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?

Investigative journalism in a whole range of situations is important. As a general point I believe that everyone is entitled to be treated fairly, and to a fair trial. This applies to both those who are famous and those who are to famous.

I have never a fan of RB - I don't find him funny and find his humour cruel but that does mean he should not be treated fairly. I am not neither a fan or dislike Prince Andrew - but he has not been convicted of any crime and therefore in my view is innocent. I like Hugh Edwards - no criminal investigation or case has been made against him. I quite like Philip Schofield - again no criminal investigation.

My point is that all these individuals have to be treated fairly - if criminal cases are brought against him and he is found guilty then of course the situation is entirely different. But that is a rather big IF. I would say the same if this was a member of the public who was not well known.

I’m not entirely up on the circumstances between Geldof and Brand but I’m reading that Brand was less than flattering about his charity work in his routines.

I am going to blatantly steal a comment from another site though - the venn diagram of Geldof addressing someone and Geldof calling some a cunt is a circle

And presumably by that same token, Saville is also innocent?

Or just perhaps, in a country where less than 1% of reported rapes (note, reported, not committed) are convicted, we can agree that the criminal justice system that you hold in such high regard is failing women and girls.

I agree that the reporting around HE and PS is problematic, and I dare say homophobia has a lot to do with that, but they are worlds apart from this allegedly predatory monster who was allowed to act with impunity for so many years.

Imagine hearing someone being allegedly assaulted and not going in to help or even calling the police - and then having the balls to apologise many years later. Too fucking late, mate. You can't just apologise yourself out of leaving a young woman to be allegedly assaulted to ease your own conscience.

Their relationship was widely reported at the time. But in 2017, no-one cared if a cool, edgy 30-something man dated a nepobaby wild child girl. You know, female emancipation and all that - she's old enough to make her own mind up, has agency over her own body and all that shit.

I think when someone has passed it is very difficult to then find them guilty - in the JS case he had no children or grandchildren and I do wonder if the reporting and acknowledgement might have been different. Clearly the weight of evidence in the JS case is just overwhelming but had there been decendents that might well have taken action.

My point is that we have to be careful as people can be wrongly accused as those people also need protection

Far, far fewer people are wrongly accused, and even fewer by multiple women on at least 2 continents. Many, many more victims of rape and SA are ignored, not believed, hauled over the coals and lose their dignity / career / social standing because of predatory men than the other way round.

You say the weight of evidence is overwhelming in JS case - so where is the line? I'd say a 3 or 4 year investigation by 2 massive media organisations that has reached a threshold for publication against a famously litigious man would be on the right side of 'overwhelming' for me.

What do descendants have anything to do with it? It's not as if he has carefully cultivated a boy scout persona, is it? He made his career out of being 'Top Shagger' Brand.

I don't know where the line and I don't think there can be a hard line on this. Evidence does suggest that far fewer people are wrongly accused but that still happens.

What I was trying to say is that regarding descendants is that if there had been some in JS's case they might have taken legal action and therefore the reporting etc may well have been different which may have led to a difference in the way we now see that individual's behaviour.

I think the standards which some celebrities seem to adhere to are just appalling. I have to say I find some of the so called "humour" that many celebrities engage in as quite offensive - I just wonder if society has slipped so much so that these celebrities now think any thing goes. The world has changed a lot from the 1970s but in many ways the "humour" is gruelling and more vulgar - maybe that is a problem.

If it wasn't for the "media circus" dozens of Savile's victims wouldn't have come forward.

What "weight of evidence" are you referring to?

Isn't it ultimately one person's word against another's?

The abuse should have come to light before he died as his funeral was an event - at that point the press were favourable to him

But in the case of JS is was multiple peoples (I believe around 200 people submitted statements to the inquiry) words against, well nobodies word because he was dead by then. who knows, he might have admitted it had they all come forward together and been afforded similar media support to the women accusing RB.

And how many of those victims came forward after revelations in the media?

How many only found the confidence to speak because of the knowledge that other brave victims had come forward first?

