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.

Well it is, because the language we use is important.

I think what she means is everyone knew and allowed him to continue. They gave him the space the limelight. He like PS abused their position that's what is grotesque about this.

Police are investigating;

"Metropolitan Police investigates allegation of sexual assaultThe Metropolitan Police is investigating an allegation of sexual assault relating to Russell Brand.
Scotland Yard confirmed it had received a report of an attack alleged to have taken place against a woman in Soho in 2003."

From the Telegraph earlier today

@PurpleChrayne

yeah, but so what? It's not illegal & he's never denied being a shagger.

The police are already investigating though? @MNetcurtains

I really doubt somone who feeds off feeling like he's adored is enjoying this kind of attention.

His tour has been cancelled, additional victims are speaking out. Even if the police investigation doesn't come to fruition there is some kind of justice in them being able to share their stories and having this "open secret" out in the open. Particularly for girls and women who will now be aware of how dangerous he is.

That’s exactly it, this is investigative journalism. The press looks into all sorts of things and it’s often how illegal actions come to light. We can’t ban that, imagine what the country would be like.

If you’ve watched the episode of Dispatches and read the reportage then you see that it’s not simply “he said/she said”, these are serious journalists who have checked these stories and verified the details that back them up.

This is interesting. I didn’t know he was cruel to animals.

That’s a well known indicator of an abusive person.

Good. I hope they can make it stick.

He has always been a boastful, vile, self-professed letch, who hates women

He seemed to have some sort of Svengali effect on women who fell into the normal women's thought process of " he's a bad'un but I'm the one to change him".

Why else would women having anything to do with him. I can't see what the attraction was, he always looked a grubby self-opinionated non-entity, who was arrogant enough to think he was above any basic standards of decency.

Sister's friend was SAd by him years ago. Everyone knew about this unfunny, walking thesaurus in a uaed kebab shop wrapper

But its not categorised that in terms of what people get convicted of.

That’s also true of cases involving any child over the age of 13 though. The relevant cut off for categorisation of rape is not 16 but 13.

Raping a child is still child abuse, even if it’s just prosecuted as rape. Just like assault on a child is child abuse even if it is prosecuted as assault. It’s not the name of the offensive that makes it child abuse. It’s an abusive act perpetrated against a child.

A child is deemed anybody under the age of 18.

This is a fact, legally and morally.

You are very vulnerable at 16 and I believe for several years afterwards. A 30yr old man should NOT be having any kind of sexual relationship with someone so young. It's disgraceful, predatory and abusive.

I think the issue is bigger than Brand. The behaviour was not only tolerated but allowed to become part of his routine (see conversation with Saville). When abuse of women is a joke, how does that affect our culture?

It is though, as the CPS link now posted several times upthread demonstrates.

You may not have heard of it but it is a criminal offence.

Are you victim blaming?

Utterly bizarre that we're having an argument about whether abusing a 16 year old child is better than abusing a 15 year old child.

But it was still rape. It's gross(er) that she was 16. But it was still rape.

It ties into what another poster said, that he was a victim of sexual abuse as well, children who harm animals are using being abused, Ive not known of a child who does that who isnt being abused.

Are his parents still alive?

That’s irrelevant, it’s still child abuse. Legally, morally and biologically. Even if the conviction is rape, it’s still child abuse. So the argument is about the language being used and that you can’t say it’s child abuse, but you can. Because it is.

His dad has been out defending him today.

Especially in the context of her account of his behaviour of picking her up from school and calling her 'the child' , etc.

IANAL but I have been watching some legal analysis on lawtube.

One of the problems with the texts which the Times did not make clear is that the images they used are a graphic they mocked up.

They have also taken responsibility for verifying the texts, if they are mistaken about any of it then Brand would have a strong case for defamation.

Analysis of the graphic shows that some things have been redacted, not necessarily for nefarious reasons, so there may be some context missing. It's possible to read the texts as an apology for not using a condom rather than rape.

I'm not suggesting "Nadia" is lying just that these are the type of discussions happening with the lawtube community. I don't know if there is a statue of limitations for bringing rape charges in the US which is where the alleged crime, associated with the texts, occurred.

I think whether Brand attempts to sue will be quite revealing given that one of the defences for defamation is that the statements are true. If he doesn't I would interpret that as a tacit admission of guilt.

But as I said IANAL.

Danii Minogue called RB a sexual predator who takes it too far back in 2006.

No one gave a shit, not MTV, not Channel 4, not Endemol, no one.

Corroboration is one way of proving likelihood of guilt.

If one person makes a complaint, but the defendant has an unblemished character, then it’s more difficult to prove ( it’s one person’s word against an other)

but if you have several complainants with similar stories, then it can demonstrate a pattern of behaviour. That kind of case has a far better chance of being successful.