MORE WOMEN COME FORWARD: Russell Brand

[BeckyBoo841]

As predicted a wave of women are coming forward. A police investigation has begun. Question for the people who don't believe the women... what will be enough 'evidence' for you?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12529661/More-women-allegations-Russell-Brand-BBC-Channel4-Netflix.html

I was hoping this would be happen.

Before Dispatches Brand would have used his lawyers to silence any individual claim but now that it is all in the open women can feel confident that they will be listened to at least and the police can't just turn a blind eye...

I think also it will lead to a couple of other comedians (if rumours are to be believed) having their dodgy behaviour with women put in the spotlight.

It isn't evidence until it's been admitted into court, where it can be weighed fairly by an impartial judge or jury.

So sick of this trial by media shite in this country, everyone getting wound up by whatever the media tells them to get wound up by. And I can't fucking stand Brand.

Yes, we find out our news from newspapers and other media, and sometimes it makes us, especially women, angry when we learn about abusive people abusing people.

I'm not sure why you think this is such a terrible thing.

Are you female btw?
Have you ever tried to get justice for sexual assault through the criminal justice system?

Just googled an interview in 2007 with Brand and Saville. Quite horrible and hopefully the comments made would not happen today.

Brand is repugnant

Proper investigative journalism is incredibly important, @Losttheplotsometimeago

Watch the film Spotlight, which pertains to one of my fields of work.

And I wouldn't call Channel 4 and the Times "shite" media (I vehemently disagree with the Times on British politics but that's different from dismissing their journalism).

I'm hoping that the floodgates will open now. It seems to me that it takes a lot of women to report abuse before they're believed...see also Bill Cosby. Women are routinely dismissed/not believed until the sheer weight of numbers makes TPTB pay attention.

I would most vehemently call The Times along with all the other Murdoch press "shite."

I'm sure a lot more women will come forward.

Abusive men who get off on pushing boundaries like to hide behind a veneer or plausible deniability. But as more and more women talk about what has happened they will realise that this behaviour wasn't a one-off.

"Shite" politically, yes, and I don't buy or read any Murdoch media for that reason. But the standard of investigative journalism is a different thing and I would not dismiss their actual findings so readily. We have seen how good journalism can lead to police investigation and criminal convictions in many many cases (both high-profile and not so high), as it raises awareness and supports people coming forward.

Me too!

It's this sort of journalism that shines a spotlight on men like Brand and gives women the courage to come forward. The conviction rates for rape and sexual assault are woeful, if they ever get to court in the first place - and Brand's lawyers would make absolutely sure he was in the 'no charge' camp. I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg and that more women will feel empowered to speak out against this ball of slime.

Well let's see. Here is an example of the previous "journalism" by Charlotte Wace, the Times investigative reporter who is partly behind this broadside on Brand. She was at the Mail on Sunday, but I am not convinced she had a Damoscene conversion to the path of true light when she moved over to the Murdoch press.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/02/25/the-beautician-and-the-beast-danielle-hindley-v-the-mail-on-sunday/?fbclid=IwAR2zuptvUwe-pLkUNvpWmEgzcopKNpsrkgQVKadS2rZHIIVbuhJMx40zRyQ

Agreed.

So where do you get information about current affairs?

Are you fighting fire with fire or just using irony?

Correction. The conviction rates for rape and sexual assault cases that get to court are good - around 70%. The problem is the number of reported cases that never get to court.

I stand corrected.

I get my news from a wide variety of sources, just don't directly consume Murdoch media. Obviously I see references to things in that media, as with this story.

Firstly people saying they don’t like trial by media are NOT saying they don’t believe the women .

secondly the text shown on the tv was not the full text as it referred to contraception , now that can count as rape , but why redact that bit if it was not for a purpose ?

the alleged rape incident included another woman , allegedly she has come forward and said it did not happen

the text used as “ evidence “ has been cut and paste .

now I can’t stand RB a and I am glad people have come forward and the police are involved because it’s very important that justice is served . Presumably that’s what the alleged victims want ?

However channel 4 have admitted they did not check the evidence provided by the programme makers and personally I think they have a cheek mentioning him flashing when thousands of viewers were exposed to a male penis on their programme of a person playing a keyboard with it without any warning at all and they ignored all complaints.

let’s hope now the investigation continues and the appropriate punishment if due is handed out.

In this case we don’t know though because the alleged rape ( not using contraception) happened in the USA and as the woman did not carry on with her claim then we don’t know what would have happened do we ?

I remember watching a certain comedian playing the part of Frankie Howard (famous stand up and comic actor for anyone under 45) in a tv drama about his life. I’d never seen him in a serious role and he was really impressive, capturing the pathos and dark side of the character very well. It was pretty well-known among anyone who knew him fairly well that Frankie Howard was a serial harrasser of very young men and if any came within his vicinity he would suddenly pounce, grab and sexually assault them. Since then there’s been certain implications about the comedian who played the role.

It was also an open secret among those who knew him that Wilfred Brambell who played the old man in Steptoe & Son was a serial paedophile who abused underage boys. This information came out only in the aftermath of the Savile revelations, but some in the profession were aware and warned young boys to keep away from him.

This kind of behaviour has been going on for a very long time in the entertainment industry and is nothing new.

"Since then there’s been certain implications about the comedian who played the role."

What does this mean? Have concrete allegations been made, charges brought against David Walliams (who is easily identifiable from your description)? How on earth could he defend himself against such a quiet smear as " there's been certain implications" wink wink?

There are probably people who still think Cliff Richard was guilty of whatever nebulous nonce crime because for a good while, the police (in cooperation with the media) were implying he was. He appears to have led a thoroughly blameless life, in fact, but to the end now he will always encounter people who prefer to believe that "there's no smoke without fire."

I agree.

However, now it will be taken seriously whereas before it wasn't.

It's not just the media that have reported this though, Katherine Ryan spoke about it, there is actual evidence of his appalling behaviour that has been shown on the tv . I agree that someone can only be found guilty in a court of law but the evidence is all there to be seen.