In a courtroom, presumption of innocence is critical for a fair trial. But outside the courtroom, in cases of rape or sexual assault, it implies the accusers are lying until proven otherwise.
I understand the victim angle, but he’s already lost so much based on an accusation. IF he’s innocent, it’ll be another Johnny Depp situation. (Yes I know he lost the case with the sun bear with me). His life has been completely upended, if he is guilty it’s fair, but if he’s innocent isn’t that just cruel?
If the court of public opinion is going to be the main venue here, then Brand has ample ability to tell us own story and deny the accusations and is already doing so. The alleged victims talked to the media because they probably thought that was the only way to get their stories out.
"IF he’s innocent, ... if he is guilty it’s fair, but if he’s innocent isn’t that just cruel?"
There's no way we can know if he's "innocent" or not. A court of law cannot prove innocence, only that there may not be enough evidence to prove him guilty in a court of law. Read my comment above (or below depending on your settings).
I'm on the fence about how the media are allowed to expose high profile people regarding accusations before they have been charged legally. I'm in no doubt there is some truth in what is said but the publicity alone will be highly damaging.
Of course if he is found guilty he should face the consequences but i do wonder how many other stars have used their status to exploit people but somehow escaped public judgement. Rock stars and groupies for example.
There is something very wrong with this slant. Innocent until proven guilty is a basic tenet of justice. Now, I’m not a Brand fan and I suspect he has behaved improperly - that said, have noticed that ‘Alice’ said that when she was 16, her mum tried to do everything to prevent the relationship - took her phone, grounded her etc, but Alice found a way… there are two sides to this story and it’s also highly likely that Alice has a different narrative now than then… and on the face of it (with her) he may not have broken the law, no matter if others felt it inappropriate. Everyone ditching him now (publishers, YouTube etc) is a result of commercial self preservation - they don’t care whether it’s true or not. It stinks. Justice should take its course and if he’s guilty, he should be a pariah, but what if he isn’t? When trial by media takes the lead, society breaks down a little… and it seems to going only in one direction.
As I said above, Brand has a unique ability, due to his celebrity, to deny the accusations and tell his side of the story publicly. But often the media turns out to be the only avenue for victims of abuse to tell their stories, as I pointed out in the main text above and as the cases I have worked on demonstrate as well. If you look at that “Rogue’s Gallery” and read some of those investigations, you will see that institutional failure to do anything leads to victims going to the media. That’s how it was with Harvey Weinstein. The film industry looked the other way for decades until some brave actresses began to talk to reporters.
Of course you are correct, the investigative reporting is essential to help uncover the sins of the powerful… like Weinstein and Saville (albeit too late) and the guy from That 70’s show who just got put away. But, when it comes to Kevin Spacey and Jonny Depp, look at the wreckage incurred before establishing innocence. The correct thing to do, for all parties involved is to pause everything and wait for a trial. But trial by media and instant punishment only adds weight to the idea that anyone can come forward and claim anything, causing the innocent to be damaged irrevocably while they maintain their anonymity. I recognise that the balance needs to return to protect the victims, but in the material world that we live in, we need to be very careful not to allow the judicial process time to work, else we will escalate the opportunists and the vengeful to ruin the lives of many, without having to prove a thing.
Do I believe he’s likely forced someone for sex at the height of his narcissism? Probably… his arrogance was out of control. And he should be punished for it if proven. Do I believe that Alice was coerced and abused? No, not at all from the account given… she was a 16year old chasing a 30 year old celebrity and getting all the attention she wanted… and now she sees the error of her ways… and he likely broke no laws in that process.
If enough people think it’s wrong, they should campaign to change the law, not retribution for people who operate within it.
Don’t like my opinion, that’s ok… it really shouldn’t matter… it should be for the courts to decide. And that’s not the process that’s taking place.
