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

Omg how depressing. I hope you have challenged your SIL on this

There's bound to be plans about alteration of rooms knocking about. Building regs, things like that.

It blooming well should be looked into.

It is absolutely crucial that it is.

how has it always not been given the discrepancies? The sides have already given evidence

I've actually not seen her for a year over it. She knew I'd had previous experience of assault and not coming forward to the police and when I said I found her views on Russell Brand upsetting her response to to attack me and then send me a three page word document she'd written for me to 'educate me' titled "The problem of the Me Too movement". I decided she was not a good person to have in my life, but it does absolutely pain me that views like hers are held.

Naive! (and misogynistic with the cackling tricoteuses comment 😠

Gross. The image in my head of Brand's sweaty hairy arsehole has ruined my week.🤮🤢

I'm so sorry you experienced such trauma, but then to be re-traumatised by your own SIL in this way is unbelievable. I'm not surprised you've had to remove her from your life...but it's depressing that you even had to 😔💐💐

Are you a bit hard of thinking? That’s exactly what the majority of rape and SA cases come down to.

There have been no transcripts from the court. Detailed reporting, yes. Full transcripts, no.

Of course she does. But she wasnt there for the six cases he is currently accused of. Also reliable are the accounts of countless people who have known him and worked with him for decades. Not one came to his defence. It’s been well known in the industry for many, many years - long before all this - that he’s surrounded by rape and SA allegations. Yes his wife knows him very well. But she doesn’t know everything he’s done. Poor Laura has her head in the sand.

Yes, I know (I didn't mean that the jury would decide on that basis). A massive concern as it always is in rape cases - but I do think it's highly unlikely he isn't guilty. The likelihood is, from his behaviour, that he is. Whether or not it is enough for him to actually be FOUND guilty is another matter...

Exactly... the jury finding him guilty or not guilty produces a legal result, but that doesn't make it the truth. Someone can still be a rapist despite a jury conclusion of not guilty because they had a reasonable doubt.

He has inadvertently admitted criminal offences in court. Sexually activity in a toilet used by the public or part of the public has been a criminal offence since May 2004 in England. He freely admitted his preference for ‘a lot’ of sexual activity in toilets because of the ‘privacy’. His assistant (who worked with him in 2006-2007 from his Camden flat) recognised his shoes in the toilet cubicle next to her and that he was having sex in an account in that he is not being charged.

It doesn’t matter if it’s with consent or not. It’s a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of 6 months for each.

This case shows a very good reason for this section in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Toilets should not be used for sex.

He's bloody SICK
🤢

So why hasn’t he been charged with that?
Perhaps because the people he was having sex with on all those occasions were also committing the same criminal offence and should also be charged…

I think one of the challenges for the prosecution is that the majority of rapists tried do not have 'women on tap' and date a series of beautiful rich famous women. Brand I think is hoping that the jury will think the trial has come about because people do not like his promiscuity or the obviously awful way he treated women (which isn't in question).

Also I think Brand has laid down some subtle doubts for the jury. For the anal rape there was an attempt to show Brand had discussed anal sex with one woman prior to the alleged rape and he said the woman had said it was her first time which was may be an attempt to explain the woman's pain and possible injury. Brand has suggested the oral rape victim voluntarily followed her into the toilet , a location he often used for sex and the victim voluntarily went into his car afterwards. The hotel room victim is being portrayed as flirty and certainly not naieve before the events in the room.

I don't know how this will go personally....

Yes but I believe all those women who have made allegations so I believe he is a rapist

Beyond reasonable doubt is such a confusing term in my opinion.
A Google result explains it like this (screen shot attached)
So In this case can a jury decide.. We weren’t there So we can’t be 100% sure but it’s unlikely that a woman lied to 24 friends/family members/a nurse about being anal raped 16 years ago so we find Russell Brand guilty?

On your point about the anal rape complainant, the suggestion he talked to her about anal/ got some indication she might do it was tied to his evidence that he saved her in his phone with the note ‘T’ for tart and AP for anal play. After the sexual activity in the dressing room. Now, there was evidence from the woman’s friend about the dressing room activity. She said that her friend (complainant 5) was ‘doing something to RB’s bottom with her tongue’. So, I see nothing in the ‘AP’ note (even if that’s true) to suggest she had done anything to indicate she was up for anal. Because the AP could easily refer to what she had been doing with her tongue.

I don’t see anything in RB’s evidence about these notes on his phone which detracts from her account. If anything his note that she was ‘memorable’ is rather suspicious, given that he says he doesn’t normally remember because there were so many.

This is one for @easteggwho is the expert (as a former practitioner in crime).

I believe the women. Why would they lie and put themselves, friends and family through this ordeal. It must be terrifying. They weren’t known to each other, and have similar accounts of behaviour. His attitude towards females showed he had little respect for them and was determined to get his satisfaction. Not one witness has come to Russell
brands defence which I think says alot.

There is no way to talk about this properly without going into graphic detail.

My understanding is that he said this woman rimmed him the first time they met.
If I'm wrong, then please disregard the rest of this post.

If I am correct, however, then it seems to me to be an attempt to suggest to the jury that this woman was, to put it into very crude terms, 'up for anything.'

Also, never ever forget this woman suggests that even within his wild sexual world, this woman was particularly unusual.

This does not mean to say the woman consented to anal sex at all. Oh no.
(I can't imagine that anybody would think this would be undertaken without adequate preparation if truly consensual) just that he thought she consented.

No one says beyond reasonable doubt any more most lawyers and judges will define this as “sure.”
The unknown in all of this is how the complainants and then Brand came across as witnesses. That may be determinative in terms of credibility. Demeanour weighs heavily in the assessment of credibility.

Isn't it about seeing seeds of doubt within the jury's mind, muddying the waters so to speak? There were obviously no independent witnesses to the woman saying to Brand to stop anally penetrating her so is Brand as a pp suggests trying to portray the woman as sexually adventurous/uninhibited so in one awful respect anal could have been semi expected as part of a varied sexual encounter?

That was the moment I decided I would never watch anything he was on again. I wasnt a massive fan but thought some of his views were interesting. But that comment horrified me.

Also there was bit of low blow by Brand saying the woman had said it was the first time she had anal sex. If this was said (note the if) then was the admission prior to anal sex indicating some sort of consent of afterwards which suggests a discussion about the pain and blood again hinting at a consensual act. Can the complainant get an opportunity to say she didn't say this as she probably didn't?