Russell Brand

I don't think the overwhelming response is anything to do with big pharma. I think it started off as that but then a few people have basically convicted him. "Why would someone go to a rape therapy for 6 months if it isn't true? That's commitment to a lie" yes and guess what. People DO things like that. Eleanor Williams attacked herself with a ******* hammer just to frame people for a rape they hadn't done yet attending a few meetings to achieve the same thing is apparently unthinkable?

I completely agree with what you say. I doubt very much it's anything at all to do with big pharma, I very much doubt anything ever is.

 

And also hopefully making the allegations public, presenting them as fact, and having it as the lead story on every news website and news bulletin in the UK which clearly heavily influences public opinion wont, yet again, mean that a fair trial is impossible.

 

When the BBC reported Orgreave they played the footage in the wrong chronological order. The sequence they edited together showed the miners throwing missiles at the police before the police, defending themselves, charging the miners on horseback.

That is not what happened. It was the other way around. The police attacked a picket line and the miners attempted to defend themselves.

Many years later the BBC admitted this and claimed it was a mistake.

It wasn't a mistake. Not only have staff, who were there at the time, given accounts of how everyone could see the order of events, and how many protested against what was put together, but the footage was timestamped. The editor had a clock on every frame of footage telling the time the events took place. The tapes were spun forward to get the footage of the miners and spun back to get the footage of the police and stitched together the wrong way round. This was an editorial decision that helped public opinion turn, helped keep the Tories in power, helped destroy our mining industry and pretty much did for trade unions. It was that powerful. And that was the BBC.

I tend not to use words like 'elite', but there are people with the power to hugely change opinion, and in turn our society, and they didn't go to run down comprehensives in a provincial town.

Not that I think this particular story is of anything like that kind of magnitude, and it may well be entirely factually correct, but a tiny minority of the populace, in extremely privileged positions, almost exclusively from privileged backgrounds, do have a disproportionate amount of power.

 

Just watched it.
Whether you think he is being fitted up or not. Some of the stuff he did out in the open were beyond any human decency. The spitting comment. The p1ssing incident. The sachs incident. Tbh there is very little from what I saw that would contradict him of using his fame to get exactly what he wanted by fair means or foul. Even using his naive PA (at the time to do his dirty work.) The texts messages support foul behaviour. I honestly could not believe some of the stuff he did whilst on air. The saville incident another. All there to see or hear. Horrible piece of ****. Just fortunate I never chose to watch him after first seen. Umpteen yrs ago. I would have turned off immediately.
His alleged victims were aware of the power he had and wouldnt disclose to police. As in the vast majority of sexual assault/rape cases. One word over another. And aware of what may happen if a case failed.
By some reasoning on here Saville would be innocent. Because he was never found guilty. Yet the overwhelming evidence suggests he was.

A not guilty verdict does not always mean innocent.
How many think OJ was innocent. Found not guilty in a criminal court. Guilty in a civil case.

Geldof had it right at the awards when he called him a lovely person. Over his remark Sir Bob Gandalf when Brand presented an award to him, and probably his association with Peaches, Bob's daughter. Irrespective of what folk think.

 

If the texts etc are genuine then there is surely enough evidence to start an investigation and none of this should ever reach the public domain before trial should there be one.
The huge problems we have that are a barrier to that are a) are the police sufficiently staffed and trustworthy enough to carry an investigation forward? Answer No and No.
b) Are the press sufficiently regulated either internally or externally to treat cases like this properly? Answer, No.

 

I'll stand corrected. The biggest barrier is unless the accusers go to the police. Nothing can be done.

 

Same here. Directly out of the Trump playbook and it stinks.

 

Fully agree. The problem is that so many women expect their cases to be ignored by the police or they think the system will let them down at some point along the way.
There has to be a trustworthy and workable medium between Jimmy Saville and Huw Edwards. The police and the justice system should be that but they aren't.

 

Correct on both counts.

One thing that has made me think though is that allegedly a victim has texts as evidence, has evidence they went to a rape clinic and therapy etc plus evidence of an apology for the crime from brand yet the reason she didn't go to the police is according to some on here that 'its her word against his and he's more famous' that isn't the case at all if that evidence is real and exists. If all the evidence is correct then it's a very strong case for even the laziest of police forces to investigate and I actually think that his celebrity would drive an officer to investigate it more than if it was me or you. What cop wouldn't want to make a name for themselves as the cop who got a conviction against a celebrity? They'd be a hero

 

I personally think that one of the biggest problems is the media and the public. We are so quick to tell people that rape accusations are ignored. Look at this thread, it's full of people saying that basically there's no point in coming forward as nothing ever gets done. It never will do while that's the message we push out constantly.
We seem hell bent on focusing our attention on the failed accusations than we are in the convictions and perhaps if we did that there would be more people actually coming forward.

