Biggest news story: Part 3

[Mimmy352]

Right so it’s being described as Baroque because whoever is writing it is from the 18th century and can’t figure out how to upload the story

Do you all honestly think it's only these few women?

This is the problem with trial by media.

Why is this person’s testimony not valuable but the others’ are? In a court of law it would form part of the evidence for the defence. It doesn’t prove innocence but it allows a fair trial as the defence is allowed to show a bigger picture. That’s not to say they might still be guilty, but without a fair trial no one can know.

Otherwise you just have people saying ‘Russell Brand raped me’ and another woman saying ‘Russell Brand raped me too’ and we take volume as a signifier of guilt. Without it going through the due process there is no way anyone can know.

The latest trend is for journalists to encourage women to go to the press first, build a case of testimony and then it is almost impossible to refute because the public make up their minds on testimony alone. The reaction of MN is a case in point about how this happens and at what speed. It’s terrifying.

It reminds me of the Crucible by Arthur Miller: ‘I saw xx with the devil’.

Dangerous stuff and I cannot believe it’s legal.

The way it was publicised created a disconnect. The pre-publicity technique did not protect or honour the women.

As someone who was working around and in media and entertainment circles at that time, I'm just disappointed it didn't go further. A lot of those incidents were widespread across news, tv, radio, music.

Sending runners or PAs to get phone numbers or pass on hotel room numbers - members of some of the biggest boy bands were doing that all the time. Inviting teens to dinners/parties and trying to exploit them - widespread from local to national radio. Coercing young, female staff and fans up to hotel rooms - some of the squeakiest clean pop stars. Grooming fans, inviting them to hotel rooms, then trying to coerce them into threesomes - some of the biggest tv presenters. Either this is an endemic problem with men or the entertainment and media industries deliberately cultivate it. My problem with Dispatches is that it didn't go far enough. It made it seem as though RB was the exception rather than the rule - and that means the industries and companies involved don't need to take responsibility or change. It also leaves women vulnerable because it creates a perception that it's not commonplace and that you can tell who the predators are ie wild-haired, talking about sex. Sometimes they're like that. Sometimes they're not.

The Crucible was about witches though. unlike witches, rapey men are a well known and huge problem across humanity and the ages.

and obviously men don’t rape every woman they meet and naturally groom various women to think they are kind and nice because otherwise they’d be screwed.

fine if she wants to be a character witness but I don’t really see the relevance. He would have been nice to lots of people. It also sounds like a lot of tv crew members and even a random taxi driver were extremely wary.

@ICanBuyMyOwnBooks agree totally. It’s clearly not just him, there’s a whole culture enabling and maybe glorifying this bs

Well, that was a hatchett job. I've no doubt those women were treated disgustingly - and pleased they've had their say - but there's little evidence of criminal behaviour and the use of actors was inappropriate.

I always loathed Brand in those big brother days precisely because of his behaviour, innuendo and that it was accepted, nay encouraged, by everyone around him. That's Channel 4's MO, liberalisation of sex and drugs; they still do it to this day. Back to Brand, totally disgusting behaviour. Took advantage of his position at every step, but we knew that.

All this programme told me, whilst designed to protect Channel 4, is that Channel 4 are a nasty exploitative shitfest and the BBC little better.

You're missing the point. The Crucible was an allegory for McCarthyism. Namddf was using it as an allegory for trial by media.

Going back to the care home example which was used as an example for why this can be good journalism I wonder if you can apply the same

It might help people working in the industry realise further that it’s not a good idea to facilitate and hide this stuff. Although it sounds like change has happened since then

I don’t think Brand will be arrested, he has lost an agent already but the show last night was sold out and went ahead. I’m surprised a journalist didn’t cover it

I doubt he’ll be taken off all platforms so it’ll be up to followers to decide whether to watch. Numbers could go down, or even up

It was a very focussed programme and one thing they showed a fair bit was how much his comedy was linked to behaviour in real life

Not sure the biggest story of the year build up was a good idea overall

All this programme told me, whilst designed to protect Channel 4, is that Channel 4 are a nasty exploitative shitfest and the BBC little better.

