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

[awest]

Madness how accusations can be immediately seen as guilty these days. Same thing is happening with City. Trial by msm can only be a bad thing.

 

[domalino]

Madness how accusations can be immediately seen as guilty these days. Same thing is happening with City. Trial by msm can only be a bad thing.

To be quite honest it's weirder how many people are lining up to defend Russell Brand from multiple independently verified accusations of sexual assault, grooming and rape.

The man hasn't even denied having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old when he was 30.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Free speech, innit.

I suppose it is, asking a woman on mainstream tv, if he can shag her and her daughters or even just them or her and being told in no uncertain terms, he cannot and one of them is underage.

And he has the right to talk over that negative response and pursue the cheap joke.

After all it’s what our forefathers fought for.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Madness how accusations can be immediately seen as guilty these days. Same thing is happening with City. Trial by msm can only be a bad thing.

It’s social media. Everything is instant. Even if Mr. Brand is innocent, his reputation is already done and those who want to believe he is guilty have already chose to.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Unreal that he was able to say that and not face any action for it. I thought Vanessa handled that as best she possibly could in the circumstances but no doubt she wanted to slap the ****. What he said to her was wrong on so many levels.

Like a fart in a lift.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Like I've said though, what he said to her isn't what I'd call lad culture. This was altogether more disturbing.

As for it being part of his act, are we sure it was an act?

Hide in plain sight perhaps.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I suppose it is, asking a woman on mainstream tv, if he can shag her and her daughters or even just them or her and being told in no uncertain terms, he cannot and one of them is underage.

And he has the right to talk over that negative response and pursue the cheap joke.

After all it’s what our forefathers fought for.

It’s the nonsensical argument that gets recycled every time something like this comes out.

 

[TP2707]

There's 100% trial by media going on here - however I do think there's got to be something to the amount of people that are coming out to give their stories of him. Multiple female comics saying they were warned about him and plenty of people coming out to say they were at least mis treated by him most with a sexual theme.
I think when these things happen there's always a collection of genuine accusations but what complicates it is that you'll then get those than come out and make false accusations for either money or attention. There's people like that in world unbelievably.
If his lawyers were threatening law suits to anyone trying to out him before then I'm not surprised they stayed quiet. Especially back when he had as many adoring fans as he's had. It takes something as big as the Dispatches investigation to give it enough momentum for those genuine people to feel safe enough to come out and tell their stories.
A different story (but similarities) is when Lance Armstrong sued people for saying he was on performance enhancing drugs knowing full well they were telling the truth. If you have the clout to hire the best legal teams you can protect yourself from the truth and even make money off those who rightly accuse you.
I don't want this story to be true because I've actually always been a fan of his - but I can't see an outcome where it turns out it's all false. Time will tell - but our culture of trial by media is crap. Who on earth would want to be famous these days.

 

[dannyboy29]

Yes, of course. I've also pointed out that being a sex addict doesn't necessarily mean that that person would engage in illegal activity towards women. However, when all is said and done, regardless of people saying he should be locked up for unpalatable but not unlawful behaviour, the fact is that Brand has very serious allegations of a criminal nature against him from multiple people.

Exactly. However, the allegations should be going through a criminal investigation. He's career and his future should not be decided by a channel 4 boss or Sally from Leamington Spa on twitter.

 

[Coatigan]

If you mean "Innocent until proven guilty" in a criminal court, then it doesn't really apply.

In terms of a court case (as with Mendy), guilt is based on "beyond reasonable doubt", which is generally considered that everyone has to be around 99% sure something happened. That's a really high bar, and one of the main reasons that crimes such as rape, where there may be little evidence beyond the two sides of the story, rarely end in a guilty verdict.

If YouTube block him, then that's likely based on a contract, which would be decided on the balance of probabilities. So, they can look at both sides and decide who they believe - even if it's marginal - so a 51%-49% decision. It's almost certain that the contract contains elements about reputational damage, or similar, which lowers the bar even further.

Brand in those cases can take legal action against YouTube, but it would also be based on the balance of probabilities, and I don't think I'd bet on him winning.

They may even 'believe him' 100% for example, but still decide to suspend his pay to dissociate themselves with the accusations and to ensure their reputation is managed in the meantime. As you rightly point out, with other similar cases including Mendy, Greenwood, Stacey etc, distancing or pausing their involvement for their own interest is not the same as presuming guilt.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Russell brand is a twat. My wife convinced me he was good, along with a few other talentless tossers who have made the big time recently.

But what gets me is the way the industry did nothing.
I understand lesser known names couldn't bring it to the forefront, but he mixed with some people, some stars who were bigger than him, who's name carried a lot more weight, yet they said nothing, and even partied with him and joined in with his shiteness.

