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?

At the very least it would have been more appropriate to whistle blow to the police rather than a journalist

Yep. I'd let Wayne Couzens and his pals investigate.

I saw on twitter someone who sat on a jury on a SA case, that had 45 minutes of audio of him threatening to assault, him saying he was doing it, and then him saying he had done it, and she was still the only juror who wanted to convict.

Id be shocked if he was innocent tbh. I mean his whole persona was sexual and hate towards women let’s face it. Isn’t it here on

Mumsnet the whole if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
When he tells you who he is, listen….
This dudes more than a walking red flag he leaves trails of flags everywhere.

KP had a good escape when he dumped her.

It is difficult isn't it, particularly when the alleged rapist is a friend/former friend/partner/former partner. It does make it hard for an outsider to be sure what has actually happened.

I honestly don't know what the answer would be that was fair to all parties.

I suppose the issue with not proven is that it does damage the alleged rapist who might be totally innocent. Seems like a Judgement of Solomon situation and I honestly wouldn't like to be on the jury.

That's the crux of this isn't it? Though we don't have to deny the crimes occurred - we can simply say they're not proven, which isn't the same thing at all

@Puzzledandpissedoff legally speaking no but practically it is. For not proven to have any impact it still requires society to cast judgement in much the same way so called ‘media circuses’ do. It’s basically the legal system saying ‘tough call - you decide for yourselves’.

Oh I take it back, I could cope with being on the jury for that one.

Yes o do believe that the victims should have gone to the police if they wanted to raise a complaint which they wanted to be investigated.

No I don’t think that the documentary should have been aired prior to the conclusion of any trial.

if you are interested in power imbalances, let’s look at entire corporations with access to millions on millions of viewers and listeners vs one man (with a few million in the bank). That’s not fair either. That’s why all of this should have gone through the criminal justice system

Because ‘reasonable doubt’ isn’t a concept that your average juror copes well with. Even with hard evidence.

I can almost hear a juror piping up ‘what if it was just bravado/fantasy - we don’t know he actually did it’. And they’re right, that’s reasonable doubt. Not likely doubt but reasonable.

So you acknowledge that you don't care about the power imbalance of the alleged victims vs the alleged perpetrator which adversely affects the alleged victims' likelihood of ever even getting to trial.

But you do care about the imbalance of power when it affects the alleged perpetrator.

I have no words

Yes o do believe that the victims should have gone to the police if they wanted to raise a complaint which they wanted to be investigated

you understand that if they’d done that and the case had followed statistics (which it would of given Brand’s access to lawyers) and fallen at the first hurdle, we ‘d never of even heard from them and the failure of the case to progress would have been used as evidence to attack them further legally? Their accounts would never have been tied together with others and no pattern of behaviour identified?

if you are interested in power imbalances, let’s look at entire corporations with access to millions on millions of viewers and listeners vs one man (with a few million in the bank)

So let's say I accept your assertion about the power imbalance between RB and the media. Why would those corporations want to bring down such a man? Why do you think would they bother?

The bbc is not privately owned.

Which is why defund the bbc is folly.

And probably why Alice chose to talk to WH about the bbc car

He has access to many millions of followers - many more than most terrestrial TV shows will get.

Leaving the alleged illegal acts aside, what about the ‘fluff’ as a PP called it. The testimonies of his former colleagues and paramours detailing disrespectful, sleazy encounters. They are not accusing him of illegal acts, but they paint a pretty disturbing picture of his personality. Should we be allowed to hear their voices? Or is it unfair to poor ickle Brandy wandy? I mean, they gave him plenty of screentime, too. Lots of his own words talking about choking women with his cock until they cry. Lots of him directly sexually objectifying his colleagues. He said, she said.

So even in the extremely unlikely event the rape and SA allegations are made up, the doc has merit for highlighting what an odious fucking pervert he is.

The Sunday Times and C4 seem like very unlikely bedfellows. Why on earth would they collaborate on this?

As OP says, the media does not exist to give justice to victims, it exists to make money for its shareholders or protect itself.

