Trial by media circus

[Maatandosiris]

The first thing to say is anyone who has committed rape absolutely needs to be brought to justice. The criminal
justice system needs to become more effective in protecting all victims of crime.

However, AIBU unreasonable to think that this weekends story about RB has been sinister for many other reasons, none of which are to do with RB.

Firstly the SM posts whipping people into a frenzy of some big reveal like some secret album release. Clues planted through various carefully placed posts, giving just enough detail to let people work things out (plus making people suggest other names) . It was an absolute circus, in the case of rape it turned accusations of serious crime into entertainment, no thought how anyone would be affected, whether ultimately guilty or innocent (maybe c4/The Times were trying to get new stories). Extremely bad taste at one end of the spectrum, devastating for innocent people at the other.

The ultimate agenda of both The Sunday Times and C4 is to make money. That’s it, neither is set up as the states arm of justice. There’s no inbuilt checks and balances. Yet somehow they are allowed to name an individual, accuse them of crimes (and effectively say they are guilty) without any of the safeguards and checks and balances of the criminal justice system applying.

People have lost all sense of justice. We have a man accused of something, an hour and a half of heavily hyped TV which holds some accusations but mainly a character assassination, The Sunday Times probably selling many more copies/getting many more subscribers with more of the sane one sided accusations.

Even on Mumsnet we have people already calling him a Rapist, people feeding into the frenzy of “he’s a creep”, “he’s a sex pest” etc etc. in other words, convicting him in their minds before this has gone anywhere near a court or jury.

How will this ever now be a fair trial? How will they find a jury who can 100% not have their views affected by this whole circus? If he is guilty will there ever be a safe conviction, how can we be confident that real justice has been done? What’s the risk of any conviction being overturned? This is not in the interests of either the alleged victim or the alleged perpetrator.

Questions are circulating all over SM as to the agendas at play. It’s fairly clear that the Sunday Times has been searching out victims. What were they saying to these people? What promises have been made?

if a crime has been committed this should be with the criminal justice system not Saturday night prime time TV with an associated heavy advertising campaign.

Im not sure whether RB is guilty or innocent, but that’s not what this post is about. AIBU to think that the way this witch hunt (which is what it is regardless of whether RB sinks or floats) is abhorrent and flies in the face of justice and that this has far wider and scarier implications for society than just this case. Who or what is next?

Yes it does

this thread is about “trial by media” and the ethics sorrounding it. As we know media have strong agendas, I agree with the OP in the sense I’m more into “trial by justice system”. Trials by media are prone to all sorts of witch-hunting and manipulation.

I think he probably has harassed women and not respected boundaries in his past. Whether he’s guilty of rape I don’t know. He’s behaved misogynistically towards women and contributed to a culture of misogyny. He’s behaved badly and inappropriately at the very least.

At the same time I also think the establishment want him removed. He’s been quietly blowing the cobwebs from the eyes of the masses and given the public a red pill. People are waking up to the reality of the unhappy lives they’ve been led in to living and they are starting to want something different. He’s potentially contributing to leading the public towards a revolution and the powers that be/ governments/ capitalist class/ 1% are scared of him.

24 hours now you've been posting on Mumsnet calling rape victims and journalists liars.

Ok Andy.

Just like you I'm entitled to my opinion (sorry if it's not of your liking), but that's what happens in public forums, people having different opinions and debating them with others. Mind boggling. And please don't make stuff up, I never called rape victims liars, I was making a strong point regarding the importance of sexual abuse victims going to the police.

It’s amazing how convenient ‘I care about justice’ is.

it’s not ‘trial by media’. It’s reporting of women’s accounts of what happened to them.

The sensible reaction would be to think: how awful for those women to have been through that.

Instead, a worrying number of people seem primarily concerned with brand’s reputation.

