Page 22 | Biggest news story: Part 3

Mimmy352 · 2023-09-16T14:40:25+00:00

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

MrWhippyyy · 17/09/2023 08:36

yes, because false accusations are so common.

milafawny · 17/09/2023 08:36

ICanBuyMyOwnBooks · 17/09/2023 07:33

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.

There were male "popstars" who rose to fame in the 70's still doing exactly this in the late 90's despite long marriages and kids. And i'd hazard a guess it is still happening today with NDA's in place.

Buffypaws · 17/09/2023 08:55

C4tastrophe · 17/09/2023 08:33

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

Show quote history

So? Testimony is STILL evidence. I didn’t say it was irrefutable proof.

Namddf · 17/09/2023 09:08

MotherOfGodWeeFella · 17/09/2023 08:01

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.

Agree.

The law seems to have shifted so much in such a short period of time. Not so long ago this would never have happened in journalism due to the dangers of speculation and slander laws. Now mainstream media outlets are encouraging and stoking it.

I think social media has made libel laws impossible to police so… they just don’t bother?

So worrying.

HeBeaverandSheBeaver · 17/09/2023 09:17

I have no doubt he did these things. But the biggest news story of the year?

Another sleaze being caught is not worthy of that title

MrWhippyyy · 17/09/2023 09:26

Really disappointed by the women coming out saying they don’t believe the allegations because they met him once and he was nice. How many times do we have to hear that predators, murderers, paedophiles and rapists, were pleasant people and nobody would have suspected them? These people don’t attack 100% of the people they meet.

Namddf · 17/09/2023 09:30

HeBeaverandSheBeaver · 17/09/2023 09:17

I have no doubt he did these things. But the biggest news story of the year?

Another sleaze being caught is not worthy of that title

Exactly. The promotion of this story before it broke is what leaves the nasty taste in my mouth. Drip feeding teasers?

Disgusting when there are people’s lives involved.

And if anyone thinks the Times and Channel 4 are treating the victims with respect here, they should think again. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they weren’t discouraged from going to the police by C4 so they could sensationally break the story.

Namddf · 17/09/2023 09:33

MrWhippyyy · 17/09/2023 09:26

Really disappointed by the women coming out saying they don’t believe the allegations because they met him once and he was nice. How many times do we have to hear that predators, murderers, paedophiles and rapists, were pleasant people and nobody would have suspected them? These people don’t attack 100% of the people they meet.

But this isn’t just women saying he seemed like a nice bloke.

In court, testimony of incidents where he was in a very charged sexual situation and did not behave aggressively despite being denied sex would be absolutely relevant.

In court you would be allowed a character witness so that a jury could take into account a wider view of the accused.

LizzieSiddal · 17/09/2023 09:33

Namddf · 17/09/2023 09:30

Exactly. The promotion of this story before it broke is what leaves the nasty taste in my mouth. Drip feeding teasers?

Disgusting when there are people’s lives involved.

And if anyone thinks the Times and Channel 4 are treating the victims with respect here, they should think again. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they weren’t discouraged from going to the police by C4 so they could sensationally break the story.

Show quote history

But who said it was “the biggest news story of the year”?

I can’t see any reference of this from The Times or Dispatches?

Namddf · 17/09/2023 09:34

LizzieSiddal · 17/09/2023 09:33

But who said it was “the biggest news story of the year”?

I can’t see any reference of this from The Times or Dispatches?

Show quote history

I think it was a bit more insidious than that.

MrWhippyyy · 17/09/2023 09:36

Namddf · 17/09/2023 09:33

But this isn’t just women saying he seemed like a nice bloke.

In court, testimony of incidents where he was in a very charged sexual situation and did not behave aggressively despite being denied sex would be absolutely relevant.

In court you would be allowed a character witness so that a jury could take into account a wider view of the accused.

Show quote history

I’m not saying it’s just women. I’m simply saying that I’m disappointed that these women are coming out saying ‘because he didn’t rape me he isn’t a rapist’. That’s not a character witness.

BIossomtoes · 17/09/2023 09:38

Thanks to the trial by media - mainstream and social - whatever he’s done he’ll never be convicted for it and his victims will never get justice. That sticks in my throat.

