| Russell Brand 23:28 - Sep 15 with 45623 views | _clive_baker_ |
Big weekend for him then |  | | |  |
| Russell Brand on 02:08 - Sep 19 with 2929 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Russell Brand on 22:22 - Sep 18 by tractorboy1978 |
Yes, not refuting seeing a 16 year old as a bloke in his 30s should be a smoking gun as to his degeneracy. |
He wasn't just "seeing a 16 year old girl", she was one of the witnesses on the Dispatches documentary.
And she said that on one occasion he didn't take "No" for an answer and forced himself on her. She said that she had to punch him in the stomach to stop him.
Dispatches has seen the text messages between them that followed, and verified that they came from Brand's phone number. |  | | |
| Russell Brand on 07:19 - Sep 19 with 2789 views | tractorboy1978 |
| Russell Brand on 02:08 - Sep 19 by ArnoldMoorhen |
He wasn't just "seeing a 16 year old girl", she was one of the witnesses on the Dispatches documentary.
And she said that on one occasion he didn't take "No" for an answer and forced himself on her. She said that she had to punch him in the stomach to stop him.
Dispatches has seen the text messages between them that followed, and verified that they came from Brand's phone number. |
My point was that even if you take his claim (I am paraphrasing here) "all his relationships/sexual encounters have been consensual" as truth and at face value, at best he slept with a 16 year old when he was in his 30s. That's degenerate, abnormal behaviour that casts doubt on character before you even start to consider the actual accusations. | | | |
| Russell Brand on 08:31 - Sep 19 with 2715 views | itfcjoe |
| Russell Brand on 20:23 - Sep 18 by pointofblue |
That results in the whole legal premise of "innocent until proven guilty" breaking down, not that those who are running around claiming his innocence are any better. I'm pretty sure judges have said before that speculation and entrenched views on social media have caused issues when it comes to trials as well, as it has created problems when coming to form an unbiased jury.
Someone has gone to the police, and my hope, if guilty, is that the media revelations drawing others out will form a concrete case against him which means he will be sentenced. Perhaps even those who saw things will find the confidence to come forward as well. Build a concrete case so he is sentenced and end up where he belongs.
Just to add - some who'd like to see things handled via legal means, including myself, will also think that culture wars are a danger to society. |
I don't think it does, because it's not like he is going to go to prison or have a criminal record when the court of public opinion finds him guilty. Whilst I'm sure some people would like to see him do a stretch at His Majesties Pleasure that simply is such an unlikely and long winded approach that will bring so much more pain onto the victim that there will be no winners bar those who want to sneer at Brand being found guilty who won't have to live it, and the legal teams who coin it in.
And as mentioned before there are huge numbers of things done which aren't illegal but are important that people know - having a relationship with a schoolgirl in his 30s; channel 4 putting together all male production teams for his shows; clear lies to women about contract terms; total mistreatment of women generally. Most of this stuff isn't illegal, but it is important for someone placed on a pedestal in the public eye.
If all these cases were put together, and he was found guilty of all the actual crimes as defined by law, he's prob go to prison for a year, is that really worth it for anyone? Or is it better to expose him by presenting the evidence and allowing people to make their own mind up.
I'm someone who was a fan of Brand as well, at the time when all this was happening, who enjoyed his stand up, and his podcast, read a couple of his books, so this isn't a chance for me to stick one at someone I don't like. I even went to see him a couple of years back as someone bought tickets, but I could see at that point he'd gone and was off away on a sphere I wanted to be no part of, but obviously had been 'supporting' him through the worst of his crimes as sexual abuse clearly much worse than grifting some thick people out of their money by saying what they want to here |  |
| |
| Russell Brand on 09:51 - Sep 19 with 2604 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Russell Brand on 08:31 - Sep 19 by itfcjoe |
I don't think it does, because it's not like he is going to go to prison or have a criminal record when the court of public opinion finds him guilty. Whilst I'm sure some people would like to see him do a stretch at His Majesties Pleasure that simply is such an unlikely and long winded approach that will bring so much more pain onto the victim that there will be no winners bar those who want to sneer at Brand being found guilty who won't have to live it, and the legal teams who coin it in.
