Dispatches . Russel brand .

[fabmaccawhackythumbsaloft]

I actually like Russel brand . And I don't think he's ever hidden what he used to be in his heyday. He's always been very open about his drug use, and promiscuity.

I read his first book . I watch his videos on fb , and while I don't always agree with him, he seems to have totally overhauled his lifestyle, attitudes, is into yoga, self care, seems to be a decent husband and father .

Is this newsworthy ? Young famous comedian in heyday slept with lots and lots of women , consensually he says ?

Hes never hidden it.

On drug misuse I alWays had time for his views that it should be dealt with as a medical issue not a criminal one

What's the news story ?
I always feel like there is much glee and salivating before the media try and knock someone down.
I don't think this is a huw edwards where people would be shocked at him trying to pick up young women behind his wife's back

It seems that brand has settled down , lives a fairly mundane lifestyle and is happy with his choices .

Or am I completely missing something?

Yes we need the mods. Busy night I imagine.

If I was abused by RB at 16 I might have. I doubt my relative being a pedophile would make channel 4.

I’m responding to the information we currently have and the responses we currently have. I’m not the one making any assumptions.

We will see.

You’re missing the point he’s been accused by multiple women of rape and sexual assault. This is completely different than being promiscuous. The news story is that he was protected by his employers and threatened women and girls with legal action when they tried to speak out. And then he used his promiscuous character to reveal his true colours. You’re right, he didn’t hide it… he bragged about it and everyone laughed.

but obviously this is all ok because now he’s doing a bit of yoga and drinking green tea.

So, Channel 4 did an exposé on an infamously shitty guy that they hired for years? And they're not in any way culpable?!

No.

As I said previously.

Go to the police right away...

It's the only way to gather DNA evidence. Short of video evidence it's the only way of having a hope in hell of a conviction.

I know we umderstandably like to idealise but its really not helpful.

How naive.

They are cancelling jordan peterson for failing to comply with pronouns so if they don't cancel Brand after this, its extremely telling

Sorry, let me get this straight... you wouldn't have gone to the police but you would have gone to channel4?

(I'm really sorry you had to go through that experience with your psycho relative, it was a shame you never went to the police, but It's never too late and you can still do it).

Your posts are so harmful @HotSince82. Girls & women can and do get justice for historical sexual assault. I would hate someone to read this and think there's no point in reporting if they now felt at a place where they were able to.

It's also completely irrelevant to the thread because in the Brand case, what's done is done. They can work with the evidence they have. In the case of one woman, there is forensic evidence. The fact that conditions aren't perfect for a conviction does not mean there is no point in his victims speaking up or attempting to pursue justice.

An example (TW)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66204893

The comments on this thread are WHY women/girls don't come forward and/or report to the police.

I have seen convictions for rape with injuries to other parts of the body, hand or finger bruises. We have seen convictions through sourcing social media posts, text messaging and what’s app and other communications admiring culpability. We have seen convictions based on probabilities and creditability and pregnancies.
CCTV has proven invaluable and is increasingly used as evidence as the victim is unable to give consent and visibly incapacitated on CCTV.

YouTube has some strange policies, they'll band you for failing to comply with pronouns, mentioning the word "magic mushrooms" or saying the word "sex" a little bit too many times but not for having the Murdoch press outing you as a jerk.

Nope.

My posts are unfortunately realistic.

If you want to bring a historic case to the police then it's going to be far better received than calling up a journo. Hopefully.

Good for you. Getting to see all of that.

I agree. It should not be trial by media. These women should have been supported in going to the police and let them investigate. This is wrong on every level. If may well be true but why should the press and general public get to make that decision? It should have gone to the police

Goodness me, we're really seeing how things would have gone if Jimmy Savile had been the subject of such a programme whilst he was still alive.

Apparently there was lots left out of this programme because of possible legal action. They stuck with the parts he couldn't take action against.

No wonder sexual assaults, abuse and rapes are rarely reported, or even mentioned. And sad to see so many in the pockets of abusers even when people relate what has been done to them.

I know that if I'd told my parents about the man who assaulted me sexually when I was a preteen, I would have got the hiding of my life and told to stop telling lies.

Tbh i think if the age of consent is 16 which is very young, although doesn’t feel it when you’re 16, then parents and schools really need to educate teenagers about grooming and pervs who will take advantage of them.

I would never drop my teenager off at a 30 somethings house party….no way! I’d lock them up in their room if I had to. Also at 16 I’d have had more sense although some friends didn’t.

Its hard for parents with unruly teens determined to do what they want so I think education is key or upping the age of consent to 18.

We are firmly into the bullshit of why didn't she...

....which is part of the problem.

The desire to only take seriously the 'perfect victim' which is a myth. And instead blame women or suggest they did things the wrong way. It is the real witch hunt.

I firmly believe those saying 'its trial by media' also have a desire to live in a perfect world and never hear of injustice. They'd rather these women just stfu because if they did that the safe bubble of the status quo can be maintained. And no one will question other idols.

It protects them from asking themselves why they laughed at those jokes in the past or otherwise failing to see what was in plain sight. It allows them to not question their OWN behaviour or their OWN complicity with somehow liking Brand.

Stating it's trial by media rather than recognising it's rather robust investigative journalism allows them the headspace to still believe these women are liars or useless for failing to risk everything to take it the police (who probably would have done fuck all anyway).

It allows them to cast the women into the villain role and to allow Brand to retain his untouchable status.

I'll say it again: I doubt Brand will take C4 or The Times to court for ruining his reputation. And even if he does, his chances of success are remote. Why is that?

Even with the imperfect rape victim.

Perpetuating the mere concept of the perfect victim who responds to being raped in the perfect way as being in anyway a realistic prospect is one of the key reasons women don't report.

Strange is certainly one word for it. Misogynistic may fit better

Age of consent should be 18. Alcohol should be 21.

Oh and there is no fucking should when it comes to victims.

Genuinely if dispatches and others hadn’t run this piece of journalism then Brand would be entirely free to continue!