I think Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson were as gruelling and vulgar. There has always been a thread of comedy that thrives on shocking and pushing the line of what's acceptable.

But there's no doubt that this was a long-running and extensive investigation. If the lawyers determined it met the threshold for publication, then I am inclined to believe them - they are the experts, after all.

'Innocent until proven guilty' is a phrase that specifically relates to courtrooms - the idea is that juries should presume innocence until the evidence they hear persuades them otherwise. It's a way of trying to impose a threshold of proof on people unused to evaluating information.

I don't believe it applies outside a courtroom where the burden of proof is not applicable. How can it? If it did, the 99% of people reported to the police as rapists who never get convicted would have to be innocent, and their accusers would have to be liars. I don't believe that is true.

I know the way we watch tv has changed massively but I can’t be alone in remembering crimewatch being watched weekly across the country? Suspects (not convicted) often had their crimes detailed and names and images shared. The jury system worked fine with that.

@Bingbangbongbash
agreed there have always been some cruel and vulgar comedians but I think in the past where people have said I just don't like that humour that has been accepted now if you say don't like that humour people them view you more as less touch etc etc - I think maybe its something to do with the age of the comedian, although I don't know.

I think as far as my own actions are concerned I am quite clear about what I find offensive or not and am know there is an off button which I use - my preference is for more gently comedians. Maybe it is a case of the emperor's new clothes.

There was generally hard evidence of their crimes, CCTV footage etc.

Or they were looking for an unknown person, based on a photo-fit, etc.

The accused weren't discussed at length in newspaper columns and on TV following the accusations. Their pasts weren't dragged out and people weren't falling over themselves to give their opinions.

This isn't a defence of Brand, but these are reasons a trial might be difficult.

True.

The internet has changed things a lot, some good some bad. I think in terms of collective voices joining to be heard louder is 70% of the time a good thing.

I don't remember how it ended but weren't some women investigated for false claims about Saville? I think there was a compensation fund and there were fraud allegations. That is the other side of naming someone and inviting accusations.

It is such a difficult crime to investigate and prove in many cases as it tends to happen without witnesses. I don't think that always applied to Saville.

Can you link to any articles on this? I don't remember it and can't find any record.

This is about the investigation. I can't find what the outcome was.I said originally I couldn't remember the outcome, maybe it all went quiet.

There were also fraudulent claims after 9/11, here's one of them https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-nypd-sergeant-pleads-guilty-911-benefits-fraud

Some people will do just about anything for money, think of the scam emails and phone calls people get, the Nigerian princes etc. Some people would rob their own granny.

Why is 9/11 and some unknown detail to do with Saville relevant to Russell Brand?

For some reason some people seem to think that Russel Brand is as important as era-defining world events like 9/11. And are buying into and perpetuating conspiracy theories on this basis.

I mean… brand probably loves that his followers view him this way.

But he’s just a mere example of a bigger phenomenon where men have been enabled and allowed to abuse their power and exploit women in the film and television industry for decades. His behaviour is abhorrent - but the real story is not brand; it’s about a persistent and toxic culture in the arts.

That IS a very big story. Of international societal significance. But Russell Brand is just one of many, many case study examples.

Well Brand got sacked after appearing on TV the day after 9/11 dressed up as Bin Laden.

I think this was sacking no.1. Some one thought it worth restarting his career after this jaw dropping lack of sensitivity. As far as red flags for lack of self awareness and poor judgement go, this is a pretty good one.

It's one thing to crack jokes about serious events, it's another to do it the very day after when people are still potentially buried alive and being searched for. (Eleven people were pulled out alive on 12th September).

He is also on record as saying he's 'open minded' as to who was behind 9/11.

So he's 'one of them' who 'doesn't just believe the Lizard People'.

As someone else has said he's a pound shop David Icke.

Another victim has come forward. Russell Brand exposed himself to her in a BBC studio toilet and then went on to BBC radio and laughed about it.
The guy they had on the news last night really annoyed me These women have to go to the police instead of the media.... They don't have to anything. It's completely understandable why women don't trust the police.

He's clearly just about clicks and his dick