Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Trial by media circus

644 replies

Maatandosiris · 17/09/2023 09:42

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
bellac11 · 17/09/2023 11:18

Autumnleaves4 · 17/09/2023 10:59

Also the text messages that keep being referred to here were just apology messages, they could have been apologising for anything, they didn’t say I apologise for raping you or assaulting you and yet people are claiming this is evidence of guilt. I am a girl and the process and success of prosecuting rape is dreadful but equally I have boys who I would hate to be treated in this way being found guilty by tge media and the public with no due process.

Exactly and thats why i referred to the need to test that in a court of law

YOu cant show a text message and say its proof of admission of guilt, you cant show a rape crisis centre report and say its proof of rape or of rape by x person, it doesnt work like that in law

If people want to dispense with the law, not bother with checks and balances then that counts for everything, every time someone accuses someone of anything, theft, shoplifting, motoring offences, robbery, assault, fraud, benefit claims, it will only take a neighbours say so or employers say so, or shop workers say so for you to be guilty

Thats not what I want for myself so I dont want it for anyone else.

IClaudine · 17/09/2023 11:20

yearofthebuttercup · 17/09/2023 11:17

I rejoice at this. RB has dined out on his abusive and contemptous treatment of women for years. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Did you see the clips from his shows? Someone who respects women does not speak about them like that.

Bring it on. Guys who behave like this deserve to be brought down. It makes the world a better place for women, one abusive creep at a time.

Edited

The stand up routine about blow jobs was disgusting. I'd (thankfully) never seen that before. It really did seem to be "in plain sight", didn't it?

Willmafrockfit · 17/09/2023 11:20

did anyone know this about RB before this week?
were there hints?

lifeturnsonadime · 17/09/2023 11:23

If a woman speaks out about abuse I believe her.

The fact that she doesn't go to the police doesn't mean it's false, women have no faith in the police or the criminal justice system and for good reason. There is a reason that rape has such low conviction rates that it's as near as damned it decriminalised.

It is not a rag that has investigated this it is the Sunday Times and Channel 4 and they will have lawyered up to avoid defamation action.

So what would all of you do, have a public figure be able to continue to rape or abuse women, one of them was a child FFS, or would you rather that men in power understand that they might be called out on their behaviour publicly and hope that it might make them think twice?

lifeturnsonadime · 17/09/2023 11:23

Willmafrockfit · 17/09/2023 11:20

did anyone know this about RB before this week?
were there hints?

His whole performance was a hint. Choking blow jobs. Vile.

yearofthebuttercup · 17/09/2023 11:24

IClaudine · 17/09/2023 11:20

The stand up routine about blow jobs was disgusting. I'd (thankfully) never seen that before. It really did seem to be "in plain sight", didn't it?

Show quote history

Absolutely. Like one of the victims said, he thought he was 'untouchable'.

DoDoDoD · 17/09/2023 11:24

Bored1000 · 17/09/2023 11:16

@AngryGreasedSantaCatcus

You clearly haven read what I wrote,

I never said I thought he was innocent, I said that we need to wait for a fair trial and verdict where both sides of the story are reviewed.
I personally don’t start damning people without hearing all the facts and both sides of the story which you clearly do.

You can argue all you want but I know I’m being reasonable and fair about this!??

So do you disagree with investigative journalism?

DoDoDoD · 17/09/2023 11:26

RedToothBrush · 17/09/2023 11:09

The Times / Despatches can publish this story because it is deemed in the public interest to do so.

And for the same reason Brand will not win a libel or defamation case against them.

So in terms of the legalities why do we just talk about this as being trial by media rather than robust investigative journalism that much be of sufficient standard to pass legal checks to publish?

The investigation involved hundred of interviews with people. The journalists approached these women. Not the other way around. So for various reasons, other people knew what had happened long before. From what people have said on this thread any others you'd think it was the women who were coming out now in an act of revenge for personal profit and it was just four people not hundreds. You can tell the posters who haven't read the Times article or watched the documentary very clearly from missing important details like this.

