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

Do we know that he is who Katherine Ryan was referring to

Didn't she confront him on a TV show?

She did , it was a programme called Roast Battle but that particular segment was cut out.

If it wasn't RB then there's another comedian who needs investigating.

Will he go to prison?

Murdoch's titles may well be "shite".

But their lawyers - the ones who will have scrutinised literally every word they published about Brand - are very good indeed.

Imagine actually not believing anything until it was established by a court of law. You'd never get anything done.

Imagine deciding someone you had never met was guilty of X or Y because telly/Twitter said so.

Fairly sure you would be hoping for a fair legal process if it was your blood the mob were baying for

I agree that he's innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense. However, I'm also allowed to make up my own mind on what I personally believe. This idea that it's immoral to see the allegations and draw your own conclusions is mad.

But the 'tele & twitter' didn't say so. A woman reported a rape to a rape crisis centre, where they froze evidence and she had 5 months of therapy (including notes taken on the rape by the team at the centre) all of which has been verified by the journalists.

Do you think this was made up by the journalists? The accuser? Is it completely fabricated by all, or was the women mistaken when she went to the crisis center? Do you think she wasn't really raped?

What is your take?

Exactly. One can listen to the testimony from a woman who has plenty of historical evidence to back up her claim and make a personal judgment.

I don't think people on here understand libel law. If RB is innocent, as he claims, expect him to sue imminently. Let's see what happens.

There's plenty of evidence of his behaviour out there, and that's before we get to the very credible rape allegations.

People are allowed to form an opinion on the information available. At the very least, he has openly committed sexual harassment but he's very likely to be a rapist.

@BeckyBoo841 a lawyer said that if the media believe that the allegations are true and that reporting it is in the public interest, then RB can't sue them.

Russell Brand can certainly sue. Whether he can win is another matter.

It's clear the newspapers will have done all their due diligence with 100s of interviews and cross-referencing and they will be ready. I guess my point is that Brand won't sue because he hasn't got a hope in hell of winning... because the newspapers have done a rigorous job.

The advantage the newspapers had in the Depp case is that Heard was not forced to make a full disclosure. Because Depp was suing the newspaper and not her, she could pick and choose what went into evidence, avoiding any documentary evidence in her possession that was unfavourable to her. In the US she had to make a full disclosure, which was a significant factor in why she lost, coupled with the fact that, in the US case, Depp's lawyers had evidence that she had lied under oath in the UK and in the US - evidence that was not available for the UK trial. Dan Wootton did not do a rigorous job in that case.

Here, however, the allegations are being made after a long investigation. It does look like they have done a rigorous job, but we won't know unless Brand sues.

Do you read the Times? I'm pretty sure you don't. Its absolutely the most feminist of the mainstream newspapers. It broke the Rotherham child sex abuse scandals when other journalists and papers were too scared to - the others preferred not to investigate child torture and rape in case they were accused of being racist. They have covered the women's rights implications of gender identity when other papers weren't. They broke this RB story about women being abused and everyone turning a blind eye because of ' celebrity.'

That's my evidence that they are doing exactly what journalists are meant to do - speaking truth to power and exposing injustice that others are too scared to address.

And it you read the paper, they don't shy away from criticising the conservative party either. But you probably don't know that as you almost certainly don't read it.

So what's your evidence that they are 'shite' then?

It does not follow that, if innocent, Russell Brand would sue the accuser/papers. There is a different burden of proof in criminal and civil cases, as you know. He might be actually innocent and never have slept with the woman. Or there might have been a question over his conduct, but still insufficient evidence to prosecute him for any crime. And still a given English judge hearing a defamation case might decide on the balance of probabilities (a much lower burden of proof than in a criminal case) that the accuser was justified in saying what she did. It is a crapshoot, actually. Look what happened to Freddie Starr- a man I personally believe was innocent, and who wasn't prosecuted as there simply wasn't the evidence, but ended up dying alone in exile, broken and broke after losing his defamation suit.

I don't share your faith in English journalists, I have to say... but that's a discussion for another thread. It could fill its own thread.

Russell Brand is notoriously litigious. He's threatened to sue many people for defamation. That's why Katherine Ryan was so hesitant about exposing him.

@Thisisveryhard The Times, feminist? Don't make me actually laugh. The Times is a war-mongering lickspittle paper that praises the government with faint damns.

I believe all the women who have come forward. Their accounts are credible and he actually corroborates some of the specific details.

@Losttheplotsometimeago
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.

Same here!

No doubt he took advantage of large numbers of women using his fame to entice them. It was all pretty immoral, did he step over into actual rape? I certainly think his idea of consent is different from some of the women he had encounters with. No just means he has to try some other form of persuasion, he practically said that on one of his sketches. And from what some of the women said he seemed to think consent once means automatic consent in the future.

Me three!

The Sun newspaper, another Rupert Murdoch vehicle, was put pictures of topless 16 year old schoolgirls on Page 3 of their newspaper. right up until 2015!

In the year after it introduced Page 3, its daily sales doubled to over 2.5 million, and it became the UK's bestselling newspaper by 1978.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas—made efforts to have Page 3 removed from newspapers. Meanwhile, The Sun vigorously defended the feature. Typically representing Page 3's critics as prudes, spoilsports, or ideologues, it also routinely portrayed female critics as physically unattractive and jealous of its Page 3 girls. When Clare Short in 1986 tried to introduce a House of Commons bill banning topless models from British newspapers, The Sun ran a "Stop Crazy Clare" campaign, distributing free car stickers, calling Short a "killjoy", printing unflattering images of her, and polling readers on whether they would prefer to see Short's face or the back of a bus.

Page 3 - Wikipedia

He’s well aware that no means no and apologised to his victim. He seems to be a man who simply chooses to go ahead anyway, and the word for that - whether he likes it or not - is rapist.