Laura Brand, would you stand by your man? Trigger rape.

I think she must have known his reputation when they got together, she thinks he's a changed man and a Christian 🫤 it's pretty common for wives to 'stand by their man' in these circumstances and she's probably under a lot of pressure from him and his legal team to put on a show of support. If he's convicted, things could look very different.

Profile of the fragrant Mrs Gallacher (doesn't seem to have taken his name)

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/who-is-russell-brands-wife-laura-gallacher-b1300453.html

Right, as you said yourself, he's innocent until proven guilty in court - i.e. a conviction and punishment under the law depends on that process.

Outside of that, we are all free to make our own judgements based on what we know. His future relationships, career, reputation etc. aren't subject to 'innocent until proven guilty' principles, and that's what the thread's about, or at least I thought it was.

I imagine if he gets found guilty & sentenced ,she will have enough time away from his manipulation to leave him.

Thing is he is denying it, and he is yet to be proven guilty, it doesn’t matter we all think he is, that it’s a slam dunk, what matters is what she thinks, and she thinks he hasn’t done it, or is a changed man.

i watched her on the news yesterday, she held his hand to move him away and I thought it is one thing to support him, another to be holding his hand,

I suspect it is likely he is going to prison, and for some considerable time, so will be interesting to see what she does when that happens. She also has children to think of, and I’m sure the last thing she wants is their father to be a convicted rapist, she will be praying desperately he gets found not guilty. So she maybe playing dutiful wife for that reason, hoping against hope he’s found not guilty and her kids don’t ever have to face their father being a convicted rapist.

No I've not noticed that. Also:

A) if wasn't me who suggested RB was innocent until proven guilty.
B) technically everyone who is charged with a crime and goes to court is innocent until proven guilty irrespective of race, sex, the crime etc

Have you noticed how the 'innocent until proven guilty' rhetoric floods every social media thread about violence and sexual violence against women, but never any other kind of crime?

You don't see it when a bank is robbed, or if an allegedly drunk driver mounts the pavement and kills someone, or if there's a stabbing in the street. Everyone will be baying for the perpetrator's blood, especially if they're a certain kind of immigrant.

But a (normally white) man assualts women and suddenly everyone's soooo concerned with the legal process and not tarnishing the poor guy's reputation.

If you're one of those people, maybe just ask yourself why.

Yep, there must be a lot of evidence.

My dh was part of a large potential court case recently, he was a victim of child / teenage sexual abuse by his teacher. Despite 6 people providing the same accounts, similar stories etc - all completely unrelated and unknown to each other and occurring at different times- the prosecution service said there wasn’t enough evidence for it to go to court. So it’s just been completely dropped (dh is okay with me posting about this btw). So for it to have got this far, with so many women, there must be a lot of compelling evidence for RB.

I'm pretty sire innocent until proven guilty is only relevant in the case of a criminal offence, not if someone accidentally left the milk out 😂

I have a suggestion for you.

For the next week, refuse to believe anything you hear from anyone, including your family, or make any kind of opinion or judgement about anyone and anything unless the facts behind it have been proven in court. Please come back and let us know how that goes for you.

I don't like RB and always though he looked like (smelly, irritating) trouble when he first appeared and friends swooned over him. Personally I can't see what his wife sees in him in my eyes he's walking, living red flag. But if allegations were made against my DH then I would have trouble believing them because he has never given any indication of being a sexual predator and I've known him for almost 30 years. Unless there was irrefutable evidence I'd probably stand by him. Maybe Laura Brand feels the same way.

This does NOT mean I condone sexual violence before anyone gets all frothy at the mouth.

No never. He must have put himself in a situation where rape could have happened in the first place.

I realise I shouldn't be looking at Reddit for sane opinion but there are people on there seriously claiming all (men) accused of rape are set up and citing some ruling from the Scottish supreme court that rape trials undermine defendants right to a fair trial because of the use of multiple cases. And also that This Is All The Fault of feminists complaining about low conviction rates which actually tells men that you can get away with it

Anyway this is the ruling

https://news.sky.com/story/rights-of-sex-abuse-victims-wont-be-harmed-by-supreme-court-judgment-says-scotlands-top-prosecutor-13471622

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a social one. If you commit a crime, you are guilty from the moment you did it. You don't get a free pass until 12 strangers say that you did it. He's been a high profile shagger for decades and the allegations against him have been piling up for years. We don't need the CPS, the police or one highly skilled advocate to tell us what Russell Brand is.

Yeah. There are many people who were never found guilty of a crime, often not even prosecuted for one, that people are happy to accept as guilty: Saville; Hitler; Stalin; Bin Laden...

I agree that people will have their opinion on the guilt or innocence before or after a trial. I think it unwise to speculate during a trial as it could be contempt of court and jeopardise a fair trial .
I have my opinions on Jimmy Saville and Lucy Letby as many others do and am happy to voice them as they aren't on trial at present.
I think Jimmy Saville was guilty (my grandfather knew him and i trusted his judgement) and am unsure about Lucy Letby and am awaiting due process to decide what my opinion is.

No, they’re not (or rather, they might be and they might not be. An accusation in itself does not necessarily mean someone is guilty, obviously).

The legal process is designed to be as fair as possible and it’s designed to ascertain the truth. (It isn’t always successful).

But that doesn’t mean that no one can or does have an opinion until the court has decided. I’m assuming that you believe that Jimmy Saville was guilty of multiple offendes, despite never having been found guilty by a legal process?

Saville was an extreme, obviously; I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t believe he was a prolific paedophile and abuser. Other cases divide opinion; Lucy Letby for example.

People will have opinions based on their own perception of the accused person, and the evidence that they have personally seen or heard.

Even in his early years as a television personality I felt repulsed by him.
Later on during his stand-up shows he would talk hilariously and proudly about how he would get young unsuspecting women to perform sex acts on him. He particularly liked pushing too hard, causing them to gag and their eyes to water. He especially loved it when the tears would make their mascara run down their cheeks...' just like this'.
I believe the women so far. I believe he is entirely capable of rape and other serious sexual offences.
I could not stay with such a vile odious man.

He was always prancing about declaring he was sex obsessed wasn’t he. I think it was his whole image at one point matted hair and over the top perviness

For me, I read that the first dated (pre Katy Perry) when she was 19 and he was 31 before parting. Post Katy Perry divorce, they got together again.

With that history, and the number of allegations I would leave.

I understand why some people would stay but that initial predatory behaviour at the beginning would make me think the women are not lying and so I would leave. Especially if I had the financial means she does / has access to.

Russell Brand has always been a slimeball imho. Not that I’ve ever met him, just a gut feeling I’ve always had about him.

There’s a big difference between being charged and being convicted and honestly, I don’t think any of us would know what we’d do unless we were in that situation.

For me, if he were convicted, I’d probably really struggle with that. If he were convicted and there was really compelling evidence that he was innocent, different story. If I believed he was guilty then no, I couldn’t stay. If I knew he was guilty but had built a long life with him and I knew he was now a completely different person, maybe.

I think it’s easy to say ‘game over’ but when you have a deeply established life with someone (and children), it’s rarely that black and white.

This. They need a vast, vast amount of evidence as well as being confident in a realistic prospect of conviction. It's a very risk adverse organisation.

Someone isn't guilty because they are accused though.
Its not Salem and you aren't guilty if someone accuses you, surely?

No chance. He doesn’t deserve the support she’s giving.