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

[Coatigan]

That’s my view and has been my one and only point.
I don’t need to believe Brand. I’ve always thought he is a wrong un, as you say.
It has nothing to do with me unless I’m asked to serve on a jury, but I believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, by twelve of your peers.

There are very good reasons why the standard of proof is so high.
Think about it, it protects you and me. It protects us from anyone accusing us of anything.
Evidence is what you are tried on.

I do empathise with the alleged victims and I feel justice is best served for them, if they manage to put Brand through the legal system and get a conviction. Ruining his career by innuendo or hearsay is not what it’s about. Securing a conviction is justice.

If the program aired encourages more women to come forward and build a case or better still corroborate an existing story then great. Job done.
As I said, I didn’t see the program. If this was its aim, great , it perhaps has served it’s goal.
I merely caution about trying sensationalism of big issues in the media rather than using the courts.

Bottom line is, the victims justice is best served by securing convictions.

This. It is either a right and applied universally and unconditionally, or it is nothing at all.

 

[meltonblue]

Agree with the sentiments in here when it comes to the innocence argument -

 

[argyle]

YouTube could ban him, I guess. Not sure what their history is of that though.

They actively welcome people who push nonsense conspiracy theories, it brings in a lot of viewers for them.

 

[bluenova]

Just for clarity, and only speaking for myself here, that is not at all what I was suggesting in my responses to you. All I said was that accepting the default position of innocent until proven guilty, which applies to anyone and everyone, is not 'taking his side'.

And for clarity, it wasn't your posts that I was referring to.

Still, the "default position of innocent until proven guilty" only refers to legal guilt.

My argument is that too many people hide behind that, and will insist that someone is innocent until they've been proved guilty in court. That's not true.

We had this with the Mendy case - where plenty of people couldn't understand why the women weren't being prosecuted as Mendy wasn't found guilty. His guilt didn't mean they were all lying. The burden of proof in a criminal court case is a very high bar, for very good reasons - most democracies have decided that they would rather guilty people go free, than innocent people go to jail.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

They actively welcome people who push nonsense conspiracy theories, it brings in a lot of viewers for them.

Sure. It’s rotting peoples’ minds, but makes them money.

Their issue with Brand would be reputational. Someone said they banned Tate, so they might ban him. I don’t know very much about Tate, having never listened to anything he’s ever said or what the evidence was for his arrest in Romania, was it?

 

[argyle]

Sure. It’s rotting peoples’ minds, but makes them money.

Their issue with Brand would be reputational. Someone said they banned Tate, so they might ban him. I don’t know very much about Tate, having never listened to anything he’s ever said or what the evidence was for his arrest in Romania, was it?

Similar in that Tate again targets angry men and makes himself seem like he has all the answers as to why their lives are shit and it's all a big conspiracy against them.

In his case he tells them why they can't get a gilfriend is because of feminism, 'the left', 'the woke', womens rights, etc, you get the idea - you had to pay to understand all of this of course.

If that wasn't bad enough, he then told them how to control, dominate, abuse and 'tame' them - of course you had to pay again.

His arrest is it's alleged he coerced, controlled, raped and held hostage a number of women who he promised a relationship with but then had working for certain websites.

He says it's all nonsense and its in his words 'the matrix' that is coming for him. The same nonsense that its 'the government, the left, the mainstream media' that is out to get them.

Tate has backed Brand, of course.

 

[Stephen230]

Innocent until proven guilty in my eyes as we are all open to claims from previous relationships if we have a few bob.
What I don’t understand is why when a woman/boy claims wrong doing she/he is not sent straight to the police station, otherwise he will always be thought of as guilty by some people.
Smacks of a slow news day it shouldn’t be national news. I don’t like the lad but he denies all allegations.

You think this story was knocked up on a ‘slow news day’ ? It was the result of years of investigation. The women they interviewed were assured of anonymity by the journalists investigating. If they want to report it as a crime at a later date, that’s up to them. But it’s nobody’s job to ‘send them’ to the police.

 

[SebastianBlue]

This. It is either a right and applied universally and unconditionally, or it is nothing at all.

Now that I have read more posts and responses I have realised that @bluenova, @meltonblue, and I are arguing a completely different point to what you, @mancity2012_eamo, and @inbetween are arguing.

We all agree that individuals should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense. That absolutely has to be the base assumption for our justice system to function correctly.

But what bluenova, meltonblue, and I are discussing is the concept of innocence and consequence in society-at-large, which is incredibly important in the case of instances of sexual abuse and rape, because the vast, vast majority of these heinous acts go unpunished with the current legal system.

That is for many, many reasons, some very dubious (authorities protecting their own or powerful people, a system designed to favour men general, etc.), others because the standard of proof of guilt is well beyond simply “did they likely do it”, the accused often have high-powered lawyers that can get them off on technicalities, and getting victims to speak in court can be incredibly difficult because of the repercussions for doing so (especially in a society that still vehemently backs men over the women, causing many victims to be harassed or worse for coming forward).

So simply stating that everyone should presume an accused sexual abuser or rapist to be innocent if they never faced legal consequences for their actions (whether because charges are never brought or because a guilty verdict could not be attained for the accused) is essentially arguing that the vast majority of victims should see no justice of any kind.

And it is also tacitly arguing that Jimmy Saville should be considered innocent and should not have suffered any consequences for the abuse he perpetrated.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Similar in that Tate again targets angry men and makes himself seem like he has all the answers as to why their lives are shit and it's all a big conspiracy against them.

In his case he tells them why they can't get a gilfriend is because of feminism, 'the left', 'the woke', womens rights, etc, you get the idea - you had to pay to understand all of this of course.

If that wasn't bad enough, he then told them how to control, dominate, abuse and 'tame' them - of course you had to pay again.

His arrest is it's alleged he coerced, controlled, raped and held hostage a number of women who he promised a relationship with but then had working for certain websites.

He says it's all nonsense and its in his words 'the matrix' that is coming for him. The same nonsense that its 'the government, the left, the mainstream media' that is out to get them.

Tate has backed Brand, of course.

Ugh. Sounds like it would be a shame if he fell off a cliff, especially if Brand was handcuffed to him.

 

[M18CTID]

We’ve made the decision to fight that through the equivalent of the courts though rather than publicly releasing anything or caring about the court of public opinion that much.

Brand has the same choice - he can sue for defamation or publicly release counter evidence if he chooses to, there’s nothing stopping him from doing that.

I’m not sure many people think Greenwood shouldn’t be suffering any repercussions for example, despite it not going through a court of law. The evidence in the public domain that hasn’t been countered is damning enough to warrant that.

Just on the bolded bit, he claims he has witnesses who refute the allegations made against him. I'd be interested to know if this is indeed the case as I'm finding it very difficult to believe that there were other people who just conveniently happened to be in the same room at the same time that all these alleged offences took place.