And as mentioned before there are huge numbers of things done which aren't illegal but are important that people know - having a relationship with a schoolgirl in his 30s; channel 4 putting together all male production teams for his shows; clear lies to women about contract terms; total mistreatment of women generally. Most of this stuff isn't illegal, but it is important for someone placed on a pedestal in the public eye.
If all these cases were put together, and he was found guilty of all the actual crimes as defined by law, he's prob go to prison for a year, is that really worth it for anyone? Or is it better to expose him by presenting the evidence and allowing people to make their own mind up.
I'm someone who was a fan of Brand as well, at the time when all this was happening, who enjoyed his stand up, and his podcast, read a couple of his books, so this isn't a chance for me to stick one at someone I don't like. I even went to see him a couple of years back as someone bought tickets, but I could see at that point he'd gone and was off away on a sphere I wanted to be no part of, but obviously had been 'supporting' him through the worst of his crimes as sexual abuse clearly much worse than grifting some thick people out of their money by saying what they want to here |
I take your points, generally, but I still have a problem with "it's not like he is going to go to prison or have a criminal record when the court of public opinion finds him guilty." You say that as though it's no big deal having the court of public opinion finding you guilty.
There's a wider issue here beyond Russell Brand, who seems to be an extreme. If you go down the route of it's fine if someone's 'found guilty in the court of public opinion' rather than a real court, all sorts of problems open up. I say that as someone who was wrongly accused of something by a woman. The police came to my work to interview me - it's was a total shock and utterly terrifying, I was literally shaking as they spoke to me, so much so that they said, "Look, we didn't tell you this, but this woman is known to us. She's made lots of false allegations about other people, but unfortunately we have to follow it up."
A manager at the time spoke to me afterwards and warned me that if anything could bring the company into disrepute they'd have to let me go.
The police, and most people who knew me believed me. One or two didn't though. That will always happen, no matter how innocent you are. Unfortunately some people believe the phrase no smoke without fire. It was a really bad time for me, despite most supporting me, so much so that I was suicidal for a bit. And yet I'd done nothing wrong, let alone illegal.
The answer is to fix our rotten police and judicial system (and have safe, independent places within industries where women can go for help) rather than give up and let journalists and all and sundry on social media decide who's innocent and who's guilty.
I appreciate Brand is an extreme case, and the evidence in the programme seems stacked against him (although he hasn't responded with specifics yet) but I'm generally very uncomfortable with the whole idea of "allowing people to make their own mind up." |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Russell Brand on 10:05 - Sep 19 with 2559 views | Herbivore |
| Russell Brand on 09:51 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I take your points, generally, but I still have a problem with "it's not like he is going to go to prison or have a criminal record when the court of public opinion finds him guilty." You say that as though it's no big deal having the court of public opinion finding you guilty.
There's a wider issue here beyond Russell Brand, who seems to be an extreme. If you go down the route of it's fine if someone's 'found guilty in the court of public opinion' rather than a real court, all sorts of problems open up. I say that as someone who was wrongly accused of something by a woman. The police came to my work to interview me - it's was a total shock and utterly terrifying, I was literally shaking as they spoke to me, so much so that they said, "Look, we didn't tell you this, but this woman is known to us. She's made lots of false allegations about other people, but unfortunately we have to follow it up."
A manager at the time spoke to me afterwards and warned me that if anything could bring the company into disrepute they'd have to let me go.
The police, and most people who knew me believed me. One or two didn't though. That will always happen, no matter how innocent you are. Unfortunately some people believe the phrase no smoke without fire. It was a really bad time for me, despite most supporting me, so much so that I was suicidal for a bit. And yet I'd done nothing wrong, let alone illegal.
The answer is to fix our rotten police and judicial system (and have safe, independent places within industries where women can go for help) rather than give up and let journalists and all and sundry on social media decide who's innocent and who's guilty.
I appreciate Brand is an extreme case, and the evidence in the programme seems stacked against him (although he hasn't responded with specifics yet) but I'm generally very uncomfortable with the whole idea of "allowing people to make their own mind up." |
The journalists are just presenting the evidence they've uncovered, that's all they're doing. If the evidence is compelling and leads people to think he's a wrong un then there's no issue with that. |  |
| |
| Russell Brand on 10:09 - Sep 19 with 2533 views | chicoazul |
That’s usually how it works yes. |  |
| |
| Russell Brand on 10:44 - Sep 19 with 2455 views | itfcjoe |
| Russell Brand on 09:51 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I take your points, generally, but I still have a problem with "it's not like he is going to go to prison or have a criminal record when the court of public opinion finds him guilty." You say that as though it's no big deal having the court of public opinion finding you guilty.
