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?

@beatrix1234 women victims will report when they feel able to do so. It's not as if reporting a crime is an alien concept. But they have no responsibility to do anything and should not be "taught" that they do.
Focus the teaching where its needed and support investigative journalism that exposes inequality, misogyny, rape apology and cultures in organisations that demean women.
Provide support for victims to help them to consider reporting and to stay with them through the process. Advertise and fund that support. But don't put any responsibility on the victims to take action.

But it’s not an actual trial is it? It’s a journalistic investigation and exposé. There’s no specific and agreed definition of ‘trial by media’ so you can’t generalise as you have.

But, based on the perspective put forward by the media there are people who are calling a man a rapist where there have been no legal proceedings or even, seemingly a police investigation. He is facing consequences based on the views of journalists. Their techniques have not been judged to be in accordance with the rules in place in our justice system.

any survivor of rape or sexual assault has the right to tell their story however they see fit - You have to expect due diligence from a reputable investigative program like Dispatches - they didn't just build a program based on gossip

He has every right, in law, to take them to court if anything broadcast was untrue lets see if he does - I'm sure he could crowdfund the cash from his many admirers

and I will call my rapist a rapist quiet happily- because he was and he was never tried in court

Or in your world is rape only rape if the court find it to be - because that means most rapes, the vast majority, are not true, didn;t happen and women lie

He is facing consequences based on the views of journalists

Views of journalists or the views of the woman involved as a first account of what happened to them?

The biggest consequence he is facing is that the Met are now investigating the allegations which have been made against him - something which they previously failed to do despite reports having been made. So the Sunday Times and Channel 4 have done a good thing by using their influence to persuade the police to investigate allegations made by more vulnerable members of society against a more powerful and influential figure.

If the police having investigated, the CPS decide there is no realistic prospect of conviction or if he is acquitted at trial, I have no doubt that this will also be reported but he shouldn’t have been given a free pass from the police given the volume of allegations which had been made against him.

I just watched this on YouTube. Nadia Sawalha and her husband talking about their impressions of the documentary. Titled. Live reaction and discussion about the Russell Brand channnel 4 dispatches documentary

really good points raised.

in summary the program didn’t do the alleged victims any justice and why wasn’t this taken or handled by the police first.

‘Their techniques have not been judged to be in accordance with the rules in place in our justice system.’ But they are according to the ‘rules’ of journalism, which is the medium/genre in question here.

‘He is facing consequences based on the views of journalists.‘ They’re not merely ‘views’ are they? They haven’t just written an opinion column! They’ve undertaken a four year long investigation, as is the prerogative of a free press, they’ve run the evidence and format past their legal advisors and felt secure enough in the content to broadcast it.

Your comments don’t make sense at all - why don’t you take into account that this is an in depth investigation that will have had to get past a legal team?

in summary the program didn’t do the alleged victims any justice and why wasn’t this taken or handled by the police first.

Because single rape victims are hailed through awful questioning and invasive procedures and the CPS drop the claims. How is that difficult to understand? Hardly enlightening.

The biggest consequence he is facing is that the Met are now investigating the allegations which have been made against him - something which they previously failed to do despite reports having been made

I'm obviously not in a position to know who's telling the truth here, but according to the Guardian:

"The Metropolitan police said it had “not received any reports” in relation to a series of allegations of sexual assault by Brand but had spoken to the Sunday Times on Saturday and would be making further approaches to “ensure that any victims of crime who they have spoken with are aware of how they may report any criminal allegations to police”"

C4 and Sunday Times knew that people would assume this to be true and this case doesn't even need looking at by the police to have the impact they want.

As a victim of sexual assault. I don't want to be reminded of it and see sexual assault used for entertainment or to sell newspapers or get clicks. It's an insult to women that have been through it..

I have only read posts on mumsnet about it as I wasn't sure what was going on. I dont want to feed this machine that keeps dragging celebs through the mud all of the time when no criminal activity has taken place (like PS and HE) by buying the papers or watching the programme.

The hysteria makes me feel sick like most people are lapping it all up and getting off on these stories. Leave it to the police.

