Friend comment on Russell Brand situation...Not sure how to respond

[Startingagainandagain]

I was messaging a female friend this morning

I was a victim of an assault by a male so called friend last year, which she is aware of.

I mentioned in my message that some of what the victims are saying about Brand resonated so much with me.

In her response she said something in the line of ''well he took on the establishment and now they are trying to hang him''...

This really surprised me as I did not have her down for someone who would fall for that type of nonsense and I am not quite sure how to respond to her.

My view is that the man is a creep and I believe the victims 100% and I am going to struggle with staying friend with someone who would put any weight on conspiracy theories. As someone who has encountered this type of predators, I feel strongly about it all.

Do you think I am unreasonable to think this might be reason enough to distance myself?

This is someone who I have known for a year only, rather than a close, long term friend.

AIBU to cool the friendship over this and let it drift?

Thank you for sharing this and putting into words something I haven't been able to put in to words for 20+ years.

So true

Has been? Do you actually know what he does now? He's making serious money

I didn't expect this thread to generate so many responses by the way, but it did help me make up my mind about what to do/say next.

I’m not against free press at all, personally. I just don’t agree that Channel 4 is 100% always correct or even truthful and like it or not the bar to publish is much lower than the bar to convict someone of a crime in court.

They would no longer be my friend.

There's different opinions and there's rape apologists, racists, sexists etc and I have no desire to be friends with any of the latter.

I’m fine with people with different political beliefs/ religious beliefs but conspiracy theorists no. I haven’t got time for that kind of batshittery.

Anyone who believes that Rupert Murdoch sat down with a publicly-owned broadcaster..

Murdoch owns the Sunday Times and Times. The ban on him directing what they write about ended over a year ago.

Sunday Times and Times did the investigation and they approached Channel 4 to do the broadcasting. So I can see where some people might wonder as to Murdoch’s involvement in all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/10/ban-on-rupert-murdochs-interference-in-times-and-sunday-times-ended

I don’t think I’d class accusations of serial rapist and perpetrator of sexual abuse/ assault as celeb gossip. These are serious allegations that the police and his previous employers are involved in. It’s no more celebrity gossip than jimmy saville or rolf Harris.

and the op is right to question if she can remain close friends with anyone who disregards a woman’s discount of her rape or abuse so very easily.

Actually it's not. It's very arguable that accusing someone of a very serious crime who is exceptionally litigious, rich and powerful requires you achieve a high bar - one that's very different. But still high. Because the point isn't to prove the very serious crime but rather to prove a public interest in and that it would be negligence not to publish the story. And that's an exceptional hard thing to prove.

You have contradicted yourself. You say the bar to publish is not lower than the bar to convict, but then go on to confirm what I have said that the bar to publish is to merely prove public interest not to prove a crime has occurred.

I suppose you could genuinely think that proving whether the public would be interested in possible criminal acts by a famous, rich, celebrity is so hard it is just as hard as proving a serious crime did actually occur in court.

But it’s not as hard.

It’s not misogynistic though if the friend genuinely believes this has all been concocted by MSM or whoever. She believes that none of this has happened at all a it’s all made up by MSM. That’s not misogynistic, a conspiracy theory yes but not misogyny.

I agree and I was Really dismayed at that female gb news presenter who tweeted to brand he was a “”hero”, when the accusations came out, agreeing that it was all some conspiracy to get him. Utterly idiotic woman. Not one part of her considered these women could be telling the truth, she was so enthralled in her conspiracy theories and with brand and his anti establishment nonsense

as a pp said, he is the establishment, that’s why he got away with it

Perhaps around the time that people started to care that the criminal justice system is so flawed when it comes to prosecuting rape that it might as well be considered legal?

So you agitate for change. How is discarding the entire system and having a big free for all with no accountability for anyone at all any better? Those who think that's ok always imagine it's because they'll never be affected, being the good, decent law abiding folk they believe themselves to be. But anyone is at risk of a miscarriage of justice. Personally I'm terrified of a society with no formal justice process at all. We always think that overall people will generally draw the line in the right place, but everyone's line is in a different place and the ultimate line is decided by the most chaotic and destructive people and thinkers. They're the ones who determine the society we live in, the extreme and radical members of it.

