Russell Brand

[ilkleyram]

1 hour ago, therealhantsram said:

We saw how this would play out just a few weeks ago.

The Sun published a story with such flimsy evidence that they omitted the name of the BBC newsreader in question to avoid being sued.

We got 5 days of blanket coverage, speculation, BBC celebs issuing denials (yet being tainted nonetheless), and some of them pleading with the accused to name themselves to spare other people being falsely named.

It was a witch hunt and it was grim.

On balance I think it's better to simply name the individual accused as The Times have done with Brand.

 

Oh, I agree that it won’t be easy. And it won’t be perfect either. But your example kind of demonstrates my point. The newsreader has done nothing wrong so far as I know, legally. I don’t think he’s been charged with anything. He’s probably broken BBC rules but that’s a different matter. 
If we start from the point of view that both sides have to have their anonymity protected and that’s the law then the media will have to abide by that. Generally it seems to me they do that where the law applies, however reluctantly.

In the newsreader’s case they might (if there was a law of anonymity) have wanted to test whether the law applied in that case - something they often do now especially where wealthy people apply to have their anonymity protected.  So you get ‘premier league footballer in affair scandal’ type headlines. Why couldn’t that apply to Brand (and anyone else) too specifically in sex cases? Why couldn’t the Times and Channel 4 have to go to court before naming Brand? It might have spoiled their programme or reduced sales if the court protected Brand’s identity but that shouldn’t be relevant  

Social media, I would absolutely accept, is a minefield (as David is often reminding us) where the X population generally appear to believe that they have a right to total free speech. But eventually the law will catch up with individuals. We shouldn’t, imo, allow the X contributors to do the courts’ job however unpleasant a case or an individual may be.

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, The Last Post said:

Without going into all the finite details...how did the police know? fairies at the back of the police station.

Taken from Wales online

Police have confirmed they are investigating reports that the woman who alleged Ched Evans raped her has been named on social media.

The 27-year-old former Wales striker was found not guilty of rape by a jury at Cardiff Crown Court on Friday afternoon.

Superintendent Jo Williams, from North Wales Police , said: "An investigation is ongoing into the naming.”

The complainant's allegation had related to an incident at the Premier Inn in Rhuddlan on May 30 in 2011.

Brand isn't a different story...Females have complained...so far it's..."they said and he said"...police have yet to intervene

The lady in the Evans case said she had no memory of the event, despite two footballers accepting they had sexual activity with her. That led police to bring  a charge of rape on the grounds that they allege she was too drunk to consent. Yet the jury found the other player not guilty which made no sense. How could she be too drunk for the second one but not the first with no more alcohol consumed in between. There is nothing in what the lady in the Evans case said that was proven to be false. The fault was with the prosecution (and the jury).

[cstand]

4 hours ago, Jubbs said:

Okay? This is obviously an extreme case as it wouldn't have made the news otherwise. In the end, she got what she deserved. But this shouldn't take away from any rape victims whatsoever and the whataboutery isn't needed here.

Whataboutery isn’t needed here - Meaning you don’t want any debate about your opinion. 
I know two people who have been arrested for attempted rape both completely innocent beyond any reasonable doubt after a thorough police investigation both never went to court.
Both would be classed as rapists on the stats you provided. 

 

[Jubbs]

Just now, cstand said:

I know two people who have been arrested for attempted rape both completely innocent beyond any reasonable doubt after a thorough police investigation both never went to court.
Both would be classed as rapists on the stats you provided. 

And I know multiple people who have been raped/sexually assaulted and their assaulter hasn't been punished. 

[Ram-Alf]

52 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

The lady in the Evans case said she had no memory of the event, despite two footballers accepting they had sexual activity with her. That led police to bring  a charge of rape on the grounds that they allege she was too drunk to consent. Yet the jury found the other player not guilty which made no sense. How could she be too drunk for the second one but not the first with no more alcohol consumed in between. There is nothing in what the lady in the Evans case said that was proven to be false. The fault was with the prosecution (and the jury).

