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?

If the media's treatment of Brand deters any future predators then it's worth it

The threat of a criminal conviction is clearly not a worry to Brand, Saville, all the others who have gotten away with this for decades.

The law may not be like that but Ellie Williams whipped up an entire town (and wider support including MN) into protesting the Police inadequacies in not adequately investigating a paedophile sex abuse trafficking ring that didn't exist. All whipped up on social media like Facebook, Twitter and MN.

The public support which included demonstrations, local businesses being targeted and experiencing criminal damage, Police officers being accused of at best, ineptitude and at worst, covering up CSA, rape and sexual trafficking

The police responce to the initial allegations was men being questioned, investigated and released on bail and a completely innocent man being imprisoned on remand. With victims being led to mental health problems and suicidal acts and an an entire town heading towards race riots.

Even after the Police made an uprecedented statement saying there was no evidence of a sex abuse ring and a person was being investigated for perverting the course of justice which is why they remanded Ellie in custody for making further false allegations while on Police bail - the mob suggested she was being silenced.

Her false allegations damaged several men she accused,, their friends and family and their entire community to the point of near-riot.

And false allegations of rape are extremely rare but it's not true to suggest they don't have real life consequences. The consequences can be devastating.

I'm not saying RB is innocent. I'm just saying that rape allegations can have very serious real life consequences even when an alleged perpetrator hasn't been charged, or has been but later found to be innocent.

So it's not really just the case that 'he said she said' means the alleged victim is always telling the truth and that they are disregarded by the Police, criminal justice system or society as a whole.

If enough people genuinely cared we could use parliament, Cornettoninja**

you must have a better MP than I do. Aside from which I don’t think parliaments inhabitants quite understand the issue anymore than the police or the courts. Look at the recent scandals originating from Westminster. Pincher by name, pincher by nature ring any bells?

remember how jimmy saville was exposed?

Not initially in a court of law

By a journalist in a documentary

The trial came afterwards

There’s never been a trial for Jimmy Saviles crimes. There have been investigations after his death were it was recognised the were prosecutable crimes. However, savile was subject to two investigations whilst alive that were closed without charge.

By the standards of some posters those investigations that didn’t lead to charges would have been ‘proof’ of his innocence. Following this logic we should all also stop thinking of Savile as the repulsive abuser he was because there’s no proof.

Right.. and you do know he's been dead for over a decade. The expose happened after he was dead and lessons were learned, the me too movement happened and numerous celebrities have been convicted of adult and child sex offences since.

Dead Jimmy Saville isn't the example that all other possible sex offenders should be measured against FFS.

Times have changed.

I watched the Despatches programme last night. The rape and sexual abuse stories were awful and I believe the women.

What made it such compelling viewing for me though was just how openly vile Brand was about women and how he was allowed to get away with it (even promoted). I knew some of it but watching it all pulled together was gobsmacking.

Drawing the parallels between his public and private behaviour helps show why we must challenge open misogyny. The BBC, C4, Endemol and Tavistock Wood are coming out of this looking pretty bad too - and this element isn't something that would be picked up by the criminal justice system. It is in the public interest to make and show this kind of programme

Nope.

Just that people should stop saying 'Saville' and ignore the numerous other BBC celebrities and Hollywood celebrities that have been prosecuted and imprisoned and so not assume that there is some kind of cover-up or worse, suggest that it's pointless for victims to report offences because the 'system' doesn't care about victims or some elite cover-up happened.

Which only applies when there isn't enough evidence to prosecute or the person is found not guilty by a jury.

But there's no explanation for why the Police and 'system' did care and there was no cover-up for Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Harvey Weinstein or whoever else.

Or how the system did care enough and there was no cover-up to investigate Ellie Williams false allegations or Carl Beechs; and accuse innocent people.

I think Saville was a prolific sex offender

That doesn't mean anything other than that. And it means nothing in regards to people rolling him out as some kind of yardstick when any celebrity is accused, implying cover-ups, conspiracies and a criminal justice system designed to protect offenders which are likely not there.

@BonnyHonny so in summary you don’t see why anything should change within the legal system?

I'm not saying you're wrong. But the stories you heard were by anonymous people, using actors to portray it were they not?

So you have only seen an actor playing out a story? So people you don't know testimonies being protrayed by actors that you don't know.

And again, I am not in any way defending RB. I think it's highly likely he's guilty of the things he's been accused of.

I'm just highlighting how quickly the public are willing to accept it and be emotional about it, acted out by actors they don't know, based on things apparently said by other people they don't know.

That's why it's a trial by media.

How did you get that from what I said?

@BonnyHonny with the above cases certainly there was obfuscation and cover ups!! Which is why journalists spent years and put their necks on the line to piece together the truth.

Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor were met with obstacles at every turn in their investigation of Weinstein. Epstein literally had the world's most powerful men and women helping him evade prosecution for years - police investigations went nowhere for decades. Even things he was at one stage convicted of were not the extent of his crimes.

Fully agree with OP point about the run up to it
it was salaciously promoted and clues given ( dragging innocent peoples names into it )
tbh it was no different to the launch of the new iPhone
its about horrendous crimes not frivolous entertainment news

Totally agree.

But he was brought to justice wasn't he?

So it is the case that victims of high-profile offenders should report it. And it is the case that high-profile offenders are brought to justice.

Weinstein was first charged 5 years ago.

