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

Hey hey now, I am also a member of the Russell brand is a total creep club. Why did nobody tag old gal into the new thread, ehhhhh?? 😄

They probably were the ones in the queue at the dressing room muttering to one another its a dream come true whilst covering themselves head to toe in baby oil.
😫 🤢 🤮

they can only get him there by a lengthy legal process between UK and America which could take 3-5 years and would need a lot of forensic evidence to proof. If you think it’s hard to get a rape trial in court whilst the suspect lives here. It’s pretty much impossible when they ar not in the country. Yes it can be done but but there’s a million legal hoops to jump though and would takes years.

It just doesn’t match what she told the police

You said it’s been proven in cross examination that it wasn’t RB who said clean it up. Can you explain that a bit more please?

It’s been proven that she told a different version when speaking to the the times journalist . Hopefully it won’t matter. 🙏

It’s a fucking terrible thing to have to repeat to anyone

Because he said, i want you to feel my cum.

Yes she needs to make it clear that that is when she realizes he wasn’t wearing a condom - not that he took it off after he flipped her over. He could have taken it off at any point. So she needs to be clear in her recollection of that makes sense? Otherwise it sounds like she saw him take it off whilst she was turned over with her head in the pillows unable to move …

Why does she "need to make it clear?" Most of us have found it clear from what we have heard of the case so far. Based entirely on what is reported in the podcasts from the courts.

So I'm not convinced that her story is as flawed as you seem to imagine it is.

And no, as pointed out, it hasn't been "proven" than it wasn't him who asked her to clean up the mess. Where are you getting your information?

It was just proven she told a different version in another report. Not what actually happened.

you’re right it’s all clear. The jury will spend hours and days trawling through it all. That’s their role not ours. So yeah, like you said.
Hopefully it’ll be crystal clear for them as well

Are they? I don't think they've done a very good job so far. Asking questions that it's against guidelines to ask, for instance. And Brand's main defence KC, Ian Winter, is not an expert in this area, but in fraud and financial crime.

I'm not sure Brand has got "the best in the business" or at least, not in this business.

That is really interesting. Do you think other barristers have turned this down as they simply thought he was guilty and ethically couldn't take it on? I think he has some expertise in defamation so does Brand even at this point thinks it's all about defamation and he wants to portray the women as fantastical wanting money?

Maybe he has made the wrong choice of defending counsel......not an expert though.

Someone said on another thread defence counsels in these cases know the guidelines but are what they can get away with before an objection is made. I guess once said t cannot be India's even if a judge says you haven't heard that.

Yes, I think that's probably the angle he's going to take. That it's some kind of desperate attempt by them all simultaneously to somehow make money by defaming him.

Which seems a bit desperate, tbh, if that's the case.

There was also a mention of discharge i believe although could have been another of his victims who said that

I don’t think criminal barristers turn down jobs due to ethics: that’s not how they work. Even serial killers have a defence team

No, they can't turn it down for that reason. Isn't it more like a taxi rank system? I think they usually base it on who has expertise though!

Surely a defence barrister can refuse to not represent a client of they felt then guilty as trying to prove their innocence would introduce personal ethical dilemmas for them Yes everyone is entitled to a defence but not to choose a certain defence team. Isn't it the case of high profile barristers refuse to the take the case a standby barrister who would be paid state rates would have a statutory and professional duty to defend (no matter how difficult it is for them peronally) just to keep the system working?

@mids2019a barrister may refuse instructions in some circumstances, but not just because they think the client is guilty (in England and Wales). The key principle is the cab rank rule, to which PPs have alluded. Broadly, if a self-employed barrister is available, competent to do the work, and offered a proper fee, they should accept the case regardless of how unpopular the client or cause may be.

The purpose of the rule is to make sure everyone can get legal representation.

A barrister might be able to stop acting if:

• The client insists on misleading the court.
• The client wants the barrister to present evidence known to be false.
• There is a conflict of interest.
• Professional conduct rules otherwise require them to withdraw.

@hihelenhi just looked up Ian Winter KC’s profile on his Chambers’ website. You’re right: his expertise seems to be in fraud and financial crime, which are usually very complex criminal cases that can go on for months - but very different from sexual offences, obviously.

He’s not an expert in defending sexual offences/serious violent crime charges. He is very experienced though - called in ‘88.

Interesting.

That's really interesting. I wonder though if in reality the effort a barrister puts in the case is dependent on how he feels about the case. I know this shouldn't happen but we are all human.

The defence KC got a not guilty verdict for Kevin Spacey. RB’s defence is that these women are misremembering, he was a sex addict but never had non-consensual sex. He admits he was selfish and didn’t think how his behaviour affected other people. That’s how they are going to play it. These women went willingly with RB. And this may throw enough doubt into the jury’s minds.

About half way through this episode is how he will perform in the dock. Measured and thoughtful and holier than thou.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct8mhh?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Has anybody seen any reports of the demographics of the jury, other than it’s 8 men and 4 women. I’m wondering what age they range from.

It wasn’t a flatmate I don’t think. It was staff!
Also RB’s driver took her home, could see she was distressed and handed her a tissue.

No. A pp was right. The ethical obligation is to take a case when instructed, not the opposite. They must not refuse it on the basis of personal opinion about guilt or anything else. No such thing as stand by barristers. Everyone has the same right to a defence regardless of how heinous the allegations or how strong the evidence.

It’s different if your client tells you they’re guilty, but you were talking about the personal opinion of the barrister which under no circumstances can be used to refuse a criminal case.