This week we look closely at the “innocent until proven guilty” model that is often used outside of the courtroom in the comments section to defend those accused and charged with crimes.
We wanted to explore this further and explain what this means in the criminal justice system, and what it means for survivors navigating it.
First of all, we know that the majority of survivors (estimated at around 84%) do not report to the police If we get too stuck into an “innocent until proven guilty” mentality, then what are we saying for this HUGE group of people? That if they didn’t report and therefore there is no possibility of a verdict of any kind, then it didn’t happen, and the perpetrator caused no harm to them?
That can’t be what people are suggesting, but is a logic that follows the “innocent until proven guilty” rhetoric we see online and in the media with sexual violence cases.
How does the system work?
Now let’s think about the criminal justice system itself. At present the vast majority of cases do not reach court. This isn’t because they are false. False claims are low for sexual offences, despite what some believe. Only around 1.3% of reported sexual offences get charged.
To charge a case, the police have completed an investigation and passed it to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Crown Prosecution Service will then decide whether or not to charge the perpetrator based on two tests:
1 Is it in the public interest to proceed with this case? It is rare for sexual offences to not meet this test.
2 That there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
So, point two isn’t about whether or not it happened. It isn’t even about the CPS deciding if they think it happened or not. It is about whether or not they think have enough evidence to convince a jury of 12 people that it happened beyond any reasonable doubt. Many cases don’t pass this stage.
We have written and talked a lot lately about disgraced former Manchester United player Mason Greenwood’s arrest and subsequent dropping of charges. Greenwood’s case is a perfect example of a case that did pass this stage. He was charged following an investigation (we’ve seen lots of confusion about this too). The case was discontinued because the survivor seemingly reconciled with him and withdrew her support, which baffled those who do not understand abusive dynamics. We know that within relationships where there is abuse, people may leave and return many times.
We cannot emphasise enough – if a perpetrator doesn’t get charged, it doesn’t mean the sexual violence didn’t happen; it doesn’t even mean the police or CPS thought it didn’t happen. It means they felt that with the evidence they have they wouldn’t be able to convince a jury it happened, all the while there’d be a defence barrister working their very hardest to plant that seed of reasonable doubt in the jury’s minds.
The odds are unfortunately stacked against survivors in this world, but there is constant work and advocacy underway to address this.
So what is “beyond reasonable doubt?”
Now, let’s imagine a case where the suspected perpetrator has been charged. There has been enough evidence for the police and CPS to think they could overcome 12 people having any potential reasonable doubt that the offence(s) took place. And we get to court. A jury can’t think in “if’s” and “maybe’s”, for example, “It maybe happened, but I can’t be sure”, or “What if the evidence wasn’t what the CPS is saying it is, but is what the defence is saying it is?” – that’s reasonable doubt, and a potential “Not Guilty” verdict.
They aren’t saying the perpetrator was innocent, they’re saying they didn’t feel they could find them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, based on what they have seen and heard at the trial. Some jury members may think the perpetrator didn’t do it, but that certainly isn’t the whole picture. And this is another element of our low conviction rate.
What can we do?
We need to establish clarity between the criminal justice world securing a conviction, and the concept that under the current system, this might not always be possible despite the validity of the survivor’s claims.
So what are we saying? Believe survivors; take them seriously. The vast majority of people who perpetrate sexual crimes are not reported or found guilty; indeed only a tiny percentage will have a conviction for their offences. We cannot nullify or dismiss survivors’ experiences by clinging to a phrase that needs context and consideration.
Copy and pasted but some facts around rape and the justice system for anyone interested.

the importance of sexual abuse victims going to the police

have you got the slightest understanding of why women don’t do this. How futile it is?

you can tell the police: this man is financially abusing me. I have no access to money. I can show you my bank record - how he makes considerable effort to ensure I never have access to money. And they’ll just tell you they got him to agree to put £50 in the joint account.

What makes you think that telling them he raped you- when all the proof you have is your word - will lead to a better outcome? In fact, won’t lead to an even worse one.

The arguments of some of the posters on this thread are playing the oldest tricks in the fascistic/right wing playbook, veering between being literal and metaphorical. I was a journalist in another life, and believe me, there's not a hope that a programme and article following a 3-year investigation wouldn't have been scrutinised by lawyers. A few points:

First of all, this was a television programme and newspaper article - not a 'trial' - so the concept of 'trial by media' is fuzzy, and yet some posters are acting as if this is an actual trial. Clearly it's not, so waiting for a criminal trial is not the point.

Second of all, the 'actors repeating someone's words' is disingenuous - accusers in sexual assault cases cannot be identified. They're repeating the words of women who have made allegations, and who the journalists will have double-checked and asked for corroborating evidence.

Third of all, the programme is about the whole infrastructure that enabled Brand to behave as he did. It's not a straightforward 'J'accuse' situation - so there's more to be made of it other than a straightforward guilty or not. It's about an entire culture of enabling misogyny and sexualisation of people who don't want to be sexualised to be broadcast and rewarded. There's no guilty/not guilty there, it's plain to see. It does have clear parallels with Saville etc as so so many people are saying they knew something was wrong with RB.

Fourth of all, the idea that RB has been blindsided and it's 'unfair' is BS. He had a week to take out an embargo, he didn't.

Finally, the batshit crazy ones who think RB somehow has a hotline to the truth that MSM want to suppress - well, nothing much can be said about you!

@beatrix1234 I was 4 - I didn't even have the words to say what had happened to me because I didn't even understand it was wrong - I didn't go to the police - does that mean it didn't happen or I am lying now?

Power balance means a lot in these cases - who has the power and who stands to lose if they tell anyone - he was the talent, the star, they where not - or they where 16.

also this:

Third of all, the programme is about the whole infrastructure that enabled Brand to behave as he did. It's not a straightforward 'J'accuse' situation - so there's more to be made of it other than a straightforward guilty or not. It's about an entire culture of enabling misogyny and sexualisation of people who don't want to be sexualised to be broadcast and rewarded. There's no guilty/not guilty there, it's plain to see. It does have clear parallels with Saville etc as so so many people are saying they knew something was wrong with RB

@borninthe80esss and that’s a good explanation of why the whole approach within the criminal justice system means victims simply cannot get justice other than in very unusual circumstances.

and why, if we as a society actually care about sexual violence against women and girls, the approach is not fit for purpose.

