Russel Brand seems to have an situation

[icowden]

Where do you even start with this self-contradictory nonsense.

You could start by deciding whether or not you support the notion that someone should lose all of their work and income before any actual criminal offence charges have been levied, and whether you think that is a balanced and reasonable approach to dealing with someone who has not yet been charged with or convicted of a crime.

Historically we have tended to look down upon the pitchfork wielding villagers - we now seem to worship them instead.

 

[multitool]

You could start by deciding whether or not you support the notion that someone should lose all of their work and income before any actual criminal offence charges have been levied, and whether you think that is a balanced and reasonable approach to dealing with someone who has not yet been charged with or convicted of a crime.

Historically we have tended to look down upon the pitchfork wielding villagers - we now seem to worship them instead.

Imagine you daughter's geography teacher was accused of grooming her classmates.

Would you prefer that said teacher was still allowed to run residential trips despite the fact that he had not had his day in court?

Seems reasonable that venues decide they don't want to expose their staff to Russell Brand given that he has been exposed by many women as an absolute fùcking danger.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

He isn't being tried, he is being exposed and accused. Sometimes, especially in cases like this, the media is the only recourse for victims.

I agree is a phrase often used in a bullshit kind of way by lawyers.
However that last bit is exactly the problem, i understand testifying is hard for victims but it's the only way our legal system fully recognizes their suffering and the offenders guilt.
It also makes sure both parties are heard as equally as possible, Johnny Depp for example has been cleared in most courts because his ''victim'' was just as much as an offender herself. However the damage to Depp's career has been done.

In this case it is even without criminal charge, or word it differently without public knowledge of a criminal charge that Brand is an danger, and i personally don't believe he is innocent but that doesn't mean we should step away from the system of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Imagine you daughter's geography teacher was accused of grooming her classmates.

Would you prefer that said teacher was still allowed to run residential trips despite the fact that he had not had his day in court?

Seems reasonable that venues decide they don't want to expose their staff to Russell Brand given that he has been exposed by many women as an absolute fùcking danger.

What should happen, a complaint is received, school would suspend the teacher with pay. Not publicise the situation. If the investigation from police resulted in a charge. Then soon as the persons name is placed on the court date register. Then the press can run a basic story awaiting the trail outcome

 

[Deleted member 159]

I agree is a phrase often used in a bullshit kind of way by lawyers.
However that last bit is exactly the problem, i understand testifying is hard for victims but it's the only way our legal system fully recognizes their suffering and the offenders guilt.
It also makes sure both parties are heard as equally as possible, Johnny Depp for example has been cleared in most courts because his ''victim'' was just as much as an offender herself. However the damage to Depp's career has been done.

In this case it is even without criminal charge, or word it differently without public knowledge of a criminal charge that Brand is an danger, and i personally don't believe he is innocent but that doesn't mean we should step away from the system of innocent until proven guilty.

Kevin Spacey has been through a similar situation. His career trashed and yet found not guilty

All because the press wanted to publicize the dirty headlines

 

[multitool]

What should happen, a complaint is received, school would suspend the teacher with pay. Not publicise the situation. If the investigation from police resulted in a charge. Then soon as the persons name is placed on the court date register. Then the press can run a basic story awaiting the trail outcome

Right.

Now transfer that into the case of Russell Brand.

Who do his accusers complain to?

His management? He employs them remember. They can't suspend him.

The venues? Same end result. They cancel bookings.

Youtube?

 

[icowden]

Imagine you daughter's geography teacher was accused of grooming her classmates.
Would you prefer that said teacher was still allowed to run residential trips despite the fact that he had not had his day in court?
Seems reasonable that venues decide they don't want to expose their staff to Russell Brand given that he has been exposed by many women as an absolute fùcking danger.

Imagine your daughter's teacher was black and accused of molesting a teenaged girl. Should we lynch him and hang him from the nearest lamppost or take reasonable steps to ensure his protection as well as the protection of other teenaged girls in the area?

It seems reasonable that we protect both the alleged perpetrator *and* the alleged victims. Or are you suggesting that Brand is going to drag unwilling women on stage to have sex with, or do that during his podcast?

 

[icowden]

Who do his accusers complain to?

The Police. It's what they are there for.

