Jubbs

Seriously? We should assume that every new article we read is untrue? Easier to just not read the news at all then. What would be the point
Anyway - don't let me stop you defending rapists. It's a good look for you
 

Good, it genuinely wasn't mean to be offensive, just an explanation why devils advocacy on this issue can sometimes come off as provocative, but you provided enough nuance within your comments for me to know that wasn't the intention. 
The only suggestion for increasing conviction rates I have is to also greatly increase the severity of punishments for false accusations. This should reduce the number of false accusations to a negligible level, after a few examples are made. If the same flawed methodology is applied for proving accusations, then the risk of multiple years in prison should be a successful deterrent. Then simply lower the threshold for conviction: that text message should be good enough to convict, in my opinion; or if there is a marginal chance he was lying, then he has to prove that he was lying. Confessions should carry weight and when difficulty ascertaining level of consent is omnipresent, they should hold even more water.
Corroboration should also be more legally impactful, neatly bringing us back to Brand, and when multiple victims recount similar testimonies- that's enough for me to assume guilty until proven innocent, in light of the flaws in proving culpability in a criminal sense. 

There was more nuance than that, to be fair, a significant strand of my argument was examining these (nigh-on impossible to quantify metrics) of wrongful convictions v lack of convictions. And yes, I don't believe there are enough wrongful convictions to use their existence as an argument not to reform the system.
How we could improve the justice system would be to: overhaul the physical process and make it far less invasive, ensure as close to complete anonymity for victims, and stronger sentencing. Those measures don't even touch improving conviction rates but do accommodate for the victims far more, as well as strengthening the deterrent element through harsher punishment. 
The problem is that your rhetoric ties quite closely with a very common retort from rape apologists (not saying you are one) where when this topic is raised, they just snap back with ''what about wrongful convictions'' and it's become a bit of a dog whistle within this thematic discourse. When you've come out with quotes such as ''it’s kind of difficult to imagine a rapist actually telling someone he has raped them'', there's also a level of ignorance there that is going to irritate people clearly closer to this issue than you are...

Archied - while it's not a position I agree with in this particular example - I do admire your steadfastness at wanting to hear both sides of the story.
I just don't know how you can see those messages and your initial reaction not be 'my god, what a scumbag' and instead think 'I want to give this guy a chance and hear his side of the story first'. The hypothetical situation that he's lied, in my opinion, probably has about a <1% probability.

If you want to play whataboutism: would you rather accommodate for the absolutely marginal percentage (could be entirely null) of instances of this occurring due to the mitigating factors you claim, or for rape victims themselves?
Honestly, when faced with a text message of a perpetrator admitting culpability, the fact you've jumped through hoops to try and find hypothetical excuses for that behaviour is a little bit strange... Which brings me back to the central theme, yes there will be marginal instances of false accusations etc. but they will always pale in comparison to the level of injustice currently perpetuated by the flawed judicial process.
And to use the example in question, if that guy went to prison for saying he raped someone when he didn't, but that was offset by a steep increase in conviction rates for these crimes. Then yes I think that's a fair trade off, and he'll learn his lesson for saying something so mind-numbingly stupid just to try hurt someone in an argument...

Am I not getting through to you? Is it that difficult to understand?

No they haven't, they have decided to demonetize his channel for the foreseeable, that's very common. YouTube has a duty to their advertisers and if the content ad-friendly, they remove ad revenue. This happens all the time with popular YouTubers. 

Unfortunately given the delay in coming forward, any chance of a criminal case and verdict is slim to none. 
Social media and public opinion will decide his fate.
Advertisers will watch closely and if they decide the public opinion has found him guilty they will remove themselves from any content he wants to put out there.
Ultimately his career could be over, fairly or unfairly.
I haven't read beyond the headlines into any of the allegations or watched any of the videos. No real plans to either to be honest.
If he is removed from TV and the internet, it wouldn't affect me personally one bit as I can't bare to watch anything with him in anyway.
It wouldn't be fair to use my opinion on his personality and content to cast judgement over these claims.
I do however believe it dangerous to dismiss the allegations out of hand, women should not feel afraid to come forward for fear of not being believed.
We need women to feel they can come forward, the more comfortable they feel, hopefully sees less of a delay so a criminal case can be heard.

https://juliaraeside.substack.com/p/the-assassination-of-russell-brand?r=20en3&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post&fbclid=IwAR2NZIP73MLJZgZZ5AKHM3z8gVPhWOGy-1Rq2sZFDcamGVA_csO3QPHfDQM
Excellent article.