EsmaCannonball · 17/09/2023 10:23

If there's a left-wing mainstream media conspiracy in all this it's not about bringing Brand down now, it was about covering up for him then. When he worked for the BBC and The Guardian and Channel 4 those organisations not only protected him but also enabled and indulged his predatory behaviour; in fact they revelled in his outrageous reputation. One suspects if he still worked for those organisations, if he were still popular with their desired audience, this exposé would never have happened. When he was one of their own they didn't care what he did, but now he's a weird, alt-right adjacent YouTube conspiracy theorist they feel safe using their ammunition as it will no longer challenge their desired audience's assumptions about the kind of men who are violent misogynists, and the kind who aren't.

I've always loathed Russell Brand, always found him skeevy and unpleasant. The Andrew Sachs incident was particularly contemptible. If he goes to prison I won't be sorry. But all this is making me wonder which industry favourites are behaving like predators now and what is being done to shield them and their employers from any fallout.

blissno · 17/09/2023 10:30

EsmaCannonball · 17/09/2023 10:23

If there's a left-wing mainstream media conspiracy in all this it's not about bringing Brand down now, it was about covering up for him then. When he worked for the BBC and The Guardian and Channel 4 those organisations not only protected him but also enabled and indulged his predatory behaviour; in fact they revelled in his outrageous reputation. One suspects if he still worked for those organisations, if he were still popular with their desired audience, this exposé would never have happened. When he was one of their own they didn't care what he did, but now he's a weird, alt-right adjacent YouTube conspiracy theorist they feel safe using their ammunition as it will no longer challenge their desired audience's assumptions about the kind of men who are violent misogynists, and the kind who aren't.

I've always loathed Russell Brand, always found him skeevy and unpleasant. The Andrew Sachs incident was particularly contemptible. If he goes to prison I won't be sorry. But all this is making me wonder which industry favourites are behaving like predators now and what is being done to shield them and their employers from any fallout.

Exactly this, why does this fucking stuff have to come out in hindsight whilst people clearly knew about it at the time.

Who is being protected NOW?

BIossomtoes · 17/09/2023 10:47

Excellent point @EsmaCannonball.

user9630721458 · 17/09/2023 10:56

It was probably good to be reminded of how obscene and out of control Band's public behaviour was. The programme also made clear that staff took messages to the audience and so facilitated his promiscuity. He was very publicly misogynist and sexist and I think it's good to remind ourselves of this and that television at the time seemed to tolerate it. The allegations of actual violent behaviour in private are in a different league imo. In a way I feel they should have been a much larger part of the programme.

Superfood · 17/09/2023 11:42

EsmaCannonball · 17/09/2023 10:23

If there's a left-wing mainstream media conspiracy in all this it's not about bringing Brand down now, it was about covering up for him then. When he worked for the BBC and The Guardian and Channel 4 those organisations not only protected him but also enabled and indulged his predatory behaviour; in fact they revelled in his outrageous reputation. One suspects if he still worked for those organisations, if he were still popular with their desired audience, this exposé would never have happened. When he was one of their own they didn't care what he did, but now he's a weird, alt-right adjacent YouTube conspiracy theorist they feel safe using their ammunition as it will no longer challenge their desired audience's assumptions about the kind of men who are violent misogynists, and the kind who aren't.

I've always loathed Russell Brand, always found him skeevy and unpleasant. The Andrew Sachs incident was particularly contemptible. If he goes to prison I won't be sorry. But all this is making me wonder which industry favourites are behaving like predators now and what is being done to shield them and their employers from any fallout.

Absolutely spot on.

Namddf · 17/09/2023 12:02

MrWhippyyy · 17/09/2023 09:36

I’m not saying it’s just women. I’m simply saying that I’m disappointed that these women are coming out saying ‘because he didn’t rape me he isn’t a rapist’. That’s not a character witness.

Show quote history

You’ve misread the first sentence of my post slightly.

Also, afaik no one has said that.

This is exactly why there are courts and juries for this sort of thing, so people can be properly educated over the course of weeks or months, in court, with ALL the evidence and then come to a unanimous decision about guilt or innocence.

It’s the way it used to work in this country.

I appreciate that rarely happens for rape and SA, because of the nature of the crime, but we are making things worse for women, not better, if we deny any chance of a fair trial.

Namddf · 17/09/2023 12:03

BIossomtoes · 17/09/2023 09:38

Thanks to the trial by media - mainstream and social - whatever he’s done he’ll never be convicted for it and his victims will never get justice. That sticks in my throat.

Me too.