There's a wider issue here beyond Russell Brand, who seems to be an extreme. If you go down the route of it's fine if someone's 'found guilty in the court of public opinion' rather than a real court, all sorts of problems open up. I say that as someone who was wrongly accused of something by a woman. The police came to my work to interview me - it's was a total shock and utterly terrifying, I was literally shaking as they spoke to me, so much so that they said, "Look, we didn't tell you this, but this woman is known to us. She's made lots of false allegations about other people, but unfortunately we have to follow it up."
A manager at the time spoke to me afterwards and warned me that if anything could bring the company into disrepute they'd have to let me go.
The police, and most people who knew me believed me. One or two didn't though. That will always happen, no matter how innocent you are. Unfortunately some people believe the phrase no smoke without fire. It was a really bad time for me, despite most supporting me, so much so that I was suicidal for a bit. And yet I'd done nothing wrong, let alone illegal.
The answer is to fix our rotten police and judicial system (and have safe, independent places within industries where women can go for help) rather than give up and let journalists and all and sundry on social media decide who's innocent and who's guilty.
I appreciate Brand is an extreme case, and the evidence in the programme seems stacked against him (although he hasn't responded with specifics yet) but I'm generally very uncomfortable with the whole idea of "allowing people to make their own mind up." |
I get that that experience is going to colour your view of it, and it's totally understandable but I think what you say ends up being the sort of defence that Brand is able to use to excuse himself - Emily Maitlis was really good on this on the News Agents podcast yesterday - how he deflects, lessens his part in things, talks around it, makes wild comparisons and before you know it you are charmed and have moved on and his behaviour is excused.
I think people are mistaking the trial by public as people reacting to whispers that someone is a wrong'un, or some social media noise, or some unfair headlines in a paper about it.......this is very different, it's a 4 year investigation, where they have presented 'the receipts' from 2 well respected institutions who have editoral standards, editors who would be on the hook for it and legal teams who will have been through every word of this with the evidence to ensure it is both accurate and well enough sourced to be printed.
That's not a bad 'trial by public' for me, it's one where we are given the evidence and are in a position to act as a jury, and we have seen the case for the defence 'it was all consensual' which conflicts with the messages he has sent, and also ignores the relative positions of those in the relationships | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Russell Brand on 10:55 - Sep 19 with 2421 views | nodge_blue |
| Russell Brand on 09:51 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I take your points, generally, but I still have a problem with "it's not like he is going to go to prison or have a criminal record when the court of public opinion finds him guilty." You say that as though it's no big deal having the court of public opinion finding you guilty.
There's a wider issue here beyond Russell Brand, who seems to be an extreme. If you go down the route of it's fine if someone's 'found guilty in the court of public opinion' rather than a real court, all sorts of problems open up. I say that as someone who was wrongly accused of something by a woman. The police came to my work to interview me - it's was a total shock and utterly terrifying, I was literally shaking as they spoke to me, so much so that they said, "Look, we didn't tell you this, but this woman is known to us. She's made lots of false allegations about other people, but unfortunately we have to follow it up."
A manager at the time spoke to me afterwards and warned me that if anything could bring the company into disrepute they'd have to let me go.
The police, and most people who knew me believed me. One or two didn't though. That will always happen, no matter how innocent you are. Unfortunately some people believe the phrase no smoke without fire. It was a really bad time for me, despite most supporting me, so much so that I was suicidal for a bit. And yet I'd done nothing wrong, let alone illegal.
The answer is to fix our rotten police and judicial system (and have safe, independent places within industries where women can go for help) rather than give up and let journalists and all and sundry on social media decide who's innocent and who's guilty.
I appreciate Brand is an extreme case, and the evidence in the programme seems stacked against him (although he hasn't responded with specifics yet) but I'm generally very uncomfortable with the whole idea of "allowing people to make their own mind up." |
That must have been a really bad experience and i can understand your reluctance to jump on people via an internet lync mob. I do rather share that. I think Huw Edwards was probably more in that territory of becoming an internet obcession.
