Trial by media
- Thread starter GibbosEmpire
- Start date
Piccadilly Day Tripper
Well-known member
they have indeed opened a can of worms on themselves there.
SNOWBANDIT
Active member
He was awarded damages from several tabloids.
Frankie Lee
Well-known member
Ah right. But he wasn’t awarded damages from the government because he didn’t reach the threshold. So it doesn’t mean he is innocent, just not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I'm not here to defend nor condemn Brand. I've never been a massive fan of his but I am extremely uncomfortable how this has come about and how people have decided - without due process - that he is a rapist. We have one of the the least trusted media in Europe and it is not for C4 Dispatches to decide who is innocent or guilty and yet there are people all over social media who have assumed that he is.
One of the respectable journalists on the case was also on this case where a completely innocent person had her business, her health and the health of her child destroyed just because.
Rofesleg
Well-known member
I'm not sure if that counts for much really.
I knew the lead investigator in the Colin Stagg case.
At that time he was still absolutely certain that Stag was guilty, even though the courts had thrown the case out about 7 yrs previously.
His certainty and passion convinced me that Stagg had got away with it.
Of course it was later proved without doubt that Stagg was innocent.
Nobody has concluded he is a rapist, that is for the police and courts to process if ever a complaint has been made to them. The documentary team investigated and have found several women who claim he has abused them in some way and at least one has claimed she was raped by him. He has claimed everything was consensual, the 2 views can unfortunately be compatable in their respective heads, only a court could test the evidence within the law as we know.
There are concerns about his ‘past’ relationships and potential abuse of power that have been raised, one involving an alleged potentially vulnerable 16 yr old when he was 31. That in itself doesn’t break the law. It is entirely feasible he is innocent of the claims made. A further female has since reported an incident to the police where they are considering the statement aside from the TV programme.
I am not uncomfortable with the 4 year investigation as Brand is a very rich man and the power to sue if the investigation is flawed and the women were lying or even over egging the truth. If none of the 4 women want to make a complaint nothing will happen in law, but the stigma is clearly there for him. He has the wherewithal i’d imagine to contest Channel 4/The Times and test the claims in the civil court if he so chooses. If he is innocent as he states, I would have thought he would go down that line, an innocent man in his position would.
I acknowledge ordinary folk in a similar situation would find the costs prohibitive. I agree it is an unpleasant situation he finds himself in, but I am sure people like Andrew Sachs didn’t ask to be put in the situation he was either a few year back in the name of ‘comedy’. Sometimes, you reap what you sew and he has undeniably sewn a few seeds in various ways in the past through his admitted behaviour in public and private. So forgive me for not being uncomfortable with his current plight and I look forward to him proving his lack of guilt through the civil or criminal courts or both, as he may yet do. If he can, then he will indeed be a far wealthier man than he is of now and the media will have had their comeuppance to boot in such a scenario.
Mustoes boots
Active member
He has also written for the right wing press that are hanging him out to dry and add the fascist Daily Mail to your list
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
They have though. It's all over social media.
viv_andersons_nana
Well-known member
I think a lot of people within the media are publicly rinsing this for clicks but secretly hoping it quietly disappears. Or at least slips out of public consciousness before people have cottoned onto the fact that Russell Brand didn’t just work for the BBC or Channel 4, he also wrote regularly for the Guardian over several years - something not mentioned in any of the numerous hand-wringing opinion pieces they’ve churned out since Sunday, including a lengthy editorial posted yesterday - and had books published by HarperCollins and Random House, as well as a collection of children’s books.
He’s also spoken at the Cambridge Union Society, edited an edition of the New Statesman, worked for XFM and MTV and MTV Europe, appeared as a ‘political commentator’ on Newsnight and Question Time several times, and written for the Huffington Post. There are countless others. He’s been a ubiquitous presence across all manner of media platforms right across the political spectrum for almost twenty years.
Almost all of this happened AFTER he was first accused of sexual harassment in 2006. These accusations and allegations have been known, ignored, brushed under the carpet for the best part of two decades. I’m pleased these women have showed the courage and the tenacity to come forward and I hope justice is finally done and they find peace.
But these countless news reports and newspaper columns are just riddled with the sort of bullsh*t that enables people like Brand to get away with this sort of behaviour. Just blaming other people, the BBC or how his move to the right of the political sphere proves ‘what we knew all along’. I just think, f*ck off with that.
Maybe these editors and journalists should start listening to these women when they first come forward and invest money in investigating these stories instead of giving it to some egotistical tosser to write sh*t columns about supporting West Ham.