I'm fully aware of this as I followed the case through the press

Who then complained to the Police for them to investigate the allegation if it wasn't her?. 

[PistoldPete]

48 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

I'm fully aware of this as I followed the case through the press

Who then complained to the Police for them to investigate the allegation if it wasn't her?. 

The guy at the Premier Inn I believe. Anyway she didn't claim she had been raped. She just said she didn't know what had happened as she couldn't remember anything at all.  

[Mick Brolly]

1 hour ago, Jubbs said:

And I know multiple people who have been raped/sexually assaulted and their assaulter hasn't been punished. 

That's awful why were their assaulters not punished? 

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, Mick Brolly said:

That's awful why were their assaulters not punished? 

Because the victim has to go through a degrading process in the investigation and court. They get treated as the perpetrator and assumptions about their character are made based on the way they dress, their history and lifestyle.

[sage]

5 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

The lady in the Evans case said she had no memory of the event, despite two footballers accepting they had sexual activity with her. That led police to bring  a charge of rape on the grounds that they allege she was too drunk to consent. Yet the jury found the other player not guilty which made no sense. How could she be too drunk for the second one but not the first with no more alcohol consumed in between. There is nothing in what the lady in the Evans case said that was proven to be false. The fault was with the prosecution (and the jury).

It was because she went to one of the players room and then passed out and couldn't remember anything.

As she willingly went to the room of player A, it was viewed that it wasn't rape.

However, Evans then entered the room and had sex with her, while she claimed she was passed out. As she didn't go to his room, it was deemed non-consensual.

 

 

[Eddie]

13 hours ago, cstand said:

So you prefer trial by social media instead?

I think a good witch-hunt separates the morons from the, er, not morons.

Burn the paediatricians........ if you are a Sun reader anyway.

[Mick Brolly]

7 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Because the victim has to go through a degrading process in the investigation and court. They get treated as the perpetrator and assumptions about their character are made based on the way they dress, their history and lifestyle.

That's not good, thanks for the reply but i was asking the poster why the people he knew didn't get justice 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Mick Brolly

[Archied]

12 hours ago, Jubbs said:

And I know multiple people who have been raped/sexually assaulted and their assaulter hasn't been punished. 

You need to be careful how you phrase that ,,, just saying🤷🏻‍♂️

[PistoldPete]

8 hours ago, sage said:

It was because she went to one of the players room and then passed out and couldn't remember anything.

As she willingly went to the room of player A, it was viewed that it wasn't rape.

However, Evans then entered the room and had sex with her, while she claimed she was passed out. As she didn't go to his room, it was deemed non-consensual.

 

 

She didn't claim she passed out. She claimed (and no reason to disbelieve) she had no conscious memory of anything that happened with either footballer.  So the prosecution case was she could not have consented to either as she was too drunk.

Anyway my point is she didn't accuse anyone of any sex crime. Whereas Brand is facing multiple allegations from several women.  

Brand clearly has a  case to answer which he won't do by blaming MSM of a conspiracy against him. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by PistoldPete

[Ram-Alf]

The noose is tightening 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66851698

[Jubbs]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

You need to be careful how you phrase that ,,, just saying🤷🏻‍♂️

Why do I? 

12 hours ago, Mick Brolly said:

That's awful why were their assaulters not punished? 

As @AndyinLiverpool says. The system is weighed so heavily against the victim. If you don't immediately/next morning get a kit or go to the police, you pretty much have a near zero chance. 

[BaaLocks]

14 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

The lady in the Evans case said she had no memory of the event, despite two footballers accepting they had sexual activity with her. That led police to bring  a charge of rape on the grounds that they allege she was too drunk to consent. Yet the jury found the other player not guilty which made no sense. How could she be too drunk for the second one but not the first with no more alcohol consumed in between. There is nothing in what the lady in the Evans case said that was proven to be false. The fault was with the prosecution (and the jury).

Last sentence is everything here - Ched Evans case was appallingly handled and morals and the law overlapped. Was he a twonk in how he acted? No. Was he a rapist? Well, finally, it was shown he wasn't.

