Russel has spoken

[Whyismyfacealwaysdry]

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

I’d see the wholesale rape, without consequence, of women and girls as a more obvious downfall of a civilised society, but you do you.

I don’t believe shrugging and saying, “oh well, it’s a catch 22, can’t be helped” as a position anyone in a civilised society should adopt.

There are alternatives. For example, rape could be tried in front a judge, not jury. There is plenty of evidence that the common DARVO defence for sexual assaults doesn’t fool those with expertise in evaluating evidence properly.

And you know this was fact based media why?

I think my point is that much of it is not fact based.

But, if it were not, if it libelled people or smeared companies then the UK has strict laws on that. Those are tough. They provide a high standard to ensure that journalism is fact based.

And yet repeatedly we see cases, at a later date, where they aren’t.

It’s also interesting how many people in this thread attribute Brand’s motives regarding his videos as nefarious because he makes money yet nobody has also recognised that the media has conflicting priorities (if one thinks they strive to be fact based) because they are also there to make money.

You asserted that the women's statements repeatedly mirrored words from the stand up clips. But you can't offer any examples other than the mascara running one which I noticed. You said:

I also felt the exact mirroring of words from the stand-up clips seemed weird. It wasn’t just once or twice, but repeatedly. We know memories are unreliable, so I question as to whether these were the exact words the women used when speaking to the show or whether the show decided to mirror them for impact

The point is that Brand and these women have to rely on the same thing. Fact. One will establish it.

An opinion means nothing. What's not okay is to say that this media investigation wasn't done properly.

It was.

Otherwise Brand would have had it squashed by injunction or otherwise.

Fact is he didn't have a legal basis to stop this happening.

You can bet he wished he did.

I’m not shrugging and going about my merry way actually. I’ve spent the last decade campaigning for women’s rights.

However, I just saw what you said to another poster. I will no longer be engaging with you.

You seem to think that people can stop rape allegations if they are innocent. That’s simply not true. What he did not stop was the documentary going ahead because they followed whatever due process is required to make the thing in the first place. That isn’t an indictment on the accusations.

No, that is what you said.

I said Brand did not have the ability to stop this programme being broadcast. If he had a good case for libel he could have done.

He can still, I might add, sue any of these women if he likes, individually.

I replied to you and said I wasn’t watching to either look for things to prove his innocence or his guilt. Therefore I wasn’t looking to remember certain things.

This is, ironically, a great example of how crappy witness testimony is. I know how I felt when I watched it but I can’t recall the exact specific things that made me feel that way. And that’s in a non-emotional context. And I’m not on trial.

I mean slander not libel! But the point remains.

But this has nothing to do with rape/sexual assault.

If it did, we would have no need for the legal system. We could just leave it here.

Police probe after Brand sexual offence claims https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66918331

The Metropolitan Police says it will investigate allegations of "non-recent" sexual offences following news reports about comedian Russell Brand.

The difference being that Brand is on social media - unregulated, no checks & balances, no process for fact checking or professional body holding anyone to account. Platforms describe themselves as content aggregators, not broadcasters or publishers so they aren’t subject to the legal and professional standards of the traditional media.

Traditional media is subject to a strict process of compliance and standards including fact checking and legal review. Every programme goes through this process, usually via the production company’s own lawyers and a secondary review by the broadcast compliance & legal team. This will happen at multiple points throughout the production and editing process. It involves both shots and words being analysed to ensure they comply with the law and Ofcom’s code of standards.

None of that is true for anything on social media.

Now that’s a catch 22 - the mainstream media doesn’t report stuff because it’s horseshit, and doesn’t pass the strict level for factual accuracy / legal compliance, which the tin hat brigade take as evidence as a conspiracy or cover up.

The data is in the public domain, yes. However, you have to really dig for a lot of it - and it's generally stuff these organisations don't really want you to see. Simply put, people like RB and his team have done the digging.

During Covid, the UK govt website was being updated all the time with reports on restrictions, policy, mandates, jabs (and harms). But you REALLY had to scour the website to find them. News organisations were barred from running anything negative about the covid response, so people would turn to the internet for this information (where it's then dubbed as a conspiracy theory because it's 'not in the MSM').

Same for anything to do with the US govt, WEF, Big Pharma and Big Tech. All the info is out there - they're just hoping the masses don't dig for it.

The purpose of the media is to bring us news. Investigative journalism exposes corruption, criminality, and sometimes utter banality.

It's purpose is to reveal. To show. It has done its job. Good.

That it is manipulated opinion formers is not relevant here. These women were powerless. That is story.

And while Brand is clearly a vile man the culpability of the people who enabled him is also something the media should look into. Now that's an opinion.

Brand as rapist will be considered by the police. That's fact

Brand's manager should have contacted SS, he is more culpable, the others were in the grip of addiction. They phoned after the program had finished filming to cover themselves. There's a lot of people who really need to take a good look at themselves if what they are saying is true. That manager left a toddler in the care of people who he knew was off their faces and neglecting the child, RB offered a prostitute money for sex, not great, but not worse than those making money off a drug addicted RB and letting the vulnerable be exploited to do so. In every scenario, there's someone as much to blame as RB.

@Jumpingthruhoops / you have no facts. You have Brand's little thought process.

Where are your facts?

Perhaps @Jumpingthruhoops can help us out, as they mentioned the mirroring issue. Jumping, you said

Also, some of the testimony in the documentary didn't entirely 'ring true' in that they used the exact wording from the accompanying footage they showed from his stand-up gig from over 20 years ago. Which, for me, made it questionable

Did you just mean the mascara running thing Jumping or did you notice other examples too?

He's hardly an anti-vaxxer - he's had all the jabs and encouraged people to get them initially. He has simply grown a little concerned with many official stats since.

He displays the papers on screen whilst talking through them and, pointedly, doesn't offer an opinion one way or another. So not much 'cherry picking' as far as I can see. But, as always, anyone who provides such information is a 'conspiracy theorist'.

I'm curious... if a person who presents an audience with medical, scientific reports and official govt data is a conspiracy theorist, what do we call someone who who, er, presents an audience with medical, scientific reports and official govt data?

Which of 'his channels' have they shut?

Great point. Smear tests are another good example of this. Technically the info on false positives and the resulting consequences are there to be found but they aren’t in the public consciousness.

Well, I thought it might be interesting as it gives some small insight into how the women were approached for the show – which you touch upon in your post.

There wasn’t an agenda or a ‘point’ to make.