Then these women have been selected because their stories have the most evidence to back up what they say. That doesn't mean other stories werent heard or considered. These were the ones that stood up to a threshold. This threshold is different to establishing criminal rape. The journalists set out to establish a pattern of abusive behaviour and contempt for women and sexual boundaries. This is a legitimate aim and a legitimate point for someone in a position of power. It shows abuse of power.

And more than that, Brand himself isn't necessarily the target. It's the institutionalised nature in which management ignored concerns and complaints and carried on despite inappropriate behaviour.

So criminality doesn't need to be an issue here. It is sufficient to say that Brand did not respect the personal boundaries of women - of which there is plenty of video evidence for and that this enabled dreadful behaviour to women.

The more serious allegations come as part of this pattern. Anyone with a pattern of ignoring women's boundaries and pestering constantly for sex isn't far off having a legal issue.

More over one of the women had text that see her say she said no and no means no. And he apologised to her. She also had documentation of her going to a rape crisis centre.

Why didn't she go to the police? Precisely because she'd have been alone in saying these things and he was at the height of his fame. And the attack was in the US not UK.

So why go public now? Firstly because we are post Metoo and the culture has changed somewhat. Secondly because there was strength in numbers. And thirdly because someone started to believe them.

Underlying all this is the toxic mix of attitudes about where consent begins (but not where it ends), victim blaming and a total lack of trust in the justice system. And that's what is the most compelling thing. The justice system is failing before it even begins precisely because of the lack of trust and because women are treated as criminals themselves.

Throughout these threads the theme is 'why didn't SHE do this?' Never 'why was he thinking this was ok?'. The onus is ALWAYS on the women's behaviour and the fact they don't match up to the myth of the perfect victim. It's never about how the man is, at best, constantly overstepping and putting himself into a grey area where consent might be withdrawn or be under intimidation or duress.

Even a few weeks ago a woman was kissed on live TV and said she was uncomfortable with it and it wasn't consensual and this wasn't believed. The justification was she picked up someone therefore she had consented to being kissed too. Which is bullshit.

Even with presented with the most compelling of evidence people don't believe stuff they don't want to. Celebrity status can often aid this. Even with the Lucy Letby criminal case there were posters saying the evidence wasn't good enough or it was flimsy. Despite the fact they hadn't gone to court everyday for months on end and were just going off media reports. And the jury deciding she was guilty.

Investigative journalism has it's place in our society. It is designed and supposed to fill the gaps in our legal system or where the lega system has failed. It's the point of liberal democracy and it's checks and balances. This is it working as it should. It is asking questions, which beg for culture change.

The alternative is women maintain their silence. And in doing so, what happens? Nothing that's what.

This is an excellent summary, thank you

Willmafrockfit · 17/09/2023 11:27

and spitting in faces during sex

heistgeist · 17/09/2023 11:29

In Scotland there is the Moorov doctrine.

This means that allegations are corroborated by the testimony of other victims, about similar, unconnected crimes by the same assailant.

Allegations against RB would fit this.

Motnight · 17/09/2023 11:30

RedToothBrush · 17/09/2023 11:09

The Times / Despatches can publish this story because it is deemed in the public interest to do so.

And for the same reason Brand will not win a libel or defamation case against them.

So in terms of the legalities why do we just talk about this as being trial by media rather than robust investigative journalism that much be of sufficient standard to pass legal checks to publish?

The investigation involved hundred of interviews with people. The journalists approached these women. Not the other way around. So for various reasons, other people knew what had happened long before. From what people have said on this thread any others you'd think it was the women who were coming out now in an act of revenge for personal profit and it was just four people not hundreds. You can tell the posters who haven't read the Times article or watched the documentary very clearly from missing important details like this.

Then these women have been selected because their stories have the most evidence to back up what they say. That doesn't mean other stories werent heard or considered. These were the ones that stood up to a threshold. This threshold is different to establishing criminal rape. The journalists set out to establish a pattern of abusive behaviour and contempt for women and sexual boundaries. This is a legitimate aim and a legitimate point for someone in a position of power. It shows abuse of power.

And more than that, Brand himself isn't necessarily the target. It's the institutionalised nature in which management ignored concerns and complaints and carried on despite inappropriate behaviour.

