Russel has spoken

[Whyismyfacealwaysdry]

On Instagram, has anyone seen? What are your thoughts?

My reply was to someone who asked if I'd leave my daughter with RB.

I disagree - my view is based on the principle of "innocent until proved guilty" that is not to say I don't believe or do believe - I worry about the idea that we accept any allegation that people make. I abhor the "no smoke without fire" view and that every time anyone makes an allegation the assumption that there may be some truth in it. The justice system needs is where guilt is decided.

So, it’s OK to rape a few women if you are a sex addict?! I guess drug addicts are known to commit crimes to ensure they get their fix, rather than wait until they have earned enough money for another dose, so I guess that makes sense…

This is a justified standpoint - it’s just stating facts. There needs to be a court case. He is not legally guilty of rape until he is convicted.

I think every single person, and I get there is only a few, trying to use this as some form of justification or mitigation of brands actions, know full well how difficult a rape conviction is and they know exactly why women don’t go to the police.

i suspect they also know the statistics are 5 out of every 6 women who are raped don’t report it. For reasons folks have already mentioned. How hard it is to get a conviction, how they are treated, the shame, the judgement, the personal impact.

so all this trying to use a legal basis as a reason to not believe women when they say rape is hideous.

I wonder how long Rumble will continue to support Brand now that sponsors are pulling out.

www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/23/firms-pull-ads-from-rumble-platform-over-russell-brand-videos

Depends if they stick to this

According to Rumble’s website, it is “immune to cancel culture” and aims to “restore the internet to its roots by making it free and open once again”. Pavlovksi has described it as “neutral”.

That was a quote from The Guardian article. Must have a trigger word in it

It was about Rumble’s statement on not going along with cancel culture

I may have misinterpreted the post, but don’t think the previous poster is suggesting we don’t believe women

I agree that the figures around rape conviction (and reporting, and the relative rarity of false allegations) show really clearly that not being found ‘guilty’ in a court of law (or where there is no trial) does not mean ‘innocent’. (And the same goes for other crimes.)

I watched the programme, and found the allegations very credible, and on the balance of probabilities feel personally that he probably did do those things. At the same time, I still also allow for the possibility that he didn’t. It doesn’t mean that I don’t believe the women – I believe them, but that is not exactly the same as knowing that an allegation is true.

What I do believe is that every allegation of rape or SA should be taken seriously.

Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts and the courts alone.

I’m curious - if your daughter or sister or friend come forward with an allegation of rape, from a man known locally as a ‘sex addict’, and other people women alleging the same thing, do you shrug your shoulders and just say ‘well, he’s innocent in my eyes until proven guilty’?

And in a similar thread, do you still look at Jimmy Saville and despite everything that’s come to light hold onto the view that he’s ‘innocent’ as he’s not actually been proven guilty?

If you really believe that innocent until proven guilty is not just for the courts but for personal belief, you must hold that the above two examples are the same, no?

In law, he is not guilty, that’s just a fact. In reality, his attitudes and actions have always been deeply questionable, but he has not, in law, been convicted of rape. It is perfectly possible to believe a woman who says she has been abused by a man without confusing that for meaning that there doesn’t need to be a trial in order to get a criminal conviction.

As for smoke without fire - there is smoke and there’s smoke. An accusation out of the blue is one thing; years of veiled comments, rumours, and inappropriate behaviours, are another. If making the comparison with teachers having their careers ruined by accusations of this type, Russell Brand would rightly have been sacked years ago for his public behaviour and comments had he been a teacher - no need for a rape conviction to know he is not teacher material. He is a person who gained fame through notoriety, because money could be made from encouraging him to behave badly and turn unpleasant commentary and actions that objectified others into “humour.”

@Jumpingthruhoops Then I guess that just makes you a dangerous misogynist if you can’t blame it on ignorance.

The point is that the courts have access to all the evidence. Without a court case a person may by guilty - the point is the evidence has not been presented nor has the right of reply to present counter evidence by the accused taken place. Of course people hold personal views about guilt but they are based only on what evidence they have access to.

In answer to your question if someone close to me were to tell something like this happened and I knew they were reliable, trustworthy then I would believe them 100%. That does nothing and means nothing as far as the perpetrator of the crime is concerned.

I think the JS case is very difficult as this is someone who died without the details coming to light - his funeral was an event and the street lined with people who had no idea of the allegations. The weight of evidence again JS clearly was huge and horrific. There was no trial and my personal belief in his case all along was that he was guilty of the crimes that were alleged. Had he had descendants then there may have been counter claims which may have mean the conclusion on the crimes might have been different as they may have insisted on a right of reply - that of course does not change what actually happened.