Maybe he deserves to be ruined, and I’m fine with it if he’s guilty. But if it turns out like Depp or Spacey, then everything that’s happening now is wrong on many levels. For the true victims too, because they’ll be drowned out by the fortune hunters in the future…
The reporters sought out the alleged victims, not the other way around. And while Brand's behavior might have been abhorrent, one also has to ask whether any of the incidents were actual crimes. Of the four women included, only the case in Los Angeles may meet the legal definition of a crime. But here too the dispute appears to be over protected versus unprotected sex as detailed in the text messages long before California implemented its condom stealthing statue in 2022. Given the actions by YouTube, and letter from the British PM to other social media outlets, prior to any sort of formal charges also lends credence to the argument that these allegations were part of a coordinated effort to diminish Brand's dissenting voice and influence. This might not align with your perception of politics, but it is a possibility. Plus as Amber Heard has demonstrated in a court of law, women do sometimes lie. Though then again, you've probably never heard of False Victimization Syndrome also known as FVS. So every situation has to be carefully assessed before any allegations are believed or disbelieved.
You can’t put this in the same bracket as Harvey Weinstein.
Also, the other three women are past relationships talking about his bad behaviour. None of them had reported that to anyone else and none of it was a criminal that is all speculation without any evidence. There is only one woman in question the other three are not part of any investigation. It’s one woman’s word against one man’s word. Let’s see what happens I would say given the fact that she was 16 and consenting then there is no crime committed. Does that make it right? In my opinion, no, but that is the law and the law is what people should be prosecuted under, not that of opinions.
I am a man, but I am a student of criminal law. And it is only the law that make decisions such as this on someone’s life these are life changing decisions that will impact not just him, but also the young girl in question who is not a young girl anymore. This is all based on something that happened many years ago, and I do not think Russell Brand has denied that these things happened. What he has denied is that these things weren’t unconstitutional . So given that basis, if they are a consenting adults, that from what I have read, so far, she pursued a relationship further with him against her mothers wishes. Yes, she was 16, 16 is the age of consent in England . If a crime has been committed, then it will be discovered and I’m sure he will be punished, but at this stage I would say he’s been punished enough. With unfounded comments by social media and reckless publishing. Which in turn could also damaged the case, and that could go against the female involved. We should want as people and human beings for him to be charged if need be and prosecuted correctly, so the correct punishment can be dealt out and the best outcome for the victim if there is a victim.
Thanks for your comments. I have argued in this piece that not all such cases can be resolved in the courtroom—no charges have been filed and we can’t know yet whether any will be—but sometimes they have to be resolved in other venues. That was true of the Weinstein case as well: Long before he was ever charged he was finished in the film industry, rightly so. Please read the link I provided for a woman’s perspective; from the timeline you have not had time to do so. I’m sure you want to listen to what women have to say on this, yes?
I disagree that any investigation or any one should be punished outside of the law. I disagree with that. That should never be the case ever. I have been to the article I have read it. I also disagree with a lot of that but I do agree with some of it but I would say mostly I disagree. I want people to be fairly treated both victims and also those that are in question. Justice cannot be hard without this. It is completely impossible. It is not justice to pursue someone to destroy their career based on someone else’s opinions and allegations.
This is going to be our last exchange here, because it’s clear from your comments that you are simply not looking at anything that counters your position. I linked to Marina Hyde’s piece, and also in the text above to my own list of investigations of #MeToo cases. In not one of those dozens of cases were the victims able to go through the system before a journalist wrote about them, which means that “going through the system” is often not a viable course. You are failing to engage with that reality and as a result your viewpoint in the end becomes irrelevant.
My view point is that of the law. I don’t write the law.
Do I think there’s been a crime committed I don’t know I only know what someone else is saying that is not evidence of anything.
Do I think that journalists are destroying law and fair prosecutions? Yes I do.
Do I think social media is also destroying the law and fair prosecutions yes I do.
Do I think that people should be given a fair trial? Yes I do.
Do I think that journalist pursuing these pathways to destroying other people’s reputation is wrong? Yes I do.
Do I think that this form of prosecution by media is arming the victims cases ? Yes I do.
To summarise, if there is a victim, then that victim should file a case that case will be pursued by a lawyer/solicitor
But no case will be brought forward without evidence opinion or difference of opinion is not evidence. publicising them
Is also not evidence, but if it is needed within evidence this evidence as since then been destroyed. What it can do is destroy the reputations of those involved. And it can also seriously damage the case when it does eventually come to court. And also stop the victim from getting satisfactory justice and closure. Just like with Harvey Weinstein’s case that could’ve been dealt with far more quickly far more thoroughly without the camaraderie. And they could’ve been better outcomes for victims.
