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

[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”.