case).

And both can also be forces for good. I think they are both necessary to check the abuses of the other, which is why I don’t want to discount the exhaustive high journalistic standard investigations like the one by Dispatch and The Sunday Times, as they are often the only thing keeping the formal justice system accountable (the latter having far more power over the media than the other way round due to their legal enforcement powers alone).

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

As much as I find it to be a trite crutch these days, I think the adage “live by the sword, die by the sword” very much applies to Brand, if we are discussing him specifically, rather than the broader debate.

His recent years have been almost entirely based on levelling unsubstantiated accusations against all sort of people and organisations, some pretty abhorrent and dangerous in the context of the wellbeing of the public, screaming conspiracy when really any far-right entity has been held to account, and constantly speaking of an amorphous “truth” that the sheep couldn’t accept.

I’ve absolutely no sympathy for the man whatsoever, regarding these revenue streams. I just think and you’ve said it yourself, that there is no guarantee as things stand that new audiences, more extreme audiences will provide a revenue stream for him in the long run.

I happen to think that this is every bit as likely and serves no sort of justice to the women involved. From your contributions in here I feel you have very valid experience that you are drawing on, but my own experience of defendants overriding reaction to successful convictions and the jury themselves reaction to the conclusion of a case, is relief.
There is closure. It can be put behind them.