Russel Brand seems to have an situation
- Thread starter dutchguylivingintheuk
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
matticus
Legendary Member
You need to get out more.
OP
OP
Yes someone who burned all his bridges and now sees the new ones he thought he build come crumbling down right under his feet.
AuroraSaab
Epic Member
Just caught up on the Brand trial events of this week. His wife and ex girlfriends did have a few nice things to say, whilst all admitting he was never faithful. I'm not sure their evidence was helpful. The judge directed the jury to find him not guilty on one count so I expect that's given him a bit of hope in what has otherwise been a pretty grim indictment of his character to say the very least. In amongst the news reports was a reminder that The Sun awarded him Shagger of the Year 3 times. The media celebrating obnoxious, entitled arses once again.
Psamathe
Squire
Unrelated to Brand's trial, one thing it has highlighted to me is how difficult it must be to sit on Jury Service. I've never been asked but cases like this highlight how difficult it must be to focus entirely on the presented evidence.
Basically I can't tolerate Brand, to me worst of the worst so were I on the jury I wonder if I'd be able to put my preconceived views of the defendant aside and look at and balance the evidence. And if his attitude in court is similar to his attitude outside the court then that would make it even harder for me. And however hard I tried, whatever decision I took I'd be forever asking myself if my prejudice influenced or if I over compensated to counter my prejudice and then that prejudice should not even be a consideration, and round in circles again, and again.
Basically I can't tolerate Brand, to me worst of the worst so were I on the jury I wonder if I'd be able to put my preconceived views of the defendant aside and look at and balance the evidence. And if his attitude in court is similar to his attitude outside the court then that would make it even harder for me. And however hard I tried, whatever decision I took I'd be forever asking myself if my prejudice influenced or if I over compensated to counter my prejudice and then that prejudice should not even be a consideration, and round in circles again, and again.
Pross
Guru
I've never done jury service either but did attend a few days of a murder trial as part of my GCSE history crime and punishment module. It was a murder that happened in my sleepy home town and I knew a couple of the accused by reputation so already had them condemned but it was surprising how different the defence managed to make the events sound in comparison to the prosecution case. It must be particularly challenging with someone in the public eye who will have fans and / or those who can't stand them (Brand seems to fall firmly in the latter camp). You only have to look at some comments on this thread to see how challenging getting a fair trial will be, highlighted by one person claiming to be fully in favour of innocent until proven guilty then immediately proclaiming they think he's guilty despite (presumably) having no knowledge of the evidence over and above that reported in the media. I like to think I'd be good at ignoring personal bias but there will probably be some sub-conscious stuff cutting through, the other issue is thateven if you want to try to make a reasoned decision there will be a proportion of the jury who will have made their minds up without considering the evidence to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' level and who will be applying pressure to get everyone else to agree so that they can go home early.
From what I've read and seen there is little in the way of actual evidence. Years old uncorroborated witness statements don't seem much of a basis for a conviction as we've seen in recent high profile cases like operation Midland and others. As a caveat I've never liked Brand, his so called humour, or his transition from darling of the left to religious zealot and Tucker Carlson lite conspiracy theorist.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
One thing is for certain is that he's guilty of crimes against comedy.
I remember the first time someone showed me one of his stand up shows and thinking "So he uses big words to try and make this mundane nonsense funny? OK..." Bit like Michael McIntyre but with less head wobbling and more swearing.
One of the bits involved using a colour chart to work out the colour of his dad's penis, which was pretty weird.
I remember the first time someone showed me one of his stand up shows and thinking "So he uses big words to try and make this mundane nonsense funny? OK..." Bit like Michael McIntyre but with less head wobbling and more swearing.
One of the bits involved using a colour chart to work out the colour of his dad's penis, which was pretty weird.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
That nobody is willing to stick up for him in court is pretty damning, I'd suggest.
Psamathe
Squire
I don't know the details of the case but I understood that the CPS only takes cases to court where there is there enough evidence against the suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction?. And to assess that the prosecutor must consider whether the evidence is reliable, credible and whether there is anything that might undermine the case against the defendant.
So I can't see the case having got to court were "there little in the way of actual evidence".
But then I'm no legal expert and have not seen the evidence as presented to the court.
Yeah but we don't bang people up because nobody likes them. Surely we've learnt from recent miscarriages of justice that we can't just believe the word of accusers?
Psamathe
Squire
But isn't part of the problem that even those who are reading reports are only getting selective details indirectly filtered through the need for subscribers and ad revenue? Doesn't much depend on the detail of accusations presented in court, detail that "news highlights" just couldn't report, at least not if they want to keep the attention of those too ready to scroll to the next curated article in their feed.
Yeah we won't know until after the verdict what exactly was the evidence against him but based on the various reports and comments I've seen it appears to be not much, except "He said she said" from many years ago.