In live cases where someone is claiming they are innocent we should uphold the legal system - they are innocent until proven guilty. We live in a society which values its justice system and does not convict people on a whim nor does it silence people and say they cannot present their case.

I am not defending any individual. I am saying that we have a system and a legal system which I agree isn't perfect it allows someone to defend themselves. If we were to say eveytime someone made an allegation it was true I fear that we would see faith in the legal system plummet - therefore we need to allow due process to take place

The evidence has been presented.

He absolutely does have a right of reply.

He has not been silenced - unlike all of the women over the years who have been silenced by his lawyers. Including those who went to the police.

You are very determined to try to convince people to treat brand as innocent. And your argument is beyond ludicrous. We are not in court. We are not jurors.

you seem deliberately trying to avoid the fact that in 95% of cases women are being honest about rape or sexual assault and now multiple women have come forward. So for us, we stand behind these women and believe them. As a pp said, if we get it wrong, and all 8 are liars, which let’s face it is beyond unlikely, then we backed liars. But better than that back a rapist.

you treat brand as innocent. Continue to throw your weight on line behind convincing people to agree with you. But none of us will. We will support the women.

so crack on and support him. That’s your right. Treat him as innocent. Assume the women are liars. Ignore the fact that only 1 in a hundred rapes get to court, ignore the fact 95% of allegations are true, ignore the fact getting a conviction is nearly impossible, ignore the fact we are not jurors, and crack on.

@twelly I pointed out to you earlier that for these allegations to be untrue would require a huge conspiracy between many women going back several decades and in different continents,

Alongside a large number of respected, senior and well known journalists whose careers would be over when the truth came out.

I am asking you again to state if you believe this to be the case.

I am not and do not support this individual - I support the justice system.

If you were in a pub and someone told you to watch your purse, the woman on the next table would steal it from your bag but no, she's never been convicted of a crime, would you say innocent until proven guilty and continue leaving your purse unguarded?

Why do you support a justice system that has effectively decriminalised rape?

Why is the ‘principle’ more important to you than the real people involved?

And why do you think the legal principle of ‘innocent until prOven guilty’ applies outside the courts?

You do know that IUPG is just a way to express the level of evidence required for a conviction, don’t you?

Outside the courts, each individual is able to make their own judgements based on the evidence they are presented with. We can’t lock him up or fine him, but we can definitely decide for ourselves if he’s a rapist or not.

Weird how all the libertarians bleat on about free speech and thought, yet want to stop other people thinking and saying what they want.

The amazing thing on this is that he should be considered scum because of things that were considered not criminal.

One of the latest stories which is corroborated is that Brand (for a TV show) made friends with a heroin addict who pimped out his girlfriend and they filmed a programme in their house while both of them neglected their toddler. Russell then offers the man 50 quid to have sex with his girlfriend while the producer makes the toddler a sandwich.

That should finish anybody.

The programme was never shown. Screw Brand and all the people who enabled him.

Brand was given a 'right to reply' 8 days before the Despaches programme was broadcast when his lawyers were contacted for a response - as is the normal legal route well before it was being trailled on SM

He did not use that opportunity to provide counter-evidence or [as far as is known] did not use the legal system to try and prevent the programme from being broadcsst

Instead he used social media to protest his innocence

Why would he not use our wonderful legal system to re-but the allegations and insist on his innocent until proved guilty within the correct sphere. after all he's a very wealthy man with access to the best lawyers and legal advice and no stranger to litigation?

Yes I would be careful with my purse - but I wouldn't know whether the woman was guilty or not.

Why won't you answer my question? It's not difficult.

Thinking that 'the justice system' offers any kind of justice or truth when it comes to rape is a sick joke..

I pointed out to you earlier that for these allegations to be untrue would require a huge conspiracy between many women going back several decades and in different continents,

Alongside a large number of respected, senior and well known journalists whose careers would be over when the truth came out.

I am asking you again to state if you believe this to be the case, or not. Yes or no.

I think investigate journalism is to be applauded but journalist are not the justice system. Journalism is an important part of our society and I agree that they are a vital for the free country in which we live.

I have been very careful not to state what I think about this particular case, that is because I talking about the principle of allowing the justice system to work. I agree that the system is flawed, I don't know if all the facts that are quoted regarding the rape statistics are true but will assume they are.

Are you a politician?

It's a yes or no question.