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?

So if there has been no trial why are people happy to call RB a rapist. The nuance doesn’t matter many people now believe this to be true.

Brand himself has admitted that he was reported for date rape in the past but no action was taken by the police.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/bbs-russell-facing-date-rape-640430.amp

He was also reported by a massage therapist who said he sexually assaulted her and again no further action was taken

https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2014/sep/11/russell-brand-jemima-khan-masseuse-court-order-harassing

In a perfect world or even a competent judical system, victims of abuse would be afforded proper redress in a court of law. Unfortunately, the victims are put on trial, the details of their sex live analysed, etc and the conviction rate is extremely low.

Even recent cases, where there are recordings on the incidents, Mason Greenwood and Luis Rubiales, women are still turn apart, doubted and told they are overreacting.

Until things change, investigative journalism is an aid towards a conviction. I don't like it but it shown be a good alternative I.e. Weinsten etc. A rape kit and dna sample really only prove sex not rape in a lot of cases.

Do people really think that a number of women will come together to make up a story to get someone outed as an abuser if it simply isn't true? Knowing that their story will be analysed and fact checked and turn apart if the details don't add up? A whole load of unconnected women with similar experiences.

"ghostyslovesheets
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

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."

Let me ask you this. If a friend told you they were raped and told you who raped them but they didn't want to go to the police. Would you believe them? Would you support them?

Would you let yourself be alone with the person that was accused?

oh i have just heard the RB interview with Jimmy Saville,
just so VILE

Have you ever supported someone through the process from reporting rape to the police to giving evidence in the Crown Court?

I have. It was awful and totally traumatic for my friend who had been raped. She was actually doing well in her recovery until the trial, which was nearly 2 years after the event. Her rapist represented himself and she spent 2 days in the witness box being interrogated by the man who'd kept her prisoner in her own flat and raped her repeatedly until he fell asleep and was able to escape.

She never recovered from that, and after seeing what she went through, I'd be reluctant to go to the police and go through a trial, even though I know proceedings are conducted quite differently now.

I don't blame anyone for not reporting sex crimes.

I just don't understand how he was allowed to be broadcast I mean talking about sending a naked woman round to him !

Alec salmond, former first minister was accused of all sorts of sexual shenanigans by several women.
Nicola sturgeon did the usual liberal feminist I believe her, all men are bastards.
He was proven innocent on all counts.....

Yeah .lots of men get away with being deviants it's not unusual.

This is what astounds me.

People are questioning the veracity and ‘check and balances’ of traditional, mainstream media, which is subject to rules and regulations, some of which come from legislation (government) and some from ethical practices written up by their regulating body (Ofcom). Every single word in that documentary and the various articles will have been pored over by experienced media and criminal lawyers.

Everything will have been done by the book and triple checked before release.

Yet somehow the words of a man who is subject to none of these regulations rules - because he broadcasts on an unregulated ‘content platform’ that has no legislation and no regulating body - are taken as gospel truth.

This utter nonsense about ‘mainstream media’ being full of liars and only driven by profits…I mean, what exactly do you think Trump, Rogan, Tate, Jones, Brand are interested in? But they don’t seek these profits working within a regulated and legally-bound framework. They simply shout the loudest and know they are unlikely to be challenged because they have too much power and influence - partly from their deep pockets and partly from the army of fanboys and girls frothing at the mouth in the hopes of defending their king.

The cognitive dissonance is extraordinary.

TLDR: You Tube, X, Rumble are unregulated and not subject to any of the scrutiny and legal frameworks that traditional media have to abide by, so anyone blindly believing RB (on anything) whilst insisting the Times / Ch4 are lying, is extraordinarily dim.

I didn’t think it was possible to be ‘proven innocent’. Perhaps he was found not guilty.

Yes and your point is what, exactly? That some men are found not guilty of sexual offences when it does go to court?

This thread amply demonstrates why women so often don't report rape and sexual assault.

I think the fact that Dannii Minogue complained about him in 2006 speaks volumes. I would really like to know what happened there.

Surely you must understand that it's this view that creates a culture in which abusers thrive?

It starts with the attitude that if it's not illegal, it's ok. So, women and girls are not protected from demeaning attitudes, constant harassment and "minor" sexual abuse. Just look at the very public experience of Jenni Hermosa.

Women are accused of being 'neurotic', humourless or 'repressed' - even frigid!
And when you add in extreme power imbalance such as in the case of high profile 'celebs' there's an added layer of protection given by those in positions of responsibility because they are motivated to look after a financial asset. Women at the bottom of the organisation are disposable.
And Women are not immune to the culture. Many get coerced by the overwhelming acceptance of behaviour they would have not accepted in different circumstances.

And finally it puts the onus on the individual women who has been abused to take that to the police. Women have bravely explained on here just why that is not the simple action some would like to believe it is! Rape crisis estimate that only 1% of rapes are reported.

But the culture judges women who dont report.

Even when a woman does report, it is only a tiny percentage that go to trial. Rape Crisis state that in 2022 it was only 1.9% of reported cases!

So waiting to "hear the judges verdict" is knowingly ignoring the reality of the extent of sexual abuse and rape and thereby being complicit in perpetuating the failure to address it.

