Russell Brand

simmo

simmo

Senior Jockey
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,740
Location
South Lanarkshire
This one will divide opinion but I want to be absolutely clear that I am making no judgement as to the guilt or innocence of him here.

I applaud rumble for not "cancelling" Russell Brands ability to make money. It is my opinion that a person should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There should never be a presumption of guilt until proven otherwise, which is exactly what various outlets are trying to do (he's far from the first).

I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on how the presumption of innocence should be interpreted in terms of making money whilst awaiting trial.
 
Without specifically referring to the Brand case.

It's when allegations are made years after and sometimes decades after the alleged crime was committed that I think needs looking at. It's understandable if you are dealing with those who were children at the time, but surely there should be a time limit for adults to make certain types of allegations, unless there were some exceptional circumstances at play why the person couldn't report it at the time.

Especially when dealing with famous people accused aswell. It's simply too easy for any tom, dick or harry to steam in, when they see a famous person accused by one or two people for something. Money and financial gain can be a factor for some people I'm afraid.

This isn't just about justice being done, it's about justice being seen to be done, and for that to happen properly or most effectively, it really is important I feel, that the accuser accuses sometime in the aftermath of the offence, and not simply a generation later because of someone else or something they saw in the news.
 
Last edited:
As a female I can completely understand why women don’t come forward to report rape. For a start it’s utterly humiliating! It’s the shame that you couldn’t cope in a situation which you have got yourself into. And who’s going to admit that once in the company of a big star (and probably a little bit starstruck) when he comes on to you, it’s flattering...until it’s not. How do you comfortably explain that?

It is getting “easier” per se but you’ve got to remember that these guys who are huge names in the industry have got away with it because not only of who they are but also they’re “lawyered” up which is what Katherine Ryan mentioned.

Ive always found Brand to be particularly repulsive. I don’t care if he was promiscuous which was no doubt encouraged by his equally revolting father who provided prostitutes “to share” or the fact that he is bipolar. Neither of those is any excuse for his behaviour. I for one am absolutely delighted that he’s finally facing his Waterloo. I loathed him prior to Sachsgate, and for me that just sealed it. I hope he’s really, really suffering right now...but I doubt it because his ego will be telling him he’s still innocent and a god-like deity.

I didn’t report the sexual harassment I suffered that I detailed on here for a long time. Why? Because I was in my fifties and “old enough” to cope and quite honestly I did feel embarrassed by it. It wasn’t until the guy continued his behaviour with the next woman to work there and she contacted me that I acted. The BHA have given him a stern warning saying if they hear anything else, he will be warned off. I was recently told that he was grooming an 18 year old who is riding out for him in exchange for Point to Point rides. Same patter, presents etc. I am gathering information and will report it once I am in possession of the facts.
 
Whether he raped anyone or not isn't the question I posed. Deliberately.

The question is should the presumption of innocence that everyone is entitled to under law, be suspended without the evidence for and against being heard.

I'm not a fan of brand either, but he's entitled to a proper trial surely before being "cancelled" if he is found guilty.

We're putting the cart before the horse with our reactions to this and other cases.
 
simmo said:
Whether he raped anyone or not isn't the question I posed. Deliberately.

The question is should the presumption of innocence that everyone is entitled to under law, be suspended without the evidence for and against being heard.

I'm not a fan of brand either, but he's entitled to a proper trial surely before being "cancelled" if he is found guilty.

We're putting the cart before the horse with our reactions to this and other cases.
Click to expand...

Well, actually it is the question. If no-one lays a complaint then there is nothing to be done under the law and even if a complaint is laid there is no guarantee the alleged offender would go to trial. So it is left to other reputable organisations to investigate the circumstances and arrive at a conclusion. It’s thanks to an ITV documentary that Jimmy Saville was exposed and it’s thanks to The Sunday Times and Channel 4 that Russell Brand is exposed. Interestingly, in both case the abuses were apparently an open secret to those close to things.

So yes, innocent ‘til proved guilty, but if the legal system is not going to test it then thanks to those who do as long as a responsible and properly rigorous case is made.
 
Last edited:
Trial by media then? That's almost as bad as the cult of celebrity!

Effectively you are just hearing the case for the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
So, in the absence of a legal trial you’d prefer to let them get away with it then?
Click to expand...

