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

[SebastianBlue]

Or read up on presumed innocent until proven guilty and trial by jury, not social media and public opinion.

Don’t make the mistake of me saying the above with trying to defend him, Weinstein or anyone else for that matter and the police have to step up if women make complaints of criminality and ensure justice is sought when evidence is there.

We used to drown women once because someone said they where a witch, fucking ridiculous, I just don’t want media used to do similar to others in 2023.

If he goes to court, is found guilty then thrown the fucking key away, no problems at all.

It's strange to say that Brand has moved towards the far-right, I assume this is a tactic used by those on the left to differentiate from Brand but the fact is he sits very much on the left. He was a big supporter of Corbyn and subsequent losses for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 is where his conspiracy stories began.

He quite famously took apart Nigel Farage on immigration on Question Time so putting both of these now in the same bracket seems pretty far-fetched. We all know deep down though that politics has absolutely nothing to do with the issue yet for some reason politics is actually trumping the real issue here which is alleged sexual abuse.

Society for me is imploding, we humans cannot cope with the level of connection that social media has brought and it is destroying every aspect of society. With Brand and any other alleged sexual abuser it is clear cut, did he commit a crime? At the moment we don't know and our laws therefore require that we found out first before handing out judgement and punishment.

The only way that truth can be found is through a fair trial and if found guilty he should be punished. I don't really see what else there is to say.

I think his (and many others) point is this is very different from witch “trials”.

The men in question have often been accused for many years by many women, men, and/or children but no action was taken largely due to both institutional protection and the lack of public awareness (and therefore a lack of scrutiny and pressure for action). In many cases authorities were either not notified or essentially ignored the accusations for various reasons, some highly dubious. And rape and sexual abuse cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute for many reasons, a fact very much capitalised on by these type of sexual predators. Jimmy Saville did just start meeting kids when the accusations arose late in his life—he had been doing it for decades before.

I agree that people should generally be presumed innocent until proven guilty from a legal perspective.

But arguing that these charges shouldn’t be reported or debate let publicly because it unfairly treats the accused is a counter to what is often necessary for these and other types of offenders (corruption, murder, etc) from being held to account in the first place.

It is also exactly the sort of argument we see from the offenders themselves.

The recent movement is a response to the centuries of unaccountability of mostly men, largely down to simply being able to bury the accusations (and sometimes the accusers).

 

[Bazzmand Show]

It's strange to say that Brand has moved towards the far-right, I assume this is a tactic used by those on the left to differentiate from Brand but the fact is he sits very much on the left.

It's not really a tactic at all, whether he is or isn't a far right believer now isn't the point. He has found a lucrative market in pandering to that crowd and making quite a lot of money from it.

Brand has not actually discussed anything of substance or value for years, he recently had some take that he felt climate change was an agenda driven by 'shadowy people who want to distract us from the TRUTH'.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Trump was convicted of rape recently and didn't face jail time. These cretins do have a way of worming out of it.

That was a civil case.

 

[blueinsa]

I think his (and many others) point is this is very different from witch “trials”.

The men in question have often been accused for many years by many women, men, and/or children but no action was taken largely due to both institutional protection and the lack of public awareness (and therefore a lack of scrutiny and pressure for action). In many cases authorities were either not notified or essentially ignored the accusations for various reasons, some highly dubious. And rape and sexual abuse cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute for many reasons, a fact very much capitalised on by these type of sexual predators. Jimmy Saville did just start meeting kids when the accusations arose late in his life—he had been doing it for decades before.

I agree that people should generally be presumed innocent until proven guilty from a legal perspective.

But arguing that these charges shouldn’t be reported or debate let publicly because it unfairly treats the accused is a counter to what is often necessary for these and other types of offenders (corruption, murder, etc) from being held to account in the first place.

It is also exactly the sort of argument we see from the offenders themselves.

The recent movement is a response to the centuries of unaccountability of mostly men, largely down to simply being able to but the accusations (and sometimes the accusers).

What I will say and then move on from is the fact, social media is now a warzone between the left and right and it’s a dirty place where some spend their entire lives wanting to do nothing but finish off those they perceive as enemies.

If as a society we use that to find people guilty the second accusations are made then the best of luck to us all.

Many right now care only about getting their win, not the victims who they will happily use and then ditch or move on from as and when it suits.

It’s not for me I’m afraid.

 

[inbetween]

I think his (and many others) point is this is very different from witch “trials”.

The men in question have often been accused for many years by many women, men, and/or children but no action was taken largely due to both institutional protection and the lack of public awareness (and therefore a lack of scrutiny and pressure for action). In many cases authorities were either not notified or essentially ignored the accusations for various reasons, some highly dubious. And rape and sexual abuse cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute for many reasons, a fact very much capitalised on by these type of sexual predators. Jimmy Saville did just start meeting kids when the accusations arose late in his life—he had been doing it for decades before.