But it’s not biggest consequence is it? BBC news and guests were saying he should be removed from social media. His career is over now, people, regardless of the outcome of any trial will be saying no smoke without fire.

Look at the clusterfuck that was the BBC reporting of the police raid on Cliff Richard’s house. The guy hasn’t worked since.

Look at the manipulation of the public in that very credible programme panorama which was facilitated through the falsification of documents and manipulation of participants through deception. What’s to say this hasn’t happened here? We already know through people posting on here journalists have been contacting individuals and if their testimony did not match the journalists narrative they weren’t contacted again. One of RBS exs has said journalists were banging on her parents door, again when her narrative didn’t match theirs no further contact. It doesn’t look like a rounded investigation to me.

Whats the worst that could happen. Well let’s think of another celebrity accused of a crime, hounded by the media-she ended up dead.

This witch hunt, and this fits every element of a witch hunt is despicable. People don’t like the guy? Which is understandable. He might or might not be guilty of a crime. But that doesn’t justify the constant hounding of the man the actions of the media which are basically treating him as a convicted criminal.

Can you honestly not see the huge problems for the effective functioning of the rule of law and justice with what has happened over the weekend.

How do you feel about Caroline Flack and the way she was treated, did you think that would have no consequences?

Guavafish1 is RB in jail because of the Dispatches documentary?

Brand should have been held to account years ago. He is a deeply problematic individual.

The fact that he has been given succour by the media establishment that has now turned upon him after some investigative journalism has made his actions impossible to ignore has clearly massively added to the outrage here. Bunch of hypocrites.

Yes he should be given a fair trial, but let's not pretend that this man had no questions to answer as do those who have enabled him and encouraged a culture where women have felt unable to speak out.

The problem with the RB case is that there is very little evidence of illegal wrongdoing. Inferred - maybe, he’s grossly unpleasant - yes, immoral - most certainly but outright illegal to result in a conviction? I didn’t see it myself. But if there is the evidence that is the case the police should be 100% investigating now and corroborating it and taking him to court. He should absolutely face justice if it can be proved he has committed an offence. I have always thought he is icky and unpleasant and I wouldn’t have gone near him with a 10 foot barge pole but by the same token if he has done something illegal I want to see the evidence and be sure it was beyond reasonable doubt. All we have heard is one side. I am personally uncomfortable about trials by the moral police. For instance I’ve heard people say that the ages of consent is 16 but it is deemed grooming if a 16 year old is having sex with anyone over the age of 18 as 16 year olds aren’t adults so should not be having sex with adults. Completely bonkers. Either there is an age so there is legal certainty or there isn’t. There is too much moral judgement flying around and very little cold hard facts. This is why I think there is a polarisation of views between his supported and his dissenters as they are looking at it 2 different ways.

Can you honestly not see the huge problems for the effective functioning of the rule of law and justice with what has happened over the weekend

Yes of course. The legal system in this country and in the US needs to collectively consider why women so often don't feel able to report such crimes and why victims of sexual crime continue to be failed.

If you were sat in front of one of these women would you support them going to the police because you believe them or would you back off due to your suspicion?

like many, many incidences of sexual assault it comes down to who is believed by who. In all honesty a court case would make very little difference to public opinion in this instance. A court case is decided by public opinion too - juries aren’t professionals.

I’m happy to call RB a rapist because multiple different women have shared their experience of him being an abuser and a rapist. Heck, he’s shared his exploits for years and (literally) sold it as entertainment in shows, books and on tv. I’ve heard his side before any accusations came to light and everyone was encouraged to laugh along. Now I’ve had the chance to hear directly from the women who were used as props for his material. Turns out they didn’t find it funny.

He is an abuser and a rapist.

Can you honestly not see the huge problems for the effective functioning of the rule of law and justice with what has happened over the weekend
You fear anarchy and the breakdown of the legal system on the basis of a single documentary about an individual who very publicly broadcast his attitude and actions and a culture in big organisations that failed to protect women from that attitude and those actions?

Not a fear I share.

It's like whack-a-mole, all the handwringing handmaidens on here.

Multiple women have since come forward, with their own stories of sexual abuse at the hands of RB, on top of the ones in the TV program and in the Times. I expect it is the very tip of the iceberg.

The police are now investigating...

You'd think that would give a normal person pause.

Cliff Richard is 82
does he even want to work?

The conviction rate for reported rape is vanishingly tiny. The chances of a reported rapist actually being found guilty is around 2% (although there is one study that gives a figure of close to 1%). Sex crime stats

Unless the other 98% of rapes reported are mostly false allegations (which I don't believe for a minute), that's a huge number of rapists walking free, even after their crimes have been reported to the police. Do you honestly believe that none of those men are guilty? And that none of them are going to re-offend?

If Brand is innocent, let him sue the programme makers, broadcaster, and maybe even those he believes have falsely accused him. Let him have his day in court. And if it's all found to be a pack of lies, he'll have cleared his name and probably made a small fortune in damages.

Juries in England and Wales convict more than they aquit in rape cases, more than for other serious crimes. It's getting it to court that can be difficult.

What evidence are you looking for here?

There are multiple women coming forward with detailed descriptions of illegal behaviour that they claim Brand has perpetrated.