I do think that russel brand is a different case though. Hugely public figure who has had apparently multiple mis demeanors with several different women. |  |
| |
| Russell Brand on 11:02 - Sep 19 with 2400 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Russell Brand on 10:05 - Sep 19 by Herbivore |
The journalists are just presenting the evidence they've uncovered, that's all they're doing. If the evidence is compelling and leads people to think he's a wrong un then there's no issue with that. |
In this particular instance I'd tend to agree. It seems to have been professionally done, they've said the women weren't paid, and as far as we know the journalists and programme makers don't have an agenda/ulterior motive. That won't always be the case though. How would you feel if say The Daily Mail and GB News were running an investigation on someone?
We also haven't heard Brand's supposed evidence which contradicts stuff in the programme. The thing about a court of law and judicial system, when run properly, is you get to hear both sides before you decide.
It's a dangerous precedent and we'd be better off fixing the judicial systems and putting in safety measures for women who want to report things. It's a damning indictment on our society if we're turning this sort of thing over to the press. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Russell Brand on 11:15 - Sep 19 with 2350 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Russell Brand on 10:44 - Sep 19 by itfcjoe |
I get that that experience is going to colour your view of it, and it's totally understandable but I think what you say ends up being the sort of defence that Brand is able to use to excuse himself - Emily Maitlis was really good on this on the News Agents podcast yesterday - how he deflects, lessens his part in things, talks around it, makes wild comparisons and before you know it you are charmed and have moved on and his behaviour is excused.
I think people are mistaking the trial by public as people reacting to whispers that someone is a wrong'un, or some social media noise, or some unfair headlines in a paper about it.......this is very different, it's a 4 year investigation, where they have presented 'the receipts' from 2 well respected institutions who have editoral standards, editors who would be on the hook for it and legal teams who will have been through every word of this with the evidence to ensure it is both accurate and well enough sourced to be printed.
That's not a bad 'trial by public' for me, it's one where we are given the evidence and are in a position to act as a jury, and we have seen the case for the defence 'it was all consensual' which conflicts with the messages he has sent, and also ignores the relative positions of those in the relationships |
I agree with a lot of what you say, and as I just said to Herbs in this instance it's hard to disagree. It's just the wider issue of trial by media rather than the courts that bothers me.
As an aside to one of your points, if I remember correctly the messages he sent don't contradict his consensual plea. He says sorry to her, but that could be sorry for the row we had or sorry that you're upset. He doesn't say sorry for raping you. This isn't me defending Brand, he's clearly treated women badly at the very least, I'm just trying to be impartial and question everything rather than accept the programme's narrative at face value. There were other things I was uncomfortable with, like taking his comedy routines out of context and presenting them as 'yet more evidence'. Comedians say a lot of terrible things to get a laugh, in the context of a wider show and in a comedy space. That sort of thing wouldn't be evidence in a court of law.
We also haven't seen all of the case for the defence. He claims to have evidence that contradicts the show. If that's true we need to see it before deciding. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Russell Brand on 12:12 - Sep 19 with 2232 views | Herbivore |
| Russell Brand on 11:02 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
In this particular instance I'd tend to agree. It seems to have been professionally done, they've said the women weren't paid, and as far as we know the journalists and programme makers don't have an agenda/ulterior motive. That won't always be the case though. How would you feel if say The Daily Mail and GB News were running an investigation on someone?
We also haven't heard Brand's supposed evidence which contradicts stuff in the programme. The thing about a court of law and judicial system, when run properly, is you get to hear both sides before you decide.
It's a dangerous precedent and we'd be better off fixing the judicial systems and putting in safety measures for women who want to report things. It's a damning indictment on our society if we're turning this sort of thing over to the press. |
If the Mail and GB News were following the same journalistic standards as Dispatched and the Times then I wouldn't have an issue with it. I don't see this as a political issue, it's about treatment of women and allegations of rape and sexual assault. If the Mail and GB News were to spend a significant length of time investigating a story like this and they did it thoroughly then it doesn't matter who the source is. Of course, given their respective histories it's unlikely that would be the case.
