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

That's a really important perspective @MermaidMaggie and I understand your reasoning. I do agree with you in principle. And I'm sorry you are also a survivor of this.

At the same time the reality is that so few rapists go to jail. Women are
on the back foot with the U.K. police force. It will take decades to begin to make a change.

He's got an enormous following, especially in the US now it seems - many defenders on Twitter appear to be us.

Also his own charities and apparently runs courses for addiction with online forums etc.

Women are free to talk to journalists.

This is as much as signal to the rest of them, celebrities or your average bloke.

The press are often more able to effect real change via public awareness than years of of hidden flogging of dead horses.

You are right though that he's got his defenders. That is an issue.

I fundamentally disagree with this.

’Trial by media’ is a much bandied about phrase that’s becoming a catch phrase of those who talk about ‘mainstream media’

less than 1% of rapes reported to police result In conviction. Are you seriously suggesting that 99% of women in this situation are lying?

Trained, experienced journalists are allowed to investigate stories and present their findings- it’s a cornerstone of an open society. This is based on the testimony of hundreds of people - it’s not a single allegation from one person.

it’s also a world away from frenzied speculation on social media by people ‘guessing’

In the article, one woman’s therapist’s notes show she’d considered making a complaint but was scared of the consequences.

im sure many of these women would have wanted a fair trial, but in reality that isn’t open to them in the current system.

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

It seemed to me that Channel 4 was entirely trying to shove the blame onto Endemol. Also they all blamed the processes at the time and claimed that they had much better safeguarding policies (really?) and codes of conduct now.

Quite a lot of buck passing.

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

Yes when.

They're all too busy handwringing about and "cancelling" a 50 year old woman who's an excellent musician and made a private valid comment about chemical castration drugs being given to minors, which, incidentally, a bbc journalist has spent years exposing.

The bar for men is light years below what it is for women.

@MermaidMaggie

some good points made eloquently.

However is there a point where the chances of success in the judicial system are such that the only means women have to find justice and prevent repeat offending is through the media? I believe it took a collective movement of women in the film industry to being the me too movement that ultimately led to justice being brought to the like s of Weinstein.

I agree ideally this should have been dealt with by the police and courts but the odds were stacked against the women involved and surely part of Brand's defence would be that the accusers were motivated by money or revenge and having a top barrister attempt to discredit a very personal emotive attack must really be off putting.

I think that is why there was such a length of time given to the documentary on that the story had to hold a great deal of credibility to avoid legal action against channel 4 and it's reputation being tarnished as the promoters of "hatchet jobs'

I think that is why there was such a length of time given to the documentary on that the story had to hold a great deal of credibility to avoid legal action against channel 4 and it's reputation being tarnished as the promoters of "hatchet jobs'

It's worth reading current tweets about and by the journalists who worked on the story.

There's no way these women could have had the impact on him on their own, privately, that was necessary.

He'd already been threatening journalists who tried in the past. What would he do to them?

This is Russell Brand's successful libel case for a newspaper implying he was involved in the drug rape of a young woman in 2006.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/russell-brand-accepts-substantial-damages-from-daily-star-over-rape-claim/

At a brief hearing at London’s High Court today, Brand’s solicitor Paul Fox told judge Mr Justice David Eady: ‘The articles describe the victim’s allegations that she was slipped a drugged drink and raped during a party at the claimant’s rented flat during the Edinburgh festival.
‘The meaning of the article was that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant drugged and raped a young woman. This was totally untrue.

‘The claimant was never suspected of the alleged rape nor was there any evidence at all to involve him in its circumstances. Rather, at the police’s request, he assisted them as a witness.”
He said that Band was forced to issue a press statement on the same day denying any involvement in the alleged rape, and that he demanded an apology through his solicitors, highlighting the fact that the article suggested he used drugs to facilitate rape when in fact he had publicly expressed his abhorrence of drugs and is the patron of the drug rehabilitation charity Focus 12.

So it looks like either one of Brand's staff or general entourage was the alleged rapist.

highlighting the fact that the article suggested he used drugs to facilitate rape when in fact he had publicly expressed his abhorrence of drugs and is the patron of the drug rehabilitation charity Focus 12.

This appears to have been his main concern, rather than people thinking he was a rapist.

Interesting one of brand's entourage felt comfortable enough to drug and rape someone in brand,'s property. Not just at some random party, actually right there with him - thats bold. Speaks of a culture.

Not just at some random party, actually right there with him - thats bold. Speaks of a culture.

Exactly my thoughts too.

Just watched the doc on catchup and I'm v sceptical of some, if not all of this.

Brand has always been a slimy sex bloke who you didn't want your daughter to be around, but last time I checked that wasn't a crime.

They spent 90 minutes destroying him with inneunedo and pearl clutching around his sexual practices with willing, legal participants. 🙄

The criminal allegations could have been summed up in 2-3 minutes of screen time. They spent 3 years investigating, proactively trawling hundreds of women to find anyone with an axe to grind (against a famous celebrity womaniser whose USP was to sleep with woman as disposable objects) and this is the best they could do? Weak to say the least.

I'm not defending him, I don't know if he did the criminal acts alleged in this doc, but the method alone seems designed to generate allegation through investigation by exhaustion.