No, I'd rather there was a trial. But if there is insufficient evidence to prove that a person did something that another person claims, and hence no criminal trial, then yes - I'd rather they were not tried and convicted by Joe public regardless of lack of evidence.
 
Fair enough, and if there is sufficient evidence, but no criminal trial for one reason or another - then what? Dilemma, isn’t it :).
 
Then I'd be questioning why there was no trial.

If he's guilty let it be found so in a court of law - not by the media effectively presenting only the prosecution case, without recourse to a defence.

For the record, I reckon he's a bad yin, but that still doesn't mean he loses the rights enshrined in law.
 
simmo said:
Then I'd be questioning why there was no trial.

If he's guilty let it be found so in a court of law - not by the media effectively presenting only the prosecution case, without recourse to a defence.

For the record, I reckon he's a bad yin, but that still doesn't mean he loses the rights enshrined in law.
Click to expand...

You reckon he’s a bad yin without that having been proved in a court of law?
 
barjon said:
You reckon he’s a bad yin without that having been proved in a court of law?
Click to expand...

Yep. But I won't be rushing to remove his right to a fair trial, remove his right to earn a living prior to said fair trial, or presuming his guilt in these allegations.

You can be a bad yin in many ways.
 
I accept fully that Russell Brand is innocent and will continue to be so until if/when he is convicted of a criminal offence by a jury of his peers. I also note the power complexities and relationship imbalances as explained here and previously by Kirsty.

So a personal thought on Mr. Brand, completely unrelated to the presenet legal proceedings. He is a heaving boil of putrid pus clinging like a barancle on the arse of humanity.
 
Last edited:
an capall said:
I accept fully that Russell Brand is innocent and will continue to be so until if/when he is convicted of a criminal offence by a jury of his peers. I also note the power complexities and relationship imbalances as explained here and previously by Kirsty.

So a personal thought on Mr. Brand, completely unrelated to the presenet legal proceedings. He is a heaving boil of putrid pus clinging like a barancle on the arse of humanity.
Click to expand...

Nail on head.
 
I can't stand him and wonder why any woman would feel flattered by his attention, but he's not been found guilty of anything so should be able to continue with his life as if no one had said a word. It's trial by media and it's grossly unfair.

He's in a different 'league' to Saville in terms of his former place in society, Saville that is, that he has nothing like the same standing, plus 20 years ago was he a big deal? Not sure, but if anyone was going to come forward and say anything, around the time of Sachsgate happened surely was when to do it? 'Kick him while he's down in public opinion and being hounded and vilified' in the press and anyone who didn't know who he was before, surely did after?
How long ago was Sachsgate - 15 years? These people couldn't come forward then? I can't stand Ross either and would argue he has struggled to rebuild his career back to the 'heights' he has.
I deplore any kind of sexual predator but victims should speak up when it happens, almost impossible decades later to make a case. How much time and money is this now going to take when it's almost certainly a lot of he said she said? Im not trivalising any one claims but 20 years later is ridiculous.
 
G-G said:
I can't stand him and wonder why any woman would feel flattered by his attention, but he's not been found guilty of anything so should be able to continue with his life as if no one had said a word. It's trial by media and it's grossly unfair.

He's in a different 'league' to Saville in terms of his former place in society, Saville that is, that he has nothing like the same standing, plus 20 years ago was he a big deal? Not sure, but if anyone was going to come forward and say anything, around the time of Sachsgate happened surely was when to do it? 'Kick him while he's down in public opinion and being hounded and vilified' in the press and anyone who didn't know who he was before, surely did after?
How long ago was Sachsgate - 15 years? These people couldn't come forward then? I can't stand Ross either and would argue he has struggled to rebuild his career back to the 'heights' he has.
I deplore any kind of sexual predator but victims should speak up when it happens, almost impossible decades later to make a case. How much time and money is this now going to take when it's almost certainly a lot of he said she said? Im not trivalising any one claims but 20 years later is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is what I tried to say earlier in the thread.