I agree that people should generally be presumed innocent until proven guilty from a legal perspective.

But arguing that these charges shouldn’t be reported or debate let publicly because it unfairly treats the accused is a counter to what is often necessary for these and other types of offenders (corruption, murder, etc) from being held to account in the first place.

It is also exactly the sort of argument we see from the offenders themselves.

The recent movement is a response to the centuries of unaccountability of mostly men, largely down to simply being able to but the accusations (and sometimes the accusers).

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be reported. I'm arguing that these things should be passed onto the Police and then let's see where it goes from there? I won't pass judgement on Brand because I don't know the truth, I don't care about movements, I only care about the truth and we don't and can't possibly know the truth at the moment.

I don't agree that information should be freely distributed in the media because let's face it the media doesn't run these stories to help victims, they actually do it to gain views on advertisements and sell newspapers. You have been duped if you think otherwise.

When it comes to these subjects there is no room for the expression of opinion or claims on guilt because we have laws on that too, it's called defamation and slander.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I don't agree that information should be freely distributed in the media because let's face it the media doesn't run these stories to help victims, they actually do it to gain views on advertisements and sell newspapers. You have been duped if you think otherwise.

Does Channel 4 make a profit?

 

[chesterbells]

It is very sad that it needs to be said so often.

Part of it is that we younger people that grew up at the very beginning of the global communication age have collectively been conditioned to believe in that simple state fallacy. Debates over silver bullet solutions were common place; the reduction of civil discourse to Tory v Labour or Democrat v Republican or Blue v Red became the norm.

And that has only become worse as the internet supplanted broadcast television in providing both “news” and the pub/cafe/office as a framework for public discourse, eventually capturing the minds of the older generations, as well.

We have to constantly fight our natural inclinations, which can be exhausting, so many just give in to the convenience of this or that thinking.

I’ve posted it before on here, but the idea that you would naturally agree with every single item in the manifesto of party X, or every utterance from leader Y is bizarre to me. I never have.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I never liked the guy. He’s just not for me.
However as a few have said in here, there is a difference between allegations of a crime, a crime being reported to the police, being charged with a crime, and being convicted with a crime.
If a crime is reported, charges will be made by the state prosecution if it is deemed that they have enough evidence to bring it to court.
If it gets that far, the accused is still innocent all the way through trial until a jury says otherwise after deliberation.

I don’t like him, but in the eyes of the law, as things stand he’s innocent.

 

[SebastianBlue]

What I will say and then move on from is the fact, social media is now a warzone between the left and right and it’s a dirty place where some spend their entire lives wanting to do nothing but finish off those they perceive as enemies.

If as a society we use that to find people guilty the second accusations are made then the best of luck to us all.

Many right now care only about getting their win, not the victims who they will happily use and then ditch or move on from as and when it suits.

It’s not for me I’m afraid.

Completely understand With you general perspective and actually agree with the assertion that social media is a war zone.

But it goes back to my repeated point about not succumbing to the allure of the simple state fallacy.

The movement to hold men accountable for their actions, which largely depends on airing the accusations in a way not possible in previous generations (which made them largely immune from punishment for some pretty heinous acts), happens outside of social media, as well. And social media itself is not all bad. It can have horrific impacts on society. But it can also bring transparency and accountability not possible before it’s advent.

Most tools are not inherently bad or good—whether they have a positive or negative impact on people individually or society-at-large is mostly down to how we chose to use them.

And right now, social media is being used for a lot of bad and a lot of good.

Again, it is very important to remember that for thousands of years these types of offenders largely got away with their horrible acts because they could control what was said, when it was said, and by whom. They could control the narrative because they controlled the tools of control.

Arguing that these accusations should remain private and not publicly debated—and by extension the official investigations and subsequent trials should remain out of the public domain—is essentially arguing for that status quo to persist. Because without public awareness of the charges, many offenders would go on as Jimmy Saville did for decades. With public scrutiny and pressure, these crimes can be buried (sometimes along with the victims).

We have to mitigate the bad impacts and amplify the good ones, not get rid of the good to try to eliminate the bad.

If we do that, the bad nearly always wins.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be reported. I'm arguing that these things should be passed onto the Police and then let's see where it goes from there? I won't pass judgement on Brand because I don't know the truth, I don't care about movements, I only care about the truth and we don't and can't possibly know the truth at the moment.

I don't agree that information should be freely distributed in the media because let's face it the media doesn't run these stories to help victims, they actually do it to gain views on advertisements and sell newspapers. You have been duped if you think otherwise.

When it comes to these subjects there is no room for the expression of opinion or claims on guilt because we have laws on that too, it's called defamation and slander.

I await his charges for libel against the Times and Ch4.
Not holding my breath though.