So criminality doesn't need to be an issue here. It is sufficient to say that Brand did not respect the personal boundaries of women - of which there is plenty of video evidence for and that this enabled dreadful behaviour to women.

The more serious allegations come as part of this pattern. Anyone with a pattern of ignoring women's boundaries and pestering constantly for sex isn't far off having a legal issue.

More over one of the women had text that see her say she said no and no means no. And he apologised to her. She also had documentation of her going to a rape crisis centre.

Why didn't she go to the police? Precisely because she'd have been alone in saying these things and he was at the height of his fame. And the attack was in the US not UK.

So why go public now? Firstly because we are post Metoo and the culture has changed somewhat. Secondly because there was strength in numbers. And thirdly because someone started to believe them.

Underlying all this is the toxic mix of attitudes about where consent begins (but not where it ends), victim blaming and a total lack of trust in the justice system. And that's what is the most compelling thing. The justice system is failing before it even begins precisely because of the lack of trust and because women are treated as criminals themselves.

Throughout these threads the theme is 'why didn't SHE do this?' Never 'why was he thinking this was ok?'. The onus is ALWAYS on the women's behaviour and the fact they don't match up to the myth of the perfect victim. It's never about how the man is, at best, constantly overstepping and putting himself into a grey area where consent might be withdrawn or be under intimidation or duress.

Even a few weeks ago a woman was kissed on live TV and said she was uncomfortable with it and it wasn't consensual and this wasn't believed. The justification was she picked up someone therefore she had consented to being kissed too. Which is bullshit.

Even with presented with the most compelling of evidence people don't believe stuff they don't want to. Celebrity status can often aid this. Even with the Lucy Letby criminal case there were posters saying the evidence wasn't good enough or it was flimsy. Despite the fact they hadn't gone to court everyday for months on end and were just going off media reports. And the jury deciding she was guilty.

Investigative journalism has it's place in our society. It is designed and supposed to fill the gaps in our legal system or where the lega system has failed. It's the point of liberal democracy and it's checks and balances. This is it working as it should. It is asking questions, which beg for culture change.

The alternative is women maintain their silence. And in doing so, what happens? Nothing that's what.

Thank you for this post @RRedToothBrush

OneTwoThreeShake · 17/09/2023 11:30

At what point does a man become a rapist? Is it when he rapes somebody, or when a jury return a guilty verdict?

The threshold for the CPS bringing charges is ridiculous, and it is well established that juries are typically reluctant to return a guilty verdict in sex crimes.

So actually, I'm all for this. Had it gone to the police it would have been swept under the rug. I'm in huge favour of exposing these behaviours publicly.

OneTwoThreeShake · 17/09/2023 11:32

N3philim · 17/09/2023 10:04

Totally agree, OP. I absolutely hate how investigations and trials have been replaced by social media frenzies. It’s wrong on so so many levels.
I think people are so busy “hating” that they don’t spare a thought on the fact that none of these allegations have been investigated yet.

Except that isn't true. They've been investigated for over 3 years, undoubtedly to far greater depths than would have been achieved by the police.

Cardboardcup · 17/09/2023 11:34

bellac11 · 17/09/2023 10:08

Totally agree. I said the same about Hew Edwards and the same about Schofield

Show quote history

Agree I also remember the Noel Clark stuff. It was reported that over 20 women had come forward with allegations about him. On his Instagram he showed the freedom of information request or something like that that he’d requested which showed that not one allegation had been made against him or reported to the police. I can’t remember the exact details. But that was the gist of it.

sunshinesupermum · 17/09/2023 11:34

Doorstopper 100% agree.

Bored1000 · 17/09/2023 11:36

@DoDoDoD

At the moment the investigative journalism findings are presenting one side of a story, These findings need to presented in court where a fair trial can be had.

Talapia · 17/09/2023 11:36

As a father of two young daughters, would Russell Brand be happy for those daughters, as teenagers and young women, to be treated by men how he has treated women?

Even if he isn't proved a rapist, can he rest easy thinking about the above ?.

