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?

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

We have no guarantees about anything!

No guarantee that the police officer who turns up when you report a crime isn't currupt or bigoted.

No guarantee that the jury members selected in a trial are up to the job and have no personal bias

There are dedicated journalists who are motivated by the exposure of wrong doing and who don't resort to coercion or falsehoods.

I perhaps should have expanded but thought it was clear. Your belief doesn’t matter in the context of whether RB is guilty or not as that isn’t the measure of reality.

It does matter in the context of whether someone is affected by accusations which have not been proven in a court of law

“There are dedicated journalists who are motivated by the exposure of wrong doing and who don't resort to coercion or falsehoods.” So we have no guarantee over anything, apart from the fact these journalists won’t resort to the tactics proven to have been employed by similar journalists previously- I see!

I didn't say that!

You are the one seeking guarantees not me. You are the one dismissing information out of hand on the basis that because Martin Bashir was dodgy we should never listen to a journalist again.

I'm saying that's as ridiculous as never trusting another police officer or never querying whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Even your precious legal system accepts the balance of probability not just certainty.

It does matter in the context of whether someone is affected by accusations which have not been proven in a court of law

Are you expecting us to feel sorry for RB?

Good grief, as someone said up thread if it walks like a duck......

He arranged for a BBC car to collect a 16 year old from school to take her to his home, he has not denied that this is true. Are you suggesting he wanted to help her with her maths homework? FGS, this man is vile whether he is convicted or not.

I can't believe you are defending him.

Again with the weird mixed metaphors - church/state!
Investigative journalism is perfectly legal. If the journalists broke any laws, go report them to the police rather than create your own circus of trial by anonymous posting on the internet.

Zelda Perkins at 1:13 on world at 1 radio 4 explains very clearly why this is all the right course of action.

They've (journalists and any involved) have whistle blown to their and RB's employers here.

He's still mainstream media as well as 6m followers on social media.

Alice went to his management and lawyers; they ignored.

Brand used legal threats a lot.

Perkins explains how legal processes are used by those in power to silence.

So you use the platform of free speech and actually, the growing transparency of some media companies who are now holding themselves to account

In your very first post you talk about the SM posts whipping up a frenzy and how the documentary / article was a character assassination - as if they are interchangeable. You don't understand what hearsay is, you don't believe that broadcast tv and print media have checks & balances. All in the first post.

So again, let me spell it out for you:

Social media: the 'broadcasters' are not held legally responsible for the content - so anyone can basically say anything and they can't sue Twitter or YT or whatever for distributing the lies.

Traditional media: the broadcasters / papers can be held accountable for any defamation or other legal issues (like copyright infringement) that may arise from the content they put out, as can the production companies and potentially (depending on role, contract specifics) the programme makers / journalists.

Social media: there is no regulation or professional standards body at all

Traditional media: Ofcom & IPSO oversee professional standards and offer a place for complaints. Every programme goes through a process of compliance & legal where each line & shot is checked against what is 'allowed'. Allowed might mean legally or it might mean ethically. Anything dodgy is removed or re-written. Low risk programmes like Bake Off will have a lighter touch review, but something like the RB doc will have been checked multiple times by experts including lawyers, and everything within it will have been robustly sourced.

You keep saying 'Ch4 lawyers will only check if they can be sued, not if RB is guilty' - well of course they will. But one of the the benchmarks for whether they can be sued is 'are the statements true in substance and in fact'.

You keep referring to Bashir - as I have said, his methods for getting the interview were abhorrent - but is there doubt about the content of the interview? Are you saying Di was coerced into lying?

Because otherwise it's a false equivalence.

There are some bad actors in every profession, including the police and justice system you seem to idolise.

YABU OP. There's no way the victims would have got justice if they'd gone to the police.

However, Brand can get justice. He can sue C4 and the Times. Get his day in court and tell his story in Civil court rather than Criminal. I'm OK with that.

Dies anyone find it weird or creepy that RBs wife first briefly dated him at 18.
And now is totally standing by him. Like she's not bothered about his past or the fact he probably took advantage of girls even without rape being thrown in.

Does *

A court of law is constructed by the society it operates in and is a constant state of flux dependent on the ethics (also in flux) of that society.

Courts issue punishments and sanctions on hearing all sides, society is free to judge by whatever standards they want to as long as they don’t issue punishment/sanctions already agreed to be the preserve of the legal system.

Reports such as the RB one highlight issues within existing frameworks that don’t quite fit within society as it exists today for many, many people.

The problem with your very heavy reliance on the legal system is the fact that theres a sizeable group who don’t agree with you that it is in fact reliable. Specifically in the case of prolific and routine sexual crimes.

So no, I don’t feel inclined to wait until the legal system catches up with reality when the reality involves people being actively attacked on a regular basis. The legal system can only be reactive and it’s slow. I have faith it will catch up, but not if everyone sits back and waits to be told that actually, all this stuff is really wrong.

I genuinely feel sorry for the woman. His crimes are not hers. She has two (soon to be three) young children with him and her world is likely shattered. If she does choose to untangle herself from him then it’ll be in her own time and after, I imagine, serious consideration.

Speculation about her shouldn’t be part of any conversation about the allegations as far as I’m concerned. If she comments and brings herself into the conversation that’s one thing but until that point it’s not ethical imho.

I'm wondering if Katie Perry signed an NDA 🤔

Op your concern for RB getting a fair trial is actually more detrimental to the women. He's more likely to walk free as a result of this than go to prison. Bear in mind less than 2% of rapists actually see jail time and the victims of those 'falsely accused' can face conviction themselves for making the report in the first place. We had a case a few years ago where I live that was highly sensationalised in the media. The accused all walked free and the woman who accused them was vilified on social media. I don't doubt for a second they did it but the trial was a hot mess from the start thanks to their fans.

It doesn't serve women to make false allegations. And for me the things he said and did by his own account are vile enough that he should have been held accountable. Offering his assistant naked to Jimmy Saville live on air? Why did he still have a job after that? There's big questions to ask about the culture around celebrities who are inappropriate and unsafe and those that quietly say nothing or enable them in order to share in the profits. There's a large degree of being complicit that needs explored and that's why I think the dispatches investigation was appropriate because it calls all of that into question as well. Rb was sexually abused himself as a child and unfortunately some men who experience this do go on to abuse others because they haven't resolved that trauma or been able to form healthy relationship blueprints as a result. That doesn't excuse his behaviour, there are many survivors of childhood sexual abuse who don't do this to other people. Accountability is important and there's big questions to be asked about why someone who is sexuality harassing staff and fans is consistently given more power to abuse.

To my mind, investigative journalism is one of the few tools we have to bring the rich and powerful to account. It’s hard to discredit this one case without discrediting the entire back catalogue of scandals that have come to light via investigative journalism. In effect, they all involve “trial by media” and that is the whole point.

I think it’s amazing the conspiracies are willing to believe over these women. RB barely had to lift a finger to make excuses, you are all doing it for him. Even Martin Bashir (remember him!) got a mention lol.

It is my experience and would explain why many defendants do make an effort to change their appearance to look more "respectable" for want of a better word. Not everyone, some defendants will always have looked respectable.

You only have to read some threads on here to realise how much people are influenced e.g. he always looked dodgy to me/he just doesn't look like a serial killer.

Why would she? Aren't NDAs normally about people taking money in exchange for keeping quiet, I would have thought she had her own money. Or is there something else, I don't know much about them.

I haven't read the whole thread.

But rape has the lowest conviction rate of any serious violent crime. It is quite conceivable that women are turning to other forms of 'justice' because the normal routes are failing them. Time and time again we see and hear about sexual predators, in every walk of life, who are enabled to perpetrate the most disgusting crimes against women by failings of the system.

I too an uncomfortable about trial by media. Because this should not be the only avenue left available to women.

Brand was less wealthy than her, and there was no pre nup.

Apparently he walked away without taking HER to half of HER estate.

Which could be taken as suggesting she had dirt and he walked as he didn't want this raked up in court, she protected her money by agreeing to keep shut or him just fucking off and not being arsed about the money.

NDAs don't mean shit anyway if a crime has been committed. Their purpose is largely to intimidate and make the party with less power fear the other.

What does Perry have to fear? She has her own power and could afford to break an NDA and fight any challenge. It serves HER no real purpose other than not having her dirty laundry in public. There's no real financial incentive here if she does have dirt on Brand. At this point being complicit if something were to come out later is potentially more damaging to her.

I just don't buy that she's under an NDA.

It's much more likely, that she'd tell him to piss off and not contest the divorce settlement in anyway so HIS private life isn't dragged through the public scrutiny of the courts.

Thanks for explaining Red

What is weird and what mixed metaphors? The separation of powers is an integral part of the rule of law!

Interesting that you think there’s a binary choice, either believe the women or you’re a conspiracy theorist )I assume this is what you meant).

And why would Martin Bashir get a mention, He was a well regarded and trusted journalist who, it transpired, had used falsified documents and deception in one of his biggest pieces of journalism. Yet here we are being told journalists are whiter than white and the best upholders of justice. I think mentioning Martin Nashir is very relevant

Yet here we are being told journalists are whiter than white and the best upholders of justice

are we? By who? Or are you making gross exaggerations? as well as missing nuances…