This kind of investigative journalism isn't exactly new and I don't think the term 'trial by media' is accurate or helpful to anyone other than Brand and those that support him. They are reporting a story, they have presented the accounts of individuals who have been victims of his behaviour and in each case they have shown what they've done to corroborate the stories as best they can. People can then make their own minds up.
If the only way scummy and potentially illegal behaviour can be held to account is through the courts then, imo, we're on even dodgier ground. The burden of proof in that arena is very high, to even get to court is difficult, and the process is awful for the victims. When you have high profile individuals like Brand who have seemingly been behaving this way for years, how else do you explode their behaviour and encourage people to come Forward other than through these kind of means? Would you rather Dispatches and the Times had sat on the story and let Brand just carry on? An effective media holds power to account, and that's what has happened here. | |
| |
| Russell Brand on 12:54 - Sep 19 with 2173 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Russell Brand on 12:12 - Sep 19 by Herbivore |
If the Mail and GB News were following the same journalistic standards as Dispatched and the Times then I wouldn't have an issue with it. I don't see this as a political issue, it's about treatment of women and allegations of rape and sexual assault. If the Mail and GB News were to spend a significant length of time investigating a story like this and they did it thoroughly then it doesn't matter who the source is. Of course, given their respective histories it's unlikely that would be the case.
This kind of investigative journalism isn't exactly new and I don't think the term 'trial by media' is accurate or helpful to anyone other than Brand and those that support him. They are reporting a story, they have presented the accounts of individuals who have been victims of his behaviour and in each case they have shown what they've done to corroborate the stories as best they can. People can then make their own minds up.
If the only way scummy and potentially illegal behaviour can be held to account is through the courts then, imo, we're on even dodgier ground. The burden of proof in that arena is very high, to even get to court is difficult, and the process is awful for the victims. When you have high profile individuals like Brand who have seemingly been behaving this way for years, how else do you explode their behaviour and encourage people to come Forward other than through these kind of means? Would you rather Dispatches and the Times had sat on the story and let Brand just carry on? An effective media holds power to account, and that's what has happened here. |
I'm sure the Daily Mail and GB News work hard and to high standards on their stories, but given everything they do has an agenda you still wouldn't have an issue with it? Blimey.
No, I'm not remotely suggesting Dispatches and the Times should have sat on the story, I'm saying (and I've said this several times) we ought to be looking at fixing our judicial system and these industries where women aren't protected in the first place, rather than leaving it to journalists (and then the public deciding, having only seen one side of the story).
In this instance the journalists seem to have been robust. That might not always be the case. You also have to bear in mind that journalism is essentially about making money (aside from the BBC), so it can never be fully agenda free like a well-working judicial system would be. If Dispatches found evidence that didn't fit the narrative (or contradicted it) do you think they'd have just binned the story after paying people to work on it for 4 years?
I'm not casting any aspersions on Dispatches, nor defending Brand, just making a wider point on 'trial by media', which I do think is an accurate phrase. That's exactly what it is. We haven't heard Brand's 'evidence', only what Channel 4 and The Times have put out, so 'trial by media' is exactly what it is so far. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Russell Brand on 12:55 - Sep 19 with 2170 views | nodge_blue |
| Russell Brand on 11:15 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I agree with a lot of what you say, and as I just said to Herbs in this instance it's hard to disagree. It's just the wider issue of trial by media rather than the courts that bothers me.
As an aside to one of your points, if I remember correctly the messages he sent don't contradict his consensual plea. He says sorry to her, but that could be sorry for the row we had or sorry that you're upset. He doesn't say sorry for raping you. This isn't me defending Brand, he's clearly treated women badly at the very least, I'm just trying to be impartial and question everything rather than accept the programme's narrative at face value. There were other things I was uncomfortable with, like taking his comedy routines out of context and presenting them as 'yet more evidence'. Comedians say a lot of terrible things to get a laugh, in the context of a wider show and in a comedy space. That sort of thing wouldn't be evidence in a court of law.
We also haven't seen all of the case for the defence. He claims to have evidence that contradicts the show. If that's true we need to see it before deciding. |
There's also nothing legally wrong with dating a 16 year old girl who was still at school, as a 30 year old man. Nor asking her to change his name in her phone. Or calling her the child. Or giving her Lolitta as a book to read.