 

Probably one of the hardest if not hardest accusations to prove. And fully understandable if the victim chooses not to prosecute. If a case is not won there are no winners. Everyone are aware of the Stats. That's why most don't come forward in isolation.
As for saying people are telling em no point not to come forward. I don't think that's the case at all. When more and more people are aware it's happened to others. That then gives em the strength to report it to the police.

 

I get your point but I'd also say that we get almost weekly illustrations of how police are riddled with bias and bigotry. The Met are an absolute disgrace and have been shown to be so for many, many years. Other forces are little better. I've seen them close up. A lot of them are just yobs with uniforms. If I were a woman who'd been assaulted I'd be very nervous about reporting it. I'm sure the majority are treated properly and with dignity but with the constant, demonstrable failings of our police being exposed I'd be apprehensive.
What message are we supposed to push out? That the police are wonderful? They're not. A lot, I'm sure are individually but a significant number aren't. What did the Met commissioner say a while back? That there's something like a thousand current officers under investigation for sexual assault or misconduct. In an environment like that how are we supposed to trust them? You just have to hope that women are strong willed enough to continue to come forward.

 

I agree with you, the conviction rates aren't high enough, they just aren't. And I completely get why people don't come forward and I'm not blaming the victims for not coming forward at all, I get fully why they don't. I just wish that the message of 'there aren't enough convictions, you have a very low chance of winning' wasn't so publicly pushed out as it is because it makes people even less likely to come forward even if in reality it's true.

 

I agree, all should report an incident to the police. As is promoted. But the police may not have enough evidence to press charges. If another person accuses the same perpetrator. Then they may have more to go on.

Look at the Ched Evans case.
Guilty. then not. (Admittedly after offering a £50k reward for people to come forward. Whether that influenced anyone I have no idea ) Evidence is the key.
Imagine the financial clout Brand had/has if the 16yr old runner had reported the incident. All has to be considered.

In the Brand case I think there is sufficient to press ahead, if the ladies want to.
If they don't. itll be interesting to see if Brand will want to pursue defamation.

 

That's the key part for me. What message should we push out? And I have absolutely no idea. We can't lie, that's just wrong. But convincing people they will lose just outright stops them coming forward. It really is a tough one.

This may be controversial too but I do understand why there is such a low conviction rate. Because in a lot of cases it really is one person's word against another and that's just so hard to prove sadly. With that I think they only way to make the figures sound better to victims is to create new crimes (actually no idea if there already are) so that different types of rape are classified completely differently. The only issue there would be that it would make the conviction rate for some even lower. In fact just ignore that suggestion.

It really is a horrible thing. I get why people get away with it because you just can't prove that someone said no when the other person says they said yes. It's ******* horrible but it's true. What I hate most though is that we have to have this conversation so regularly because there are so many absolutely horrendous people out there.

 

In case people are wondering why women like those in the program don’t just go to the police. And then that they probably made it up. Also you adjust have to look at those defending him - people like Fox, Tate, Tucker Carlson, the best of humanity…

 

We have one in No 10 Downing Street mate.

 

Finally some sense. I thought I was going mad. Good post this.

 

This one definitely made me think. I'm thinking in particular of one semi-famous person in a location where I used to work that I'm almost certain is a wrong 'un (in the sense that I'd warn female friends if I saw them at events, and refuse to work with them any more than was strictly necessary) , but it was a kind of quiet cancellation. Everybody knew somebody who knew somebody who'd been treated inappropriately by him, but it's difficult to go any further when it's a kind of public figure and you're a small fish, never mind somebody at the level of Russell Brand. And obviously I had no direct experience of his behaviour myself - just enough rumours and hearsay to be 90% sure.

Could I have done more? Yeah, probably. But quite apart from any legal issues you'd expose yourself to, I think going any further than that removes agency from the victims, in a sense. If I'd actually witnessed something then I'd certainly have spoken out, but I think under the circumstances I had to be content with my quiet cancellation. A marginal benefit was that it was so well known that I was able to adjust my opinion of anybody who did hang out or work with him appropriately downwards as well!

I imagine that entertainment involves a lot of that. Hospitality definitely does. I suppose teaching has a lot more safeguards nowadays than it used to, but I wouldn't be surprised if once upon a time it had a similar culture.

The problem you end up with is that these people aren't particularly bothered. I'd be mortified if I thought that people thought anything like that about me, but if you're doing it in the first place then you probably just don't care.

 

This is nothing like the Huw Edwards thing. The original report that others misquoted quite carefully didn’t say he’d done anything illegal, the way they skirted around it made it obvious that he hadn’t done so as they would have happily said if he had. There’s a wide variety of people who know things about him and the fact that someone actually went to the clinic the same day, underwent therapy and got multiple apologies from him that makes this stand out from usual accusations. You can be as ashamed of me as you like and I don’t usually jump to conclusions but this all feels like the truth in my bones so I’m openly supporting the women in this one.