Page 9 | Russell Brand - everyone knew

Mooshamoo · 2023-09-18T16:06:49+00:00

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.

CherryMaDeara · 18/09/2023 19:08

MartinChuzzlewit · 18/09/2023 18:11

TBF, there has been no one so far say that he slept with them when they were underage. It’s not disgusting, it’s fact.

As someone who was raped as a child I find it quite offensive that sex above the age of consent is considered the same as what I went through

Show quote history

The 16yo has said that she felt like a child and he the grown up who groomed her.

That he referred to himself as her Daddy and when she told him she was a virgin, he picked her up like a baby and said ‘my baby’.

Whilst she may have been 16, it’s important to recognise that he groomed her.

Takoneko · 18/09/2023 19:08

MartinChuzzlewit · 18/09/2023 19:03

They’re protected as children, but that’s not to say RB would be charged with child sex offences

Show quote history

Nobody said he would. He also wouldn’t be charged with child sex offences if she was 14. The name of the crime would be rape. It’s still child abuse. The legal definition of child abuse includes rape of any person under the age of 18. This has been explained patiently over and over again. You are confusing the age of consent and the definition of child abuse.

RockyBroadway · 18/09/2023 19:09

StrawberryWasp · 18/09/2023 19:07

If 16 years old are children,
and they can consent to sex,
then
Some children can consent to sex, would be true statement?

Show quote history

16-17 year olds can consent to sex, but in terms of abuse of that it is legally considered child abuse because under 18 offences against them fall under the Child Protection Act.

So….what?

ehupo7 · 18/09/2023 19:09

caban · 18/09/2023 18:47

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.

It’s about the muddying of language and knowledge of where things stand legally. Obviously the most important point is that he is alleged to have sexually assaulted and raped people. And absolutely a 16 year old is more vulnerable and needs to be afforded greater protection than an 18 or 20 year old.

But the ‘relationship’ itself was legally condoned.

Have seen lots of posts over the last few days where people don’t realise that it’s not illegal for a 31 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, or where they can’t understand why the mum didn’t report him to the police for ‘child abuse’. But she had zero legal recourse (the later alleged assault notwithstanding).

It seems clear given public attitudes that there should be legislation brought in to address the fact that most people do not agree that this is ok.

Have also seen lots of talk of RB ‘grooming’ grown women in their 20s to have sex with him. Which really just detracts from the seriousness of actual grooming, and again conflates very different things, which doesn’t seem very useful.

MartinChuzzlewit · 18/09/2023 19:09

StrawberryWasp · 18/09/2023 19:02

What infuriates me about these discussions is that everyone is conflating the sleazy promiscuous, 'would fuck anything' behaviours which everyone in the country knew about, with assault and rape, whihc everyone couldn't have known about.

Yes EVERYONE knew he was would sleaze over any women in the room in the hope of having sex with her, and that he'd use his fame and power to get women to go along with grubby sexual encounters that many probably didn't feel great about later when he never spoke to them again.

So I don't know why these types of stories are being shared as shocking? Everyone knew, because it's in his books apart from anything, he was doing it openly on the telly, he talks about it, so why is anyone shocked.

What anyone with a brain can then predict is that vast number of sleazy casual sexual encounters inevitably would have resulted in many women feeling they'd been used, and emotionally and physically abused. and probaly many of those encounters would be grim reading. But not suprising.

What everyone didn't know was that he was definitely a rapist, and no one knows this for definite now, unless you are a women he raped, or you have evidence that a rape took place. If he has raped anyone, let alone multiple women, the only way for justice to be carried out is to provide the evidence to the police. Yes it's a horribly flawed systen for women but what other way do we have?

If it turns out he is guilty of rape he should go to prison for a very long time. But in order to see this clearly we need to seperate the shitty nasty legal behaviour everone knew about from the actual illegal incidents far fewer could have known about.

I do think we need to look more closely at overtly sexual shagger men in power and wonder if there’s something more going on behind the scenes. Because they are written off as “just a shagger, what man wouldn’t be the same in his position” but actually someone with that little respect to women as RB had (certainly in the ‘shagger of the year’ early-mid 00’s) in hindsight, was always going to want more, go further, feed the addiction.