His management? He employs them remember. They can't suspend him.

Why would they?

The venues? Same end result. They cancel bookings.

Not really. The bookings have nothing to do with the alleged crimes from over 20 years ago.

 

[multitool]

Imagine your daughter's teacher was black and accused of molesting a teenaged girl. Should we lynch him and hang him from the nearest lamppost or take reasonable steps to ensure his protection as well as the protection of other teenaged girls in the area?

Brand hasnt been lynched. All that has happened to him is that some venues have cancelled his shows.

It seems reasonable that we protect both the alleged perpetrator *and* the alleged victims. Or are you suggesting that Brand is going to drag unwilling women on stage to have sex with, or do that during his podcast?

What about female staff backstage? Brand is an alleged rapist.

 

[multitool]

The Police. It's what they are there for.

It takes a peculiar deafness to witness the fallout from the Sarah Everard case, the public discussion of risible figures for prosecution of rape, and the very well-documented reasons given by women why they do not report, and still come out with that shít.

Either deafness or incredible male privilege.

Does it not occur to you that if 'the system' worked you would never have heard about the Brand accusations? Did you learn nothing from the Jimmy Savile debacle? Or the Me too era??

Not really. The bookings have nothing to do with the alleged crimes from over 20 years ago.

The person booking them is the same rapist.

 

[winjim]

You could start by deciding whether or not you support the notion that someone should lose all of their work and income before any actual criminal offence charges have been levied, and whether you think that is a balanced and reasonable approach to dealing with someone who has not yet been charged with or convicted of a crime.

Historically we have tended to look down upon the pitchfork wielding villagers - we now seem to worship them instead.

There are plenty of actions for which I could potentially lose my job which are not crimes.

Remember Georgina Baillie? What happened there was not criminal, the sex was consensual, but the subsequent events were exploitative and manipulative, and obviously had a significant effect on her and her family. Brand is a powerful man in an influential position with a loyal following. He has built a cult around himself, I'm not saying as some are that he's done that with the express purpose of shielding himself from these particular allegations, but that is the effect.


Forget the criminal perspective, let's see if he sues for libel / defamation / whatever. Our civil laws are notorious for being weighted in favour of men in his position.

Honestly there are a zillion reasons why these complaints might not make it as far as the police, never mind the CPS or the inside of a court room. We even have a thread dedicated to it somewhere.

 

[BoldonLad]

If that's your take on addiction that's fair enough. I think you're wrong.

Are you saying that addicts should not be held responsible for their actions? eg, if a drug addict. steals, to feed their habit, they are not responsible for the theft?, or, have I miss-understood your post?

 

[Hitchington]

It's been an "open secret" in the industry that Brand has been a creepy sleazeball who should never be left alone with woman and girls. In fact 95% of his stand up "comedy" was all about how rapey he was in his relationships with women once he had reeled them in with his nice guy act. You only have to watch how he looked, behaved and spoke to realise he was using the same tactics as Savile.

People are complaining that he's had his livelihood removed because of a supposed "trial by media"? Have a word with yourselves, he's a fukcing multi-millionaire who's been exposed by the result of a through 4 year investigation and women who survived his vile behaviour and have been brave enough to speak out.

I'm sure he has enough money to hire expensive lawyers to sue C4 and his victims, but I suspect he knows the game is up.

 

[multitool]

Brand's fate is not justice in the legal sense.

But it is in the natural sense.

 

[BoldonLad]

It's been an "open secret" in the industry that Brand has been a creepy sleazeball who should never be left alone with woman and girls. In fact 95% of his stand up "comedy" was all about how rapey he was in his relationships with women once he had reeled them in with his nice guy act. You only have to watch how he looked, behaved and spoke to realise he was using the same tactics as Savile.

People are complaining that he's had his livelihood removed because of a supposed "trial by media"? Have a word with yourselves, he's a fukcing multi-millionaire who's been exposed by the result of a through 4 year investigation and women who survived his vile behaviour and have been brave enough to speak out.

I'm sure he has enough money to hire expensive lawyers to sue C4 and his victims, but I suspect he knows the game is up.

If this is true (and, I would not dispute it), then, I venture to suggest that he is not the only one who should lose his livelihood, there are a few in the Industry" who should be joining him.