A court couldn't find him guilty of anything. But he was asking her age just to make sure he was on the fine margins of a legal context, rather than a moral one. Once he knew he was, then she was fair game. Even though she was still at school.
Does that sound right? | |
| |
| Russell Brand on 13:24 - Sep 19 with 2070 views | Herbivore |
| Russell Brand on 12:54 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm sure the Daily Mail and GB News work hard and to high standards on their stories, but given everything they do has an agenda you still wouldn't have an issue with it? Blimey.
No, I'm not remotely suggesting Dispatches and the Times should have sat on the story, I'm saying (and I've said this several times) we ought to be looking at fixing our judicial system and these industries where women aren't protected in the first place, rather than leaving it to journalists (and then the public deciding, having only seen one side of the story).
In this instance the journalists seem to have been robust. That might not always be the case. You also have to bear in mind that journalism is essentially about making money (aside from the BBC), so it can never be fully agenda free like a well-working judicial system would be. If Dispatches found evidence that didn't fit the narrative (or contradicted it) do you think they'd have just binned the story after paying people to work on it for 4 years?
I'm not casting any aspersions on Dispatches, nor defending Brand, just making a wider point on 'trial by media', which I do think is an accurate phrase. That's exactly what it is. We haven't heard Brand's 'evidence', only what Channel 4 and The Times have put out, so 'trial by media' is exactly what it is so far. |
The Mail and GB News don't have high journalistic standards, the number of complaints upheld against them and the number of corrections they have to publish/broadcast tell you that. That's in stark contrast to the likes of Dispatches and (most of the time) the Times who do work to high standards to ensure that what they publish is accurate. 'Agenda' is such a lazy word to throw around in this particular context.
If you've watched the Dispatches documentary you'll see that they did include people saying that they'd never seen or heard of him doing anything illegal, so your point about them not including information that contradicted 'their narrative' (actually, it was the victims' narrative they were presenting) doesn't really stand up.
I disagree that 'trial by media' is a remotely appropriate phrase in this context, it's intended to muddy the waters and make out like investigative journalism that outs awful people shouldn't take place. | |
| |
| Russell Brand on 13:30 - Sep 19 with 2052 views | Dubtractor |
| Russell Brand on 13:24 - Sep 19 by Herbivore |
The Mail and GB News don't have high journalistic standards, the number of complaints upheld against them and the number of corrections they have to publish/broadcast tell you that. That's in stark contrast to the likes of Dispatches and (most of the time) the Times who do work to high standards to ensure that what they publish is accurate. 'Agenda' is such a lazy word to throw around in this particular context.
If you've watched the Dispatches documentary you'll see that they did include people saying that they'd never seen or heard of him doing anything illegal, so your point about them not including information that contradicted 'their narrative' (actually, it was the victims' narrative they were presenting) doesn't really stand up.
I disagree that 'trial by media' is a remotely appropriate phrase in this context, it's intended to muddy the waters and make out like investigative journalism that outs awful people shouldn't take place. |
I've been pretty quiet in this thread, but that last point is a critical one for me. Of course the media has done some dodgy things in its time, but it has also done some incredible investigative work. Use of the phrase 'main stream media' has been overdone as a way of discrediting everything they do, and that's really not a good thing at all. |  |
| |
| Russell Brand on 13:42 - Sep 19 with 1993 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Russell Brand on 12:55 - Sep 19 by nodge_blue |
There's also nothing legally wrong with dating a 16 year old girl who was still at school, as a 30 year old man. Nor asking her to change his name in her phone. Or calling her the child. Or giving her Lolitta as a book to read.
A court couldn't find him guilty of anything. But he was asking her age just to make sure he was on the fine margins of a legal context, rather than a moral one. Once he knew he was, then she was fair game. Even though she was still at school.
Does that sound right? |
I certainly wouldn't be happy if it were my daughter, and it's not what one would describe as the norm, but in the entertainment world it's certainly not unheard of. I remember Paul Daniels saying when you have young women throwing themselves at you, it's hard to resist and you can't always be sure how old they are.
How many being holier than thou about this would remain so if they were thrust into the limelight with all the trappings fame could afford?