You're just not paying attention to a number of women who've questioned these allegations. Here's just one example: https://rumble.com/v3iv7e8-breaking-down-the-rape-and-sexual-assault-accusations-against-russell-brand.html Though of course you cite sources like the Guardian, that coincidentally receive lots of funding from the BMGF. Most corporate sources will parrot your point of view. Thus, if you listen to mainstream corporate media that's likely the only female or otherwise perspective you'll get..
"Innocent until proven guilty" also doesn't mean anything. Just because there may not be enough evidence to convict someone, does not mean they are necessarily innocent. Brand wrote about his drug and sex addictions and how both of them ruined his life and the lives of those around him. He checked himself into a sex addiction clinic because it got so bad. That right there shows he wasn't just partying and having a good promiscuous time. Things got bad. Real, real bad.
Rules for comment on this newsletter include no obvious racism, misogyny, or other forms of bigotry, and no personal attacks on me or others. A comment has been removed for violating the latter policy.
The reporters sought out the alleged victims, not the other way around. And while Brand's behavior might have been abhorrent, one also has to ask whether any of the incidents were actual crimes. Of the four women included, only the case in Los Angeles may meet the legal definition of a crime. But here too the dispute appears to be over protected versus unprotected sex as detailed in the text messages long before California implemented its condom stealthing statue in 2022. Given the actions by YouTube, and letter from the British PM to other social media outlets, prior to any sort of formal charges also lends credence to the argument that these allegations were part of a coordinated effort to diminish Brand's dissenting voice and influence. This might not align with your perception of politics, but it is a possibility. Plus as Amber Heard has demonstrated in a court of law, women do sometimes lie. Though then again, you've probably never heard of False Victimization Syndrome also known as FVS. So every situation has to be carefully assessed before any allegations are believed or disbelieved.
Anything I don't agree with is wrong, the law should be ignored, people aren't innocent, stories with no evidence is proof. You can destroy a guy with no evidence but can't take the slightest abuse, why am I not surprised. You fit the stereotype. #echochamber #safespace
Comment removed that was highly offensive to women and especially insensitive to survivors of abuse.
I understand the victim angle, but he’s already lost so much based on an accusation. IF he’s innocent, it’ll be another Johnny Depp situation. (Yes I know he lost the case with the sun bear with me). His life has been completely upended, if he is guilty it’s fair, but if he’s innocent isn’t that just cruel?
If the court of public opinion is going to be the main venue here, then Brand has ample ability to tell us own story and deny the accusations and is already doing so. The alleged victims talked to the media because they probably thought that was the only way to get their stories out.
"IF he’s innocent, ... if he is guilty it’s fair, but if he’s innocent isn’t that just cruel?"
There's no way we can know if he's "innocent" or not. A court of law cannot prove innocence, only that there may not be enough evidence to prove him guilty in a court of law. Read my comment above (or below depending on your settings).
I'm on the fence about how the media are allowed to expose high profile people regarding accusations before they have been charged legally. I'm in no doubt there is some truth in what is said but the publicity alone will be highly damaging.
Of course if he is found guilty he should face the consequences but i do wonder how many other stars have used their status to exploit people but somehow escaped public judgement. Rock stars and groupies for example.
There is something very wrong with this slant. Innocent until proven guilty is a basic tenet of justice. Now, I’m not a Brand fan and I suspect he has behaved improperly - that said, have noticed that ‘Alice’ said that when she was 16, her mum tried to do everything to prevent the relationship - took her phone, grounded her etc, but Alice found a way… there are two sides to this story and it’s also highly likely that Alice has a different narrative now than then… and on the face of it (with her) he may not have broken the law, no matter if others felt it inappropriate. Everyone ditching him now (publishers, YouTube etc) is a result of commercial self preservation - they don’t care whether it’s true or not. It stinks. Justice should take its course and if he’s guilty, he should be a pariah, but what if he isn’t? When trial by media takes the lead, society breaks down a little… and it seems to going only in one direction.
