To think this what the Russel Brand story is meant to bury?

[madamreign]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66839314

It's not half as salacious, possibly a bit dry and dull to most people.

But it's fucking constitutional dynamite

It won't fail.

Chris Dawson was found guilty of his wife's murder 40 years later, despite 60 million downloading the podcast about the case and lots of media coverage.

The successful prosecution is far more likely if the evidence produced collectively and by a large number of victims and witnesses. It had every chance of success thanks to the publicity and intense media attention.

This is GOOD new for the victims.

I am assuming you are also happy that the chances of a custodial sentence for this predator is increasing?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13905765.amp

I wonder if people leap to conspiracy theories because the existential truth that it’s all self serving chaos in government and the wider system is too awful to accept. 2 bad things at the same time does not a conspiracy make - and I’m not naive -just old and have worked as part of ‘the system’ for far too long.

Are you really comparing established media outlets that publish according to accepted standards, with huge legal teams and risk assessment processes etc, with Tommy Robinson’s selfguided social media twattery?

Can you just look at the actual role of the print media in relation to sexual abuse cases in the past twenty years or so, and concede that media coverage is generally helpful and galvanising, and consistently operates within accepted legal limits?

You seem really quite determined to discredit the journalists.

Why isn’t the story of a multiple rapist kept in a position of power by various media outlets not a big enough story for some people?

The actual article you linked to said its rare for a prosecution to be dismissed because of prejudicial reporting and then inserted examples where the reporting has been salacious, prejudicial and sensational and has as a result resulted in those rare cases of trials being stopped due to prejudicial reporting. There is a difference between salacious tabloid gossip mongering and serious investigative journalism, gathering evidence from a range of victims over a number of years. They have basically made a case for the CPS to prosecute. Basically if the same evidence had gone to the police, chances are they woukd have filed it away and not taken it to the CPS.

My question exactly

It might be in the interests of some to discredit the process as far as possible.

Nah. It's just good day to release bad news. As one of Blair's Babes said about 9/11 if I remember correctly.

All government's do it.

People are falling over themselves trying to make this documentary look like some genius piece of journalistic achievement. It’s not. It’s an interview with 4 women. That’s it. Russell Brand may well be guilty. But it’s doesn’t take a genius to work that out. They pulled some snippets from radio and tv programmes for years ago and called it a big expose. They protected him for years and now expect us to believe that the moral brigade have come to ten rescue of women.

If this is the output journalists produces in 4 years, The Times should question their journalists productivity.

It’s being aired now because I it conveniently distracts from other things. And those exposing it were complicit in this throughout. It’s nothing more than a way to distract the public from the rampant corruption related to HS2, the green agenda and the illegal migration trade, from which people at the very highest level benefit financially.

Basically if the same evidence had gone to the police, chances are they would have filed it away and not taken it to the CPS

They certainly wouldn’t have highlighted a pattern of behaviour, each one adding weight to the other. Partly because policing is still highly regional and partly because these incidents occurred in different countries.

There isn't a single true word in this post.

Are people honestly this dimwitted?

No need for weeping and hair pulling. Believe the women and address the dysfunctional state. Chasing shadows is a gift to abusers of all kinds.

Another 🌎 earther. Is it my imagination or have we seen an increase?

I love the casual comment Russell Brand ‘may well’ be guilty, as if it’s literally nothing. Slow hand clap 👏🏻

Yep!

Sadly yes. And highly dismissive of rape.

@Lastchancechica

Nobody is dismissing rape.

Other than trial by media, I'm not sure what you want.

Certainly isn't convictions.

People who hang on RBs every word on his YouTube will buy this hogwash. He has prepared the ground rather well. Or ' rolled the pitch' as the spin doctors now put it.

Ah the police, proven to be so effective at dealing with rape and sexual assault. Yes, that's the path to follow.
Wake the fuck up and realise that trial by media is pretty much the only way women get listened to when it comes to rape and sexual assault.

@wsmi it’s a report providing a platform for women who have been silenced (by Brand directly and indirectly by wielding his status within organisations) up to this point.

People have suspected/held the opinion Brand is a problem for years and had the law and pressure of an entire industry used against them to prevent them expressing that - as evidenced by Kathryn Ryan saying exactly that. It’s a big deal, you don’t have to be interested but I don’t understand why it’s such a big hardship to acknowledge the impacts.

It’s such an odd juxtaposition to simultaneously hold the opinion that Brand’s report is a distraction and that the flagrant misuse of injunctions and position of power to avoid being spoken about is not newsworthy.

We’ve had this chat with the OP already, I wouldn’t expect much.

Do people who think they are smart when they spout 'trial by media' not realise that Brand has been manipulating the media for years?

If he's allowed to manipulate the media into thinking he's a harmless womaniser, not a rapist and abuser, then why aren't women allowed to put their side?

That’s straight out of the mouth of Brand.

Legal options so far have only worked against these women. Talking about how convictions should have been sought by the women is only said with the confidence of people who know that the reality is they had no recourse.