This is not me excusing Brand BTW, just making a point about the entertainment (and sports) industries being held to different standards to normal life (in which case those industries ought to be looked at and have more safety measures put in place).
On a side note, I'm just over 10 years older than my girlfriend and someone once told me that a 10 year gap is too big. Given that we've been together 5 years, 3 and a half of which we've lived together, how on earth can anyone say that's wrong?
Back to "nothing legally wrong with dating a 16 year old", then perhaps it's the law that ought to be changed. Having said that, worldwide our age of consent is in the mid range. I was 26 when my girlfriend was 16, would it have been wrong to date her then? At what point is the cut off? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Russell Brand on 13:48 - Sep 19 with 1969 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Russell Brand on 13:24 - Sep 19 by Herbivore |
The Mail and GB News don't have high journalistic standards, the number of complaints upheld against them and the number of corrections they have to publish/broadcast tell you that. That's in stark contrast to the likes of Dispatches and (most of the time) the Times who do work to high standards to ensure that what they publish is accurate. 'Agenda' is such a lazy word to throw around in this particular context.
If you've watched the Dispatches documentary you'll see that they did include people saying that they'd never seen or heard of him doing anything illegal, so your point about them not including information that contradicted 'their narrative' (actually, it was the victims' narrative they were presenting) doesn't really stand up.
I disagree that 'trial by media' is a remotely appropriate phrase in this context, it's intended to muddy the waters and make out like investigative journalism that outs awful people shouldn't take place. |
You framed it as "If the Mail and GB News were following the same journalistic standards" you'd be fine with it. You can have high journalistic standards and still be biased/have an agenda - almost every mainstream newspaper has a political leaning, for example.
But we're getting bogged down in specifics. I was making a wider point about journalists being tasked with investigating/presenting cases rather than the police/judicial system, which is how it ought to be if it were fit for purpose. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Russell Brand on 13:56 - Sep 19 with 1947 views | Ryorry |
| Russell Brand on 12:54 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm sure the Daily Mail and GB News work hard and to high standards on their stories, but given everything they do has an agenda you still wouldn't have an issue with it? Blimey.
No, I'm not remotely suggesting Dispatches and the Times should have sat on the story, I'm saying (and I've said this several times) we ought to be looking at fixing our judicial system and these industries where women aren't protected in the first place, rather than leaving it to journalists (and then the public deciding, having only seen one side of the story).
In this instance the journalists seem to have been robust. That might not always be the case. You also have to bear in mind that journalism is essentially about making money (aside from the BBC), so it can never be fully agenda free like a well-working judicial system would be. If Dispatches found evidence that didn't fit the narrative (or contradicted it) do you think they'd have just binned the story after paying people to work on it for 4 years?
I'm not casting any aspersions on Dispatches, nor defending Brand, just making a wider point on 'trial by media', which I do think is an accurate phrase. That's exactly what it is. We haven't heard Brand's 'evidence', only what Channel 4 and The Times have put out, so 'trial by media' is exactly what it is so far. |
I take your point about RB’s side of the story not having been heard, but why hasn’t it been - is there any reason he can’t just write his refutations of the evidence against him (or ask someone else to write his explanations for him if he feels he doesn’t have the writing skills)?
I haven’t seen either the Dispatches documentary or the Times article btw. |  |
| |
| Russell Brand on 14:02 - Sep 19 with 1915 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Russell Brand on 13:56 - Sep 19 by Ryorry |
I take your point about RB’s side of the story not having been heard, but why hasn’t it been - is there any reason he can’t just write his refutations of the evidence against him (or ask someone else to write his explanations for him if he feels he doesn’t have the writing skills)?
I haven’t seen either the Dispatches documentary or the Times article btw. |
He's said he has evidence that contradicts some of their accounts, but not what that is specifically. I'd imagine he's working with his legal team to pull it together and make it watertight before putting it out. It's probably less about the writing skills and more about the legal skills. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Russell Brand on 14:20 - Sep 19 with 1887 views | Herbivore |
| Russell Brand on 13:48 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You framed it as "If the Mail and GB News were following the same journalistic standards" you'd be fine with it. You can have high journalistic standards and still be biased/have an agenda - almost every mainstream newspaper has a political leaning, for example.
