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

[Goater=Legend]

That stand up footage is distateful, its not even funny.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I said I don't condone anybody that has done wrong, if he's done wrong then rightly so punish him
But why does it always go to press before a court and judgment set

Investigative journalism does that. Even back to the World In Action days. Panorama too.

 

[meltonblue]

I said I don't condone anybody that has done wrong, if he's done wrong then rightly so punish him
But why does it always go to press before a court and judgment set

You do get how investigative journalism has always worked, right..?

I’m not sure where it’s come from that the only wrongdoing that should be reported on or considered is that that’s illegal either.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I appreciate where you're coming from and can understand giving people the benefit of the doubt, but why should the only test be if he is found guilty in a court?

Suggesting that Brand is right now innocent, simply because he's not been convicted, is taking his side over the multiple women who have accused him.

Most people are aware that only something like 1% of reported rapes end up with a conviction. And that's the ones that get reported. The majority are never reported, so by suggesting the only standard of proof that we can consider is a legal one, means we're applying a ridiculously high bar for the women who have accused him.

I’m not on a jury being presented with the evidence, so what I think matters little.
For what it’s worth, no I don’t believe Brand is anything less than a Pervy grifter.
I have no desire to defend him and don’t.
However, the law is there for a reason. I do agree it makes convictions in a rape case very difficult but I don’t read it as being designed to hamper the victims. The law favours the accused and puts the onus on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt for very sound reasons, no matter how frustrating that can be.

All I’m stating in here is that as the law stands, he’s viewed as innocent. Plain and simple.
I think it would serve the victims best to take him completely through the legal process and get a conviction.
The danger of trial by media is that it’s a double edged sword. Yes, things like the MeToo organisation can help victims come forward but presenting allegations in a tv program ( I didn’t watch it) is risky too, especially if a legal process has not yet been initiated.
You can prejudice a fair trial( again I say I didn’t watch it so don’t know).
Finding a jury that haven’t been influenced will be more difficult.

And remember all the jury hear in a trial, is the actual evidence. They are removed from court when any objections and subsequent arguments arise.
Evidence and evidence alone is what he would be tried on.

Like I say, I’ve always thought he’s a wrong ‘un, but what I think doesn’t matter and doesn’t help any victims.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I said I don't condone anybody that has done wrong, if he's done wrong then rightly so punish him
But why does it always go to press before a court and judgment set

Every crime is reported by the press before it's gone to court, assuming they decide it interesting to the public.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Investigative journalism does that. Even back to the World In Action days. Panorama too.

Absolutely. But as I mentioned in a different post, it’s s double edged sword and needs to be careful not to prejudice a legal case.

As I said, I didn’t watch this program, so don’t know where it sits.

 

[Two Gun Bob]

I'm not making it a purely BBC story, I'm saying their track record is appalling. Which it absolutely is.

The beeb never learn, the dogshit abuse brand and co metered out to Sachs re his grandaughter was beyond abhorant and fully sanctioned by certain members of the "corperation". A fine of £150k from the ofcom didnt really cut it for me. Struggling to see how he earns a living as I would't really class him as a comedian but each to their own. A narcistic misoginistic oddity at best.

 

[SWP's back]

I said I don't condone anybody that has done wrong, if he's done wrong then rightly so punish him
But why does it always go to press before a court and judgment set

The press broke Saville. Weinstein. The Catholic Church being a den of pedos in the US to name but 3 off the top of my head. That’s what investigative journalists do.

 

[Pedestrian]

I said I don't condone anybody that has done wrong, if he's done wrong then rightly so punish him
But why does it always go to press before a court and judgment set

They should keep quiet like they did with Saville? Because that worked well for the hundreds he abused.