As I said above, Brand has a unique ability, due to his celebrity, to deny the accusations and tell his side of the story publicly. But often the media turns out to be the only avenue for victims of abuse to tell their stories, as I pointed out in the main text above and as the cases I have worked on demonstrate as well. If you look at that “Rogue’s Gallery” and read some of those investigations, you will see that institutional failure to do anything leads to victims going to the media. That’s how it was with Harvey Weinstein. The film industry looked the other way for decades until some brave actresses began to talk to reporters.
Of course you are correct, the investigative reporting is essential to help uncover the sins of the powerful… like Weinstein and Saville (albeit too late) and the guy from That 70’s show who just got put away. But, when it comes to Kevin Spacey and Jonny Depp, look at the wreckage incurred before establishing innocence. The correct thing to do, for all parties involved is to pause everything and wait for a trial. But trial by media and instant punishment only adds weight to the idea that anyone can come forward and claim anything, causing the innocent to be damaged irrevocably while they maintain their anonymity. I recognise that the balance needs to return to protect the victims, but in the material world that we live in, we need to be very careful not to allow the judicial process time to work, else we will escalate the opportunists and the vengeful to ruin the lives of many, without having to prove a thing.
Do I believe he’s likely forced someone for sex at the height of his narcissism? Probably… his arrogance was out of control. And he should be punished for it if proven. Do I believe that Alice was coerced and abused? No, not at all from the account given… she was a 16year old chasing a 30 year old celebrity and getting all the attention she wanted… and now she sees the error of her ways… and he likely broke no laws in that process.
If enough people think it’s wrong, they should campaign to change the law, not retribution for people who operate within it.
Don’t like my opinion, that’s ok… it really shouldn’t matter… it should be for the courts to decide. And that’s not the process that’s taking place.
Maybe he deserves to be ruined, and I’m fine with it if he’s guilty. But if it turns out like Depp or Spacey, then everything that’s happening now is wrong on many levels. For the true victims too, because they’ll be drowned out by the fortune hunters in the future…
The reporters sought out the alleged victims, not the other way around. And while Brand's behavior might have been abhorrent, one also has to ask whether any of the incidents were actual crimes. Of the four women included, only the case in Los Angeles may meet the legal definition of a crime. But here too the dispute appears to be over protected versus unprotected sex as detailed in the text messages long before California implemented its condom stealthing statue in 2022. Given the actions by YouTube, and letter from the British PM to other social media outlets, prior to any sort of formal charges also lends credence to the argument that these allegations were part of a coordinated effort to diminish Brand's dissenting voice and influence. This might not align with your perception of politics, but it is a possibility. Plus as Amber Heard has demonstrated in a court of law, women do sometimes lie. Though then again, you've probably never heard of False Victimization Syndrome also known as FVS. So every situation has to be carefully assessed before any allegations are believed or disbelieved.
You can’t put this in the same bracket as Harvey Weinstein.
Also, the other three women are past relationships talking about his bad behaviour. None of them had reported that to anyone else and none of it was a criminal that is all speculation without any evidence. There is only one woman in question the other three are not part of any investigation. It’s one woman’s word against one man’s word. Let’s see what happens I would say given the fact that she was 16 and consenting then there is no crime committed. Does that make it right? In my opinion, no, but that is the law and the law is what people should be prosecuted under, not that of opinions.
Interesting that it is mostly men who are coming to Brand’s defense. Most women seem to get it. Here is another view similar to mine: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/19/brave-victims-russell-brand-misogyny-deserve-full-support
I am a man, but I am a student of criminal law. And it is only the law that make decisions such as this on someone’s life these are life changing decisions that will impact not just him, but also the young girl in question who is not a young girl anymore. This is all based on something that happened many years ago, and I do not think Russell Brand has denied that these things happened. What he has denied is that these things weren’t unconstitutional . So given that basis, if they are a consenting adults, that from what I have read, so far, she pursued a relationship further with him against her mothers wishes. Yes, she was 16, 16 is the age of consent in England . If a crime has been committed, then it will be discovered and I’m sure he will be punished, but at this stage I would say he’s been punished enough. With unfounded comments by social media and reckless publishing. Which in turn could also damaged the case, and that could go against the female involved. We should want as people and human beings for him to be charged if need be and prosecuted correctly, so the correct punishment can be dealt out and the best outcome for the victim if there is a victim.
