Russell Brand

How many more women are not going to come forward about being raped after seeing how someone who has a ton of evidence is treated like a liar and seeing the support the accused gets? How many people are going to be emboldened to commit rape, knowing that no one will believe the victim anyway? It’s innocent until proven guilty unless you’re (royal, not you personally as you haven’t) accusing someone of lying it seems. Why can’t I say I think she is innocent of defamation until someone provides proof that she lied? If you told me that a specific person had robbed you or hit you and provided evidence I’d believe you, I wouldn’t say I’ll wait for the court case. If it then turned out you’d lied I’d never believe you about anything again and I’d hope you’d get in trouble but I’d believe you in the first place unless you’d got form for lying. I’d want them to have a fair trial but I’d still form an opinion first, everyone does. He’s got plenty of people openly saying how much they believe him, I don’t see why everyone who believes the women should not be allowed to voice their support too, otherwise they’ll just see a wave of people calling them liars and not a single person showing support for them.

 

Just so you know that attitude causes people to have permanent disabilities. I know this

 

Why are you so happy to think the women are guilty of defamation? Why aren’t you presuming they are innocent until they are sued and lose? I know how women feel when they’ve been raped and aren’t believed. Why should they not be able to see that people believe and support them online? He can see that people believe and support him. I don’t want them following the stories and not seeing a single supporting voice because apparently we all have to sit in silence.

 

Jamdrop made it clear it was in her opinion from what she saw. She believed the women, It's her opinion at this moment in time. Has anyone yet declared him guilty. Without a trial.

Liked Your statement mate, not the having to put up with that image. I reckon you will be one among many to suffer that fate. Glad I'm not on a parole board.

 

MPs are expected to push for answers from big institutions that were involved in Brand's career on the crucial questions of who knew what, and when.

Dame Caroline Dinenage, who chairs the House of Commons media committee, said: "We will be closely monitoring the responses of the media, especially our public service broadcasters, to these allegations, and looking at the questions that this, yet again, raises about the culture in the industry as a whole."

Hold on - why are MP's getting involved? Before a trial has even been scheduled, let alone happened...

 

Not one of us has anything like sufficient a view of everything to draw any conclusions whatsoever. Other than that Russell Brand is a class A lovely person, that was apparent for years and guilty of any crime or not, that won’t change.

It doesn’t stop people drawing conclusions though.

This may be completely irrelevant, and Brand may well be a serial predator - but due to the healthcare system in America ‘rape clinics’ have been seen to be routinely used, free at the point of service, for checks against std’s (including hiv and hepatitis), with the added incentive, correctly of course, of 100% anonymity.

Even people with high quality health insurance have abused the system in the name of tests not showing on their record as ‘promiscuity’ could reflect badly on their professional character and even increase health insurance premiums. They routinely freeze samples and offer free counselling as part of the process.

The fact one of the alleged victims went to such a clinic, which is quite compelling, is therefore not necessarily the smoking gun some would believe.

 

I get that and probably the worst choice to throw as an example, as I went for an extreme. so apologies to everyone for that. Probably Jimmy Saville would have been a better choice. But he couldn't ever provide his own testimony either. And no charges were brought against him In retrospect. (Even though compensation was paid to alleged victims) We all make up our own minds given the evidence at the time. The point had been made some have already found him guilty. Let's see how it rolls out.

 

I’m leaving this thread now, it’s too much. You all know my opinion on the matter and I hope the truth will out, whichever way it goes.

 

If you personally told me about something that had happened to you, I'd believe you. If the thing you told me was a criminal offence, and it went to court, and you maintained what you said to me throughout, it wouldn't matter the verdict of the magistrate/jury, I'd still believe you (unless you later told me otherwise). Even if the perpetrator was found not guilty, I'd still believe you. Our justice system is not perfect.

Fortunately, I don't know anyone whose story has made the news. Whenever I read anything about cases like the one being discussed, I haven't been told personally. I've read or heard an account written by a journalist. No one has told me. That absolutely doesn't mean I disbelieve the account I've read, but it does mean I don't have the same first/second hand experience of events, and I go from believing to keeping an open mind, and waiting until an institution I trust more than media establishments are given the opportunity to deliberate on what is presented and reach a verdict, namely our justice system. I said earlier it's not perfect, but it is the best system we've got.

There's two things going on here:
Firstly, and most importantly, there are many women who have suffered at the hands of men who are not believed, or are reticent to report what has happened as they have seen the how other cases have been handled. That is appalling.

Secondly, our media cannot necessarily be trusted. That doesn't mean everything that is published or broadcast is fabricated. It is not, far from it. But there are way too many examples of incorrect information being presented as fact for me to simply digest everything at face value. Again, this doesn't mean I don't believe it, but it does mean I can't automatically assign guilt without further evidence.

It is possible to concurrently hold both those beliefs.

 

All fine, my original statement is still true though. Publicly declaring someone as guilty is more harmful than asking for due process to be followed. You said it wasn't. I disagree.
Now I will say that obviously the process is often terrible and I understand why that is stressful and harmful to abused women. We need to find ways to improve it dramatically, I still do not believe trial by media and public opinion will help in that regard though.

 

Given the number of sexual perverts in the House of Commons I'd suggest they put their own house in order first. Allegations against Chris Pincher first made in 2017 and he's only recently resigned.

 

Don't disagree with any of that.

 

It’s worth remembering this: everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence when facing criminal charges. It does not follow that you can’t reasonable conclude a person did something they’re accused of even if they were never convicted. For example - OJ Simpson.

 

Just for information, Brand has been receiving support from people like Elon Musk and Andrew Tate.

I've reached my verdict...

 

Don't say his name

Don't say his name

Don't say his name

I won't say his name.

 

If "Big Pharma" had wanted to silence Brand, his body would have been found with a syringe and an overdose of heroin in his system. A former junkie getting back into drugs would explain his behavior over the last few years as he headed down the increasingly paranoid rabbithole. How sad. Move on.

At best, he's a married man (since 2017) who has been playing around - a lot. That is *at best* a minor scandal. Some of the women involved were as young as 16. For a man who is approaching 50 that is bordering the obscene.

More women are coming forward. More allegations are being made. It looks like this could well be really bad for him.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was arrested this week and questioned. We shall see where it goes from there.

 

If he's found guilty then throw the book at him but at the moment it seems to be heading down the trial by media route' everyone deserves a fair hearing and is innocent until proven guilty its the law of the land' remember when the bbc and other mainstream news outlets had helicopters hovering over Cliff richards house and he was charged with absolutely nothing.

 

Why is he the headline story in the vast majority of media outlets?

 

Now I'm a 100pc male and have never had any thoughts of attacking a woman or raping one, am I normal?