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?

until the criminal justice system massively improves its approach to rape and sexual assault allegations - and society as a whole improves how they approach this matter -

this approach is what women have

The stories are meticulously researched, they interviewed 100s people over years. So by “circus” you mean “investigative journalism”. In the UK only 1/3 sexual assaults are reported to the police. Of that 1/3, 99% people accused of rape are never charged. And of the 1% of the 1/3, another 30% will get off at trial. For the vast majority of rapists there will be no consequences for their assault. Trial by social media is better than nothing, which is the actual alternative.

Well according to some on this thread he is as he's only had a trial by media circus and not the courts. Personally I believe the women who spoke out about him and don't believe he was innocent.

The programme was worse than I anticipated. I think the build up to the programme was very odd - I can't recall if that's happened before or not.

I don't doubt for a second that he behaved the way that's bern alleged. He's disgusting.

@Puffypuffin I don't believe a word that comes out of his lying mouth. I can't stand him, never could and nothing would please me more than to see him jailed.
As I said on a different thread, if all the victims reported it en mass, with a lawyer, then the police would have to act, as would the CPS.
It worked with Harris and Hall.

It's clear you don't know what 'hearsay' or 'a couple' mean.

I am so sick of people trying to find excuses for RB.

Brand is a rapist and a serial abuser who got away with it for decades.

The Jimmy Saville debacle showed that people like this need to be exposed in public because producers, networks, colleagues often choose to ignore and even enable the dodgy behaviour of famous men and they can hide behind expensive lawyers and super injunctions.

The police is no better at dealing with rapes and the conviction rates are abysmal.

If you want to worry about people being treated unfairly I suggest you should focus your concerns on Brand's victims...

There are plenty of people who do not believe what was broadcast yesterday. For example I saw someone ask how much the women were paid for their statements (answer :zero)

You are completely unreasonable to assume that the justice system investigates all allegations fairly and that whistleblowers, journalism and public pressure isn't needed to force an investigation sometimes.

If you'd read the article or watched the documentary then you'd know that the allegations are very serious and sickening. Channel 4 and the BBC also bear responsibility for creating an environment where he could act the way he did but as with stories like PS and HW any repercussions won't happen or be quiet resignations so I don't expect anything to happen there.

RB has been an open secret in the industry to the extent that people who frequent sites like this will know of his reputation. He is a tip of a giant iceberg of men who behave like this and while he may bemoan being the one outed, I have no sympathy for him. I predict that his wife and the brave victims will face more repercussions than he will.

That call between Brand and Saville was awful. I can't believe he spoke about women like he did on Radio 2. Fucking nuts.

I'm must admit I'm worried by this turn of events. I posted the following on another thread this morning, but this thread may be more suitable (and I didn't want to retype it all!).

There are so many issues being mixed up in this situation that the real concerns are being missed. Also, extrapolating the principle of Occam's razor, a complex explanation can involve many things being true at the same time.

Victims of sexual crimes need greater support by the CPS so that they can seek to bring their assailant to justice. The prosecution rates are too low and victim support ineffective and often traumatic.

Victim testimonials need to be subject to processing by law, so that the alleged perpetrator has a right to a defence. The evidence needs to be subject to trial and if guilty, appropriate sentencing given..

Trial by media is unacceptable in a normal functioning society and can erode fundamental human rights irreparably. If we allow it, our children will not be safe in the future and can have their lives destroyed in an instant. It's insidious and pervasive.

Because of this approach, he will now never be brought to trial and his alleged victims will not have justice..The media industry will not change because there is no legal compunction upon it to change. It will be swept under the carpet and it will find other ways to protect highly paid media celebrities to ensure they continue to increase revenue.

Trial by media will encourage the development of a dangerous counter culture, which can be used for nefarious purposes (Trump and Tate are cases in point). Whether YouTube bans them or not is irrelevant, alternative unregulated platforms can be setup. The genie will be out of the bottle.

Feminism is generally defined as the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women. Feminism requires a strong, functioning legal system to protect our hard won rights. Trial by media further erodes our rights by allowing dangerous, unchecked counter cultures to thrive that promote and support the abuse of women and girls. It doesn't promote justice, it promotes a polarisation of opinion in which acceptance of dangerous ideology can thrive.

As a feminist and a survivor of SA, i do not support this approach because of the damage it will do to future victims of SA.

You can think it's very likely that RB did what he is accused of and dislike the way the media and SM deal with it at the same time.

Forums get out of hand. As we've seen several times this year already.

''@Maatandosiris
But people are now calling him a rapist without trial. Why do you think he’s an abuser? The heresay of a couple of people.''

Except that this is not hearsay, as well as testimonies they have further evidence such as text messages and recording, not to mention that more people will come forward with more stories now that this is in the open.

A rapist is a rapist...

I never claimed that he was innocent (how would I know?). But I saw anonymous speakers on the program, and accusers played by actors, etc. It’s far from a slam dunk. Of course he needs to be investigated, but it beggars belief how many people have made up their mind before this has even happened.

This ^

It is not innocent until proven guilty where rape is concerned as only a tiny percentage of rapists are convicted. The overwhelming majority get away with it.

In contrast only a tiny percentage of claims are false.

I stand with the victims. If they say he raped them in all probability he did.

If you mean hearsay - a woman giving evidence of what happened to her is not hearsay evidence. Hearsay would be if they had only broadcast interviewees who said “x told me that RB raped them so I know it must be true”

if you mean heresy - it’s not heretical to accuse a famous and well connected person or rape!l

There is no such word as heresay so best be clear what you are actually alleging!

If you read my post, this is the first thing I acknowledge- but the alternative is accusations put into the public domain setting out one side of the story, convicting a person in the publics mind without due process?

It’s not the hearsay of a couple of people. It’s the evidence from hundreds of people who knew or worked with him.

Dispatches and the Times would not be publishing hearsay from a couple of people- given how litigious he is.

I am appalled at the lengths some people are going to to avoid accepting that - given the evidence presented- these allegations are true.

I also wonder what magical process people think happens in court?! This evidence is almost exactly what would be presented in court. And his defence would be - ‘it’s all lies’. 12 people would then be asked to decide on a verdict based on how credible they found the evidence.

It's not hearsay of a couple of people, it's the testimony of 4 women and then a vast amount of supplementary evidence. The Sunday Times would not invest such huge resources and publish what they have given Britain's libel laws without it all being run past their lawyers and scrutinised with great rigour.

It really was. And shows the BBC and in other cases C4 were aware and kept promoting him

Isn’t this how the Jimmy Savile sex abuse case started, a trial by media?

This. I for one am glad to see RB having to face his past behaviour. He's a bile, misogynistic individual who, for some reason, thinks he's God's gift to women

Did you miss the part where they broadcast in full his YouTube video denying the allegations and the statements on screen from BBC and Channel 4 refuting some of the allegations which were made?

Both sides were reflected in the programme - its just that the evidence of one side was more compelling than the denials of the other.

It’s quite clear I meant hearsay - the woman is not “giving evidence”

Completely agree op. I do not like him or his comedy. But I hate this trial by media frenzy that takes place.
A media investigation is not subject to the same balance and scrutiny as a legal investigation.
I really can't stand this trend for 'believe all women' it goes against every principle of fairness and justice.