Thanks for your comments. I have argued in this piece that not all such cases can be resolved in the courtroom—no charges have been filed and we can’t know yet whether any will be—but sometimes they have to be resolved in other venues. That was true of the Weinstein case as well: Long before he was ever charged he was finished in the film industry, rightly so. Please read the link I provided for a woman’s perspective; from the timeline you have not had time to do so. I’m sure you want to listen to what women have to say on this, yes?
I disagree that any investigation or any one should be punished outside of the law. I disagree with that. That should never be the case ever. I have been to the article I have read it. I also disagree with a lot of that but I do agree with some of it but I would say mostly I disagree. I want people to be fairly treated both victims and also those that are in question. Justice cannot be hard without this. It is completely impossible. It is not justice to pursue someone to destroy their career based on someone else’s opinions and allegations.
This is going to be our last exchange here, because it’s clear from your comments that you are simply not looking at anything that counters your position. I linked to Marina Hyde’s piece, and also in the text above to my own list of investigations of #MeToo cases. In not one of those dozens of cases were the victims able to go through the system before a journalist wrote about them, which means that “going through the system” is often not a viable course. You are failing to engage with that reality and as a result your viewpoint in the end becomes irrelevant.
My view point is not relevant?.
My view point is that of the law. I don’t write the law.
Do I think there’s been a crime committed I don’t know I only know what someone else is saying that is not evidence of anything.
Do I think that journalists are destroying law and fair prosecutions? Yes I do.
Do I think social media is also destroying the law and fair prosecutions yes I do.
Do I think that people should be given a fair trial? Yes I do.
Do I think that journalist pursuing these pathways to destroying other people’s reputation is wrong? Yes I do.
Do I think that this form of prosecution by media is arming the victims cases ? Yes I do.
To summarise, if there is a victim, then that victim should file a case that case will be pursued by a lawyer/solicitor
But no case will be brought forward without evidence opinion or difference of opinion is not evidence. publicising them
Is also not evidence, but if it is needed within evidence this evidence as since then been destroyed. What it can do is destroy the reputations of those involved. And it can also seriously damage the case when it does eventually come to court. And also stop the victim from getting satisfactory justice and closure. Just like with Harvey Weinstein’s case that could’ve been dealt with far more quickly far more thoroughly without the camaraderie. And they could’ve been better outcomes for victims.
You're just not paying attention to a number of women who've questioned these allegations. Here's just one example: https://rumble.com/v3iv7e8-breaking-down-the-rape-and-sexual-assault-accusations-against-russell-brand.html Though of course you cite sources like the Guardian, that coincidentally receive lots of funding from the BMGF. Most corporate sources will parrot your point of view. Thus, if you listen to mainstream corporate media that's likely the only female or otherwise perspective you'll get..
"Innocent until proven guilty" also doesn't mean anything. Just because there may not be enough evidence to convict someone, does not mean they are necessarily innocent. Brand wrote about his drug and sex addictions and how both of them ruined his life and the lives of those around him. He checked himself into a sex addiction clinic because it got so bad. That right there shows he wasn't just partying and having a good promiscuous time. Things got bad. Real, real bad.
Rules for comment on this newsletter include no obvious racism, misogyny, or other forms of bigotry, and no personal attacks on me or others. A comment has been removed for violating the latter policy.
The reporters sought out the alleged victims, not the other way around. And while Brand's behavior might have been abhorrent, one also has to ask whether any of the incidents were actual crimes. Of the four women included, only the case in Los Angeles may meet the legal definition of a crime. But here too the dispute appears to be over protected versus unprotected sex as detailed in the text messages long before California implemented its condom stealthing statue in 2022. Given the actions by YouTube, and letter from the British PM to other social media outlets, prior to any sort of formal charges also lends credence to the argument that these allegations were part of a coordinated effort to diminish Brand's dissenting voice and influence. This might not align with your perception of politics, but it is a possibility. Plus as Amber Heard has demonstrated in a court of law, women do sometimes lie. Though then again, you've probably never heard of False Victimization Syndrome also known as FVS. So every situation has to be carefully assessed before any allegations are believed or disbelieved.
Anything I don't agree with is wrong, the law should be ignored, people aren't innocent, stories with no evidence is proof. You can destroy a guy with no evidence but can't take the slightest abuse, why am I not surprised. You fit the stereotype. #echochamber #safespace