Erm no.

It's easier to meet the bar for this because Brand himself made it easy cos he's got a gob on and he behaved on camera like that. Thus the argument for the public interest is easier to make, but the bar to prove the public interest argument remains incredibly high. It's just that Brand was a tool and the BBC and C4s position was untenable - not a case against Brand himself. A public interest case of this nature is extremely unusual.

A similar situation with someone who had a squeaky clean reputation would be much harder to construct a public interest argument to defend against an accusation of rape.

The construction of the documentary and newspaper article isn't just about Brand and that's why it's so much harder for Brand to challenge.

You are suggesting this is all about Brand and the rape allegation. That's not true.

@JayJayEl
💐 That's exactly how I felt when I first read it. It's quite depressing that the same ignorance that was so hurtful to me over 20 years ago is still alive and kicking and hurting women in 2023., Seems we still have a long way to go.

I think this sums it up for me.

It's a bit OTT to dump a friend because your opinions on a subject vary.

It's not OTT to dump a friend if your values don't align.

Opinions and values are not the same things and we shouldn't conflate the two.

I'm finding it very hard to understand the people that "refuse to condemn him without a fair trial". The documentary makers saw the evidence from the rape crisis centre that one of the victims attended, on the same day that she was raped by Brand. They've taken DNA evidence. The documentary makers also saw confirmation that LA police took a statement but the victim didn't want to pursue a prosecution - and many rape victims don't. There's also the text exchange - with the phone number that has been verified as belonging to Brand. The victim says "I told you no" and he says the equivalent of "yeah, sorry about that love - I'll make it up to you".

Even if you just want to dismiss the rest of the women - this one case is clear, objective proof of what happened, and what he's like. You don't need a court of law for it to be clear what went on.

And for me, someone who is willing to dismiss a woman being raped in favour of Brand wittering on about random conspiracy theories on YouTube - we would very clearly not have the same values. Not opinions. Values.

He's just Andrew Tate in a different form. I would struggle to be friends with anyone who supported Tate too, because misogyny matters to me.

No newspaper or media outlet is ever 100% correct. Nothing is infallible. That expectation is ridiculous tbh.

Anyone who believes in conspiracy theories is a dullard. I would not want to be mates with a dullard.

They're all spouting the 'I refuse to condemn him without a fair trial' bullshit because it sounds better than admitting that they are part of his crackpot cult and don't want to think that the cult leader might be a perve.

There's a direct correlation between people who are anti-vaxx, anti-BBC/mainstream media, pro-Russia and believe in the 'Great Reset', and who also think Russell Brand should have a 'fair trial'. They are the same people.

And it's why you have the balances of the courts on this.

But the balance to abuse of power or actions against the public is the power to publish if you can demonstrate a public interest that would be negligent to ignore (even if it ultimately turns out the accusations were not correct).

Not sure what my mum - a retired dentist - has to do with this, but actually in the Cliff case, the CPS said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute and dropped the case. That doesn't actually mean he was innocent. There's insufficient evidence in the majority of rape cases, which is why only a handful end up in court.

Yup. Here is he is on the cornerstone Murdoch platform (Fox) having smoke blown up his ass, just a few months ago:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/russell-brand-roasts-liberal-establishments-attacks-against-him-decade-old-interview-condescension.amp

He’s the very ‘establishment’ type of anti-establishment figure that seems to be all the rage these days.

This is very true. Unfortunately some people cannot fathom that the reason he has been caught now is because of his views. No one had any issues with his predatory behaviour for all these years. They don’t care about women, if they did, we wouldn’t have make rapists locked up with women in prison.

This. I met him once and he was so arrogant used lots of long words and made himself sound very educated, amazingly intelligent - and I can remember thinking you are the textbook definition of a narcissist.

Called himself a sex addict and did drugs and used it as an excuse. I remember my ex saying ‘I have a temper you knew it before you married me’ victim blaming master class.