Which led to the me too movement and a huge influx of accusations against high-profile offenders. Many of whom have subsequently been convicted and jailed or otherwise become persona non grata in the public arena.

I 100% agree Weinstein was one of the most powerful people in Hollywood which controlled the world filmmaking and it took a lot of coordinated effort to take him down.

Russel Brand is an admitted ex-crack, heroin and sex addict. Who has been derided by lots of the public for years now with his assumed pseudo- social and philosophical word salads.

Weinstein had the power to start or end careers. There were investors that could literally lose their houses and life savings if Weinstein stopped making movies. Those are potentially morally corrupt but personal reasons to ignore rumours.

If it comes out that Russell Brand was some kind of media heavyweight akin to Weinstein that the elite had investment in, and a cover-up happened, I'll be very surprised.

That's why comparing this situation to Weinstein or to Saville is just not applicable in my opinion.

They were anonymised for the programme and I don't blame them.

I know that the UK libel laws are strict. I really don't need to have the full personal details of the women testifying to believe their testimony- that is a ridiculous premise. The programme makers' lawyers will have gone through the corroborating evidence (including, I'm sure, a full background check on the women) with a fine toothcomb.

Russell Brand is just a more verbose Laurence fox

Most rapes go unreported - does that mean they didn't happen?

Are these women lying? Is that what people think?

Production companies even went as far as suggesting the total removal of female staff on a show he was due to appear on - why? If he's so fucking innocent?

I believe his accusers and think they have every right to talk about what happened to them.

If he disagrees he can always take it to court

You must have a better MP than I do

Nah, it's a woman and she's beyond useless, Coornettoninja, but the point remains that if sufficient people cared enough to push her she'd have to act or risk losing her seat

With respect though, I can't quite go along with any lack of charges being "proof of innocence" since there's no such thing - only proof of guilt, and for that we need provable facts rather than emotion, however understandable it is

But what makes you confident in thinking that?

That's the point.

This isn't (for me) about Russel Brand. And the thread wasn't really about him.

It's the fact of a trial by media which isn't just about the allegations reported by the media, but the public response to them.

So you saw an actor playing a part given to them reading a testimony or text written by someone they don't know. And they acted it out in their own way. The written word isn't absolute, everyone reading it or acting it will put their own opinions or emotions into it. That's just what happens.

And you're assuming that the words said by someone you don't know, acted by someone you also don't know who will have put their own spin on it is valid.

And you think there's more evidence that it must be valid because the programme makers and lawyers will have made sure. When we have thousands of people who were exploited and abused by the media and what was presented as what they said on TV or in the papers, wasn't what they said. Or that is was edited to leave out very important things they said.

I'm just saying don't trust the media. They are motivated by money, not the best interests of the public.

And always, always question sources. Sorry, but anonymous source, person who doesn't want to be named but also doesn't want to report to the Police or other agencies should always be given less weight than someone willing to be identified.

There are lots of legitimate reasons why someone would not want to be identified but I'm not going to automatically assume that's the case when it's also very easy to make allegations anonymously.

The women were tracked down not the other way around. That would have been through various people who had concerns and knew certain stories. In this way the programme makers would have known that these women weren't chancers. These women were echoing the concerns of the insiders who had also worked with Brand. Behind every woman you can bet there's a line of others who have known and seen various things that aren't ok.

Re comparisons with Weinstein, we've got a bunch of executives behind Brand who were making their own careers off him - which is why they enabled his behaviour. So it is a different dynamic but it's also one about power within media and the power to make or break careers.

There's one point in the programme where there it was talked about in terms of how producers recognised an issue with Brand and women so their proposed solution was to remove all women from the crew not remove Brand. This was, quite rightly, rejected. But they shouldn't even have been having those conversations.

Equally there was the runner who was used by producers to 'deal with Brand' because Brand liked her and they were too gutless to manage him themselves because he 'wouldnt take it well from them'.

And the assistant who was hired because she was old enough to be his mum. And being a lesbian was seen as a plus because it meant there wouldn't be an issue.

So there's a bunch of women in this mix who are being treated in a way to enable him to be a sexist pig and because more senior staff weren't prepared to manage him.

Sorry, are you saying the women weren't coming forward but were 'tracked down' by programme makers? Programme makers with an agenda? And potentially vulnerable women being tracked down by them?

That sounds shit and exploitative? And all the other things that may have occurred like fear and harassment by people making a story.

I hadn't considered that element till you raised it. But if victims were tracked down as you say, by programme makers, that's not okay at all.

Tracked down isn;t as it sounds - there is a really good film on Sky (if you have it) called She Said - about the Me Too movement and the women journalists who uncovered it - they where given names in a 'look if you want to know the truth talk to X' way - and so they tracked those people down and talked to them - women who had experienced rape and abuse at the hands of HW - some did not want to go on record, some wanted to remain anonymous and a few who where willing to put their name to the story - that 'tracking down' ended up with him in prison

That's how investigative journalism works

Maybe these women felt safer coming forward now because of the time lapsed, change of job, safety in numbers, people finally willing to hear them - but 'tracking them down' doesn't mean it's not true

I agree OP and the excitement and anticipation about it on here yesterday was awful.

No it doesn't.

But it also doesn't mean that what they go on to say is true.

See how that works?

Unbelievable isn't it what a shocking attitude

I recently read the Secret Barrister. From what I can see, the law can often be an ass, failing people in all of its parts. I think RB may be innocent or guilty, but I too don't like trial by media or especially trial by social media.