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?

I think there's also an underlying point here.

Men who don't go trying to shag everything that moves won't have this problem.

If you are 31 years old, staying away from 16 year olds is probably worthwhile otherwise you are letting yourself be open to the suggestion that you are a creepy fucker abusing your position.

Good men don't put themselves into a position where there are this many complaints and there is talk of 'open secrets'.

Because your post, point by point, seeks to undermine the reasons that women don’t report sexual crimes to the police. Why undermine unless you believe the system we have now is fit for purpose?

Evidence is a sticking point and this needs to be addressed. He said/she said is never going to be easily evidenced, even on the occasions a jury (who are also as affected by societal influences and bias) does hear a rape case it essentially comes down to gut feeling. Please don’t try to tell me otherwise - I’ve sat on juries.

I don’t know the absolute solution but do think that character witnesses should be used much more extensively than they are. In cases like brand I’d like to see group actions being promoted.

also the point of dismissing cover ups - it’s undeniable that both Savile and Brand have been under the protection of their respective employers. That’s a cover up.

Exactly. This hair splitting over criminality or not is neither here nor there.

But it also doesn't mean that what they go on to say istrue

See how that works?

it also doesn;t mean they are lying - see how it works?

I tend to believe women who have the courage to come forward and talk about abuse

He has the redress of the legal system if he wants to fight the claims

And your post is proof that there are some right handmaidens of the patriarchy around ready,willing and eager to give men ( but oddly enough never women) the benefit of the doubt 🙄

Let’s say I sell stocks, been doing that for a while, let’s say I have a long time feud with someone who happens to own a newspaper. Said editor starts investigating me for a long period of time trying to dig dirt on me because we have a personal long time vendetta. He finds a few ex clients of mine who were very dissatisfied with my services, he writes a long article exposing me as being a fraudster. Said clients never went to the police accusing me of fraud when they felt wronged, I have never been charged with fraud either and have a long standing clientele happy with my financial services, yet I find myself in the newspaper being accused of fraud. Now everyone is talking on social media of what a fraudster I am and the newspaper editor is very happy for my character assesination.

Sorry but IMO there is something quite wrong with this picture.

No it doesn't.

It undermines the public thinking something happened because they saw an actor saying something happened.

That's my point.

I'm not in any way undermining women reporting rape.

But what we've seen isn't a woman or women reporting rape. That's an actor reporting something that another person said. For TV.

When the women apparently couldn't report rape to the Police but could be tracked down by a programme maker and agree to an actor anonymously portray them?

And lots of MN posters are now confidently proclaiming RB is a rapist.

I think he likely but accept that's my own bias and no proof that has been presented. So I'm not going to join in with the chorus.

And as he's been an embarrassing asshole for years, I'm not going to agree that he's been protected, or a cover-up happened or whatever other conspiracy theory MN posters have when numerous more important celebs are convicted of sexual offences.

And I won't agree that the criminal justice system protects sex offenders when it's extremely complex and not just a case of 'we believe you' or 'we don't' .

It's law. As a victim I had a perpetrator convicted or rape in court. I also had a perpetrator of CSA who'd abused several of my family members never be brought to justice because my family weren't able to support me with police statements because of their own reasons.

I understood that the Police and CPS could do nothing in that instance but I 100% believed the Police that interviewed me believed me.

There's so much black and white thinking and judgement on these threads.

Questioning that isn't a bad thing.

Wanting to see fairness through the justice system is not being a “handmaiden” it’s respecting the rule of law rather than championing a witch hunt.

Are you saying that sexual assault is comparable to fraud?

What's the conviction rate for fraud? Fraud being something that generally leaves a paper trail an' all that?

Do give it a rest.

I cavet the point about rape, but I do think there is sufficient evidence to say he sexually assaulted and harassed women throughout his career. And there is a very compelling case to say his inability to respect boundaries raises the strong possibility of rape. Certainly several women believe they were raped. You have to be acting in a certain way to even enter this grey area - and for it to be happening multiple times with different women it's even worse.

Brand was told that no means no. He then apologised for his behaviour. That may or may not be rape. But he DID admit his sexual conduct was NOT ok.

I used ” fraud” as example but if that’s not your choice of crime please feel free to insert your favourite one.

But what we've seen isn't a woman or women reporting rape. That's an actor reporting something that another person said. For TV.

When the women apparently couldn't report rape to the Police but could be tracked down by a programme maker and agree to an actor anonymously portray them?

I find this a strange point to get hung up on. It’s not a new phenomenon to have the words of people essentially giving witness statements on TV portrayed by an actor.

I think he likely but accept that's my own bias and no proof that has been presented. So I'm not going to join in with the chorus

good for you.

