Russell Brand - everyone knew

[Mooshamoo]

I was watching the comedian Katherine Ryan say to Louis theroux that a British comedian is a sexual perpetrator. It is now believed that she was talking about Russell brand. She said on the video "when it eventually comes out about these type of people, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, this unmentionable British personality, it turns out that everyone knew. Everyone knew. ".

I was wondering did anyone on here on mumsnet know anything about Russell brand? A lot of us lived in London when her was living there. And many women on here would have been a similar age to Russell brand . I lived in London for a year and I saw Russell brand out on a night out once. That was the extent of it. I was wondering did anyone on here have any experience with him, or know about a friend/acquaintance that had any experiences with him.

Not read his book , not really watched him in anything as he always struck me as grubby, sleazy. But isn’t there a theory that children ( and adults I suppose) who harm animals are more likely to go in to harm people than people who don’t?
“Ample research backs up the finding that there is a direct link between acts of cruelty to animals and violence toward humans. This includes child abuse, domestic violence, elder abuse and other violent behavior.

The Link Between Cruelty to Animals and Violence Toward ...”
https://aldf.org/article/the-link-between-cruelty-to-animals-and-violence-toward-humans-2/#:~:text=Ample%20research%20backs%20up%20the,abuse%20and%20other%20violent%20behavior.

Because he is. It costs a lot of money to pursue someone for libel/slander, a cost that is prohibitive for the majority of people. Russell Brand employs lawyers that are quick to threaten and aggressively shut down these allegations.

The victims would be very unlikely to be able to afford representation, and would absolutely be terrified of the threat of, at the very least, financial ruination. Those ‘in the now’ like Katherine Ryan, may know it to be true, but that isn’t the same thing as being able to prove it in a court of law.

I am sorry you were raped as a child.

But this person, even if technically over the age of consent is still a child. And she gives evidence of not consenting in any event.

He picked her up from school to abuse her and called her 'the child'.

This is a child who was abused. Child abuse.

Rather than literally everyone knew he was a rapist, I think 'everyone knew' is likely to refer to him having a reputation as being a predator in comedy/TV circles.

It's a bit like Wayne Cousins having a nickname of 'The Rapist' - the people who worked with him didn't know for sure that he was actually a rapist, but 'everyone knew' he was dodgy or predatory.

I remember when John Leslie was accused of raping Ulrika Jonson. If you lived in Edinburgh in the 80s and 90s "everyone knew" that he was a predator. But people keep quiet because that's what we're conditioned for and add in power and money and it just carries on. Men need to do more in the "everyone knows" situations.

A 16 year old is a child. Yes they may be able to have sec in the eyes of the law, but they are still a child biologically and a man in his 30s would very much know that. Donuts perfectly right to refer to a 16 year old as a child.

I don’t think that’s correct. 16 is the age of consent, and there’s nothing illegal about a 31 yo sleeping with a 16 yo, unless they are a teacher or care worker or in some other direct position of responsibility or authority.

That’s not to say it’s not sleazy and gross as fuck or that it shouldn’t be questioned. But it’s not ‘child abuse’ by any legal definition.

Investigative journalism has its place, of course, you are right.

Surely there comes a point though where IJ crosses the bounds of legal investigation. Do the investigative journalism and hand the findings over to the authorities.

I can't comment on this case - but in the past they have been proven to get things wrong and destroy lives in the process. The keyboard warriors don't help matters.

It's a fine line.

He is a child abuser. Not because he slept with her below the age of consent… that isn’t the issue. He’s accused of child abuse because he is accused of forcing his penis into the mouth of a child without consent and emotionally and physically abusing her. The age of consent is irrelevant to a case where consent wasn’t given. Raping anyone under the age of 18 is child abuse. I’m shocked this needs explaining.

It's not having consensual sex with a 16 year old that is making him a child abuser, it's raping her.

We don't need to put it in some kind of hierarchy where raping a 15 year old is worse than raping a 16 year old.

I wonder if Russell Brand ever worries about his own daughters being harassed or sexually assaulted?

@GP78 but in this context, she isn't a child. The age of consent is 16. To sensationalise it by saying the rape is child abuse detracts from the actual allegation (which is horrible enough without the need to sensationalise it). I'm not trying to be difficult or minimise the allegations but it simply isn't child abuse unless the relationship began before she was 16.

A 16 year old is legally a child, regardless of 16 being the age of consent. 18 is the age of majority.

For others of us who are in the same position as you, I don’t think there is a need to be competitive. Rape and sexual abuse are all horrific. And that 16 year old was a child. The law saying that she is over the age of consent changes nothing. Legally and biologically she was a child who was abused.

And presumably there's a strong belief/likelihood that floodgates will open. Safety in numbers etc.

Wrong from the CPS website - https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/sexual-offences

A child is defined as any person under the age of 18. Child sexual abuse involves forcing or inciting a child to take part in sexual activity, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening and not necessarily involving a high level of violence.
This may involve physical contact including rape or oral sex, or non-penetrative acts such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing and touching outside of clothing. They may also include non-contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, sexual images, watching sexual activities, encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways, or exploiting or grooming a child in preparation for abuse (including via the internet) or prostitution. Child sexual abuse can be committed by both men and women, or other children.

She is not a child of she was 16, and over the age of consent.

Trust me, I am fully aware of what sexual abuse is, I was sexually assaulted by my father from the time I was three years old until I reached puberty when, apparently I was no longer attractive. I was raped by a cop I knew and thought was a friend when I was 17 years old. The 16 yr old visited him on more than one occasion, and on one of those visits he stepped over the line. It's not acceptable at all.

He sexually assaulted a 16 year old. How is that not child abuse? He abused someone who is legally considered a child.

I have just linked the CPS website that confirms that the offence of Child Sexual Abuse applies even above the age of consent until the child is 18.

Please stop minimising child sexual abuse.

Given Brand's ability to defend himself legally, the journalists will have made sure that they have sufficient evidence that everything they claim is true.

There may not have been enough evidence in each individual case to make a criminal conviction, but they (and their lawyers) will be extremely confident they can prove it is true in libel court.

The age of consent doesn’t stop her being a child. Legally she was a child at 16.

Feel free to write a strongly worded letter of correction to the government legal department then, because according to them a 16 year old is absolutely a child.

Well actually we do you absolute idiot, because that is what protects children from predators, and why we can’t claim that a 15-year-old consented to sex.

Yes, we do need a hierarchy where sex with a 15-year-old is categorised differently to sex with a 16-year-old.

And that is what we have.

This is not a trial.

Its investigative journalism.

They have provided evidence that is extensively corroborated, in some instances by Brand himself.

There is a text exchange where he apologises for non consensual sex. The next day the woman visited a rape crisis centre, which was recorded.

Its not a he said/she said.