Ok Andy.

Go on then I’ll bite. Who is Andy?

i think the chickens are coming home to roost for lots of people who took advantage of an era where sexual harassment and assault were acceptable and tolerated. I’m thinking of so many musicians who must be sweating also.

RB decided to take on the orthodoxy when the skeletons in his closet were full to bursting. It was never going to take much to get them tumbling out. Whether his career will take the hit we will have to wait and see.

I was making a strong point regarding the importance of sexual abuse victims going to the police
No @beatrix1234 you referred to the reasons for not going to the police as "excuses" and said victims shouldn't "expect justice" if they didn't report!
That is utterly outrageous and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of everything about being the victim of rape or sexual assault and why SO many don't disclose let alone report to police.

Absolutely!

I have no doubt he is a rapist, sex pest, creep. It's not hearsay. It women coming forward to tell what happened to them and journalists investigating and presenting it.

I'm highly suspicious of anyone trying to minimise it with 'trial by media' bullshit.

There will be many, many more women. I hope they feel they can come forward.

@ghostyslovesheets I was 4 - I didn't even have the words to say what had happened to me because I didn't even understand it was wrong - I didn't go to the police - does that mean it didn't happen or I am lying now?

Very sorry to hear that happened to you, I really hope you were able to heal yourself after such a horrific experience. Within the different types of sexual abuse child one is a big pet peeve of mine. You were 4 years old, almost a toddler, unfortunately children cannot go the police, in fact, they have great difficulty going to an adult because they don't understand sex and have a difficult time articulating what just happened to them. Needless to say when I talk about women reporting sex crimes I'm talking about grown up women, not children (obvs).

Power balance means a lot in these cases - who has the power and who stands to lose if they tell anyone - he was the talent, the star, they where not - or they where 16.

I agree that 16 is a "grey area" when defining a grown up woman, but again, I'm talking grown ups here. If women are not taught from a young age to report sexual abuse through the legal channels even when there's a power imbalance (be it a teacher, a famous celebrity or their boss) and to stay silent because "the authorities won't do nothing about it" I see a very bleak future for us.

I completely and utterly agree. It’s a total circus which, if there are genuine victims, does not do them justice.

If women are not taught from a young age to report sexual abuse through the legal channels even when there's a power imbalance (be it a teacher, a famous celebrity or their boss) and to stay silent because "the authorities won't do nothing about it" I see a very bleak future for us.

If we don't teach boys from a very early age that they must respect boundaries, value women and girls and what misogyny looks like in every aspect of life I see a very bleak future for us! @beatrix1234

It's not that victims simply think there's no point in reporting because the authorities won't do anything. It's way more complex than that. Trauma is real!

The actions of women and girls are not responsible for the failure of corporations and organisations nor the actions of men. They dont need teaching!!

If women are not taught from a young age to report sexual abuse through the legal channels even when there's a power imbalance (be it a teacher, a famous celebrity or their boss) and to stay silent because "the authorities won't do nothing about it" I see a very bleak future for us

I agree - but rather than putting the onus of women to report we should be making sure that those in power a) don't protect known abusers and b) create an environment where women feel safe and protected so they either don't have to face this shit or can report if they do - knowing they will be protected.

I would never force women to go to the police - it has to be their choice - in the face of losing their control so traumatically it's for them to take control of how they proceed.

What helped me heal (and I have 49 years later) is that when I came forward at 16 I was believed and supported - no one questioned why I had taken so long to tell, no one questioned if it was real and no one forced my hand on what happened next - that power was handed back to me.

@CorylusAgain If we don't teach boys from a very early age that they must respect boundaries, value women and girls and what misogyny looks like in every aspect of life I see a very bleak future for us!

I fully agree with that. I believe change needs to come from both sides: men need to be educated to properly treat women and women need to be taught to never stay silent despite any power imbalances and to go to the police. If the ‘police part’ fails then go to the media (just not the other way round).

Perhaps we need to put decades on trial first, individuals second.

Absolutely this, unfortunately society is pushing misogyny in very underhand ways. Women are being silenced on social media, in academics, in the work place over concerns about their safety. I’ve never felt so unsafe being a woman.

But the kind of vigilantism that has been played out in the last 48 hours is not the answer.

The answer is to sort out the system which takes away women’s voices, it’s about changing society so that women can express boundaries over their bodies without being told they are unreasonable.

it’s about women having their own voices without deferring to mens wishes.

We need to raise sons where sensitivity is not derided (just look at some posts today about a sensitive child). We need to limit the availability of porn. Girls and women need to start valuing other women for their strength, intelligence, wit. Not how they look.

We need to address the power imbalance between men and women and that takes adjustment on both sides.