Im not sure these days there are many celeb men like RB it I don’t especially follow that culture.

If there is - people around them need to keep a beady eye on them!!

CherryMaDeara · 18/09/2023 19:09

bellac11 · 18/09/2023 19:07

Thats correct but my limited understanding is that she didnt really consent, therefore its rape/sexual assault. I think thats whats getting muddled here, my understanding is that it wasnt consensual

If it was consensual then its not likely to be an offence.

We find it really hard, virtually impossible to progress police investigations into grooming, I dont think we have had one yet.

Show quote history

Agreed there are thing she didn’t consent to.

She didn’t consent to being deep throated to the point of being choked, despite trying to shove him off, he did not stop.

She did not consent to him removing a condom.

There is plenty to catch the rapist for.

blebb · 18/09/2023 19:10

. It's possible to read the texts as an apology for not using a condom rather than rape.

Removing a condom without your partner knowing is considered sexual assualt. You are decieving someone into giving you their consent which they would not have done otherwise @FOJN

FOJN · 18/09/2023 19:10

Merrymouse · 18/09/2023 19:00

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.

They have verified the texts.

I think you are confusing an illustration in a newspaper with a text message.

As I said IF they are mistaken about any of it then they would be liable. I don't think they would have published unless they were 100% certain.

I'm not at all confused.

Jellycatspyjamas · 18/09/2023 19:10

No-one piece of evidence needs to be the smoking gun. Given that Nadia visited a rape crisis centre, attended counselling and has contemporaneous texts builds a very strong argument that her version of events is reliable.

Only the text messages, depending on context, could be considered corroboration. Attending counselling and rape crisis aren’t evidential in that she could have done that for any reason at any time, it’s not evidence that he raped her just that she sought support for rape - it would be considered circumstantial.

Lilibert456 · 18/09/2023 19:10

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MartinChuzzlewit · 18/09/2023 19:10

Takoneko · 18/09/2023 19:08

Nobody said he would. He also wouldn’t be charged with child sex offences if she was 14. The name of the crime would be rape. It’s still child abuse. The legal definition of child abuse includes rape of any person under the age of 18. This has been explained patiently over and over again. You are confusing the age of consent and the definition of child abuse.

Show quote history

Rape of a minor/child AFAIK Carrie’s a heftier sentence and is a different category than rape of an adult.

So there is a difference. It’s not just blanket ‘rape’

CherryMaDeara · 18/09/2023 19:11

ehupo7 · 18/09/2023 19:09

It’s about the muddying of language and knowledge of where things stand legally. Obviously the most important point is that he is alleged to have sexually assaulted and raped people. And absolutely a 16 year old is more vulnerable and needs to be afforded greater protection than an 18 or 20 year old.

But the ‘relationship’ itself was legally condoned.

Have seen lots of posts over the last few days where people don’t realise that it’s not illegal for a 31 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, or where they can’t understand why the mum didn’t report him to the police for ‘child abuse’. But she had zero legal recourse (the later alleged assault notwithstanding).

It seems clear given public attitudes that there should be legislation brought in to address the fact that most people do not agree that this is ok.

Have also seen lots of talk of RB ‘grooming’ grown women in their 20s to have sex with him. Which really just detracts from the seriousness of actual grooming, and again conflates very different things, which doesn’t seem very useful.

Show quote history

This country really needs Romeo and Juliet laws.

AuntieStella · 18/09/2023 19:11

Well, there has been one more allegation made, from 2003, not in The Times/Ch4 investigation, but come forward since - police have confirmed they are investigating.

No, I didn't "know" just as I didn't know about the host of others that went before. Because I thought that our press (who had no compunction about using illegal as well as legal methods) would investigate and publish. And finally it seems they are doing so.

The police will deal with the incidents where appalling conduct might also be criminally bad.

