Russell Brand

[Wassapp]

AIBU to think... 'here we go again?'

Anyone watching? I've always said 'innocent until proven guilty' but also 'there is no smoke without fire'.

Having been sexually assaulted myself, one of the stories seem so similar to mine.

What's your thoughts?

This is the most confusing post, I know. I just don't know how I feel.

No one is suggesting that once you’ve raped you can add other rapes you haven’t done. That’s ridiculous.

Your post makes no sense. I ‘should realise no-one is suggesting because it's not comparable it doesn't matter’?! I’m not going to attempt to respond unless you clarify what you mean.

I've just started watching it now. He's a disgusting, vile excuse for a human being. It's making me feel sick, too!

RB is a very very clever abuser. He has had his strategic defence to sexual violence allegations planned out for many years. It all goes to the issue of consent. The prosecution (putting this simply) has to show that the defendant did not reasonably believe he had consent. A perfect defence to the public is that he broadcast his sexual behaviours far and wide and as such any female he invites backstage or to his home would know it was for the purposes of sex. Therefore he was reasonable in believing he had consent. In reality it is not easy to prove that a perp knew he did not have consent. It does in part explain the low levels of prosecution and why mostly victims reports are held on record in case another or multiple victims come forward. Because this can show a pattern of behaviour and makes it more straightforward to secure a conviction. I think the journalists had all of this in mind in selecting which survivors accounts to use. Not least because there is an element of grooming in the sixteen year olds case. Which would stand some chance in court. I think this will be a gift to the Met police who are struggling to redeem themselves. I hope many survivors come forward and he gets his comeuppance

Exactly, its very convient that the woman’s words marched his stand up. Wake up people!

Do you not understand context in conversations? You're claiming Brand and Savile are comparable, I'm saying not. And yes I acknowledged it would be ridiculous, as are your assertions.

Jimmy Savile is the most notorious child-abuser in british history and any comparison to this case is utterly disgusting, in my opinion.

Of course Brand had links with charities for vulnerable women which he claimed to support.

I do not think he suddenly had a personality transplant. He just shifted his focus because he had been excluded from his industry. Why would he suddenly decide that he's s helpful guy? He helps himself.

I'm not saying things don't happen but we do need to ensure that we don't claim things are criminal when they aren't and there is no case to answer and have trial by media . I say that as a principle regardless of whether this is for well known people or "normal" members of the public. These allegations are horrific but there is a process where all concerned should be heard.

I'm sorry but you must be thinking of someone else if you can't see that he's a monster!

@blebb @LittleRedYarny In this context baroque would mean embellished, fanciful, grand or ornate.....he's basically saying the claims are fanciful, exaggerated, overblown.

KC said that he thought Diana was attractive when he met her and spent time with her at 16. Waiting until she was 18/19 to publicly announce their relationship isn't 'honourable.'

Other big age gaps that give me the creeps:

https://www.thethings.com/why-aaron-taylor-johnsons-marriage-is-causing-concern/

https://www.slice.ca/celebrities-who-dated-teenagers-and-why-its-not-ok/

The first time I was SA'd I was 14. I wouldn't say a consensual relationship with 2 people over the age of consent is the same as an adult SA'ing a child. Saville is a paedo and can only be compared to other paedos.

@pickledandpuzzled No, you are wrong. 'Allegedly' does not mean 'I think you are lying.' It refers to a claim which has not been fully proven, and is important in avoidance of libel laws. It does not describe a personal belief at all,

So odd that someone wouldn’t consider a serial rapist (alleged) a monster.

So many apologists floating about. Brand will get away with this and the industry won’t change. We need to keep fighting back to protect women and children,

Of course they’re comparable.

Savile had women brought to his dressing room, Brand had women brought to his dressing room.

Savile abused women live on air, Brand abused women live on air.

Savile groomed girls for sex, Brand groomed a 16yo for sex.

Savile abused female staff working for him, Brand abused female staff working for him.

Savile made crude sexual jokes about women live on air, Brand made crude sexual jokes about women live on air.

Savile had his lawyers threaten women who accused him, Brand has his lawyers threaten women who accused him.

Savile raped women, Brand raped women.

I can’t believe I had to spell this out for you.

And the industry knew about and covered up for both.

Why have you put the word ‘honourable’ in quotation marks as if I’ve said it? I’m not a Royalist, I’m a republican and have zero time for the Royal family.

Why are you engaging in whataboutery?

The point is the relationship between RB & 16yo wasn’t alway consensual. He forced her to perform oral sex until she choked. The 16yo felt groomed, she felt like a child with him, he referred to himself as her Daddy.

Indeed @CherryMaDeara

And the fact that he isn't accused of raping someone under the age of consent, like Saville, does not somehow lessen what he is accused of.

I'm not sure when Saville, considered one of the most monstrous sexual predators in Britain, became the benchmark of what sexual assault looks like.

"
Victim blaming at its finest lol. Isn't hindsight a great thing? Of course a freshly 18 year old is going to want to go backstage to meet the celebrity they've gone to see live after he personally requested to see them after the show. I doubt they thought he was going to force himself upon them. It would be pretty hard to see him as a stranger too as he was so in the public eye. Its hardly the same as a supermarket cashier summoning you to their house after scanning your shopping. Even if it would've ended at a consensual one night stand, it would still have been morally wrong on his part because of his age and the power dynamics. You seem to gloss over the fact that it was rape and think that these victims have no reason to complain because they were asking for it by going backstage. Why not go the whole hog and blame all women who end up being raped on nights out because why should they be out of the house, in a position where they could tempt men to unconsensually touch their bodies!"

@fionaapple This wasn't my understanding.

I didn't think there were any allegations of rape / sexual assault from these women? I thought these women were identified by Brand, approached by c4 staff, had one one night stands, then they felt used and were upset he didn't contact them again, and called the C4 staff upset about it?

This is where I think the water is muddied. It's not illegal to have one night stands / lead people on. He may have treated them badly but I didn't hear any mention of it being non consensual on these occasions?

The rape allegations from the girls interviewed are obviously very different.

But I think it's dangerous to treat shitty behaviour / promiscuity / leading people on in the same vein as rape. It's either consensual or it's not. And in these cases I didn't believe there was any suggestion of it being non consensual?

I dont know if he is actually smelly,,but he certainly look it.
Iv always found him a bit creepy- wierd,. He got quite shreakily irate about the accusations. I know its innocent until proven guilty but i wouldnt be at all suprised if it were true...

Saville did good charitable works. Everyone thought how great that was.

Brand also likes charity work with women. He sponsors snd is involved with several charities for vulnerable women and addiction. One has now dumped him.

Yep but the question I responded to was

Had anyone come up with a good explanation for why a non-rapist would send a text message, apologizing for raping someone, yet?

The text didn't say he was apologising for rape

I think the line of consent in a lot of men's eyes is more blurred than you'd think. I forget the study but, it was found when asking men whether they'd ever raped a woman they all said no. However, when asked if they'd ever had sex with a woman who didn't really want to have sex/pressured her to have sex, a lot more of them accepted that they had.

@MrWhippyyy I found Daniel Sloss’s testimony on how the industry protected Brand very brave. He mentioned that he was in rooms where Brand’s behaviour was talked about. How other comedians were warned not to expose the behaviour via jokes.
Those people will have been watching that programme last night, telling themselves they couldn’t have done anything and Sloss’s interview has blown that out of the water. So many people - many women - have been complicit.

His agents dropping him & saying there were mislead is a sop to being seen to do the right thing at the last possible moment.

excellent post

Exactly!