So the Russell Brand thing is out in the wild. He got in first with his YouTube channel proclaiming his innocence.
Brand has always been a controversial character. His stunt with Jonathan Ross involving Andrew Sachs was appalling behaviour. He’s made no secret of his sexual proclivity nor his addictions. So, I guess, this exposé shouldn’t come as any surprise. However, what is interesting is that the women making the allegations – and let’s be clear, here, they are allegations – didn’t go to the police, they happily talked to the faux journalists at Channel 4. Is it cynical of me to consider the possibility that there was some inducement involved?
This is nothing more than a modern day witch hunt where the accused is guilty merely as a result of finger pointing and shouting ‘witch!’ and any rebuttal is merely more proof of guilt.
In English law, a man is innocent until proven guilty following a trial before twelve of his peers. That hasn’t happened here and if it should happen, any such legal process is already tinted, making a fair trial pretty much impossible. I cannot say that I am a fan of Brand, as I’ve always found him childish and irresponsible, but Channel 4 Dispatches has taken irresponsibility from him and run with it whereupon they have turned it into an art form.
This is not justice. This is trail by media. It is an utter disgrace.
As an aside, the so called conspiracy theorists are pointing out that he has been a thorn in the side of the establishment – including the media – rather a lot of late, so nudge, nudge, wink, wink, this must be a hit job to get rid of him. The thing is, given the past three years, those so called conspiracy theorists have turned out to be more like soothsayers.
Well said!
Given the serious nature of the allegations, there’s something deeply chilling about the teaser tweets and the scheduling of the programme in a Saturday prime-time slot usually associated with entertainment.
This is what passes for entertainment these days – the Two Minute Hate, with a laughter track…
When celebrities and famous people are ‘one of us’ they are usually protected from exposure by the media. Until they die – and sometimes not even then if their fellow travellers are still alive.
Russell Brand is recently famous for being ‘not one of us’ so is a potential target standing out against the many celebrities that cannot be touched (yet). Media are desperate for new column inches/pixels to sell advertising and bring money in and so any of the small range of targets invites attention, whether it is justified or not.
Epicurus reckoned one should ‘live unknown’. Perhaps he was on to something.
The media seem to think it’s their right to play judge and jury, I can remember when they took down John Leslie’s career on the say so of a woman who would not take it to court. Then recently we’ve had Philip Scholfield and the newsman Hugh. Neither of the recent cases were criminal offences. But funny how they were top earners. Is it a way to cut their budgets????
Does seem you have to watch your back in the show business world.
Matthew Kelly was another one who was accused, but the accusations didn’t hold up to scrutiny, but they did their damage.
Not a straight comparison, John Leslie was tried for another assault, and acquitted.
To be fair to Johnson, she never named him. Last I remember, he was still working in radio.
Apparently one of the women reported to a rape crisis centre less than 24hrs after the alleged event. He then allegedly texted an apology (classy) to which she replied ‘No means no’. If true, he’s fckd.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
So I understand. However, that is evidence that should be examined in a court, not on the television.
His apology might’ve been taken out of context.
I was rooting for Depp and I will be rooting for Brand also.
Indeed, and that is why any such allegations need to be tested before a jury, not the media where they can be put in (and edited) a light that suits their narrative.
I can’t stand Brand.
He likes to portray himself as intelligent by using unnecessarily obfuscatory language to try and bamboozle his opponent.
His actions, with Andrew Sachs for example, show him to be a shallow, narcissistic individual obsessed only with himself and his own grandeur.
Having said that. He deserves his day in court to defend against the accusations. Anyone who makes an accusation that isn’t to the police can, in my view, be discounted as simply a publicity hound.
My view of Brand is similar. He’s a piss poor comedian, a mediocre actor and an unpleasant personality – the Sachs thing did it for me. But these allegations should be heard in a court of law, not on the TV. Dispatches team show themselves up to be worse than the man they accuse, frankly.
Evidence
Text messages saved
Police interviews/reports at the time of alleged rapes
How did the newspapers/C4 find these women, are they real are, the interviews and voices all real
Be an interesting court case no doubt but then it isn’t about justice really its about cancelling someone no longer useful, indeed has become a problem with a huge social media following.
He isn’t my cup of tea either, but its been interesting watching his awakening.
What evidence there is, and I’ve not seen it, nor am I likely to, will be tainted by media exposure. Bear in mind that text messages can be faked, so would need some sort of verification. I’d expect this before it is presented to a court. Also, do the accounts of the accusers tally with the movements of the accused at the time the alleged offences took place? Again, by the time it got to court, I’d expect this to have been tested. That said, in the case of William Roach it wasn’t and fell apart under cross examination.
Indeed, i should have put a question mark behind each sentence, what evidence?
The sad thing is that no matter if this is all proved to be bollocks the damage will be done.
Yup. The process is the punishment.
Hopefully we’ll see police action, and a trial to get to the bottom of the story.
I’m in two minds about the reporting. Innocent until proven guilty is an important principle – but it means Jimmy Savile is still innocent. The police investigated him, with no publicity, and took no action.
Had the Savile case been reported in a similar fashion, perhaps we’d have seen him brought before a court, and know clearly which of the allegations against him were fact.
After Savile was dead, people asked “why was everyone silent about him”? Now, people aren’t being silent about Brand, and I don’t think we know yet whether that’s a bad thing. If the police investigate and take no action, Brand should have a payday coming in the High Court.
Regarding Savile, the late blogger Anna Raccoon spent hundreds of hours investigating the various allegations against him, i spent similarly many hours perusing her site at the time.
Whilst much of her site was lost some, enough, was saved and its compulsive reading, she herself was a Duncroft girl.
https://annaraccoon.com/
I hope that link is ok Longrider, if for any reason you are not happy please delete it.
It’s fine. I was following her comments at the time.
I did not like Brand for a long time, but he has definitely changed and is doing good, exposing the lies being spouted by the media.
Funny how we know the media lies all the time about everything (and channel 4 is probably amongst the worst), but people still believe them when it suits their prejudices.
I’ve seen several such stories recently and have come to the conclusion that there needs to be some kind of statute of limitations on rape allegations. If rape is reported long after the even then any evidence (DNA, injuries, bruising etc. on the victim and scratches or injuries on the attacker) that would support the claim has long since disappeared. OK, in this instance, if there IS text messages to support the accusation, then there is a basis for prosecution but again, take it to the Police within a sensible time frame.
After that, it is one persons word against the other and the attention seekers jumping on the bandwagon with the “#MeToo” claim (similarly long after the event).
Brand is a narcissist of the first water and I have no time for him but give him his day in court and let the accuser(s) make their case.
I’m at the point where the last two or three years have conclusively demonstrated two thing to me:
1. The ‘slippery slope argument’ is not a fallacy, but is actually the modus operandi of today’s ideological left. ‘Give an inch, take a yard, but then press for the whole road’ is how they work nowadays.
2. The left very clearly are using the tools of social media, with or without the unofficial backing of the state (but there is clear proof of it in some instances) to pick off, ‘shame’, ‘pile-on’ (I.e. bully in a way seemingly approved by Owen Jones), and even imprison anyone who speaks against their ever-changing carousel of virtues. And they store ‘evidence’ against their own fellow travellers, against the day when the latest value-shift appalls even them.
I’m not really sure how we get out of this now. I think our way of life has shifted to one much less free, much less happy, much more authoritarian, and – paradoxically – much less equal.