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

[paulchapo]

Have you done any reading or research into the allegations?

No have you? That's down to the police and judicial system not people on a football forum, unless you're assigned to the case if one happens.

 

[SebastianBlue]

On the contrary, the vast majority of this country thought Saville was a saint. He did lots for charity blah blah blah, Jim will fix it, TOTP they loved and couldn't get enough of the fucker. He was even knighted. Personally I always thought he was a wrong un and a not very nice ****. Seems I was right but lots loved him and were taken in by him.

As for your question of course he used his fame to abuse anybody he could. Lots of famous people do, the Epstein island regular visitors need a look.

I am glad we agree Saville was a monster of a similar ilk to Epstein.

But he was never convicted of anything. So if we apply the same stand to him that you wish everyone to apply to Brand, he was just a not very nice person.

I.e. no matter who many women come forward to accuse Brand, no matter how much reputable information arises to support their claims, as long as he is never convicted, he is just a not very nice person?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Okay a big ****. Not a nice person. Same as Mendy was in his treatment of women. It didn't make him a rapist though as two separate juries found him not guilty. The same as Brand isn't until legally convicted, in spite of the lynch mob having him already hanged. For the hard of hearing and the ones who get outraged at sections of my post, right at the start I said it wasn't a defence of Brand. Does he come across as a narcissist, a vile person and has he treated women like throwaway commodities in the past? Yes without a doubt. Do I find that behaviour acceptable? Absolutely not. Sadly, If such behaviour was worthy of a prison sentence there wouldn't be enough space to hold everyone.

Rape is an entirely different kettle of fish, but until he's legally convicted of such Brand is, or was, just a not very nice person who used his looks, fame and power to sleep with lots of women.

Didn't you blow your top and basically want Zouma locked up for life? Seems strange a contradiction that you don't really trust these women.

Although Der Fuhrer was famously very kind to animals so maybe not such a strange position to take. :)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No have you? That's down to the police and judicial system not people on a football forum, unless you're assigned to the case if one happens.

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.

 

[abu13]

What this highlights to me is just how quickly someones life can be turned upside down or completely destroyed by the media, i'm not for one minute saying he is innocent in all of this but it isn't as if he has been charged or found guilty of anything yet.

What if this all turned out to be people trying to destroy his reputation and nothing more, quite worrying how this can happen.

 

[SebastianBlue]

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.

Even in the face of media historically being the main driver of most sexual misconduct and abuse being investigated at all. That is, absent media exposure of allegations, and the subsequent pressure placed on authorities by more aware citizens, an even smaller proportion of sex crimes would be investigated, much less lead to legal proceedings (keep in mind in 2022 ~98% of sexual crimes reported to police did not lead to charges, and those were merely the ones reported)?

 

[mexico1970]

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.

He was attacked for having the opinion that he should be punished by a court, nothing wrong with that opinion is there?

 

[paulchapo]

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.

Absolutely. They can make or break whoever they like and that has been the case for decades. It doesn't even have to be the mainstream media. The internet has created people with far more sway than they hold and everyone's an expert when in fact many aren't.

 

[SebastianBlue]

No have you? That's down to the police and judicial system not people on a football forum, unless you're assigned to the case if one happens.

So you feel there is nothing problematic about commenting on the allegations or the nature of the response to the allegations without knowing anything about them (or their veracity)?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

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.

That's just the reality of life. Brand doesn't need to continue to earn a living and has plenty of money to live on.

If it was a local newspaper or regional newspaper making similar allegations against a local business man or self-employed professional, their client base would disappear overnight unless they were locked into cast iron contracts.