He’s also spoken at the Cambridge Union Society, edited an edition of the New Statesman, worked for XFM and MTV and MTV Europe, appeared as a ‘political commentator’ on Newsnight and Question Time several times, and written for the Huffington Post. There are countless others. He’s been a ubiquitous presence across all manner of media platforms right across the political spectrum for almost twenty years.
Almost all of this happened AFTER he was first accused of sexual harassment in 2006. These accusations and allegations have been known, ignored, brushed under the carpet for the best part of two decades. I’m pleased these women have showed the courage and the tenacity to come forward and I hope justice is finally done and they find peace.
But these countless news reports and newspaper columns are just riddled with the sort of bullsh*t that enables people like Brand to get away with this sort of behaviour. Just blaming other people, the BBC or how his move to the right of the political sphere proves ‘what we knew all along’. I just think, f*ck off with that.
Maybe these editors and journalists should start listening to these women when they first come forward and invest money in investigating these stories instead of giving it to some egotistical tosser to write sh*t columns about supporting West Ham.
VladKinder
Well-known member
It's to be seen if the more serious charges are true but for anyone who watched Dispatches it should be clear:
At the very minimum Brand is predator who will not take No for an answer, and a pretty vile human being. I have no sympathy for him.
At the very minimum Brand is predator who will not take No for an answer, and a pretty vile human being. I have no sympathy for him.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
I think Ross has changed hasn’t he?
By concluded, you are meaning people in their own heads, I get that, and as my last post alluded to, he is in an insidious position, however, it is one of his own making by his past actions, his past behaviour in public, his act, his past words and his past life choices his whole persona he chose to put out there. He clearly used his fame like lots of others have to attract partners, he openly admitted it. However, with that power should come great self control. Only the people involved and those present at the time know for sure. There will be others looking over shoulders too, no doubt. 4 years of investigation produced 4 claims with an additional one since. He is in a privileged position and can challenge it all if it is a pack of lies and if it is, it is awful, but if it isn’t, or indeed if only one of the claims had truth, then wow. However rape cases rarely get convictions even when brought to the police and courts sadly for some women. Women get a raw deal (and some men too I know). If people are doing it for money, 15 minutes of fame, or indeed for justice it will hopefully play out the right way within the law one way or another.
However, as you rightly point out, Journalists have got it wrong before and have paid the price through the courts. Brand is at least well placed to defend his name if indeed he is innocent of the issues claimed, but given his past behaviour, it is no wonder people are unsurprised about the allegations. It is human nature for people to judge, we all judge those in the public eye daily and interpret things to suit our personal narratives. He has a sizeable fan base, the lovely Beverley Turner was defending him on TV i read. The court of public opinion sits daily in all our heads, it is the law courts that matter though and like I say, he has the wherewithal to show his innocence in a civil court if no criminal charges are brought or if they are and is innocent of the behaviour claimed. The burden of proof is lower in the civil courts too were he to want to show the world his innocence down that route.
Jonathan
Well-known member
I'd argue more people seem to have concluded that he isn't one than the other way around. I feel like I've seen so many famous names and their followers just openly saying it's lies and a smear campaign because he "speaks the truth" and is "a threat" to the media, based on absolutely nothing. And they're the same people who get incredulous about things like 'trial by media' or hand wringing over "whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty!" they're all shills and grifters, you can do literally anything you want to anyone you like and you'll still always have the backing of these people so long as you peddle the same absolute sh*t that they do.
The same people that call everyone a paedophile left and right on Twitter and acting like they care about children are the same people just openly dismissing accusations of a 30 odd year old man grooming and sexually assaulting a 16 year old as lies with nothing to inform that opinion at all.
Mountain Climber
Well-known member
Probably. He is still very lucky to have kept his job at a ridiculous salary considering what he did. It was despicable and something I hope he regretted afterwards,
BoroMart
Well-known member
Flip side of that of course is that rich people buy their own innocence with expensive lawyers.
In fact it’s said the only reason brand hasn’t been in court before now is his extreme litigious nature.
Apparently when Kathryn Ryan was on Louis Therouxs show last year and talked of a well know sexual predator who she confronted and called them out at the beginning of every days work , it was Brand when they both worked on Roast Battle. He left after one season.
anyway, it’s a conundrum, of course people should be presumed innocent however we know that the rich escape justice time and again, there comes a point where someone is morally guilty based on publicly available evidence but they are found innocent in court.