Law russell brand allegations

[avenue94]

Likelihood of a person's profession to rape may be an interesting statistic, if it was accompanied by psychological data, but ultimately irrelevant.

Do you think politicians are more likely to lie or be vain than the average person?

In this case, there is no evidence to weigh.

Testimony isn't evidence?

DNA.
Police reports.
A hospital visit.

You have 1 of those 3 in this case so far. Also, is your ground rule that the only evidence that can conclusively confirm rape is DNA? Do you know how hard that is?

Was there any organization by a 3rd party to find women Russell Brand had relationships with? How were multiple accusers eventually become connected to make a simultaneous public accusation?

This is standard investigative journalism. You talk to other participants to see if there is a pattern. It's been the standard in journalism for centuries.

Yes, not every 'victim' wants to press charges... because that'd turn additional eyes on them, and their credibility. If they raped they should want their rapist to be tried and sentenced. Otherwise, this is a political hitjob.

You don't think there is any other reason a vicitim would not press charges? Does the existence of trauma not register with you?

Otherwise, this is a political hitjob.

So who is behind this hitjob? Since you're convinced of it, give us some names.

*No physical evidence.
*No circumstantial evidence.

It appears we have medical records.

*Simultaneous & Anonymous accusers.

Again, this is the standard in journalism. It has been for decades, especially in instances of allegations involving minors.

 

[CatchnShoot]

as if being a legal case would make it any more legitimate.

Bringing a case, naw, but being found guilty... hell's to the ya.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Do you think politicians are more likely to lie or be vain than the average person?

I would estimate politicians are more likely to lie and be vain than the average person.

And there's people who more likely to lie and be vain than the average politician.

But that's irrelevant to this discussion regarding Russell Brand.

Testimony isn't evidence?

Their accusations haven't been made in a court of law.
So their accusations aren't 'testimony' unless they're made under oath and under the threat of perjury charges.

You have 1 of those 3 in this case so far.

Which one of the three?
Haven't heard anything about DNA, police reports, or hospital visits in any of his accusers stories.

Also, is your ground rule that the only evidence that can conclusively confirm rape is DNA? Do you know how hard that is?

I said DNA, police reports, and hospital visits.
Rapists have used condoms.

This is standard investigative journalism. You talk to other participants to see if there is a pattern. It's been the standard in journalism for centuries.

No, investigative journalism is far more transparent toward their own methods of investigation. In this case we've heard absolutely nothing about the method of investigation.

Lol & 'standard of journalism for centuries.'
No, journalists who are politically motivated have buried stories with far more evidence and gone to press with stories with even less than this, depending on who it benefits & damages.

*Hunter Biden Laptop

You don't think there is any other reason a vicitim would not press charges? Does the existence of trauma not register with you?

That's the token excuse for when its a political hitjob.

If they went to the police their names & faces wouldn't be publicly disclosed outside of the courtroom, like in the Danny Masterson case, unless the laws are different in England.

So who is behind this hitjob? Since you're convinced of it, give us some names.

Oh there's numerous names it could be.
Russell Brand has made many enemies over the past few years with his YouTube commentary.
It could be one, a few, or many of them.

It appears we have medical records.

'Appears' to be the key word of that sentence.
I'd have to see photocopies.

Again, this is the standard in journalism. It has been for decades, especially in instances of allegations involving minors.

Again, it isn't the 'standard.'
We don't even know if the accuser was a minor at the time.
We don't even know the names & faces of the accusers, so how can we judge credibility when one side isn't even willing to go public with their identities when who they're accusing is so well known?

Why are YOU leaning toward the accusations being credible, and based on what?

 

[Fluffernutter]

I'm at the point where allegations like these mean jack shit unless there is evidence.

Skimming some of the news out there and it does look like there is some evidence.

One of the women that have come forward gave a date of the alleged assault and it was confirmed she went to the hospital/clinic that day.

 

[avenue94]

I would estimate politicians are more likely to lie and be vain than the average person.

And there's people who more likely to lie and be vain than the average politician.

But that's irrelevant to this discussion regarding Russell Brand.

Your earlier post implied you have a higher evidence threshold for celebrities than average joes.

Their accusations haven't been made in a court of law.
So their accusations aren't 'testimony' unless they're made under oath and under the threat of perjury charges.

Mistakes are certainly possible, but the fact that the Times is willing to pony up and run this story says they are willing to bet millions of pounds that their testimony is credible, if not accurate. The British legal system heavily slants in favor or someone like Brand in his current position.

Which one of the three?
Haven't heard anything about DNA, police reports, or hospital visits in any of his accusers stories.

Rape clinic has medical records that the Times verified according to the story.

I said DNA, police reports, and hospital visits.
Rapists have used condoms.

So yes, we have one of those three in this case.

No, investigative journalism is far more transparent toward their own methods of investigation. In this case we've heard absolutely nothing about the method of investigation.

Lol & 'standard of journalism for centuries.'
No, journalists who are politically motivated have buried stories with far more evidence and gone to press with stories with even less than this, depending on who it benefits & damages.

Can you point me to the part of the AP stylebook that says you shouldn't reach out to other individuals who can prove or disprove a pattern of behavior? You clearly do not understand basics of journalism here.

That's the token excuse for when its a political hitjob.

If they went to the police their names & faces wouldn't be publicly disclosed outside of the courtroom, like in the Danny Masterson case, unless the laws are different in England.

They would however be subject to months long, if not years long ordeal that constantly reopens traumatic wounds. It's quite common for rape victims to not want to go to court.

Oh there's numerous names it could be.
Russell Brand has made many enemies over the past few years with his YouTube commentary.
It could be one, a few, or many of them.

So these unnamed enemies decided to find several women, who didn't know each other, and then coached them to say Brand raped them, then went to a rape crisis center, had them forge medical records, and the Times went along with this even though they will get sued to shit if they are wrong here?

'Appears' to be the key word of that sentence.
I'd have to see photocopies.

What would photocopies prove to you?

Again, it isn't the 'standard.'

It's the standard.

We don't even know the names & faces of the accusers, so how can we judge credibility when one side isn't even willing to go public with their identities when who they're accusing is so well known?

Brand is free to take advantage of Britain's very liberal libel laws and pocket a massive payday here.

 

[Fluffernutter]

I'm not following this story. But, what was its genisis?

A) a woman came forward with claims. After these claims were heard, others came forward.

B) a journalist/documentary maker went around interviewing his former girlfriends until they found something disparaging to publish.

Either way, a guy in his 30s 'dating' a 16 year old is f*****g gross and possibly illegal.

It looks like it was A).

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...unday-times-video-watch-latest-news-x33ss0kmk

With at least three of the alleged victims, they contacted the Times. The Times was able to corroborate their stories. Plus, it seemed like the three have never met.

This does not read like a fishing expedition from the media.

This genisis of the investigation also happened before Brand became a popular contrarian on YouTube.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Your earlier post implied you have a higher evidence threshold for celebrities than average joes.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I specifically said 'political figures.'

Mistakes are certainly possible, but the fact that the Times is willing to pony up and run this story says they are willing to bet millions of pounds that their testimony is credible, if not accurate.

And the NY Times credibility is non-existent at this point.

The British legal system heavily slants in favor or someone like Brand in his current position.

Yes, as it should be.
The burden of proof should be on the accuser & the state, rather than the accused to prove their innocence.
Don't you agree?

Rape clinic has medical records that the Times verified according to the story.

So yes, we have one of those three in this case.

Again, Times have practically zero credibility, especially since they're a MSM outlet with an opportunity to discredit a competitor of influence.

They would however be subject to months long, if not years long ordeal that constantly reopens traumatic wounds. It's quite common for rape victims to not want to go to court.

Then they shouldn't go public with accusations.
And only fools would believe them.

So these unnamed enemies decided to find several women, who didn't know each other, and then coached them to say Brand raped them, then went to a rape crisis center, had them forge medical records, and the Times went along with this even though they will get sued to shit if they are wrong here?

So what's your theory as to how multiple women that Brand supposedly raped, finding out about eachother, and eventually going to the media... and not the police... about rape accusations?

What would photocopies prove to you?

That they exist.

And not just said to exist, from MSM outlets with a vested interest in removing Russell Brand from his relevancy & credibility.

It's the standard.

Sure it is.
And all journalists & editors have the upmost integrity with no political motivations whatsoever.

Brand is free to take advantage of Britain's very liberal libel laws and pocket a massive payday here.

That is a possibility, and its happened in the past.



And I'll ask you again - Why are YOU leaning toward the accusations being credible, and based on what?

Based on your interrogation of me, which I've humored because I know I'm right, its quite obvious that's your position.

 

[avenue94]

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I specifically said 'political figures.'

Fair enough, I misread if that was the case.

And the NY Times credibility is non-existent at this point.

Again, Times have practically zero credibility, especially since they're a MSM outlet with an opportunity to discredit a competitor of influence.

You're confusing the Times for the NY Times. I see you are commenting on this topic without actually having read the story.

Yes, as it should be.
The burden of proof should be on the accuser & the state, rather than the accused to prove their innocence.
Don't you agree?

For libel and defamation, I prefer the US standard, the UK's slants far too much toward a claimant and has a chilling effect on investigative journalism and public criticism.

Then they shouldn't go public with accusations.
And only fools would believe them.

Again, Brand can sue for defamation if he wants, the onus would be on the Times to prove that their story is true. That's the UK legal standard, which suggests the Times is very confident in their reporting.

So what's your theory as to how multiple women that Brand supposedly raped, finding out about eachother, and eventually going to the media... and not the police... about rape accusations?

Most likely, a reporter heard rumors or knew of blind items around this, and they started digging deeper. Once they had credible allegations, they did the interviews for a TV special, which likely came after all the actual reporting and writing was done. That's how these projects work, whether it's corruption, rape, or anything else. You do a giant research project and talk to people. Hence it takes months or years. As for why the women didn't go to police, maybe we'll find out, maybe we won't. One said Russell's handlers had threatened to drag her into court.

That they exist.

And not just said to exist, from MSM outlets with a vested interest in removing Russell Brand from his relevancy & credibility.

Do you not understand what the standard for libel and defamation are in the UK?

Sure it is.
And all journalists & editors have the upmost integrity with no political motivations whatsoever.

Are you going to admit you were wrong when you said making rape victims and those alleging sexual assault anonymous is the professional standard?

And I'll ask you again - Why are YOU leaning toward the accusations being credible, and based on what?

Based on your interrogation of me, which I've humored because I know I'm right, its quite obvious that's your position.

I think their credible based on the fact that the Times and its partners are publishing it knowing full well that if Brand sues them for libel, they have to prove that the allegations are the truth. Brand doesn't have to do anything other than file the lawsuit, which is a massive difference from the US. As for the story itself, there are texts corroborating at least one of the alleged sexual assaults, plus medical records, and contemporaneous evidence that these women felt they had been raped (aka therapists and medical documentation, as well as personal communications).

There's a text from Brand apologizing to one of the women after she texted him "No mean no." That's not exactly a point in his favor if you think he's on the up and up.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

You can tell she's British by looking at her teeth.

Wood

 

[Hog-train]

Skimming some of the news out there and it does look like there is some evidence.

One of the women that have come forward gave a date of the alleged assault and it was confirmed she went to the hospital/clinic that day.

This means nothing. They can make up any date to correspond with going to a treatment center.

It looks like it was A).

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...unday-times-video-watch-latest-news-x33ss0kmk

With at least three of the alleged victims, they contacted the Times. The Times was able to corroborate their stories. Plus, it seemed like the three have never met.

This does not read like a fishing expedition from the media.

This genisis of the investigation also happened before Brand became a popular contrarian on YouTube.

I do not trust alleged rape victims going to the press above going to the authorities. Why go to the press when these should be criminal charges?

I read this article you posted. Says one of the woman has her "therapy notes" as proof. You realize Amber Heard also had "therapy notes" as proof Johnny Depp abused her.

Anyone can literally say anything to a therapist. That's not proof. And inadmissible in court.

I also saw some alleged texts - but obviously doctored because it was blurred out. Why blur? Show everything.

It seems you have your mind made up before any concrete facts have come in. And trying to fit the facts around your preconceived belief. Don't fall into this trap.

Remember media publications 99% of the time have an angle and will stick to it. They don't care about the real truth.

They were literally saying for years Johnny Depp had been an abusive POS and raped her with a bottle.

I literally do not trust press accusations at all. They mean nothing. Look at evidence. Not press stories and anonymous claims.

 

[Hog-train]

there are texts corroborating at least one of the alleged sexual assaults, plus medical records, and contemporaneous evidence that these women felt they had been raped (aka therapists and medical documentation, as well as personal communications).

There's a text from Brand apologizing to one of the women after she texted him "No mean no." That's not exactly a point in his favor if you think he's on the up and up.

Please show these texts and/or evidence. Any links? Want to see the *undoctored* actual texts - not a publication claiming them.

 

[dildos]

Yeah this isn’t a political hit job at all. Russel Brand is fucked upfront what he done.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You're confusing the Times for the NY Times. I see you are commenting on this topic without actually having read the story.

'Times' is very commonly short for 'The NY Times' in political discussions. And it has been reported on by The NY Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/17/arts/russell-brand-sexual-assault-allegations.html

I saw the video put out by the reporters representing the accusers on Instagram, and Brand's video response denying the accusations.

For libel and defamation, I prefer the US standard, the UK's slants far too much toward a claimant and has a chilling effect on investigative journalism and public criticism.

I'm in favor of free speech, but this is the one example the UK has it right. Far too many examples can be given for supposedly respected publications printing outright falsehoods that maliciously destroy a person's reputation... and the courts deem nothing can be done unless it can be proven it was done maliciously, meaning the reporter frame of mind must be proven.

Again, Brand can sue for defamation if he wants, the onus would be on the Times to prove that their story is true. That's the UK legal standard, which suggests the Times is very confident in their reporting.

Time will tell, no pun intended.