I’m not sure what you’re confused about.

”get past a legal team? And what were they looking for? They were looking at whether anything in the article/programme could get them sued and if so, what the consequences would be. They wouldn’t be looking at whether RB was guilty , and indeed, have no power to decide that.

Anyone can do an in-depth investigation, what techniques were the journalists employing - hopefully not phone hacking again or acting in a deceitful way falsifying documents like has previously happened. There’s a lot of unanswered questions about the “investigation”.

I’m sorry for what you’ve gone through. Yes this whole circus has effectively treated rape claims as entertainment esp the (with hindsight) sickening whipping people up on Friday.

I don’t think the way this has been gone about helps victims of abuse at all.

Beatrix was a good girl. She reported in the right way at the right time because she was the perfect victim.

All these other victims who haven't reported are by definition bad and not deserving. They were bad victims.

They weren't virtuous enough. Where they?

Of course Beatrix was empowered enough to report and wasn't in a situation where she might have a power imbalance, and Beatrix isn't aware of the concept (and law on) coercive control or the nature of emotional abuse.

These women are weak. But Beatrix was strong.

Reporting makes such a difference, except all those women who do, and don't make it past the CPS might feel somewhat differently about that. Some of them may even be on this thread. But Beatrix is happy to stick the boot in anyway. Perhaps she can explain how it was in their interests to report, when it's been a traumatic experience that went no where? Whilst looking them in the eye.

Beatrix likes to say all the things that's have been picked up in various reports as being barriers are irrelevant and not valid. Cos Beatrix is perfect and wants everyone to know how good she was. Cos this isn't about other women. This is about Beatrix feeling good about she did. We should all give Beatrix a high five and a pat on the back for being so amazing.

Meanwhile in the real world...

I don't think the Dispatches team created anything remotely like a light entertainment programme - do you?

Even putting aside the women's stories, the programme was pretty uncomfortable viewing. I can't say I particularly enjoyed watching it/was 'entertained' by it - but it had an important message about the misogyny society generally, and 'mainstream media' organisations particularly, have allowed someone to get away with.

I found some of the footage/clips of Brand's behaviour pretty sickening. Even without the compelling victim testimony, there is still a public interest story to be told.

It wasn’t so much the programme but the run up to it, that was pure media circus I’m afraid and extremely bad taste.

trial by media is disgusting.

I will wait to hear the Judges verdict

I agree OP, the run up to all this was extremely bad taste, people were so excited about it, excitedly naming loads of people, waiting for the news, even some hoping it would be really bad so they could post even more with glee.

Exactly the programme isn’t just about him it’s about the way people, including some in this thread, carry on protecting men who hurt women

By this you mean “never”?

Well I wouldn't take anything attention seeking Nadiya and creepy waste of space Mark has to say seriously they think they are intellectual and interesting a bit like Russell Brand himself.

They didn't go to the police because they either couldn't or didn't want to and that's fine. They are allowed to expose Russell Brand as an abuser on TV though.

What judge?!!! Honestly, I give up - some of the posters on this thread are just being deliberately obtuse.

For the last time, it is not a trial, it is a journalistic investigation - as has happened many times before and sometimes resulted in a criminal trial, sometimes not. If the subject of this investigation wants to assert that anything in it is untrue they are free to take legal action. They were shown the programme/article over a week ago and decided not to take action other than record a response.

The programme and article have already led to: the production companies involved initiating 'urgent' investigations, the Met inviting anyone affected to contact them, the foreign secretary warning that better policies must be in place to guard against power differentials leaving people vulnerable. Many people don't feel encouraged to approach the police when sexually assaulted. The programme will definitely do more good than bad - and has already in shining a light on this grubby side of the entertainment industry.

I’m sorry for what happened to you, you know what happened i your case, you can say what you like. But I would never call someone a rapist without a trial because o only have your word. I have no way of knowing whether the man is a rapist or not. That is the point of court cases. Otherwise we could accuse anyone of anything. It’s the rule of law. It’s important in maintaining a civilised society.