Namddf · 17/09/2023 12:04

EsmaCannonball · 17/09/2023 10:23

If there's a left-wing mainstream media conspiracy in all this it's not about bringing Brand down now, it was about covering up for him then. When he worked for the BBC and The Guardian and Channel 4 those organisations not only protected him but also enabled and indulged his predatory behaviour; in fact they revelled in his outrageous reputation. One suspects if he still worked for those organisations, if he were still popular with their desired audience, this exposé would never have happened. When he was one of their own they didn't care what he did, but now he's a weird, alt-right adjacent YouTube conspiracy theorist they feel safe using their ammunition as it will no longer challenge their desired audience's assumptions about the kind of men who are violent misogynists, and the kind who aren't.

I've always loathed Russell Brand, always found him skeevy and unpleasant. The Andrew Sachs incident was particularly contemptible. If he goes to prison I won't be sorry. But all this is making me wonder which industry favourites are behaving like predators now and what is being done to shield them and their employers from any fallout.

I agree.

How does C4 think it comes out of this looking good? It’s so hypocritical.

diddl · 17/09/2023 12:11

But all this is making me wonder which industry favourites are behaving like predators now and what is being done to shield them and their employers from any fallout.

Yes indeed.

It happened as far back as Saville, latterly Brand but who else?

The thought that someone who commits a crime is worth protecting by a tv company (for what possible reason??) beggars belief.

Rotten from the top down!

MrWhippyyy · 17/09/2023 12:11

Namddf · 17/09/2023 12:02

You’ve misread the first sentence of my post slightly.

Also, afaik no one has said that.

This is exactly why there are courts and juries for this sort of thing, so people can be properly educated over the course of weeks or months, in court, with ALL the evidence and then come to a unanimous decision about guilt or innocence.

It’s the way it used to work in this country.

I appreciate that rarely happens for rape and SA, because of the nature of the crime, but we are making things worse for women, not better, if we deny any chance of a fair trial.

Show quote history

I am not talking about what happens in a court of law. This isn’t in a court of law and unlikely ever is to be. And actually, this sort of rhetoric has always been about, it was common in the Victorian times so it isn’t a case of ‘how it used to be’.

I am disappointed that there are women on Twitter saying that he isn’t a rapist because he didn’t rape them. That is happening on there. And I am allowed to be disappointed by that.

PamelaAndreaGryglaszewska · 17/09/2023 14:00

Namddf · 17/09/2023 12:04

I agree.

How does C4 think it comes out of this looking good? It’s so hypocritical.

Show quote history

I note from the programme that both C4 and BBC are refusing to answer FOIs. They are still covering up. C4 is trying to take the credit for exposing someone who they did their best to protect for years, until it no longer benefitted them. Russell Brand STILL absolutely is the embodiment of C4's "values" - both promote deviancy as the norm, are mendacious and have an inflated sense of their own importance.

lemmein · 17/09/2023 14:24

You can believe many things at once.

I got the 'people like you!' response yesterday because I said the timing was suspect. For clarity I don't mean the timing of the victims telling their stories, but the timing of media outlets listening. All the doc showed last night is RB has been prolific for 20 years yet no-one cared until he began his antiestablishment rants to his millions of followers. I'm sick of men only being held to account when they fall out of favour, or die!

I liked Russell Brand; however I totally believe the women's accounts of what he did to them - I doubt many were shocked tbh. I also believe the way this story was hyped up yesterday was appalling, and by the very channel which has enabled his behaviour for years. Similar to the audacity of the BBC commissioning the upcoming drama about Savile - zero shame in these people!

The editing of the programme was questionable I thought, trawling the archives for crude 'jokes', including stories of him having consensual sex with audience members, these additions only diluted the horrific accounts of those he raped. The women's stories didn't need padding out with an extra 60 minutes of 'look at this awful joke he told he 2006!' - it belittles the stories of those that have come forward, and infers that all women are vulnerable beings with zero agency that cannot choose to have casual sex. So what if he had consensual sex with audience members - why was that even included? Conflating the two issues isn't helpful....you can be a 'shagger' without being a rapist; you can be a morally bankrupt wanker using women for sexual gratification but still not be a rapist. Including stories of grim but consensual sexual encounters gives ammunition to those who believe it was just another character assassination on somebody who challenges msm and the establishment.

The whole thing is grubby af - not particularly shocking though sadly.

lemmein · 17/09/2023 14:29

One suspects if he still worked for those organisations, if he were still popular with their desired audience, this exposé would never have happened

Exactly this @EsmaCannonball