We have a significant challenge of trial by media in this country, our 'red top' press is a bit of a joke worldwide but it is the mainstream media, including those funded by significantly influencers such as Rupert Murdoch. Social media muddies the waters even further. It feels like we now live in a society where the courts are not really the people doing the convicting - couple that with expensive lawyers who can get stone clad cases thrown out on technicalities, plus a judicial system that is one of the public services that has been run into the ground in the last twenty years (don't forget, judges were on strike recently) and it offers a grim view of how cases like these will be handled as we go forward. That is what some of the people who are claiming to support Brand are saying and I do agree it is a challenge. And it can be said without that meaning I support or condone, even have an ounce of consideration for, Russell Brand.

Sadly, we didn't learn from the Saville case in this manner. His ability to use his celebrity to influence or direct from within. For someone like Russell Brand it is two sides of the same coin - he might not be writing letters to Prince Charles but he is using his influence to carry out his wishes. I don't think any of these people are evil, wanting to harm in the way a serial killer or psycopath would. But I do think they believe that their status gives them entitlement to behaving in a way that they only need to consider their own needs, they are somehow a level above (no pun intended) their victims. From my view, Prince Andrew clearly fell into this bracket.

 

 

[sage]

20 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

She didn't claim she passed out. She claimed (and no reason to disbelieve) she had no conscious memory of anything that happened with either footballer.  So the prosecution case was she could not have consented to either as she was too drunk.

Anyway my point is she didn't accuse anyone of any sex crime. Whereas Brand is facing multiple allegations from several women.  

Brand clearly has a  case to answer which he won't do by blaming MSM of a conspiracy against him. 

How did the police get involved if she didn't make a complaint.

If police receive complaints against Brand obviously they have to complain. Sadly he now has a reasonable defence of being unable to receive a fair trial.

 

[Malagaram]

18 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

Like others before him - Greenwood being just the latest example - Russell Brand is done for except, possibly, on social media.  Which Council or business will hire out their local arena for his stand up show, which employer (BBC/ITV/Sky/BT) will canvass his views or use him, which mainstream media outlet will pay him to write articles or present programmes, which company will employ him as an after dinner speaker?  They will all fight shy of an inevitable backlash if they were to do so. His career is already toast.

And yet.  He has not been found guilty of anything. May not be guilty of anything other than being an odious character making the most of their power like many others, male and female, have done before him.  Perhaps finding four people to tell similar stories wasn't very hard for a very, very promiscuous man (his own words). It was probably a large pool of people to ask. He has been tried and judged by Dispatches and the Sunday Times and found guilty in the court of public opinion.

I still can't see why we can't have, in these cases, anonymity on both sides until guilt is properly established. It protects both sides - how many people are, at this moment, trying to find out who the accusers really are; how much 'fishing' for other accusers are the police currently doing, to add to bonfire; how many people are putting themselves forward as victims who have never actually met Brand; how long will this process of identification and investigation take as others now put themselves forward?

If he's found to be guilty after due process he's fair game.  At that point perhaps others would step forward and have their cases established, or not.  But at the moment in our society in these type of cases guilt rather than innocence is what is presumed.  That should worry us all, imo.

I like your description "an odious character",well written sir

[PistoldPete]

23 minutes ago, sage said:

How did the police get involved if she didn't make a complaint.

If police receive complaints against Brand obviously they have to complain. Sadly he now has a reasonable defence of being unable to receive a fair trial.

 

She woke up naked in the Premier Inn with no idea of how she got there. The police investigated but she didn’t claim she had been raped she had no idea what happened. 
 

As for Brand of course he can have a fair trial. 

[Stive Pesley]

Interesting that, despite hand-wringing about "trial by media" - no one has actually picked any holes in the extensive reporting that has been uncovered by Channel 4 and The Times

A very concerning aspect of the story to me is the amount of proof they have uncovered that money and power was being wielded by RB in order to cover up his behaviour for so long. If he was so innocent - why did he have to do that?