I take on board Jinny's comments about it being hard to come forward, but seriously, sexual misconduct allegations, (unless the victim was a child at the time or mentally incapacitated), should have a time limit. In a court of law, allegations that arise say 15 or 20 years after they were said to happen, should sadly diminish the credibility of the allegations.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure I agree with a time limit on crimes being investigated - a girl I was at school with who was murdered in 1987, her killer was identified only last year through DNA left on her clothing. A serial convicted rapist and molester and who should never have been allowed out after crime two but sadly we do.
Many years ago I applied for the local police force and during the selection process there were various exercises some of which were basically to see if you would speak up or not. One of the subjects thrown at the group, 16 men and 4 woman, was Capital Punishment. One of the guys said definitely should be for murder 'especially' (!) against emergency service personnel. One of the women said ' and for rape too'. The same guy said 'well no hang on, that's nowhere near as bad as murder'. Isn't I said? What about the rape of a 2 year old? Well yeah he says. Or a five year I say? Well yeah. Or an 85 year old. Oh definitely. Where do you draw the line I say? 20 year old out on the town walks home on her own and is raped? That's not as bad then? World War 111 erupted in the room. You can guess on what lines.
The sargeants, who were our constant companions, told us after that at that time, 30 years ago and a bit, the Police Federation were very anti capital punishment as they believed it would lead to more criminals carrying weapons and prepared to use them with a nothing to lose attitude. I wonder if that opinion has changed in the light of some the individual terror attacks which have happened over the last 20 years or so?
In cases such as Brand, the authorities have to act quickly- actually in any case - and if the women are going to make a police complaint that they get on with it.
 
Interesting story GG.

I was referring to allegations of sexual misconduct etc.

I say this, not to lessen what a crime like rape is, but because it is so serious, that it should be reported in a timely fashion.

Yes, I watch medical detectives on freeview. Science has changed the face of policing.
 
Last edited:
This is from the transcript of the prank phone calls they made in 2008 , isn't it strange how Brand uses the word " consensual" a few times ,


Brand: [singing…] I'd like to apologise for the terrible attacks, Andrew Sachs, I would like to show contrition to the max, Andrew Sachs. I would like to create world peace, between the yellow, white and blacks, Andrew Sachs, Andrew Sachs. I said something I didn't have oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter. But it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual, it was consensual lovely sex. It was full of respect I sent her a text, I've asked her to marry me, Andrew Sachs …
 
Last edited:
G-G said:
I deplore any kind of sexual predator but victims should speak up when it happens, almost impossible decades later to make a case. How much time and money is this now going to take when it's almost certainly a lot of he said she said? Im not trivalising any one claims but 20 years later is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think, sadly, that this is a profoundly simplistic and unsubtle interpretation of the psychological impact of sexual abuse on victims.
 
While in an ideal world everybody should get a fair trial brand has shown by his horrific behaviour he doesn't deserve anything. He's a horrible human being who was known by literally hundreds of people to be a predator and boasted about it. Regards getting fair trial,what chance have the women he's abused of gaining a conviction 98% of cases dont result in a conviction due to it being a he said she said situation. The women have gone to the media due to this plus some have been scared off by brand layering up. The evidence is there but will a jury convict a guy who will no doubt put on the charm in court. The fact he keeps spouting his conspiracy crap does him no favours. Just bugger off to the USA. I'm sure the right wing nut jobs will welcome you.
 
Last edited:
an capall said:
I think, sadly, that this is a profoundly simplistic and unsubtle interpretation of the psychological impact of sexual abuse on victims.
Click to expand...

Excsue me for having an opinon. if someone has 'lived' with trauma for years and not accused their attacker, why suddenly they feel the need to? How long does someone take to make a decision? If someone murdered your sister and only you knew it, you're going to keep quiet about it? I think not. A crime is a crime. Report it when it happens/happened.
If early victims of Saville had come forward, just one of them, how many others would have not had to go through it. Saying I complained to the BBC wasn't going to do it was it?
Sexual assuault of any kind is probably the most difficult type of crime to actually be proven in the law. Maybe the law needs changing, maybe attitudes need changing, maybe sentence should be longer - I definitely think the latter should be , actually for most crimes.
The man who killed the girl from my school had over 30 convictions - how on earth was he free to keep committing them? How many other victms were there of his that didn't come forward resulting in more women and girls being victims? He's also been convicted previously of a murder and he was STILL out on the streets.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top