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

Personally I feel the prosecution may have put a bit too much weight on Brand's promiscuity and detached nature after coitus rather than specifics of the crime. With 8 men on the jury statements like 'he went for everything with a heart beat and a vagina' and he considered women 'holes' feels like an attack on his promiscuity and general regard to women rather then focused on the prime point of consent. A lot of men do unfortunately go for everything with a vagina of given a chance and probably have in some cases treated women as 'holes'. Attacks on promiscuity might be viewed more of an attack on masculinity for some men of a certain character who may or may be on the jury.

I think women would have been much more receptive to the prosecution's closing statements where imho there is more of a revulsion to his callous behaviour. To some men he will just be a player and who wouldn't be given a chance?

Yeah, possibly. Promiscuity per se doesn’t make anyone a sex offender. And being unkind and callous don’t in themselves make anyone a sex offender either. So yes, I agree re the risk.

My mind keeps coming back to the (rightly) extremely high standard of proof. Based on my limited knowledge of the evidence- based on what has been reported - I suspect it hasn’t been made out in relation to to most charges. I think the evidence is perhaps more persuasive in the allegation of anal rape.

Re the promiscuous issue. It's a double edged sword isn't it, because many of the women he slept with also promiscuous as were some of the complainants (I haven't read up on all of it). So to demonise promiscuity as a character trait also discredits the women, I know they are not the ones on trial but it can influence the way they are seen and believed. If it's ok for them to be promiscuous then it's ok for RB. And vice versa. I think it should be very much separate from consent issues

If she is now a recognisable public figure, would her voice be distorted in the court room? I'm assuming not but means it's hard to stay anonymous.

Good point. Anyone attending a party conference probably has a real interest in a political career. Most people that age would be going to Oasis gigs in their spare time.

However as being involved in politics some time ago party conferences can be notorious for sex strangely (maybe the link to power?)

The promiscuity is a bit relevant not because of a moral judgement on the promiscuity itself but because the defence (and some posters on here) at one point were trying to imply that he had women throwing themselves at him etc etc therefore why would he want/need to assault anyone. In that respect the fact that he was quite compulsive in his nature and seemingly never satisfied is relevant. And is a counter balance to his own attempt to portray himself as a benevolent cheeky chappy lothario type.

If you are bringing promiscuity and impulsive behaviour into the equation doesn't this hinder the case for the anal rape where the complainant was looking specifically for a one night stand and by her own admission wasn't looking for a boy friend?

Women were throwing themselves at him (hence picking out a queue of women) unfortunately and he took advantage. Odious but as one woman said, 'my morality isn't on trial' so could this not apply to Brand?

There's a difference between looking for a one night stand and anally raping someone though. It's not that promiscuity makes someone more likely to be a rapist. But if the defence is "he didn't need to rape women there were lots of women he could have sex with" then compulsive promiscuity to the extent he was never ever satisfied and immediately depressed/looking for more sex after each encounter negates that "enough" women were willing to have consensual swx with him anyway.
Brands isaues seem to have gone well beyond promiscuity anyway. And there's a basic thing about how you treat people you come into contact with that isn't directly linked to promiscuity

Irrelevant how it ‘could’ be done. Presumably the court heard how the claimant said it was done?

I was answering the quoted post, which claimed the only way to get a blow job in a toilet cubicle is to balance on the bog!

The promiscuity bit is a total red herring. The simple question is whether the jury are sure Brand anally penetrated the complainant without her consent, according to the evidence they’ve heard. Whether she’s promiscuous or he’s promiscuous or my cousin’s cat Marcus is promiscuous is completely irrelevant.

Certainly in the case of the anal rape charge, from what has been reported, the complainant’s testimony is compelling.

You can be highly promiscuous without being impulsive or having an issue with impulse control.

I agree. It’s the charge that he is most likely to get convicted for I think.

@idontknowhowtodreamyourdreamsand, were he convicted even only on that charge, would it definitely result in a custodial sentence? It’s a serious sexual offence so I’d have thought in terms of years - from higher single digit figures to low teens. Dunno about previous good character though.

But the prosecution were raising it in their final statement? So you think it would have been wider just to focus on the lack of consent in each case rather than maybe making a judgment on Brand's well known bed post nothing?

notching ....

@mids2019prosecuting KC is a bit of a star by all accounts so I’m sure she knows best on this than little ole Miss Amateur over here. I haven’t heard her opening or closing speeches obvs so don’t know context.

@Piglet89. almost certainly. Sentencing guidelines start at 5 to 15 years I think, with potential to go higher depending on the offence itself and surrounding circumstances.

I guess we'll see. I agree the anal rape testimony is compelling (with the associated injury)

Good point

Really hope he gets found guilty, all the comments people saying he's innocent is crazy

Re the associated injury - if she said it was her first time, even if consensual, surely the injury is not unsurprising.
From what I’ ve read on MN - as haven’t done that myself - seems kinds unnecessary in het sex 😂 - not unusual for obvious reasons of basic physiology (also for gay men) so…the injury itself is not evidence of rape. That depends entirely on consent.
And the consent is ‘he said, she said’

@LaDeratiseuse am not so sure. Even if she didn’t say no or ask him to stop (which she says she did), if she were bleeding - and it sounds like there was quite a bit of blood - then a reasonable person would stop penetrating a bleeding person?! As even if she said nothing (and she is clear she did) her body language would not be, well, she would be flinching. You’d stop and check in. Or anyone who isn’t a sexual predator would.

The definition of rape is where:
A person intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with their penis.
The other person does not consent to the penetration.
The defendant does not reasonably believe that the other person consents.

so, for me, I don’t think he could have reasonably believed she was consenting if she were bleeding and flinching (and by her acc saying stop). Even if silent, I personally would be unable to believe she were consenting.

But if not consenting then wouldn’t she have fought back before the penetration.
So the injuries would have shown that if she had prevented them at the time to the police/ /A&E?
Why allow it to continue if she was not consenting?
Why not scream/alert peoole?:scratch him?
Questions I would have if on the jury.

This trope that women should fight back etc is to fundamentally misunderstand sexual assault. I cannot believe in 2026 people are still saying “She could have clamped her mouth shut” “Why didn’t she fight him off?” Sexual assault is v complex so are the reactions to it. Many people are frozen in fear, in shock; freezing is a real thing. Let’s not forget that the only people responsible for sexual assault are the men who do this not women for failing to prevent it.

If he were to be convicted of anal rape alone I think it would likely be at least 5 years.