In what way was it designed to protect Channel 4? I would have thought that the main consequence of the programme is that both BBC and Channel 4 will now be under pressure to account for themselves and make sure that any improved safeguarding protections they have in place are more than nominal.
One of the many shocking allegations in the programme was how a young runner (someone very junior and vulneraqble as ann employee) was consciously used by the company making a C4 programme to 'manage' Brand's unprofessional behaviour despite everyone's knowledge of the kind of risks that left her open to

@EasternStandard

Ref the point about his comedy relating to real life, agree generally, but it was also very pointedly used in specific places to present 'evidence' of the specific accusations, which is clearly not their place.

I don’t think Brand will be arrested, he has lost an agent already but the show last night was sold out and went ahead. I’m surprised a journalist didn’t cover it

It was covered.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66835222

Everyone who employed RB indulged his behaviour for publicity and audience figures, that was clear from the programme.

The problem with the way C4 trailed Dispatches was that it led to speculation and the naming of others with libellous accusations on social media. This has got to stop.

Rape isn't criminal behaviour? This thread is so depressing. So the behaviour outlined in the documentary wasn't..."rapey" enough for everyone?

I’m aware that the Crucible was about McCarthyism thank you. I just think this particular example doesn’t work. Lots of evidence was produced including his own texts and he hasn’t been tried or convicted - he performed his show and received a standing ovation and loads of people are defending him even though the evidence is damning.

this isn’t a case of someone pointing the finger and him being carried off to be hanged.

People who are still arguing that it was enough to match the hype, just because you aren’t aware of Brand doesn’t mean he isn’t an influential person. He is. He has a huge podcast, has over 11 million followers on Twitter, still performs shows (last night sold out at 2000 seats). Whether he features in your life isn’t relevant, he is a big name who has power.
The point of this is to expose the cover ups, the long-standing issues. You can switch this out for politics, the police, the royals, whatever, it’s the same institutionalised cover up job. That’s why this is important. It’s another sector which needs to be examined to prevent this from happening again.

And it’s taken 3 years for the Times and Channel 4 to have enough evidence to go forward with this whilst feeling comfortable enough that they would be able to defend themself in court against being sued. It’s not that easy to just expose people. If you are complaining you were expecting a ‘bigger name’, just think about the amount of time and effort that has gone into exposing Brand, to expose someone who has possibly a bigger influence? This is big for two reasons; one because this is the tip of the iceberg and two because it could potentially be the start of bigger exposes.

Let’s not minimise this because we are ‘disappointed’ about the ‘hype’. Let’s just focus on the positives that this programme could bring.

You could be right, I hope so.

I guess I felt that the Times article closed down question of Channel 4's behaviour and the programme seemed to be placing a clear separation between Channel and production i.e. 'Endemol might have some questions to answer, we don't and btw we checked our own files and there's nothing to see here'?

they presented no evidence of rape - I appreciate it's incredibly difficult to do so btw

Agree @blissno . "Little evidence of criminal behaviour" made me wonder whther the PP who said that had watched the same programme I did. I saw several detailed and credible accounts of rape and sexual assault; I saw a pattern in each person's testimony that gave additional credibility to each account; I heard evidence of witnesses who were aware of Brands behaviour; I saw documents from a rape crisis centre providing contemporaneous validation of an account of an assault.

Also, incidentally, what is wrong with the use of actors to voice a victim's words? It is done quite frequently when vulnerable victims are too traumatised and afraid to be on camara even in a protected way. We don't need to see the victims in person, and no 'theatricality' was intended or created by substituting another speaker.

What has happened to MN?

The testimony of a victim is evidence.

The testimony, the texts, the pattern of behaviour..but that's never enough for some people is it. What more do you want? Video footage?

A signed fucking statement from brand saying yes I raped you.

But then again he might have been high or coerced

The BBC a lot to answer for too My God, that account of Brand laughingly making humiliating sexual remarks on air about the poor newsreader, and when she complained to the producers he revealed that on air and continued the humiliating remarks. And then the exchange with Jimmy Saville when he jokingly offered to send a junior female employee to his house. And the BBC didn't sack him for these remarks - only for the subsequent remarks relating to Andrew Sacjs family, which they only acted on because of a publicity storm.
Jesus Christ.

What has happened to MN?

Liberal penis centring feminism.

The real feminists have been shoe holed into a corner of the site that most people click "hide" on and avoid.

Thanks for this. A bit distracted but a standing ovation plus anger at media. I’m not sure he will be cancelled as others have been.

If all contracts were similar to the talent agent, more likely but his viewers directly view on platforms

The world is not so black and white, hence the justice system.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-66784014