Russell Brand

There’s one missing surely. Scapegoat! You know like what Lucy Letby is.

Agree with @cowxst. Listen to the Times podcast on the trial (in which the journalists report in a good amount of detail what happened day by day.) Come back if you still have questions.

https://www.thetimes.com/podcasts/times-investigates

As it is, the one you’ve asked is very basic indeed.

Imagine being a woman and admiring that!

The police would have spent 1000’s of hours investigating rapes,yes, if they knew of a person perpetrating offences against multiple victims. Once you know that then they become a serial offender. For the majority of offences they may well be serial offenders but we just don’t have the clout or the reach to know about the other victims. The journalism in this case meant victims far and wide knew that there were other victims. It’s a “ safety in numbers” exercise. They come forward because they feel they are more likely to be believed and if the MOs are similar then that becomes part of the evidence also.
In a non sexual example I was involved in an investigation of knife point robberies against cab drivers. The suspect was driven to a particular building, pulled a knife on the driver, said a particular phrase and then ran off through the building and out the back. Once we knew that it happened more than once we were able to place an ad in a circular designed for cab drivers and all these other victims came forward. They had all been robbed in exactly the same way with the same exact language used. Serial offenders of any type may have the same process which is repeated and that becomes part of the case. Brand was not convicted because he was famous in some attempt to bring him down but his celebrity prompted the publicity and enabled other victims to be aware of each other.

OP I have been told that it is VERY difficult to even charge someone for sexual assault i.e. bring them to trial. So if they have been charged then they are very likely guilty.

Trust the process, read the sentencing transcript, there has been evidence.

Lots of naysayers because they are fans of Russell Brand. Just because you are a fan and you like him doesn't make him innocent.

Perhaps before starting this thread you could have read some of the very basic information from the case?

The nature of rape and sexual abuse is that it happens behind closed doors. So the chances of there ever being any witnesses are slim to none. Sex is something, unlike murder or assault or most other crimes, where if it is consensual it's perfectly normal and in no way a crime, if it's not then it's wrong and criminal. But although you can get a rape kit done, report it to the police, tell your friends and family what happened, the guy can always say "yes we had sex but it was consensual", and unless there were cameras or a recording or a witness (all slim chances and even then might not give full context) ...what "hard" evidence can there actually be, one way or the other?

I think it’s certainly reasonable to ask whether the police would have spent 1000s of hours and financial resources going after Joe Bloggs for a similar alleged set of crimes that took place around 20 years ago, even if there was in theory some evidence that gavesome possibility of a conviction (eg, a couple of potentially incriminating text messages)

But then, rightly or wrongly, the Times/Channel 4 instigation had already got the ball rolling on contacting victims etc so I guess they figured there were was the basis of a case there. And of course the fame and high profile nature of the Sunday Times investigation also arguably would have made it impossible for the police NOT to then carry out a thorough investigation of their own.

So in a sense I’d agree that the same level of fame which provided Brand the “cloak of celebrity” when he was doing what he was doing in the 90s and 00s, that permitted him to get away with so much, also 20 years on played a significant part in his downfall.

If you what to get conspiratorial about it, his mistake wasn’t starting to talk right wing BS on YouTube (I don’t believe that theory for one minute) it was rather acting alone rather than in cahoots with more powerful people who he could have threatened to take down with him. As it was he was instead just famous enough to make an attractive story for the Sunday Times etc - but not powerful/well connected enough to have any serious protection (eg like multiple past politicians, Epstein associates, Hollywood royalty, Trump etc)

And speaking of Hollywood royalty, let’s not forget that Polanski is living out a comfortable life in France having admitted to the exact same crime as Brand, only commited against a child. Horrific.

Yes the Georgina Baillie incident was awful. And another household name was culpable there too and treated with extreme leniency.
By PPs logic we should assume he also is '95% certain' of being a sex offender. When the truth is we only ever know a man is a rapist at the point its too late.

I know two people in real life who were convicted for historical sex offences. One of them was one of my teachers and another was a former colleague . Neither of them were famous.

🤢

I assume they they don't want to know the details of the evidence that was presented during the trial because it wouldn't align with their own predetermined opinion on the case.

I didn't ever find him funny, personally. I found him quite irritating, and my opinion of him sank further when the whole thing with Andrew Sachs happened.

I didn't know that he was a sexual predator or a rapist though. And there are plenty of celebrities that I find irritating who probably haven't done anything wrong.

I think there's some very nervous men out there who fear their past will come back to haunt them, pushing back hard against this. The women surprise me too. Maybe it's more comforting to think other women lie about rape than it is to face the fact a man they admired is a rapist.

What facts? All you have posted is your opinion.

How about we don’t go blaming women for this man’s crimes?

This. And I’m getting fed up of all the people saying they don’t understand how he was found guilty as it was ages ago and it was ‘he said she said’ without any evidence. Then they admit they don’t know any details of the trial despite several podcasts and newspapers reporting the details daily but feel able to criticise the verdict??!!

Its the other way round. He wasnt prosecuted because he was famous.
He thought he could get away with it because he was famous.

I agree with this, if your only knowledge of the man is catching him in a talk show he seemed ok. That's how these horrible men operate . Most people see the sheep , unlucky women experience the wolf .

The man went in front of a jury that was in majority male.

He had a lawyer of his choice.

He was convicted.

The judge used sentencing guidelines to decide on how long he would spend in prison.

The end.

I am no longer engaging in a dialogue with rape and sexual assault apologists on this.

I found him remotely entertaining. Never met him, never saw him live or bought his book, but I'm not going to pretend now that I knew all along he was a sleaze ball. I thought he could be very witty, I enjoyed the way he used language, the use of unexpected vocabulary to say the inane, and assumed that he was performing a character, like Keith Lemon or Vic Reeves. In fairness, I genuinely don't recall anything sexual in his acts, I wasn't a fan, so I'd be seeing only the mainstream TV stuff which would have been tamer I suppose.
Certainly I never suspected he was a rapist and tbh, don't much care for the implication there was something wrong with women who didn't see through him. Given we know he was able to gain the trust of women in order to rape them, its pretty offensive to his victims.

Happy to see a rapist convicted and brave women testifying with clear evidence to drive said conviction.

But "White man whose act portrayed him as a sex addicted satyr convicted on testimony of educated, informed, level headed, articulate victims" is sadly not as convincing a dramatic tide turn that we need.

It is because he was famous that there was so much evidence. You and I likely wouldn't have access to comedy shows, interviews and public appearances of our abusers telling the world who he is, which is sad, but in this case, he had to be prosecuted because the evidence was there. You can't choose not to prosecute someone because of other people's circumstances.

This is a succinct, accurate, observation.
I think its fair to say too that no one wants to believe that someone could be as coldly manipulative as Brand, so he was also given the benefit of the doubt as a deeply flawed but ultimately harmless sort. Was his troubled, vulnerable, addicted persona all an act? It's perplexing. Either way, I agree that this feels (correctly) like a watershed situation.

The argument that there was no physical evidence seems to be being put about by American social media commentators. Apparently he became very big in the US after his star faded here.

I don’t know if perhaps there is a different standard of evidence in the US and rape cases require physical evidence, but of course in the UK, physical evidence (eg DNA samples) are not required to secure a conviction, and rightly so.

The obsession with the lack of DNA samples is particularly perplexing - he didn’t deny that sec took place so DNA samples would
prove nothing.

It seems you occasionally get these hugely charismatic yet morally flawed individuals who generate huge revenue for their employers (who then become their enablers). They then became too valuable to be held accountable and therefore become almost untouchable. Hopefully the tide has turned.