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.

I count myself as being very pro free-speech and until relatively recently, have favoured very little press and media regulation. I have been very against the Online Safety Bill for e.g.

But I am now starting to think that the press and media need far stronger regulation. There have been several things over the years, but this might just be the icing on the cake. I am absolutely aghast that a documentary was made (in which Katie Hopkins quite rightly points out those making the allegations were blacked out) regarding what amount to unverified allegations before anything was logged with police or heard in the courts.

There should be an investigation into that. The media should not be permitted to undermine the strength of the judicial system in this way.

It has now made it impossible for RB to get a fair trial. And that should concern everyone.

Of COURSE they have an interest in his "mutterings". How could they possibly not. 😳

I wasn't accusing you, anymore than myself.

I've never seen his shows.

However- he's got rich over being who he is, as has Jeremy Clarkson, and many many others whose output is misogynistic.

He was clapped last night. The Spanish bloke got a standing ovation for saying he didn't regret his sexual assault of the football captain, a man assaulted a woman on film in Spain yesterday.

We have allowed a society that abuses women and allows people to build their careers on it.

So the text was actually about using a condom not just consent and there was cut and pasting going on . So manipulating evidence .

again can’t stand the guy and not judging but this is why trial by media is so dangerous

To be fair that audience will not have seen the programme. If they had they may not have attended .

I am absolutely aghast that a documentary was made (in which Katie Hopkins quite rightly points out those making the allegations were blacked out) regarding what amount to unverified allegations before anything was logged with police or heard in the courts

You do know that lifelong anonymity is awarded to victims of sex offences in cases that go to court? Why should the women in this documentary not also remain anonymous?

As a victim of a sexual offence you are automatically entitled to lifelong anonymity in the press or any other publication. This means that it’s against the law for the media, or anyone else, to publish your name or anything which identifies you as having been the victim of a sexual offence. This includes sharing your name on social media. If you become aware at any point that your identity has been shared online or published in the media, you can report this to the police and they will take action.

What exactly do you think he has said that they would want to cover up?

His opinions are shared by many people and discussed openly. He doesn’t know any state secrets. He isn’t a threat to anyone.

Alert them to what…??!?

You do know that lifelong anonymity is awarded to victims of sex offences in cases that go to court?

Yes in court. Where one has committed to following due process and gains protection under law.

Why should the women in this documentary not also remain anonymous?

Because they have circumvented the legal process made available to them, and are making unverified allegations outside of the judicial process. They are effectively using the public square and have no right to anonymity.

Grooming.

You're not the first to make this wrong assumption.

This show would not affect a trial because everything in it is backed up by witness reports and evidence. All witnesses will have had to swear that they'll back up their claims in court.

Hearsay can affect a court case. Reports made after he is charged can...this report before he is charged won't affect the case.

Media law and all this used to be my job so I'm not just making assumptions.

It won't affect a case.

I agree, I cannot abide these stories because it always feels to me that the media gives zero fucks about guilt, innocence, justice, accountability or even truth. No one watching really has a clear understanding of what happened because we are only seeing one side of this.
The media seem to just repeat what will generate the most engagement and outrage, regardless of what actually happened. No one knows. And the people reporting probably don't actually care.

Driving your 16 year old daughter to a 30 something year old's house to have sex is really bad. Why would you do that?! don't give me the line that she would have got there anyway so she couldn't stop her or that she didnt know he was interested in having sex with her. That's BS. That poor girl was abused by RB and badly let down by her own mother.

Reminds of those poor kids pushed at Michael Jackson by their parents.

The information is out there. Read the times article (someone has shared viewable version on reddit).

Her mum got her to text him and tell her her age, thinking that it would put him off. It didn’t, which she was upset by. However as her daughter was 16, her mum didn’t feel able to control her whereabouts or stop her. She went to his home and walked her daughter to the doorstep so she could meet him and he could see she was from a loving family who cared about her (the daughter was going there anyway, and she didn’t want to turn a blind eye). When they arrived, he kissed the mum on the lips, which she was very upset by. Her daughter continued seeing him, which she didn’t feel able to stop (and legally she couldn’t). 16-year-olds in 2003 could go and get a flat and a job. The options were chuck her out or…?

She was 16, it wouldn’t be considered grooming as she was above the age of consent and nothing that was happening was illegal. There was nothing for the police to act on.

The accusations will have been put to him before it aired. That's how he knew to release a video the day before. The video of his defense was included in the show along with multiple statements from production companies denying incidents. The defence was literally included in the show

I think if you've seen any of Brand's brand on TV, heard him on radio, see any of his 'rapey but honest about it' bullshit it would be impossible not to see who he is. As the documentary highlights he was hiding (not hiding) in plain sight. Making multi millions for media corporations seems to excuse practically anything. Of course he's a megalomaniac, narcissistic, unhinged and behaves like a living demi god. He has the gift of the gab, is very quick witted, funny and intelligent, like all the other dangerous charismatic leaders in history. When will people say no to these fucking men. I've always found him creepy in the extreme and very very odd. Hope the whole truth comes out.

The jury will be asked about prior knowledge and deselected or selected accordingly

Either it's illegal or Channel 4 made repeated accusations of criminal behaviour that are demonstrably false.

I would like to believe this, but Juries are made up of ordinary people and the more public a case is, the harder it becomes for Jurors to be objective. Anyone sitting in a Jury now, would most certainly have read about this and the documentary is especially emotive.

Sorry, but it is still a major undermining of the fairness of the judicial process. Let's remember a defendant should come to court with a presumption of innocence.

• As you can see from all the threads about this. The presumption in the realm of public opinion is RB is guilty and now he must prove his innocence rather than those accusing him prove his guilt. *

The press are under a lot of pressure. They don't make much money from advertising anymore and over the last few years as you can see by the copious rain of Harry and Meghan stories they have learned that character assassination makes good copy. And so they keep doing it.

I would support stronger press regulation and will be writing to my MP about it.

??? The criminal behaviour is the assault, which is plenty by itself.

Do you really think having sex with a 16-year-old is a crime?

Those people saying journalists shouldn’t document victim’s statements before a trial- please remember Weinstein was caught after a New York Times investigation and it started the process of bringing him to justice .