But I want to know what is going to happen within companies. Apparently in one incident all women were removed from a show's production - professional women who had worked hard on their careers and deserved those jobs on merit - because it wasn't a good idea to have women around because of the level of predatory behaviour. That is a disgusting situation, and those who made that decision might not have done anything criminal, but they need to have a hard look at their morals

TarantinoIsAMisogynist · 18/09/2023 19:11

StrawberryWasp · 18/09/2023 19:07

If 16 years old are children,
and they can consent to sex,
then
Some children can consent to sex, would be true statement?

Show quote history

Yes.

Although the point here is that she didn't.

Rape is abuse. Raping a child is child abuse.

Whichwhich · 18/09/2023 19:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Nice victim blaming there.

bellac11 · 18/09/2023 19:12

Takoneko · 18/09/2023 19:08

Nobody said he would. He also wouldn’t be charged with child sex offences if she was 14. The name of the crime would be rape. It’s still child abuse. The legal definition of child abuse includes rape of any person under the age of 18. This has been explained patiently over and over again. You are confusing the age of consent and the definition of child abuse.

Show quote history

It would be child sex offences if she was 14, Ive worked with many perpetrators who have convictions for child sex offences for children under 16

MartinChuzzlewit · 18/09/2023 19:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Well no she thought she was getting sex/a relationship.

But if you don’t understand the concept of grooming then I don’t really know what to say.

BeauSignoles · 18/09/2023 19:13

Re the “trial by media” comments. Someone on another thread made a very good point that this is only raised with celebrity sex accusations, never media investigations into corruption.

RockyBroadway · 18/09/2023 19:13

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Fucking he’ll. victim blaming at its finest. She was 16. It’s okay to say no at any point. No means no. He shoved his penis into her mouth and spat into her mouth. He raped her.

Is that what she deserved because she went to his house? Come the fuck on.

FOJN · 18/09/2023 19:14

blebb · 18/09/2023 19:10

. It's possible to read the texts as an apology for not using a condom rather than rape.

Removing a condom without your partner knowing is considered sexual assualt. You are decieving someone into giving you their consent which they would not have done otherwise @FOJN

Stealthing is a criminal offence in the UK but a civil offence in California. I don't believe Nadia claims he removed a condom but that he didn't use one.

She says she did not consent to sex so that is rape but if you were a defence lawyer using what has published from the text exchange you could interpret the issue as being about condom use rather than rape.

Spareus · 18/09/2023 19:15

How do we know it’s RB she was referring to? Has she confirmed this?

WhalePolo · 18/09/2023 19:15

From Rape Crisis:

Child sexual abuse is any kind of sexual activity that happens to children or young people under the age of 18 and is either...Unwanted, or
Involves pressure, manipulation, bullying, intimidation, threats, deception or force.

In other words, any kind of sexual activity that happens to children or young people under the age of 18 without their consent.

Takoneko · 18/09/2023 19:16

MartinChuzzlewit · 18/09/2023 19:10

Rape of a minor/child AFAIK Carrie’s a heftier sentence and is a different category than rape of an adult.

So there is a difference. It’s not just blanket ‘rape’

Show quote history

Incorrect. The relevant distinction is rape of a child under the age of 13. Rape of anyone over the age of 13 is prosecuted as rape.

There is no legal distinction between raping someone over or under the age of 16.

The age of consent is only relevant when dealing with consensual sex acts.

BeverForget · 18/09/2023 19:16

A 31yr old having a relationship with a 16yr old.
You have to question the self-confidence of a man that needs that power trip/dynamic imbalance.
There will be dozens of actual assaults that will come to light in the next few months.
Oxford 2006/07 particularly.
A social media lawyer couldn't defend him now.
George fucking Carman QC wouldn't have touched this in a million years.

Merrymouse · 18/09/2023 19:16

Apparently in one incident all women were removed from a show's production - professional women who had worked hard on their careers and deserved those jobs on merit - because it wasn't a good idea to have women around because of the level of predatory behaviour. That is a disgusting situation, and those who made that decision might not have done anything criminal, but they need to have a hard look at their morals

Yes, the impact extends beyond the question of whether he did anything criminal.