For not proven to have any impact it still requires society to cast judgement in much the same way so called ‘media circuses’ do. It’s basically the legal system saying ‘tough call - you decide for yourselves’

That's absolutely true, Cornettoninja, though for all its faults at least "not proven" is an outcome which doesn't mean someone being convicted unjustly, and neither does it involve saying we don't believe the accuser

It's very far from ideal, but I'm not sure any of the current alternatives are any better - though working to combat m isogyny in all its forms certainly would be

“What you seem to be doing is conflating traditional media with social media. That’s a very silly thing to do. “ this is not what I am doing at all. I would like you to provide evidence of where I have done that.

Martin Bashir used lies and falsified information to coerce someone to give an interview - what guarantees do we have this hasn’t occurred again?

” I believe that the claims in the documentary and article(s) have been checked to a very high standard and are true, whether or not they reach a courtroom. “ Tbf it doesn’t matter what you believe or not. What is important is the whether a court of law has decided whether RB is guilty or not. What high standards have they been checked to? How can I verify this? Who had set these standards? Who had verified whether these rules have been followed. Are they adequate to protect the accused?

Most importantly who has checked the accusations to ensure they are true. My understanding is that in the UK the only mechanism by which we can decide if criminal accusations are true or not is through the court system. You’ve really just proved my point.

Tbf it doesn’t matter what you believe or not

@Maatandosiris if that’s true why is anything you’re arguing of any importance?

Juries are swayed by all sorts. Not unusual for the police involved to barely recognise the accused in court, he's had a haircut, he's even had a wash, his mum has bought him a nice suit and she's ironed his shirt. He suddenly looks like a model citizen and people are influenced by appearances. Maybe the jury system has had its day.

Martin Bashir used lies and falsified information to coerce someone to give an interview - what guarantees do we have this hasn’t occurred again?

TBH I'd be utterly amazed if it hadn't happened again, but then I was media trained and know very well the deceit too many use to secure what they want

Apart from personal experience, I recall too well an interview with some media sleaze who explained the industry phrase "Make it work" ... in other words do whatever you have to, but just produce the story

That is not my experience at all. We all know people present differently at court. It is for the prosecution to present a case beyond all reasonable doubt. If not can’t the jury will not convict. It is a failing on the prosecution if someone guilty is not convicted. Even if it were judge only they would have to follow the same principles.

It's very far from ideal, but I'm not sure any of the current alternatives are any better - though working to combat m isogyny in all its forms certainly would be

which I believe is what the RB reports are doing. Even RB isn’t attempting to minimise the claims, he’s outright called them what they are - egregious and aggressive. For anyone paying attention to his career this is a direct contradiction to how he has presented similar (if not identical) sexual situations in the past.

Progress of sorts maybe? It’s not like we’re subject to ‘boys will be boys and these women were sluts who loved it’, he’s at least recognised that the content of the accusations is horrific if not accepting any culpability.

I have a lot of issues with the media (particularly the control and influence one walking corpse seems to have) but I do have faith in lots of journalists whose motivations are to provide quality information where it’s otherwise held back. Even the nuttier conspiracy led ones - I’m happy that they float or sink on the quality of their own reporting. I don’t think it was this thread but there’s a reason that tyrannical regimes target journalists - I don’t entirely trust anyone trying to tell me that all media = automatically bad.

Most importantly who has checked the accusations to ensure they are true.

Four years of investigation. Legal clearance. And Rusty's lawyers have looked them over prior to publication. I would say they have been thoroughly examined and reviewed by both sides.

This is a terrible overview of the media.

It also exists to inform, educate, highlight, expose and offer a voice to the voiceless. There are countless examples throughout history of investigations and campaigns that have uncovered wrongs and helped to change laws.

It's not perfect, but neither is it a homogenous group hellbent on holding up the status quo for the 1%. And there are some excellent journalists within the organisations - just as there are some total pricks (but they seem to end up on GB News and You Tube).

I guess it comes down to the old "is it better to let a hundred guilty men walk free than one innocent man suffer" question doesn't it?

We know that men rape and assault on an industrial scale and that while not all men do so, almost all that do commit those crimes are men.

We know that as things stand the justice system doesn't work in cases of SA and rape.

We also know that on occasion women make false allegations but, we know that this is a rare occurance at best, and that it's not a sex specific issue.

So do you keep the status quo and let men continue to rape and assault your daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends with little fear of facing justice or do you change the way you tackle the issue?

Here is wiki on "The rule of law".

The rule of law is a political ideal that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.[2][3] The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat. It refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.[4][5][6] The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power."[7]

It doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant to this discussion.