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

[mancity2012_eamo]

If we flip the script and say the accusers are liars and slandering him. Do you believe them too until that's proven in a court of law? Or is it just the person accused of a rape that gets the benefit of the your doubt in this case?

I kind of get why someone might decide they don't want to make their mind up until a case has been heard in court, but I think it's a real leap to say you you actively believe him. Outside of a legal context, if I had to lean towards believing anyone, it would probably be toward the person who has the apologetic texts messages received from his phone.

I know it feels safe and less complicated to just say you believe an offence hasn't taken place until it's proven beyond all doubt and a guilty verdict issued in a court of law. But given rape is an extremely difficult crime to prove in a court of law and the overwhelming majority of rapes never result in a conviction, it does mean that anyone adopting that stance needs to face the uncomfortable truth that they are choosing to believe rapists over victims most of the time. How we deal with this I don't know, but when it comes to simply making a personal judgement or forming an opinion on the matter, it can't be right that so many people say: "I believe the accused". The fact remains that every person in this thread is more likey to be raped and see their accuser go unpunished, than they are to be falsely accused of rape.

If I understand your question correctly, you are talking about defamation getting into the high court with a jury.
Certainly in Ireland the laws on defamation I would imagine are similar to GB although we did have the Defamation Act of 2009.
In Irish law the onus is on the accused in a slander or libel case to prove what they have said or written is true.
That is the opposite of a criminal court norm of the onus being on the prosecution to prove a case.

 

[Mon Autre]

If I understand your question correctly, you are talking about defamation getting into the high court with a jury.
Certainly in Ireland the laws on defamation I would imagine are similar to GB although we did have the Defamation Act of 2009.
In Irish law the onus is on the accused in a slander or libel case to prove what they have said or written is true.
That is the opposite of a criminal court norm of the onus being on the prosecution to prove a case.

I don't think for one second that it would end up in high court before a jury. I was more making a point that if you reframe the accuser as a perpetrator, do you then hold the view that they too are innocent unless proven guilty? Outside of court it's simply one person's word against another.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I don't think for one second that it would end up in high court before a jury. I was more making a point that if you reframe the accuser as a perpetrator, do you then hold the view that they too are innocent unless proven guilty? Outside of court it's simply one person's word against another.

That’s kind of my point in asking you do I understand this correctly.
Because in a court of law it is actually different to what you are saying.
Where you say;
If we flip the script and say the accusers are liars and slandering him. Do you believe them too until that's proven in a court of law? Or is it just the person accused of a rape that gets the benefit of the your doubt in this case?

To equate to what the law says, here at least, you should be saying do we not believe them until they prove themselves in a court of law.

I appreciate you are talking about both angles outside a court of law, but inside a court they are not treated the same. If you are a defendant accused of defamation, the onus is on you, not the prosecution, so to speaks.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I mean without it proven the guy is clearly a fucking wrongun. I don’t get this. It’s the same as Mendy. They are both animals, guilty by law or not.

I’d politely suggest your moral code isn’t the law and the offence you suggest is a heinous one that is easier to accuse than prove.

Animals?

 

[bugsyblue]

I’d politely suggest your moral code isn’t the law and the offence you suggest is a heinous one that is easier to accuse than prove.

Animals?

This is just the tip of the iceberg with Russell brand mate. You’re going to probably look quite foolish with your various comments in a few months when it all comes out.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

This is just the tip of the iceberg with Russell brand mate. You’re going to probably look quite foolish with your various comments in a few months when it all comes out.

Seriously though.
I don’t want to go over and over my position on this, but why do you think ChicagoBlue is going to look foolish?
A genuine question mate.
I mean is it me? Am I reading people’s post differently to everyone else, or am I reading things dispassionately and actually seeing what they are saying?

Again I’ll say, in this case without going back pages, I don’t find anything supportive of Brand in what CB says;
I’d politely suggest your moral code isn’t the law and the offence you suggest is a heinous one that is easier to accuse than prove.

I see that as the two sides in the predominant argument in here, me and Seb included, agreeing without realising it.

It is harder to prove than merely making accusations.
The level of proof required to get it to a court of law makes it prohibitive for a lot of people in a one word against another scenario.
That doesn’t deny the heinous nature of what we are talking about.
It also doesn’t deny that in the court of public opinion, the balance of probability is the rule of thumb like the civil courts, but I hold by my original statement. Justice is best served to these women by securing a conviction in a court of law against him.
The pursuance of him in the court of public opinion, in my opinion, is a dangerous game that further endangers any hope of any conviction in a legal setting that would prove guilt in front of twelve of his peers.

I’ve stated I don’t like the guy (Brand) and I get no feeling from ChicagoBlue that he does either.
One area that I agree with CB on and I have stated this from the start, is that I support the reasoning behind the law having such a high standard of proof required to convict such a crime.
The law covers more than just sexual assault and crimes of that nature, and is general to a lot of areas.
If you want my own anecdotal experience. I would agree with the likes of Seb in here that probably 80-90% of never make it to court, but I would also say that the success rate of prosecution of what I see in court is very high when they do get to court. Also, I would say that sexual assault probably covers up to 80% of cases I see on a weekly basis.
And no I’m not a barrister but I work in the courts.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

This is just the tip of the iceberg with Russell brand mate. You’re going to probably look quite foolish with your various comments in a few months when it all comes out.

