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

west didsblue said:
Who the fuck is Beverley Turner?

She must be a real wrong ’un if she makes Pierce sound sensible.
Click to expand...
she has done BBC 5Live - ITV F1 and Tour de France and loads more - established broadcaster who has fallen under the Brand spell and now soils herself daily on a minority "news" channel
 
inbetween said:
Indeed they can but do you think they're doing that out of concern for the women involved and therefore punishing Brand or are they just doing it to preserve their own image?

Like I said these women are the least concern for the people, media and companies involved. This is why you go to the Police and not journalists.
Click to expand...

Depends on what the women involved want too, there’s valid reasons they go to journalists before the police too.
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
There are so many parallels in the way Jimmy Savile and Russell Brand operated it’s really sickening.
Click to expand...
Exactly this, add in Weinstein, Max Clifford, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Owen Oysten, Jonathan King, etc, it doesn’t have to be minors or rape, coercive sexual behaviour to manipulate women is a crime in itself. Brand is one of the most despicable, disgusting characters out there, Johnathan Ross should be booted out of TV and Radio as well for his comment on Andrew Sach’s granddaughter which Brand had obviously bragged about.
 
M18CTID said:
As I expected. This will give other women the confidence to come forward.
Click to expand...
It’s the “me too” position that got that creep Weinstein jailed, without it he’d still be abusing women and going on the radio with that ginger tosser mate of his Chris Evans. The latter “groomed” Billy Piper on his radio show, she was just 18 when they married and he was 35, it was legal but uncomfortable how he talked about her.
 
inbetween said:
You have to assume innocence because that's the whole point of the legal system. It isn't taking sides, it's the default position. I am on the side of the women involved because they have come forward and their case should be heard. However I'm also on the side of the legal system, nobody can punish or attack Brand or do anything else until a case is proven.

I agree, rapes don't always result in convictions but we can't change the legal system to ensure that convictions do happen. The way to improve the conviction rate is to educate women and make it as easy as possible for women to report it through the Police. The Police also have to get better at investigating and the CPS in how it charges people.

What will be lost in this is the whole thing will become a story about the personality of Russell Brand and not the simple fact that the women involved have (hopefully) come forward to get justice. Unfortunately in the media and opinion no-one actually cares about these women, they only care about the outrage and punishing the person involved.
Click to expand...
Life doesn't start and end with what courts decide.

There is a huge difference between being innocent, and not having been found guilty in a court of law.

I initially posted because the thread was full of people arguing that unless this goes to court, and unless he's found guilty, he is innocent. That's simply untrue. If it was the case, that means we have to presume Jimmy Savile is innocent.
 
hammocity said:
It’s the “me too” position that got that creep Weinstein jailed, without it he’d still be abusing women and going on the radio with that ginger tosser mate of his Chris Evans. The latter “groomed” Billy Piper on his radio show, she was just 18 when they married and he was 35, it was legal but uncomfortable how he talked about her.
Click to expand...
And poor Billie went on to marry that utter wanker Laurence Fox as well
 
bluenova said:
Life doesn't start and end with what courts decide.

There is a huge difference between being innocent, and not having been found guilty in a court of law.

I initially posted because the thread was full of people arguing that unless this goes to court, and unless he's found guilty, he is innocent. That's simply untrue. If it was the case, that means we have to presume Jimmy Savile is innocent.
Click to expand...
OJ Simpson went to court and was found “not guilty”, he said:

“People may think this is self-serving, but I might be sitting next to whoever did it. I really don’t know who did this."

Everyone else knows, and he must be Schizophrenic as he’s always “sat next” to Nicole Brown’s murderer.
 
bluenova said:
Life doesn't start and end with what courts decide.

There is a huge difference between being innocent, and not having been found guilty in a court of law.

I initially posted because the thread was full of people arguing that unless this goes to court, and unless he's found guilty, he is innocent. That's simply untrue. If it was the case, that means we have to presume Jimmy Savile is innocent.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
inbetween said:
Indeed they can but do you think they're doing that out of concern for the women involved and therefore punishing Brand or are they just doing it to preserve their own image?

Like I said these women are the least concern for the people, media and companies involved. This is why you go to the Police and not journalists.
Click to expand...
Historically when women have gone to the police nothing has happened to the men they are accusing.

Only when the media has gotten involved have most accusations of sexual abuse and rape actually lead to substantive action. And even that is mostly in recent times. Prior to the advent of broadcast television and the internet, the various forms of media were often controlled or strongly influenced by the accused, so they were able to suppress the allegations and, in turn, any consequences for them. Similar could be sad of the police and companies imploring the accused, which were largely ‘old boys’ clubs that not only ignored the allegations, but encouraged the underlying horrible behaviour.

Again, continually arguing that the allegations should solely go to authorities and not media, or that individuals not connected to the situation should not discuss the merits of the allegations or put pressure on authorities to investigate them (eg. share their opinion) is advocating for a return to a state of play where even more abusers were able to act with impunity.

And that’s certainly not supporting the women being abused.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Coatigan said:
Renders the concept pointless.

In the same way City as a club have the right to be presumed innocent until the charges are proven, but in reality everyone knows we did it and are dirty oil cheats. So what bloody use is it, just some token woke shit you say randomly.
Click to expand...

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.
 
'Innocent until proven guilty but feel free to make up your own minds'
 
inbetween said:
You have to assume innocence because that's the whole point of the legal system. It isn't taking sides, it's the default position. I am on the side of the women involved because they have come forward and their case should be heard. However I'm also on the side of the legal system, nobody can punish or attack Brand or do anything else until a case is proven.

I agree, rapes don't always result in convictions but we can't change the legal system to ensure that convictions do happen. The way to improve the conviction rate is to educate women and make it as easy as possible for women to report it through the Police. The Police also have to get better at investigating and the CPS in how it charges people.

What will be lost in this is the whole thing will become a story about the personality of Russell Brand and not the simple fact that the women involved have (hopefully) come forward to get justice. Unfortunately in the media and opinion no-one actually cares about these women, they only care about the outrage and punishing the person involved.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think a high profile celebrity being accused of multiple rapes and other serious predatory behaviour should certainly be brought to the nation’s attention and wouldn’t fall under slow news day.
He’s denied everything? Super, let’s just call it a day and leave him be…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top