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 thought the lady herself said (more than once) she had been groomed? Apologies if not, been a long day....

I agree. He uses a lot of long words to appear intellectual, but there isn't a great deal of substance behind it. 'Baroque attacks'. FFS 🙄

It's true, plenty don't have an interest. Yes they'd be sending loads of jurors away but they would definitely find enough jurors to form a jury.

You still have to say alleged before he's charged. They are allegations. The show and article presented them as allegations.

Once someone is charged you can't mention the allegations at all.

Sorry if I wasn't fully clear.

...

You also have to endure all allegations are backed up by very tight evidence and witness statements. This evidence will hopefully be passed to the police.

If he's innocent he'll sue. He's very litigious. If he doesn't sue, well...

And part of any barrister’s role in court is to present evidence and arguments to convince a jury to either convict or quash. If the case were to go to trial, there will be far more detailed examples and corroborations than those revealed so far.

I've often thought he uses language as a weapon to baffle, confuse and make himself sound superior to others

@Chaniya I'm calling it investigative journalism as that is literally the definition of what it was. Same thing that led to Stephen Laurence's killers being brought to justice

If what you’re saying was true, HQ would have deleted this thread ageeees ago. MN are very risk averse.

She might have expressed it that way – it seems she does feel that she should have been protected legally.

I would need to watch back to recall how the programme makers presented it.

I was responding to a poster above who said the mum should have reported him to the police for grooming – but as she was 16 she met the threshold for consent, so the relationship was legal.

There could be exceptions where the person is a teacher or someone else in a position of direct authority / with a duty of care, as I understand it.

I don't think it's true in England that you can't mention the allegations at all once someone has been charged. I believe that that's true for Scotland though.

MNHQ pick and choose.

@Chocolatchip this is not America jurors are not quizzed selected or deselected in the uk it is random they are sworn in, and in rape hearings given judges directions at the beginning of the trial. Evidence that is in the public domain is usually admissible. It is highly likely that the press and C4 are working closely with the police already. I say this as someone who has worked in DV and SV since 1992

Real investigative journalism is dying if not dead already in this country. It is now all about the money. I note Channel 4 has been under the threat of privatisation until relatively recently.

Covering rape allegations against a massive celebrity like RB is easy. It's hardly putting your neck on the line is it?

Why were the press told to fuck off by many on the ground after the Grenfell travesty instead of embraced for the opportunity of good coverage?

Because they haven't been doing any real grass roots investigative journalism for some time and this sort of easy crowd pleasing stuff is the equivalent of throwing bread to the hungry crowd. Meantime things that should receive wide coverage aren't given space amongst the H&M stories.

I am not pleased. I am rather appalled and it seems I am expected to emote and not think. That is dangerous. The press are the frontline of our democracy and seem rather compromised by lack of advertising revenue.

Maybe MNHQ know more than we do. Aren't Justine and Louisa Compton friends? I am sure I read that somewhere, can't remember where, may be wrong.

I didn't know any of this about Katy Perry, shocking.
I had no idea about Brand's YouTube channel until the last few days, not that I would have watched it anyway.

Just watched some of the Emily Matliss interview, he really is so condescending, talks such a lot of cr*p.

Yet another one! There's such a thing at the moment with these 'right-on' PC feminist men being abusive twats. It's literally the best disguise because no one would ever believe it of them.

I think it's taken over from the old 'upstanding citizens' - as in - it was hard to believe - he was such an upstanding citizen.

Covering rape allegations against a massive celebrity like RB is easy. It's hardly putting your neck on the line is it?

I would have thought quite the opposite. The risk of getting sued is high if the coverage is wrong.

The pool is selected at random but they are allowed to screen them for biases, but I don't know what the process is for that.

Whether he actually r*aped them or not why was he bedding 16 year olds?

yeah it’s sleazy af

Whether the crimes against women are proven or whether they remain allegations, one thing is for sure. The man is a crime against comedy. Watching the documentary proves one thing beyond doubt. He is not a comedian, nor is he talented. His (non) jokes are so bad and cringe.

Yet we are told by several posters that it's the age of consent so no big deal. People need to make up their minds.

Seems like everyone in showbiz have known for years.

The creep knew his time was coming, hence he's settle himself in with the 'fake news' brigade.

When your only backers are Andrew Tate, Dan Wooton, Laurence Fox etc you just know you're fucked!!

Man with huge social power with a self proclaimed sex addiction outed as someone that has commited sexual violence.... I am completely shocked. 🙃