Most likely, a reporter heard rumors or knew of blind items around this, and they started digging deeper. Once they had credible allegations, they did the interviews for a TV special, which likely came after all the actual reporting and writing was done. That's how these projects work, whether it's corruption, rape, or anything else. You do a giant research project and talk to people. Hence it takes months or years. As for why the women didn't go to police, maybe we'll find out, maybe we won't. One said Russell's handlers had threatened to drag her into court.

Starting off a reply 'Most likely' means its just your speculation.

You could be 95% right, 50% right, 5% right or 100% wrong.

I'd want facts, not speculation.

Do you not understand what the standard for libel and defamation are in the UK?

I do. Do you understand there's been some major settlements and judgements in UK civil court over for libel & defamation?

Not for getting a story completely wrong, but for getting major details wrong. The Times's lawyers have better have done over every detail of this story before they went public.

Are you going to admit you were wrong when you said making rape victims and those alleging sexual assault anonymous is the professional standard?

Quote me when I said 'making rape victims and those alleging sexual assault anonymous is the professional standard.'

I think their credible based on the fact that the Times and its partners are publishing it knowing full well that if Brand sues them for libel, they have to prove that the allegations are the truth. Brand doesn't have to do anything other than file the lawsuit, which is a massive difference from the US. As for the story itself, there are texts corroborating at least one of the alleged sexual assaults, plus medical records, and contemporaneous evidence that these women felt they had been raped (aka therapists and medical documentation, as well as personal communications).

So you're basing the credibility of the accusations based on the credibility of the news outlet - 'The Times' - reporting it.... and that's it.

And Brand may, or may not, file a lawsuit exploring more details of the investigation.... details he may not want to be made public.

Ya know... that may be a good way to end this conversation.

I think the accusations aren't credible... so far.
You think the accusations are credible... so far.
What we know about the story, just based off of the first 48 hours of it breaking isn't everything, and additional details will be released in the future.

Maybe The Times will release photocopies of the medical records.
Maybe The Times will release screenshots of the 'No Means No' texts.
Maybe the accusers are satisfied their accusations are in the public and they'll go away, and Brand won't persue the story because he doesn't want to shine a light on his persiscuous past.
Or maybe Russell Brand won't file the lawsuit and may go in full defensive mode... which will be an admittance the accusers are being more truthful than he would like to address.

 

[Larzon]

What the fuck is wrong with all you cunts making this a left v right issue?

As for my opinion well anyone who'll shoot heroin probably doesn't make the best choices in life.

 

[skold]

To absolutely nobody's surprise.. the right immediately jump to the defence of the alleged rapist and apparently a ... because as we all know, the children are merely a tool to weaponize when it comes to attacking the real concern of theirs: the existence of gay and trans people.

 

[Hog-train]

To absolutely nobody's surprise.. the right immediately jump to the defence of the alleged rapist and apparently a ... because as we all know, the children are merely a tool to weaponize when it comes to attacking the real concern of theirs: the existence of gay and trans people.

You're doing the exact same thing on the other side. Assuming automatic guilt based on just anonymous media accusations for now.

You do realize Russel Brand is on the progressive side don't you? Did you believe Amber Heard too?

 

[skold]

You're doing the exact same thing on the other side. Assuming automatic guilt based on just anonymous media accusations for now.

You do realize Russel Brand is on the progressive side don't you? Did you believe Amber Heard too?

Which part of "alleged" indicate that I'm assuming automatic guilt? Also, him being on "the progressive" side, would automatically nullify your previous statement, no?

I'm perfectly happy to wait for the investigation, but I do find it interesting that the right virtue signals about defending the children and women from scary trannies, but automatically side with any hetero rapist / alleged rapist that shares some of their values: Trump, Andrew Tate, Matt Gaetz, now Russell Brand. If only Epstein was smart enough to immediately pivot to spouting anti-trans rhetoric a couple of days prior to his arrest...

 

[gonads20]

I no longer believe or care about any type of SA/Rape accusations regarding celebrities if its not within a close time frame of the assault. Many of these are hit jobs.

 

[esotamoc]

To absolutely nobody's surprise.. the right immediately jump to the defence of the alleged rapist and apparently a ... because as we all know, the children are merely a tool to weaponize when it comes to attacking the real concern of theirs: the existence of gay and trans people.

*yawn

 

[esotamoc]

Which part of "alleged" indicate that I'm assuming automatic guilt? Also, him being on "the progressive" side, would automatically nullify your previous statement, no?

I'm perfectly happy to wait for the investigation, but I do find it interesting that the right virtue signals about defending the children and women from scary trannies, but automatically side with any hetero rapist / alleged rapist that shares some of their values: Trump, Andrew Tate, Matt Gaetz, now Russell Brand. If only Epstein was smart enough to immediately pivot to spouting anti-trans rhetoric a couple of days prior to his arrest...

Russel Brand isnt right wing. This is obviously a hit piece and still can be true at the same time. If guilty he should be condemned no matter the side for his actions .