Russell Brand accused of rape, sexual assaults and abuse: The Times/Sunday Times story

[BrontëParsonage]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d4d93e74-5478-11ee-bc18-cbdd58145dc6?shareToken=b3cd34ae6268daad4741e6c092ceac97

No coincidence that this came out in 2020.

Perfect timing for them all to read it l, learn from Weinstein's mistakes and DARVO in preparation.

He even had the charities set up Ffs

Quite MrsTerryPratchett apparently Rotherham never happened either.

Wow. So he is a serious rapist and yet he is getting more support than Philip schofield? Sick.

Oh no, he's not a rapist. He's got a sex addiction poor thing.

Mumsnet today is enough to make me want to join tattle.

Ah yes but he was only raping women and girls, he wasn’t having consensual sex with important and superior men. Remember, RB was only cancelled because he upset a man with a voicemail.

Well I’m not remotely a fan of RB and as soon as I saw the headline, then I thought - ah it’s revenge time for all his videos.

I don’t doubt it’s not highly traumatic to have been in a relationship with this unpleasant man. But young people have been in unpleasant relationships since time began - that doesn’t make it illegal.

it was the same with Alex Salmond and the case against him. I cannot stand the man, but the hunt against him by the SNP for supposed sex crimes
failed because it’s not illegal in the UK to be a deviant grimy bugger, as long as it is consensual. And I agree with that, even though personally I would run screaming from these people whether I was 16 or 60

And I also thought the witch hunt against Schofield was similarly disgusting yet in his case there was a definite lean somewhere he shouldn’t have gone.

Tf are some of you doing on the feminism boards? Can we not keep the rape apologism away from here at least

You seem to be suggesting the “witch hunt” against Schofield was more justified as “there was a definite lean somewhere he shouldn’t have gone” is more justified than the “witch hunt” against the man accused of multiple rapes and sexual assaults…

Which is a very bizarre train of thought imo

I’m not drawing a line, others were drawing a comparison and I don’t think it’s a fair/reasonable one in terms of what they did or why they weren’t stopped.

For Brand, there’s been a handful of incidents described by people he was in a legal relationship with, they are abhorrent and if he did those things then he’s a rapist and abuser and should be in prison.

Jimmy Savile had sex with corpses and randomly attacked children and elderly people who were incapacitated, in institutions he shouldn’t have had access to.

You're presuming RB can't defend himself but he can. If the claims are untrue he can sue them, they'd have to prove their claims in court and if false RB would win. I'd bet my house he won't take them to court though, I suspect we all know why.

'If it wasn’t for a handful of alleged incidents really RB has done nothing wrong'

He violently raped multiple women including a school girl. Some of you are really revealing yourselves.

But dirty sex is legal if consensual. It must be fairly hard to show grooming in people of legal capacity?

no rape apologist. I’m a trained lawyer - in a different field - and firstly dislike the way these media trawls happen and ruin lives (cliff Richard anyone). If there is a legal case then the gutter press isn’t the place for it.

none of us actually know if there is rape or not. This reminds me of parading people in the streets I’m the dark ages

As with Depp, I'm wondering why some women want to believe this man is not a rapist and abuser.

Could it be an attempt to avoid acknowledging that someone familiar may be a predator? Because that can be shocking but also triggering.

It makes one feel that one has been duped, perhaps. Made oneself vulnerable. Especially if it were someone we may have liked or admired.

An impulse when we listen to victims and hear women talk about this kind of ugly, terrifying, bullying and cruel behaviour is revulsion and aversion. Often anger is directed at the women. Or their suffering minimised - I think that can be a form of self defense.

It's horrible to hear this stuff. Anger and deflection is common.

Sadly so is rape and abuse, and these stories are sickeningly recognisable and plausible.

When and how will it ever stop?

No, it’s because we think an allegation of rape is so serious that it shouldn’t be trialled in the media.

If women have no other plausible recourse then we can expect this to continue to happen.

If rape is effectively legalised, if men can get off with community service, if going to court is so traumatic, if convictions are so difficult to obtain, what on earth else are women going to do?