Those people should be ashamed.

Bob called him a Cnut live on air.

 

[JRockBlues]

Katherine Ryan outed his as a rapist quite some time ago.

She's probably the powerful woman on the comedy circuit, and she said she had been told to be careful what she said, because it was obviously only second hand information.

Many of these allegations appear to relate to women who were outside the business, or who had a lot less power.

Katherine Ryan called Brand a predator to his face several times on camera while they were filming a programme called Comedy Central's Roast Battle. They were co-hosting along with Jimmy Carr. Funnily enough the footage never made it to air and Brand was dropped from the show for the 2nd series.

 

[Stephen230]

Exactly. However, the allegations should be going through a criminal investigation. He's career and his future should not be decided by a channel 4 boss or Sally from Leamington Spa on twitter.

What if none of his alleged victims want to make a complaint to the police?

Should the media be obliged to say nothing and carry on as they were?

Isn’t that an identical situation to how Saville was free to carry on for so many years and everyone was in agreement should never be allowed to happen again ?

 

[meltonblue]

Exactly. However, the allegations should be going through a criminal investigation. He's career and his future should not be decided by a channel 4 boss or Sally from Leamington Spa on twitter.

I keep seeing this and I don’t get it, this kind of thing is exactly what investigative journalism is there for. His career and future is going to be decided more by what he does now and how and whether he can respond than anything else.

 

[BobKowalski]

Exactly. However, the allegations should be going through a criminal investigation. He's career and his future should not be decided by a channel 4 boss or Sally from Leamington Spa on twitter.

Are you saying C4 or other major news outlets should not report allegations that come to their attention? Allegations that they spend months checking and verifying?

 

[SebastianBlue]

It’s social media. Everything is instant. Even if Mr. Brand is innocent, his reputation is already done and those who want to believe he is guilty have already chose to.

Exactly. However, the allegations should be going through a criminal investigation. He's career and his future should not be decided by a channel 4 boss or Sally from Leamington Spa on twitter.

So everyone is meant to just ignore the substantiated allegations resulting from a four year investigation that will have been vetted and approved at many different stages as valid (and not violating libel or slander laws) by a bevy of lawyers? The one Brand and his lawyers chose not to contest?

And ignore the women that have come forward after the program have aired?

It’s just social media passing random judgement?

And if he is never taken to court or settles out of court, do we just act as if he is perfectly innocent?

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

So everyone is meant to just ignore the substantiated allegations resulting from a four year investigation that will have been vetted and approved at many different stages as valid (and not violating libel or slander laws) by a bevy of lawyers? The one Brand and his lawyers chose not to contest?

And ignore the women that have come forward after the program have aired?

It’s just social media passing random judgement?

And if he is never taken to court or settles out of court, do we just act as if he is perfectly innocent?

Of course not. All I’m saying is social media has already determined the outcome. Without it all you have is the telly and the next days paper. Social media speeds up the process ten fold and people make their mind up because of it.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Wonder what ToryBoy's thoughts are on Dan Wooten?

I have a big problem with calling that a news channel to be honest.

Two presenters shouting over each other opposing sides of an argument isn’t news. Two subjective views, I add.

I know this is what news programs have become but it reinforces my view of social media. And Seb, before you jump in, I know this is mainstream media but the lines are so blurred now, how to get the truth or the facts of any news is becoming more and more problematic.

I can honestly say this site is the only social media I partake in. I don’t even do Facebook anymore.
And what you see is what you get with me. I often think I say too much about myself at times.

But I like to think I’m discerning about where I get my news from.
That’s not a news channel if that’s typical of its content no matter how much you agree with one view or the other.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I have a big problem with calling that a news channel to be honest.

Two presenters shouting over each other opposing sides of an argument isn’t news. Two subjective views, I add.

I know this is what news programs have become but it reinforces my view of social media. And Seb, before you jump in, I know this is mainstream media but the lines are so blurred now, how to get the truth or the facts of any news is becoming more and more problematic.

I can honestly say this site is the only social media I partake in. I don’t even do Facebook anymore.
And what you see is what you get with me. I often think I say too much about myself at times.

But I like to think I’m discerning about where I get my news from.
That’s not a news channel if that’s typical of its content no matter how much you agree with one view or the other.

Haha, apologies if I have made you feel you need to preemptively speak directly to me in posts to avoid the wrath of pontification!

 

[Ducado]

It must just be me and my lack of interest in celebrities, but do allegations against a B lister really need this circus? He just does not warrant the attention given him