Russell Brand 🤢🤮 in the Docky Wock

[U53rName]

Credit to @thebrowncatisback for the title. Original thread is here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5589048-russell-brand?callback=in&code=YTEWYJJJMZQTMJFHNS0ZNDI5LTK3N2QTZWJHYWNHZJGXNZA2&page=39&state=aa7521b41da5458084d85ced7c73c27d

I wonder what initials follow his wife’s name in his phone (and how many stars she has).

Yes I wasn’t talking about the legal tests I am saying that there is no typical way that people react to being sexually assaulted and the jury will be directed about that. It’s like saying “Why didn’t someone fight back/ run away?” We will all react differently in the moment.

I see, looks like a bit of victim blaming here.

Unless it has happened to you, you absolutely do NOT know that you would do that. Doesn't sound like you know much about oral rape or women's experiences of it.

It absolutely does happen. Hence rapists get convicted of it. It's not the woman's fault for "not clamping her mouth shut enough". I find the implication that she "must have wanted it really" because she didn't quite disgusting really. As I say, victim blaming.

I agree that a shock reaction may have to let your mouth open and rape is rape. I was just thinking it may be more difficult to prove lack of consent in these scenarios. It would be good if the jury may be was given some psychological advice into why women don't shut their mouths, struggle etc.

He also used to do a thing in his show about liking shoving his penis down a girl's throat until she gagged and having her mascara streaming.

I appreciate "choking" blowjobs may be a big thing in porn, but most women would not enjoy that, your mascara streaming and gagging is not exactly a great example of consent and again, it's another example of a pattern of abusive behaviour that he's openly talked about enjoying. How would he prove that's consensual?

Excellent point

Well, you can apply whatever emotive language you want but it takes a vast amount of cooperation to get someone into a toilet, into a toilet cubicle, lock the door and then PIM.

If he had a knife or a gun fair enough, but it sounds like he had no means of coercion.

It's utterly out of place compared to some of the other charges.

(Of course, the facts as stated may simply be wrong.)

I think juries will usually be directed that people react differently. Some will report immediately for example others will wait years. It’s a hugely complex topic.

Er, if someone is much bigger and stronger than you, yes it is entirely possible.

And enough of the guff about 'emotive' language, ta. It doesn't seem utterly out of place at all.

Since he appears to have been given to dragging women by the arm into toilets.

Certainly doesn't require a gun.

This line of argument seems strangely familiar... bit like the "young strong women would be able to fend him off easily" that i recall previously.

Hmm. Interesting.

What happens to you if someone holds your nose tightly for lengthy periods of time?!

I'm going to bet none because that whole convention is made up to 'demonstrate' victim 5 was into anal.

If there is phone evidence from the time to corroborate then I'll change my mind.

It's proving beyond reasonable doubt that consent wasn't given that's the challenge. If consent can be given non verbally what does that mean in practice?

Didn't want to give offence just suggesting again these crimes are hard to prove. There does seem to a weight of reporting of events that I think really helps the prosecution . To my mind it is the fact multiple women roles others about their experience which really bolsters chance of conviction.

Oh, that can't possibly be physical, apparently. Nor is being dragged by someone much bigger than you are, nor is having your hair forcibly grabbed or a penis forced into your mouth.

As has happened to many women. And some children. Apparently "everyone" would 'clamp shut' (clue: they don't. If they did, oral rape would never be a conviction, and it is. Frequently).

Breath through clenched teeth, it's not even difficult.

As reported this does not meet the tests for rape. Rather than trying to make it seem like rape how about verifying the facts, and the charge. Maybe the reported facts are wrong, or the charge isn't rape for this one.

No, I know. They are difficult, mostly through the 'he said, she said' thing and the fact you're highly unlikely to have witnesses to the event itself. Which is why I think the tactic of getting so many witnesses who the alleged victim spoke to will turn out to be a good one in this case because it corroborates their stories.

Fucking hell.

No, oral rape is 100% possible. Just not as described. (Or rather not in a way that meets the legal test for rape beyond reasonable doubt as described.)

Yeah. That's very good evidence IMHO.

ONLY if you’ve been on courses to avoid rape, mugging etc

The theme that underpins the whole trial is consent. We know RB is/was a dick. Shit faced on drugs in the late 90s no doubt. His behaviour around sex and women is in no doubt. How will a jury be convinced beyond reasonable doubt?

This is what was reported. The allegation remains rape.Where on earth has it been "reported" that it doesn't meet the criteria for rape? This is not the charge that was downgraded.

"A short while later, she said he "dragged me in the toilets" where the floor was flooded, before "he unzipped himself" and allegedly orally raped her.
She said the alleged rape was "swift", and left her "in disbelief and shock".
"The toilets were behind where he stood. It was literally just grab and pull. He was holding me quite strongly on the arm and pulled me in that direction," she said.
"Part of me was saying just get it over with so you can get out of here".
"I just closed my eyes and tried not to be there. I just remember it felt like a force. I definitely said I don't want to do this," she added.

That doesn't mean that "everyone should have known" or "everyone would have consented.

Being off his face would count against him not for him, surely. As would drunkenness on the part of the alleged victims. Because it's clear that he didn't give a shit about their consent either way, which is what most rape cases are built on. What evidence do you think would need to be presented to be sure? Hardly anyone is going to have direct witnesses to the event. But the reaction of victims to the alleged rape, esp when they've shared that with others, is often quite telling.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying about the ‘phone save’.

He said when interviewed by police that he couldn’t remember the woman.

Then he said in court this morning that he saved her number under ‘TAP**’ which he explained as meaning ‘Tart, anal play, never ever forget this woman’.