I can only comment on what I read…as is the case for anyone without firsthand knowledge.

All I know is that the British media are the worst purveyors of crap and he’s the current target.

If he is a rapist, I hope he’s sent down.

I’m very interested by your confidence in your knowledge of the FACTS with the comment “when it all comes out.”

As they say…put up or shut up!

 

[bugsyblue]

I can only comment on what I read…as is the case for anyone without firsthand knowledge.

All I know is that the British media are the worst purveyors of crap and he’s the current target.

If he is a rapist, I hope he’s sent down.

I’m very interested by your confidence in your knowledge of the FACTS with the comment “when it all comes out.”

As they say…put up or shut up!

That’s the thing I do have some knowledge of Brand’s behaviour (I’d call it secondhand knowledge) and I’m not being sensationalist but equally I’m not going to “put up” either because it’s not my place to verbalise what I know as it’s up to the victims to speak out should they wish.

If you only want to deal in facts and I assume by that you mean convictions in a court of law - I appreciate your point that rumours and allegations can be exaggerated in the court of public opinion and era of social media - then I’d like to point out less than 2% of rape cases result in a prosecution. Facts are not easy to ascertain when it comes to sexual assaults and rape.

Another poster called brand an animal. That was his opinion and he’s entitled to it. Just as a you are entitled to challenge it. But if more stories about brand come out that I have heard of over the years I can guarantee you you’ll start to change your opinion on whether he’s “an animal” or not. And making a stand to defend his “rights” or what have you might make you feel foolish if you hear some of the other victims’ stories. That’s the point I was making.

 

[bugsyblue]

Seriously though.
I don’t want to go over and over my position on this, but why do you think ChicagoBlue is going to look foolish?
A genuine question mate.
I mean is it me? Am I reading people’s post differently to everyone else, or am I reading things dispassionately and actually seeing what they are saying?

Again I’ll say, in this case without going back pages, I don’t find anything supportive of Brand in what CB says;
I’d politely suggest your moral code isn’t the law and the offence you suggest is a heinous one that is easier to accuse than prove.

I see that as the two sides in the predominant argument in here, me and Seb included, agreeing without realising it.

It is harder to prove than merely making accusations.
The level of proof required to get it to a court of law makes it prohibitive for a lot of people in a one word against another scenario.
That doesn’t deny the heinous nature of what we are talking about.
It also doesn’t deny that in the court of public opinion, the balance of probability is the rule of thumb like the civil courts, but I hold by my original statement. Justice is best served to these women by securing a conviction in a court of law against him.
The pursuance of him in the court of public opinion, in my opinion, is a dangerous game that further endangers any hope of any conviction in a legal setting that would prove guilt in front of twelve of his peers.

I’ve stated I don’t like the guy (Brand) and I get no feeling from ChicagoBlue that he does either.
One area that I agree with CB on and I have stated this from the start, is that I support the reasoning behind the law having such a high standard of proof required to convict such a crime.
The law covers more than just sexual assault and crimes of that nature, and is general to a lot of areas.
If you want my own anecdotal experience. I would agree with the likes of Seb in here that probably 80-90% of never make it to court, but I would also say that the success rate of prosecution of what I see in court is very high when they do get to court. Also, I would say that sexual assault probably covers up to 80% of cases I see on a weekly basis.
And no I’m not a barrister but I work in the courts.

I haven’t read your opinion on Brand mate so can’t comment on your position but I’ve explained my reasoning to Chicago Blue. However I’m interested in what you’ve said about the legal standing of rape cases.

The CPS has raised the bar on evidence based cases they take to court pretty gradually since they came to power (in the late 80s I think it was). last year we had a 5% conviction rate on ALL reported crimes. Less than 2% for rape cases. Personally I think the police and CPS are failing the UK but that’s perhaps an argument for another time and a lot of the CPS’ decision making comes down to money and resources (or lack of).

Out of interest why do you feel the law should have such a high reasoning of proof in regard to sexual assaults and rapes? From my knowledge false accusations are nominal when compared to actual cases of abuse that don’t get taken forward? That’s my understanding from what I’ve read but hands up I have no first hand knowledge of this particular area so keen to hear why you - someone who works in the courts by the sounds of it - feels it’s so important that there is a higher level of proof required? And by that do you mean higher than say murder or GBH? What other crimes are you comparing that to?

 

[M18CTID]

No but my nose for satire wasn't fully developed at that time. To clear up any doubt, I was being ironic, or something in that the more allegations come t light the more ridiculous his claim that it's all a conspiracy to silence him. He's a wrong 'un, a nonce, an unfunny **** and although he hasn't been formally charged, tried, convicted of anything I'm inclined to believe that given his reported attitudes to women, his immaturity and the fact that I just don't like him, never have even when he was flavour of the month, that he is guilty of something. If you get my drift.

So I was Clarkied then!