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 collate data on toilet incidents to inform on safety and safeguarding. I look incidents like medical emergencies, being trapped and sexual assaults.

There are lots of incidences where men are convicted of raping women, children and, less often, other men in non-domestic toilets. This really is not an unusual situation to convict someone, even some time afterwards.

From what I can collate, they are also many incidents that never get reported.

It comes down to credibility and whether the jury believe RB or the complainant(s) on this issue.

@mids2019 it a Route to guide and inform discussions but not replace them iyswim.

I’m so invested in this now. I really, really hope the jury returns a guilty verdict at least on the anal rape charge.

@Piglet89 me too. I started off trying to ignore all the coverage but now I am well and truly locked in and invested. I am hopeful that they will find him guilty on that charge.

I hope it will also have a knock-on effect of encouraging venues to think more carefully about their toilet designs.

The Times podcast latest episode is worth a listen. There’s a lot of detail in it. Very informative. Interestingly the phone is from 2012. RB has never given it to the police.

The Fame Under Fire podcast from yesterday was good. The reports of what the prosecution said sounded pretty compelling. He sounds so seedy and grubby - I know that's not on trial - but anyone who has ever had a relationship with him must feel like they want to bathe in bleach.

do the words of victims count as factual evidence in jury deliberations? If so - surely he’s guilty on all of them.

@KlippinThey are evidence. The job of the jury is to decide whether they believe that evidence.

As opposed to agreed facts, which are points the prosecution and defence have agreed the jury may “take as read”.

I don't and have never found him attractive but I guess I'm saying that even if a woman did-to the point of marrying him-surely this would change her mind?

Brand is just a pick-up artist bullshitter, it strikes me he has no knowledge of women.
He doesn't understand them on a deep level.
To be blunt, even IF he his wife believes he is innocent and these women are lying, how can she not think that his knowledge of women is so piss poor he can't even act gentlemanly and leave them happy just to avoid trouble later on.

The Kudos of being his wife and basking in the glory is surely gone now, too.
There is nobody singing his praises, nobody wants to know him.

He's been revealed as a hollow shell of a man.
An utter dud. You'd be constantly rolling your eyes thinking what an idiot he is.

Resentment wouldn't even cover it.

So why is she standing by his side then ? There must be something in it for her. She doesn’t need his money. And she nor after fame.

Watching some of the US coverage which I am sort of guessing is not so next to our laws regarding coverage Brand is cooked according to more general entertainment shows. However Megyn Kelly has a different perspective and obviously she can criticise the British legal systems the prosecution and witnesses of she wishes from the US but a concern would be a juror could easily find this material on you tube?

subject not next

@mids2019they could but they’re forbidden from looking. The judge will repeat time and again the fairly serious consequences of breaching that rule.

And if I was a fellow juror of such a person, I wouldn’t even hesitate to tell the usher, if they let slip they’d done such research.

She is standing by his side for now.

Meghan Kelly's perspective is the same as Meghan Kelly's perspective on Epstein/what happened on his island. Powerful men are never in the wrong and women are always making stuff up. The one exception to this is of course the time she was abused. I don't think she is coming from a reasoned "seeing things from the outside" critique of the UK justice system. It's much more simple than that.

In 2026 and fully into the digital media age even though a judge may issue stern warnings about accessing information about the trial when not in court (including contempt of court) in reality can this be enforced or successfully investigated? What is to stop a juror going into you tube and entering Russell brand trial and gaining access to a whole range of opinion fromthe US (who seem to be following this).

What does contempt of court mean in the internet age and the likes of X which seems to be somehow above laws?

Indeed. My concern is that this material is accessible now through a simple you tune search potentially for the jurors.

What it means is likely a term of imprisonment and a criminal record, for breaching the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which contains a specific criminal offence for jurors to conduct prohibited research into a case. The legislation was introduced following concerns about jurors using the internet during trials.

But yeah, this does rely on the juror’s external research being discovered. Mind you, if they’re stupid enough to disobey the judge’s directions (and his or her explanation on the important reasons they’re prohibited from doing that research) they’re probably stupid enough to disclose they’ve done that research during jury deliberations.

Would a judge’s he wants a unanimous verdict because he thinks it’s a weak case? Not that I think it is.

No. That is always the case
& the direction by a judge in jury trials.

It’s just much more preferable to have unanimity for obvious reasons.

@KidsDoBetter thank you.

That's a weird definition of consent. Don't you want a YES before engaging in sexual activity with someone? Rather than just the absence of a NO?

If someone gropes you on a train was that consensual because you were too shocked to respond or didn't have an opportunity to say NO?

Do you go through life assuming that everyone around you has consented to any sexual act with you because they haven't proactively shouted NO at you?

If you consented to surgery to remove your appendix does that also mean the surgeon has a free pass to remove a kidney or your uterus because you didn't say NO to that?

Assuming you have consent by default to do anything you want to anybody at any time is not a "reasonable" belief.

Such a weird take.

I didn't give a definition of consent or suggest not saying no means yes. I asked how you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didnt consent or defend an allegation that a sexual act was unconsented. Its difficult to prove either way. As for surgical consent thats very specific to the procedure and signed to give consent, Except in life saving emergency situation which operates under the legal principle of implied consent or best interests

"Reasonable belief of consent "is a core legal principle under section 1of the sexual offences Act 2003 in the UK. the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a rape case that 1.That penile penetration occurred. 2.The claimant did not consent AND 3.The defendant did not reasonably believe the complainant consented. I