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

@mamamia35 I take it back!
Just watched it out of curiosity.....it definitely does have relevance to this thread!
Well said Bob.
Got a few cheers in agreement too.
(Wish he hadn't shaken his hand though.)

This is completely impossible to predict.

Right that’s why I’m asking a what do you think not a date and time for a verdict.

Your question was ambiguous, especially in the context of a thread where posters have been asking the views of those with criminal law expertise.

Could be a couple of hours or a couple of weeks.

@Piglet89for goodness sake, so we can only value response from people claiming some kind of expertise? I don’t think that’s in the spirit of a chat forum. Why not just ignore my question instead of posting such po faced nonsense.

One thing that concerned me about the anal rape charge was a comment someone (male) made on the intenet. To paraphrase, 'it was out of order to have anal sex without permission while having sex and he hurt the poor girl. However I don't think someone should do 15 years for that and never see his kids....he's not a murderer'. I hope this isn't the view of many but I do wonder if the potential length of sentence will weigh heavily on the jurors and they will be very much wanting to be sure.....

I don't need to re-read your post slowly.
Unlike you, I do know what evidence the jury has been told. I've listened to it all, throughout the trial. As a result of what I have heard, I have an opinion.
I'm surprised you haven't heard the evidence. Perhaps if you did, you'd be better informed.

Exactly - and why come on to a chat thread about especially if you’re worshipping the court process as sacrosanct

Yes that’s exactly why they got the wife up - apart from not one else wanting to vouch for his character

No, you have misunderstood: that is absolutely not what I’m saying. I’m saying the purpose of your question was ambiguous - the way you worded it meant it’s unclear whether you’re asking “How long do those who have expertise in these things think the jury’s deliberations will last?” Versus “Let’s have a wager among us about how long they’ll last”.

That was all. There’s absolutely no need to be so aggressive and rude.

Jimmy Savile had no convictions. He died without ever even having been taken to court.

I agree, I really hope there isn’t some kind of sympathy towards his current situation in the decision making.

I saw a clip of some kind of podcast where this seemed to be their view.

@mummabubs- in England and Wales, a defendant of good character (typically someone with no relevant previous convictions and no other proven reprehensible conduct, as I understand is the case with Brand) is usually entitled to a good character direction. That direction has two aspects:

1. Credibility limb: the jury may take the defendant's good character into account when assessing whether to believe their evidence. Good character can support credibility.
2. Propensity limb: the jury may also take it into account when considering whether the defendant is the sort of person likely to have committed the offence alleged.

The important distinction is that the judge does not tell the jury: "This defendant is more likely to be telling the truth."

A botched good character direction might be challengeable. Therefore, I wonder whether it’s possible the judge’s good character direction has been misreported on the podcast(s) or otherwise lost in translation on this thread?

@CoconutSwirl

samesies! Listened, heard, judged.

He has had proved reprehensible conduct - the Andrew Sachs’s debacle

or do you mean in a court

Good job you’re not on a jury. Even RB has a right to a fair trial unfortunately.

Wasn’t his baby having heart surgery when Chanel 4 refused to delay airing the documentary?

I dont know @UnwillingAdvocatehe said he wasn’t allowed in due to the allegations I think.
I do have a view on that and I feel they should have risk assessed and allowed him in depending upon that (innocent until guilty etc). I am thinking now though you can’t use someone being different to mitigate against a guilty verdict.

@TinydanceerIn the context of good character directions, "reprehensible conduct" means conduct that is morally blameworthy or seriously discreditable, even if it did not result in a criminal conviction. It’s established by appellate case law on good character. A defendant may lose the right to be treated as a person of "effective good character" if there is reliable evidence that they have engaged in behaviour that reflects badly on their character, despite having no convictions. Examples might include:

• Admitted fraud or dishonesty that was never prosecuted.
• Proven acts of violence that did not lead to a conviction.
• Repeated serious misconduct in a professional setting.
• Participation in criminal activity where, for whatever reason, no conviction followed.

It’s definitely arguable at least the third point applies to Brand, but I didn’t hear the judge’s direction on the matter.

It's all a bit Old Testament. As I understand it, according to Old Testament law a woman was only considered to have been raped if the assault took place out of earshot of the village or city or settlement where she was living; if she was within earshot of other people she should have screamed for help and therefore could not have been being raped but must have been consenting (and very likely adulterous too).

I thought Western civilisation might have grown up a bit in the two thousand plus years since those times.

Thank you, this this really helpful and reassuring to read. The podcast and separate source news reportings I've been listening to by journalists who have been in the courtroom have all used the term "more likely to be truthful", but I sincerely hope this is inaccurate reporting as when I heard that I felt very uneasy.

I expected the prosecution to call an expert witness to explain the different reactions during sexual assault. This should be done as a matter of course in these kinds of trials. Will this type of information be in a pack for the jury?

I’m also feeling a bit angry at the defence for the criticism of the police and Dispatches for encouraging more women to come forward, like it’s a witch hunt. If #metoo hadn’t happened, Harvey Weinstein would still be free.

I hope the victims get justice and closure.

The Trial podcast Ep 15 (the Times) explains in a lot of detail the judge’s legal direction to the jury such as Woman 1 - was he reckless? ie he didn’t care. Woman 6 - is a man’s head in a woman’s crotch sexual? Etc etc.