If we don't want trial by media then how do we help women who are rape victims?

Over simplifying isn’t always the right approach though.

The saville comparison isnt a comparison, i was commenting on the known link between them and said so clearly. I agree saville was on a whole other level, but it's intriguing to see how brand used the same tactics to dodge any consequences.

What mystifies me if he is the character katherine ryan referred to is why he was so protected? He's always been divisive, an acquired taste. He wasnt beloved in the way saville was so i dont see why he'd warrant such protection post metoo. These days he's an absolute hasbeen, i don't believe this is media revenge, he just has a spouty yt channel.

There are so many issues being mixed up in this situation that the real concerns are being missed. Also, extrapolating the principle of Occam's razor, a complex explanation can involve many things being true at the same time.

Victims of sexual crimes need greater support by the CPS so that they can seek to bring their assailant to justice. The prosecution rates are too low and victim support ineffective and often traumatic.

Victim testimonials need to be subject to processing by law, so that the alleged perpetrator has a right to a defence. The evidence needs to be subject to trial and if guilty, appropriate sentencing given..

Trial by media is unacceptable in a normal functioning society and can erode fundamental human rights irreparably. If we allow it, our children will not be safe in the future and can have their lives destroyed in an instant. It's insidious and pervasive.

Because of this approach, he will now never be brought to trial and his alleged victims will not have justice..The media industry will not change because there is no legal compunction upon it to change. It will be swept under the carpet and it will find other ways to protect highly paid media celebrities to ensure they continue to increase revenue.

Trial by media will encourage the development of a dangerous counter culture, which can be used for nefarious purposes (Trump and Tate are cases in point). Whether YouTube bans them or not is irrelevant, alternative unregulated platforms can be setup. The genie will be out of the bottle.

Feminism is generally defined as the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women. Feminism requires a strong, functioning legal system to protect our hard won rights. Trial by media further erodes our rights by allowing dangerous, unchecked counter cultures to thrive that promote and support the abuse of women and girls. It doesn't promote justice, it promotes a polarisation of opinion in which acceptance of dangerous ideology can thrive.

As a feminist and a survivor of SA, i do not support this approach because of the damage it will do to future victims of SA.

I hardly think mainstream media have been quaking in their boots about RB's youtube videos to the extent they'd spend 3 years working to take him down in revenge. I also think trial by media would be completely unnecessary if trail by the court system actually worked for rapists but tragically it doesn't.

Well done Sunday Times and Dispatches for giving his victims a voice and exposing this vile rapist. I hope it gives other rapists pause.

Women are free to talk about their past relationships and personal history to whomever they please.

They didn't go to the media though did they? Their stories came up as part of the investigation and they were approached by a journalist who convinced them to tell their stories, the journalist then did as much checking as possible to verify the claims. The victims said they didn't go to the police at the time because they were afraid they wouldn't have been believed, and they were right, they wouldn't have been. None of them have been paid for their stories and all har one has remained anonymous so they're not making money out of it if that's what you're insinuating.

I find some of the comments on here really upsetting. I believe the women.

As has been said upthread very eloquently, abusers are good at choosing then grooming their victims.

The similarity to Saville is that the 'powers that be' knew and turned a blind eye. That he used his jobs to mistreat women. IE he got runners to give his contact details to very young women.

Also, that he was 'hiding in plain sight'. He essentially joked about aspects of his sexual assault of a 16 year old to a studio audience. But because of his 'charisma' or something got away with it.

Maybe the difference is that whilst they didn't expose him, casting agents at some point must have turned their back on him. Hence, his reinvention of a right wing, yoga YouTube guy.

The similarity to Saville is that the 'powers that be' knew and turned a blind eye. That he used his jobs to mistreat women. IE he got runners to give his contact details to very young women.

This. He was a predator and they were complicit.

Yes.

Rapists and abusers are ten a penny, unfortunately.

The bigger questions have to be about the media's complicity.

At what point are questions going to be aimed at Channel 4, the BBC and any other organisations that facilitated and enabled this?