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

[SWP's back]

So just to get it right, you think dispatches and Sunday times reporters collaborated together to release this story on the instruction of the government…? And I’d assume the people alleging would have to have been in on it too…? All in order to shut down a comedian with limited appeal on social media?

I mean, yes that sounds a lot more plausible than just Russell Brand potentially being a wrong un…

Mad isn’t it.

 

[SebastianBlue]

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

Excellent thread.

Legal justice is not the only form of justice in society. And everyone in this discussion has enforced non-legal justice in their life, as it is a requirement of functioning in a civil society.

 

[SWP's back]

When it comes to an alleged crime there is no room for expression of opinion on guilt. The same could be said for the opinions on Benjamin Mendy who as it turns out was found not guilty and now his career is ruined.

I'm sorry but this is completely mad, this isn't about taking sides, taking sides is stupid and completely unnecessary.

Every normal person is on the side of the women involved but at the minute those claims are unproven. Beyond supporting those women the only side we should be on is the side of finding truth. The only way to find truth is in court, that's why it exists.

If we only consider one side and presume guilt then quite literally any person in the street can have their life ruined and is that okay? The law thankfully protects everyone from this by presuming everyone is innocent until proven otherwise.

He’s not denying fucking a 16 year old when well into his 30’s, so criminal or not, that’s fucking noncey. She was literally a few months older than the girl Adam Johnson was sentenced to 6 years in jail for heavy petting.

People can keep saying “let’s see what the courts say before we make judgement” all the want, he’s a fucking wrong-un for that alone.

 

[inbetween]

He’s not denying fucking a 16 year old when well into his 30’s, so criminal or not, that’s fucking noncey. She was literally a few months older than the girl Adam Johnson was sentenced to 6 years in jail for heavy petting.

People can keep saying “let’s see what the courts say before we make judgement” all the want, he’s a fucking wrong-un for that alone.

Yeah he is a wrong-un, however, we're talking about far more than that here. We're talking about the alleged rape and sexual abuse of many women of any age.

That deserves a day in court and not a day in the news.

 

[dannyboy29]

From the reactions on social media I think people need to understand that there's a huge difference between treating women wrong and raping a woman. Seems to be a lot of people wanting him punished from being a prick towards women. Obviously if his mistreating of women has crossed over into sexual assault then he deserves everything he gets.

 

[splinter]

I wonder who's next after brand ?

 

[SebastianBlue]

@inbetween I saw your reply to me but now it has disappeared for some reason, but I wanted to say that the vast majority of women choose not to go to the police when they have been sexually abused or raped for many, many reasons that “education” will have very little impact on.

These reasons include:

1) the abuse is often perpetrated by someone they know (often their romantic or legal partner) so there are very real, very immediate consequences for reporting the abuse to the police.

2) even when the abuser is not known by the accused, historically reporting the abuse or rape to the police, even immediately, has lead to no consequences for the perpetrators and very real negative consequences for the victims.

3) even when charges are brought against perpetrators, historically very few cases have lead to convictions because the standard of proof is well beyond simply “did they likely do it”; perpetrators also often get off on technicalities, frequently because of the ineptitude of investigators (i.e. they may make procedural mistakes that lead to evidence being barred from being used in proceedings).

4) the police or other authorities have historically not taken accusations of sexual abuse and rape seriously and/or they have been unable to properly investigate the accusations due to poor training, staffing, or resourcing (for example, many authorities—including local clinics—still do not have valid “rape kits” and proper storage for them on premises).

And again, beyond all that, historically, many instances of sexual abuse and rape were only even investigated by authorities after they were reported in the media, even though some instances had been officially reported months or years earlier.

 

[SWP's back]

Yeah he is a wrong-un, however, we're talking about far more than that here. We're talking about the alleged rape and sexual abuse of many women of any age.

That deserves a day in court and not a day in the news.

Well plenty disagree with you. The day(s) in the news are likely going to be the cause of a potential day in court.

And he’s a nonce.

 

[SebastianBlue]

From the reactions on social media I think people need to understand that there's a huge difference between treating women wrong and raping a woman. Seems to be a lot of people wanting him punished from being a prick towards women. Obviously if his mistreating of women has crossed over into sexual assault then he deserves everything he gets.

There’s also a big difference between treating women wrong and sexual abuse, and all of the allegations that are being levelled at Brand (including the different women that have come forward since the program) fall in the category of sexual abuse.

I think one of the issues is many men still think of acts of sexual abuse as merely “treating women wrong”.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

Exactly that. I just don’t agree with the notion that the CPS’s ability to get a conviction is the sole arbiter of what we should deem acceptable in our society or that a court case is always needed for judgment. It is for a criminal judgment absolutely.

As it currently stands, the accusations put at him are from people across different judiciaries and from people wanting anonymity and so haven’t approached the police directly themselves. The chances of getting a conviction on anything based on that is essentially none.

What we do have though is channel 4 and the times both willing to publish those allegations. They would only do that based on extensive analysis by their lawyers into the corroborating evidence for them to believe it is true and could stand up in court if they were to be sued for defamation. We also have his agent saying publicly they believe they were deliberately misled by him.

Whatever actions Brand decides to do now may well show his guilt or innocence just as much as a criminal court case does. If he really can “refute” the allegations and has direct witnesses that contradict the evidence the Times has, then he can take it to court himself if he wants to. It’s worth bearing in mind he had eight days to respond to it though and his lawyers clearly couldn’t find anything credible enough in that time frame given they went to print, instead his approach is to describe it as a co-ordinated attack on him by the mainstream media.

Personally, I don’t have a firm opinion on whether he’s guilty of a criminal act or not yet. I did find the testimony of the women credible though and at the very least, he’s a bit of a noncey ****. There’s plenty that could happen for me to formulate a firm opinion I’m happy to stick to though without the need of a criminal case.