My opinion on Brand for what it's worth is that he took his content in a very specific direction, which was seemingly at odds with his character at any time prior, in an effort to craft a very convenient narrative that he's on the receiving and of an establishment/media stitch up.
He has been using legal threats to stop these allegations from coming out, but he isn't an idiot and knew that would only work for so long. With that in mind, he created a persona and a body of content that very conveniently gives him not only a story to counter the allegations with, but with a means of income once his mainstream career is impacted by said allegations.
Any notion that Brand and his clickbait YouTube ramblings are a threat to the established order and that being the reason for these allegations coming out now is so laughable as to not even be entertained in my mind.

Man beats Lincoln reserves 2-0 and is all of a sudden Pep Guardiola.
Can’t wait for 5 at the back this weekend and a 1-0 defeat

Disappointed (but not shocked) that Washington came on instead of Brown and Robinson didn't get any minutes...

Disappointed (but not shocked) that Washington came on instead of Brown and Robinson didn't get any minutes...

Will be interesting to see if the same people who found Rosenior's football to be "boring" would say the same thing tonight. Wasn't exactly exciting and the first half was appalling. 

Will be interesting to see if the same people who found Rosenior's football to be "boring" would say the same thing tonight. Wasn't exactly exciting and the first half was appalling. 

I'm sorry, what????????

I'm sorry but some of the posts in here have me raging. 
It's always instantly defending the accused rather than sympathising with the victim, or in this case, victims.
This isn't just a small accusation that has no evidence, this has been on the cards for years and the victims are finally ready to come out. That's okay and if you actually listened or read any of the news articles, any previous attempts to come out, the victims have been intimidated by Brand's lawyers. There's no way C4 or The Times would have been able to publish anything without evidence.
For the past few years Brand has been placing himself on the right side of the political spectrum and has been going with this "anti mainstream media" view because he knows this is his best chance of getting some defenders from the public. When the people speaking out in your favour are Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Carlson Tucker and Katie Hopkins, I can make my own conclusions solely based off that.  
Look at this from earlier on this year:

This is after a 3 year+ investigation with medical records and text conversations etc, this isn't just a small accusation.
Here are links for anyone suffering or has suffered.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/help-after-rape-and-sexual-assault/
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/want-to-talk/
https://safeline.org.uk/

Disappointed (but not shocked) that Washington came on instead of Brown and Robinson didn't get any minutes...

Will be interesting to see if the same people who found Rosenior's football to be "boring" would say the same thing tonight. Wasn't exactly exciting and the first half was appalling. 

Disappointed (but not shocked) that Washington came on instead of Brown and Robinson didn't get any minutes...

I take it you haven't seen much of our academy. Radcliffe is another easily capable. 

I take it you haven't seen much of our academy. Radcliffe is another easily capable. 

No academy lads starting, great stuff Warne👍 what's the point in paying millions each year for a category one academy if Warne neglects it? I'm sorry but it's ridiculous. 

No you're not though. ''His ads have been removed because YouTube has decided his guilt'' is not the same as ''a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our... ecosystem''. Guilt has legal connotations. They likely just don't want to be seen to be giving money to someone in the midst of a very high profile case such as this, totally aside from verdict, and that's fine.

This is fairly ironic given that Youtube as a service provider can act entirely at their own discretion. It's explicitly in their terms and conditions they can remove any content, at any time, for any reason. That's for removal, demonetisation is the step below that, so entirely above board. However this won't be done because they think he's guilty, they simply won't want to be associated with funding someone currently embroiled in a sex offence scandal... They'll act in the best interest of brand representation and it has nothing to do with 'guilt' or legal culpability, just optics.
So I'd just be a little careful criticising the logic of others when your own isn't watertight.