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

The old Madonna/Whore complex.

Yes, it is scary.

Exactly. "Lucky me, I get to lick his arsehole whenever I want and they don't." 🤮

Yes it is absolutely fucking abhorrent. But if you know anything behind the scenes about how things are then it is a given that RB is going to walk free

The sad thing is when I look back on my own life I’ve actually fallen for this nonsense myself… You’ve changed me, your different.. then the self blaming starts when there true colors come out.

What are you saying you know?

Really?

Behind the scenes? What do you know behind the scenes? Are you the court usher? Serious question actually. I can’t think who you might be that you would know about what’s going on behind the scenes.

But he's deprived those women of their mental health forever....!

F

Yes, please do tell @GettingThereEveryDay

I know how things are, thanks. But no, it really isn't a given.

Edit: When you say "how things are" are you suggesting "in the world in general regarding rape and sexual assault convictions and misogyny" which is what i assumed you meant, or are you claiming some insider knowledge on this particular case?

Absolutely this. Why go back to a cheating boyfriend too?

I don’t live in the UK and was surprised that the wife of a defendant spoke in court.
Is that the norm ?

Let's remember...
"Speaking about their former relationship, Perry said: "I felt a lot of responsibility for it ending, but then I found out the real truth, which I can't necessarily disclose because I keep it locked in my safe for a rainy day." "

Yes, but he wouldn't want her doing that. She's the pure one at home, he'll only want that from what he calls 'tarts'.

I think someone’s mentioned this before but I can’t find it- why can’t the men who were with the woman who claims Brand put his face in her crotch and demanded a massage be forced to testify? Presumably they’ve been approached and are saying they can’t remember but isn’t this telling in itself? If someone asked me the specifics of a work meeting from that long ago, I’d not remember anything much but I could tell you for absolute certainty that my boss did not request a massage from a female member of staff in my presence in that meeting because he never once did this. A lack of remembering would suggest it did happen at times but they can’t remember this particular incident. It’s the only one of the allegations that had direct witnesses and it’s surely telling that these men aren’t happy to stand there and say ‘categorically this did not happen!’

Actually the woman who was grabbed and kissed had witnesses too but I don’t know if anyone could identify them all these years later, was that mentioned? She says there was a woman with them who did nothing (and no reason it should be a woman who steps in anymore than the men but I get why this registered with the claimant). If true, that woman will surely be following this trial (I’m sure most who worked with Brand or came across him will be), I just wish she had the courage to come forward and say ‘yes this happened, I did nothing because I was in my own circle of hell having to deal with Brand and these awful men and I wish I had stepped in’- I think she’d have so much respect for that. If it’s true, obviously. (And yes I believe in due process but my own, meaningless opinion is that I believe these women)

If they came as prosecution witnesses and it did happen , what a terrible indictment of them and their industry? They’d have to admit on oath to allowing a woman to be sexually assaulted at work and them encouraging it and doing nothing about it. It could open up a whole can of worms about that industry at that time. Their own reputation would be in tatters. They may have said to police they don’t recall it. If it didn’t happen, why not come and say it? The victim in her testimony did say “why aren’t they here” and defence barrister said nothing. Draw from that what you will . Same with incident when others were around. Only a few people in rare circumstances i imagine would be prepared to lie in court under oath. I’m just surmising here and obviously don’t know what discussions have been had but it’s a glaring hole in my view for his defence that they have not been called by RB as witnesses.

With it being such a high profile case. There is a myriad of reasons they wouldn’t want to go involved. The same as the woman who alleged she was groped in front of his entourage. Where are they to agree or disagree with this?

Unless the event didnt happen the the way the claimants is saying /in that case there would be nothing for a ‘witness’ to recall.

Then why not come to RB’s defence and say that?

If something didn’t happen then no/one would remember it, obviously. I have been to numerous business events over many years and couldn’t remember every detail of what everyone didn’t do at all times😂

@hihelenhinot especially surprised the defence advocacy hasn't been particularly impressive. As I said before (and as others have noted), Ian Winter KC built his reputation largely in financial crime work rather than sexual offences.According to The Times podcast, he also put a suggestion to Woman 5 along the lines of: "I'm sure he was beastly to you, but he didn't anally rape you." I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting exactly, but that was the gist. What struck me was the choice of language.

“Beastly" feels like a very old-fashioned word. Fairly or unfairly, it's the sort of adjective I associate with upper-middle-class people of Winter's generation. It's hard not to hear the RP accent alongside it. To my ear, it risks sounding as though the allegation is being reduced to Brand having been a bit unpleasant or ungentlemanly, rather than addressing what the complainant describes as a violent encounter.

It's also an odd word choice in the context of this particular evidence. Woman 5 reportedly said that she texted Brand to say he had treated her "like an animal". Against that backdrop, describing the behaviour as merely "beastly" risks sounding flippant or tone-deaf, even if that wasn't the intention.As a piece of cross-examination, I'm not convinced it will have landed especially well with a jury.

Defence counsel obviously has to put the defence case, and the underlying proposition is clear enough: Brand may have behaved badly, but he did not rape her. The difficulty is that the wording arguably softens the conduct so much that it risks alienating jurors rather than persuading them. It is the kind of language that can make an advocate seem detached from how ordinary people would describe the allegations being discussed.Perhaps that's unfair, and we only have media reports rather than a full transcript, but on the face of it I thought the phrasing was striking, and not necessarily in a helpful way for the defence.

@easteggmaybe all this is irrelevant? But a jury’s only human, after all.

Beastly sounds like someone who is out of touch with Mr Average.
You are right.

The jury is supposed to be Mr Average.

Perhaps Dismissive of you would have been better.

Yes it was me who pointed out initially that Ian Winter KC's expertise and history was in fraud and financial crime, not sexual crime. But I fully agree. I thought that description ("beastly" etc) and just the general tone was odd and outdated and unlikely to be of help to Brand. It just sounded like Winter didn't get it at all, rather than it being a smart way of downplaying the accusations.