RedToothBrush · 17/09/2023 11:40

OneTwoThreeShake · 17/09/2023 11:32

Except that isn't true. They've been investigated for over 3 years, undoubtedly to far greater depths than would have been achieved by the police.

Show quote history

What they were investigating was different to the police.

And that's important too.

They were not setting out to PROVE rape to a criminal standard. They were setting out to prove sexual abuse and harassment which MAY include rape in some circumstances. This was due to abuse of power and lack of duty of care from broadcasting management.

Brand did not respect womens sexual boundaries. He sexually harassed on Live TV and radio. Complaints were made but not followed up.

Which they achieved to a sufficient standard to pass their legal teams risk assessment. Which has to be bloody watertight. It had to prove it was in the public interest to say this and was sufficient to say that Brand behaved in a way that was not consensual despite his protests.

ESPECIALLY after Cliff Richard and to a lesser extent Huw Edward.

Different scenario. Different objective. Different threshold of proof. But still in the public interest to pursue.

YeahIsaidit · 17/09/2023 11:41

Justcallmebebes · 17/09/2023 10:12

Well hopefully all this publicity and the media investigations will lead to a criminal prosecution. Just because a lot of RB's behaviour was not illegal, it was reprehensible at least and he does need to be held account.

Women so often have no voice so if a powerful media body can speak for them, all power to them

Why would the police need to be involved to hold him to account for things that are perhaps pretty sleazy, but not illegal? The police don't go around telling people off for things that are legal but grim

BonnyHonny · 17/09/2023 11:44

BoohooWoohoo · 17/09/2023 11:20

Do you really think that the victims will get justice when rulings like this happen?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65164041

What's your opinion on jury-less trials of rape and attempted rape?

I can cut and paste cases where rapists have received custodial sentences, many long ones.

The statistics demonstrate however that rape is woefully under-reported and under-convicted.

But it's a pointless debate if we cherry-pick just certain cases and offer it as 'proof' of really complex issues and situations.

Same as people who always bring up Jimmy Saville. He was dead before most allegations were made against him and while alive, he did successfully silence some victims and was supported in that by an inadequate safeguarding system at the BBC and his reputation.

But lots of high-profile celebrity offenders were brought to justice. Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Jonathan King, Max Clifford, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Fred Talbot, Chris Denning, Danny Masterson, R Kelly, Mike Tyson, Justin Lee Collins. There are many others.

And others have not been criminally convicted but publically accused and have pretty much lost their careers or had their careers significantly damaged. And likely for good reason.

It's not as simple as to say "any victim won't get justice so that equals x, y or z " or "these men won't face justice" when so many do.

Roselilly36 · 17/09/2023 11:44

100% agree with you OP

Cornettoninja · 17/09/2023 11:44

Bored1000 · 17/09/2023 11:36

@DoDoDoD

At the moment the investigative journalism findings are presenting one side of a story, These findings need to presented in court where a fair trial can be had.

Russell Brand has presented his side of a lot of these accounts in his shows and books. For years. Plus his YouTube statement in answer to the reporters invite to comment on their reports.

as much as I would like to see a conviction as we live in a world where these are rare I am enjoying a sense of satisfaction that appealing to the publics sense of moral right outside of an arena where lawyers are paid to pick holes has resulted in peoples consciousness of their perception of the women used as props in mens anecdotes.

if Russel Brand doesn’t like being called a rapist then he has the means to prove what these women are saying as incorrect.

DoDoDoD · 17/09/2023 11:44

Bored1000 · 17/09/2023 11:36

@DoDoDoD

At the moment the investigative journalism findings are presenting one side of a story, These findings need to presented in court where a fair trial can be had.

It's multiple sides given the vast amount of testimony, history of complaints and concerns.
Whether it goes to court or not, it's hopefully going to have production companies tighten up their safeguarding and stop the media and the public celebrating figures who engage in gross seediness, predatory discourse and unacceptable sexualisation as RB did. That's to say nothing of his crazy conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxing crap etc.

Boomboom22 · 17/09/2023 11:52

I think op you don't realise why an independent and free media is a central feature of Liberal democracy precisely as a check amd balance for the legislature and judiciary.