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.