And as he's been an embarrassing asshole for years, I'm not going to agree that he's been protected, or a cover-up happened or whatever other conspiracy theory MN posters have when numerous more important celebs are convicted of sexual offences.

how is the accusation that production companies and television stations knew of accusations/risks and actively sought to keep that under wraps a conspiracy? In the case of the BBC it pretty much played out on air.

I also don’t see the convictions of other celebrities as particularly relevant unless your evidencing (using celebs you’ve already referred to Harris, hall and Weinstein) how easy it is for famous people to carry out their offences? Tbh bringing up those three backs up the above points of cover up whether by design or omission from those around them, which allowed these men to accumulate more victims than they probably would have been able to in different circumstances.

That's the point. Rape is somewhat unique in its nature when it comes to criminality because of its exceptional hard nature in getting a conviction and just how low trust in the system to protect victims during the process.

They aren't making allegations anonymously - they are anonymised for public viewing (exactly the same as they would be in a criminal justice trial).

It sure is easy to hide behind a twitter/X (or Mumsnet) account and make all sorts of claims. Not the same when you know your words are going to be scrunitised by investigative journalists or, potentially, barristers in a libel trail. Not bloody easy at all.

I don't fully trust the media but I do fully trust that a) Russell Brand can afford extremely competent lawyers, b) that he is not afraid to use these lawyers and c) that the Sunday Times/C4/Despatches lawyers will have scrunised the allegations made in light of a and b.

Using actors to protect these women from personal attacks from Brand's more rapid and illogical supporters doesn't make me any less inclined to doubt their stories.

I'm not going to agree that he's been protected, or a cover-up happened or whatever other conspiracy theory MN posters have when numerous more important celebs are convicted of sexual offences

He made sexual comments on air about a BBC new reader in his radio show - she complained, he was told - he then mocked her complaint ON AIR and made further sexual comments - and kept his job - who was protected then?

He was being considered as a guest on a C4 show - there was a huge discussion on how to 'deal' with him - remove all female staff that day? Keep him away from younger female staff - who was being protected (In this case they didn't invite him but I bet you any money this played out again and again) - the point being they want him so they try to reduce risk - they KNEW what he was like - he was protected

His 16 year old victim of serious sexual assault reported it to his publisher - who accused her of trying to get money - who was protected?

The allegations haven't been made anonymously - Dispatches will know the women's names and will have spoken to them on record - they just haven't given their names out publicly to protect them - if he wants his lawyers to do after C4 and The Times they will have that information - he already bloody knows who they are

The programme gave the women anonymity. Does anyone know what happens if RB decides to name them?

That’s an interesting question. I would hope that he would face some sort of consequence given the audience he seeks out these days but I don’t know.

That’s not an excuse to stay silent and not go to the police. If you report a crime you may or may not get a favorable outcome. I agree that rape and sexual abuse are tricky to prove in court because they usually end in a “he said she said” situation, but expect zero justice if you don’t even go to the police.

I’m pretty sure RB is in talk with his lawyers and considering all the different options at this point and if they’re worth pursuing or not…

@beatrix1234 the victim blaming is getting really old outrageously fast.

you don’t understand it, we know. Got any other points to make or do you really just want to hammer home that it’s the fault of these traumatised women? Any thoughts on the men who commit these crimes?

i really hate when people listen to women’s accounts of rape and sexual assault and start going on about ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

The fact is that I simply don’t believe the criminal justice system will ever deliver for victims of rape and sexual assault or that the horrendous experiences of women who seek justice that way will ever improve because the principle ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is simply not fit for purpose in these situations. It’s so often comes down to one person’s word against the other, and the victim’s ‘credibility’ becomes the benchmark against which she will be believed.

I have has two relationships in which I have been raped and coerced into sex. But there simply has been no point in reporting it - because it won’t achieve anything other than the trauma of being questioned and treated like a liar.

Even telling the police that my nearly exH was financially abusing me - easily provable by showing my bank statements - didn’t seem to prompt any action. So what would the point be in saying: he’s a sexually coercive bastard who gets nasty if I don’t give in. Did you know that he insisted that I had to have sex with him less than a week after giving birth (a traumatic emergency section)? In fact decided that he should try it on while I was lying in my side in bed trying to feed the baby. How exactly do I prove that? What do I do in the face of his insistence that he’d never be a rapist?

How would me or the millions of other women whose victimhood is just an unprovable get past the ‘well he’s innocent until proven guilty in a court of law’ thing?

what ‘innocent until proven guilty’ actually boils down to is ‘I don’t believe her’.

It’s a criminal offence to identify the victim or alleged victim of a sexual offence without a signed waiver from them.

Penalties is an unlimited fine.

Yes I suppose he is, I just wondered if there is a legal position to it. I assume if they had gone to the police and he was going to be prosecuted he couldn't name them legally but this seems more of a grey area.

I knew that applied if they were going the reporting it officially route, didn't know if it applied in these circumstances.