Is Russell Brand "innocent until proven guilty"? In a court of law, yes; in the court of public opinion, probably not. Sometimes that's how justice must be done.
Is Russell Brand "innocent until proven guilty"? In a court of law, yes; in the court of public opinion, probably not. Sometimes that's how justice must be done.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.