But we're getting bogged down in specifics. I was making a wider point about journalists being tasked with investigating/presenting cases rather than the police/judicial system, which is how it ought to be if it were fit for purpose. |
There you go with agendas again. But of course, it's not you - a self confessed fan of Russell Brand - who might have an agenda in this debate. You are very careful to keep saying 'I'm not excusing him' whilst muddying the waters about possible media agendas, throwing around phrases like 'trial by media' which are similarly intended to obfuscate rather than engage with the allegations being made and the evidence supporting them.
Investigative journalism has been around for donkeys years and, when done well, is an important part of a functioning democracy. Journalists can hold powerful individuals and groups to account in ways that the legal system is not always able to. People only seem to have a problem with it when it catches out people or groups they like or support. | |
| |
| Russell Brand on 14:40 - Sep 19 with 1827 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Russell Brand on 14:20 - Sep 19 by Herbivore |
There you go with agendas again. But of course, it's not you - a self confessed fan of Russell Brand - who might have an agenda in this debate. You are very careful to keep saying 'I'm not excusing him' whilst muddying the waters about possible media agendas, throwing around phrases like 'trial by media' which are similarly intended to obfuscate rather than engage with the allegations being made and the evidence supporting them.
Investigative journalism has been around for donkeys years and, when done well, is an important part of a functioning democracy. Journalists can hold powerful individuals and groups to account in ways that the legal system is not always able to. People only seem to have a problem with it when it catches out people or groups they like or support. |
An ad hominem attack, the refuge of someone losing an argument. Shame, as this was an interesting debate.
Yes I was a fan of Brand but this was literally years ago. I haven't watched his videos in years (apart from the latest denial one) and didn't even know he's an anti-vaxer these days, which as I'm sure you know is completely against my own views.
If you think news and media outlets don't have agendas you're as mad as a barrel of frogs. None of this means I'm saying investigative journalism isn't important - I'm on the side of truth and finding better ways to protect women than what we have. When they'd rather speak to a journalist than the police, something's very wrong IMO.
EDIT: Just to add, you talk about "the allegations being made and the evidence supporting them" and yet you haven't seen Brand's supposed evidence yet. This is a very important point, and something you do get in a court of law - both sides. [Post edited 19 Sep 2023 14:45]
| |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Russell Brand on 14:50 - Sep 19 with 1808 views | itfcjoe |
| Russell Brand on 14:40 - Sep 19 by The_Flashing_Smile |
An ad hominem attack, the refuge of someone losing an argument. Shame, as this was an interesting debate.
Yes I was a fan of Brand but this was literally years ago. I haven't watched his videos in years (apart from the latest denial one) and didn't even know he's an anti-vaxer these days, which as I'm sure you know is completely against my own views.
If you think news and media outlets don't have agendas you're as mad as a barrel of frogs. None of this means I'm saying investigative journalism isn't important - I'm on the side of truth and finding better ways to protect women than what we have. When they'd rather speak to a journalist than the police, something's very wrong IMO.
EDIT: Just to add, you talk about "the allegations being made and the evidence supporting them" and yet you haven't seen Brand's supposed evidence yet. This is a very important point, and something you do get in a court of law - both sides. [Post edited 19 Sep 2023 14:45]
|
No one will ever see Brands evidence, it simply won’t be presented | |
| |
| Russell Brand on 14:55 - Sep 19 with 1785 views | Herbivore |
| Russell Brand on 13:56 - Sep 19 by Ryorry |
I take your point about RB’s side of the story not having been heard, but why hasn’t it been - is there any reason he can’t just write his refutations of the evidence against him (or ask someone else to write his explanations for him if he feels he doesn’t have the writing skills)?
I haven’t seen either the Dispatches documentary or the Times article btw. |
He was given a week or so to respond to Dispatches and the Times and he could have provided counter evidence then. Instead he decided to ignore them and make a YouTube video claiming a conspiracy against him. | |
| |
| Russell Brand on 15:45 - Sep 19 with 1695 views | Ryorry |
| Russell Brand on 14:55 - Sep 19 by Herbivore |
He was given a week or so to respond to Dispatches and the Times and he could have provided counter evidence then. Instead he decided to ignore them and make a YouTube video claiming a conspiracy against him. |
Ah, right, that's a telling answer to my question methinks. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