Can anyone on here honestly say if someone spoke to everyone you had ever worked with they couldn't find someone with a bad word to say about you, who might exaggerate a bad encounter to get at you? Not saying that's definitely what happened, just that with the number of women Brand slept with in his life and then dropped, it's a statistical certainty you will find a few that hate him and have an axe to grind, regardless of his actual behaviour.

I'm left asking the question, what was the point of this entire thing? Nobody seems to want to take anything further, and even if they did any trial has now been prejudiced by this doc. Also I note Brand says in his rebuttal video he has cast iron evidence that explicitly contradicts some, if not all of the allegations against him. I'd be interested to hear his side of this and his evidence. It might cast some of this in a very different light.

It seems it was his radio co presenter at the time, Trevor Lock, who was accused of the rape.

www.chortle.co.uk/news/2006/09/09/4437/lock-arrested-for-rape

Russell Brand was quick to proclaim his innocence.

Trevor Lock did not show up for Brand's 6 Music show on Sunday morning, but his friend sent out messages of support, saying the theme of the programme would be 'innocence' and dedicating the Morrisey song In The Future When All's Well to him.

@ColonelDax ,

I am amazed to see so many women, especially in this section, defending him. It seems that if you are left wing and good looking (debatably), many will give you a free pass.

Some of the acts described in the documentary did seem consensual and caused me to raise my eyebrows. However, many others were clear descriptions of crimes. Some of his ‘comedy’ basically described acts that were, at least, borderline criminal.

I recently watched ‘the most hated man on the internet’. His whole persona and MO reminded me a lot of Hunter Moore, a man who used women as disposable commodities to further his own career.

The program was based on a year of research and, as they said, all the allegations are corroborated. It looks like sound investigative journalism to me. If not, he has the wherewithal to sue for libel. Something tells me he won’t.

Whether this leads to others coming forward or any criminal prosecution is sort of beside the point. Shining a light on him and making the victims feel that they are not alone is, in itself, a kind of justice.

The judicial system has higher standards than the media because there are bigger consequences. "Trial by media" can't send you to jail.

If someone in your social circle was known to be a serial rapist, wouldn't you talk about it, warn potential victims? You wouldn't say "we shouldn't talk about it because it hasn't been to court" (well, I hope you wouldn't). For a celebrity like Brand his "social circle" includes the entire country, and everyone deserves to know the truth.

Firstly a social circle is people you know personally who you interact with in person regularly or semi regularly. That justification doesn't wash.

Secondly what exactly was the basis of the 'warnings' that people were giving each other about Brand? The doc stated they had seen them but neglected to say what they were on more than one occasion. That's odd considering the context of the rest of the doc. If the warnings were 'dont trust Russell Brand he will rape you' I bet we'd have been told about them in explicit detail.

It's likely they were along the lines of 'Brand is a sleaze who will try it on with any women he can' which is exactly the kind of thing people do warn each other about but again, isn't a crime.

With things like this, I always ask myself what they aren't showing, and what they are deliberately leaving out in order to spin a certain narrative.

Has anyone both read the Times article and watched Dispatches?

I only read the article and I'm wondering what differences there may be between the two pieces.

His former assistant even stated openly on the show that she never thought or worried that he would rape or sexually assault anyone, just that he was a womaniser who would sleep with anyone.

Again very odd if apparently there were warnings circulating for years about him being a sex offender?

We have courts and trials so that both sides of the arguments are heard in a fair and impartial manner. I can't say I've read all the details but the timing of the allegations is interesting to say the least.

@ArabeIIaScott ,

They are pretty much the same. The program has a lot more detail, though, as it is 90 minutes, and dramatises it a bit by interspersing his ‘comedy’ routines with interviews with alleged victims.

Thanks. I'll need to watch it, although I did find the article tough going.

@ColonelDax - I totally agree- He is a grade 1 prick but always was and I'm really not sure of the point of this programme as I may be wrong but think it's stamped out any chance of prosecution- it wasn't a secret he was a sex obsessed lunatic-

I do get what people are saying about the police in this situation but I think you cannot say as a blanket statement that no one gets prosecuted. We know someone quite well who got 5 years for 'rape within marriage' after his wife had a baby 5 months before. Perfectly average bloke if you met him. He admits he did pressurise and push but to this day still says it wasn't rape .

This isn't a Savill situation from what I can see on the evidence given

The biggie is people are frightened of losing their jobs in a lot of cases - that's why they said nothing - that culture has to stop and we need to accept that sometimes the 'talent' is a twat!!

To me though a pointless expose, hesa known twat and as far as I'm aware these people were not prosecuting and probably couldn't now.

There's a crime called " rape within marriage"? I thought forcing someone to have sex was just always called rape, in law?
Anyway. There's doubtless more to come about RB, as from reading the article he's a revolting nonce who has probably been abusing for decades.

Marital rape had to be brought in as a specific crime because until that point a husband forcing his wife to have sex wasn’t illegal.

it’s only been a crime in Britain since 1991.

MariePaperRoses rape is the one crime where it is always "her words against his" .

How many (non-gang) rape happen in spaces where there are other witnesses?

The difference between pre-trial and the proven in court is that 12 members of a jury need to agree that her words can be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt.