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?

I know it's not just you but I'm fairly sure 16yo was Alice, not Anna

Erm well several women accused him of rape which is illegal

with regard to the 16 year old , her age is an issue as he was much older and more powerful BUT the main issue is that he forced her into a sex act against her will and Also held her mouth open by force and repeatedly spat in it which is assault

her age is an issue but it doesn’t detract from the sexual assault

a bbc car sent to collect her?
how awful

I know it's not just you but I'm fairly sure 16yo was Alice, not Anna

Apologies, yes, Alice

Yes.

It's ended now so may not be available till later.

I'm listening on live on the app and you can rewind

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbcradioo_fourfm?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

I'm not sure if that links

also listening. i rewound it

OP do you have any idea how expensive a 3 year investigation like this is? Investigative Journalism isn't free.

A quote from X which I think articulates very well some of the challenges to these allegations.

"Investigations into “open secrets” are one of the very hardest stories to tell — there is always a reason it has stayed buried for so long (usually money, power and expensive lawyers) despite so many industry insiders knowing about the allegations."

Brand is multi millionaire. He IS the establishment.

Brand is multi millionaire. He IS the establishment.

AND he effectively runs his own media empire.

Who is his HR? Who is he accountable to?

The bbc and channel 4 are also culpable, clearly, but at least they have sue processes. At least the bbc must have balance. It fails A LOT but it's better than individual megalomaniacs being kings of the castle.

it sounds very much to me that you’re skirting around the edges of free speech and policing what people can and can’t say in the public arena (beyond current legislation around slander/libel).

trial by media isn’t a concept that means anything. There are no sanctions issued or enforced. Society is still free to make moral judgements with the information available.

Yes there have already been consequences (in specifically RB’s case) but the alternative to that is silencing peoples lived experience which is what happened until dispatches and the times offered their support and access to their legal resources. That’s not something that sits comfortably with me, more so than any perceived media circus. It’s clear to me that the choices for these women were very limited, legally and in the wider context of society.

A singular woman chasing charges against RB would have faced comparable scrutiny and societal judgement that he’s now currently facing but without the access to the same means and resources he has access to. So if we’re boiling it down to someone is going to face media judgement without a legal verdict whichever way it goes then I’m always going to think that the less powerful party is simply levelling the playing field by working with media corporations.

lots of speculation about what are we being diverted from; maybe it was timed perfectly to Emma's return from maternity leave.

Things like this thread and the others make me firmer in my belief that shows and articles of this manner shouldn't be released until after there's been a charge or conviction. Nobody except for RB and any people involved know what the truth is and here we have 100(0)s of people labelling someone they've never ever interacted with a rapist, with any others saying to wait until any legal action is taken being called rape apologists (truly disgusting)

The ins and outs of why people do or do not report incidents of SA have been covered countless times and there's no need to go into it again, however. How many careers/lives have been ruined by false allegations, Johnny Depp for example, Jim Davidson, Matthew Kelly, Cliff Richard etc etc. To those saying "why would they make it up" well why did anyone make any of those false allegations? It would be different if it was a random bloke off the street but when it's someone within the celebrity sphere, surely nobody is so naive as to not get why someone would make false allegations against them, (their own taste of fame, sympathy, attention seeking, £££)

I'm not saying he's definitely guilty or not guilty but I do think it is horribly unfair to sit and lable someone as anything without there being a proper LEGAL investigation rather than going off a sensationalised TV show.

It fails A LOT

It does, and the fact we know that is testament to its transparency. Particularly in comparison to other media organisations.

Russell Brands days as a free man are hopefully numbered

Unless a conviction can be secured I wouldn't want to assume that, much as most of us would want it, and nor would I assume he'll never be back on the wretched BBC

Anyone with sense would have cast off both him AND the ghastly Jonaathan Ross after the Andrew Sachs disgrace, but no - a short hiatus to let the fuss die down and back they both bounced

And then some still wonder how the Savile horror came to happen ...

Brand can respond to the allegations however he wants.

That doesn't change the fact that a depressing amount of people are more willing to believe a random Youtuber and their googling ability than journalists, investigators, police, and legal / justice professionals.

Brand is a brilliant example of the mental gymnastics people are willing to put themselves through though. 10 years ago most of the people defending him would have been calling for his head as he was a "lefty woke snowflake" back then. Now he's positioned himself as anti-establishment he's got the right brigade willing to overlook anything and everything. Even if he was convicted you'd still have plenty of people claiming it's all false.

Amazing how much someone's guilt is tied to their political leanings isn't it? Brand, Tate, Trump all victims of a msm / deepstate witch hunt. Edwards, Corbyn, Sturgeon guilty as sin, m'lud, no trial needed. (I am aware this goes both ways btw.)

I think this is a good example of forcing authorities and people in positions of power and duty of care responsibilities to take notice stop ignoring what’s happening on their watch.

As I pointed out earlier, the police force has elements within it that have been proven in courts of law to be abusers, rapists and murders.

The justice system is not without corruption or "dubious" morals. So no more trustworthy than some elements of the press.

I don't advocate ignoring the police on that basis so I don't understand your rejection of the content of this documentary on the basis that some elements of the press are morally dubious.

RB has had decades of self publicity. What's the likelihood of finding a juror who has never heard of him? Or has never heard of his openness about sexual promiscuity? Some might take that as evidence to support Brand, others might take it as evidence to doubt him. We have no idea. But to suggest that prior to this documentary it would have been a fairer trial is deeply flawed.

Very true

Absolutely agree with you. Wether he did or wether he didn't commit a serious criminal offence sits in one place at the moment - the police. Then when THEY (not a commercial for profit organisation like the Times ) have finished their legally regulated investigation then it is the duty of the CPS to decide if there are charges to press.

If there are he attends court and is found guilty and sentenced or not guilty and free to go.
If there aren't then victims are free to take civil action.
RB is also free to take defamation and libel action.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE MEDIA MAKING MONEY OUT OF SENSATIONALISM AND IS FED BY PEOPLE WHO READ IT.

I'm absolutely sick of legislation and government policy being announced on fucking twitter and criminal allegations being investigated by the media. Sickening.

Safeguarding is about the ongoing process. Not a DBS piece of paper past on the past.

Transparency. Ongoing reflection.

Acknowledging mistakes and making changes to stop further mistakes. (So yes, we know how bad the bbc is because it has some transparency.)

When none of that happens, whistleblowing is the last resort.

Sometimes the authorities STILL don't act (slander etc) so people resort to the press.

None of which had been found true ina court of law. He might or might not have done that. But you have clearly decided he’s guilty. If you were chosen to sit on a jury what chance would RB have of a fair trial? This is the very point I’m raising.

100% assault if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. If I was on a jury I would want to be 100% sure everything was corroborated. I have absolutely no reason to doubt the victim’s account (and it is very harrowing) but ultimately it is that, an account all presented from the side of the prosecution. You need evidence, he was there, you need evidence the deed occurred and you need evidence there was no consent. This can only come after seeing the victim cross examined, RB’s diary checked he was where she alleged he was, and any other evidence at the time. Witness corroboration would also help from people around her. This all builds a picture. Maybe they have all this (apologies if they provided all this and I missed it).

I have never liked RB, I have always found him creepy and sexist. I feel like his behaviour over the radio and on screen, shows someone who has a low opinion of women, sees them as objects and could have the capacity to be even worse than that. These stories from these women are not surprising to me.

Dispatches and The Times are hardly sensationalist media outlets, and they will have made sure they did their proper due diligence before releasing the story. I saw a lot of proof on that documentary and I personally believe the women and the stories that were told. I also believe in the right to tell them, whether they have gone through the courts/justice system or not.

As far as I can tell there were 2 accounts of rape in the documentary, the rest was fluff. I doubt those accounts would have him convicted tbh, because it's a terrible state of affairs, hardly anyone is convicted of rape. I believe them but tbh it's all a storm in a teacup, will be forgotten in 2 weeks.

Dunno why people are saying its because of his controversial views, he's hardly David icke, havent watched much of him, but he is quite milquetoast in his views.

But Brand already has a massive media presence and self publicity which can be argued tips the inequality in his favour! He wasn't a private individual. If he is an abuser he has had decades to gaslight the public from which a jury will be selected. Is that a level playing field for the alleged victims?