c4countdown

As you probably know, C4 did a programme on accusation against Russell Brand last night. I haven't seen it, but it's also all over the news on the BBC etc. But if he's been accused of rape and other sexual offences, should this not go to court before they start making television programmes about it?

People are always going to have opinions on cases like this (Kevin Spacey, Johnny Depp etc.) and it's fine to talk about these things in relative privacy - c4c is "public" but no-one's reading it so who cares? But I think after some high profile cases (e.g. Cliff Richard, and also Kevin Spacey being found not guilty, wherever the truth may lie), I'm surprised that this is still normal behaviour from the media.

Gev beat me to it.
I have to say that there is a hidden agenda here.
The much under fire BBC is heavily involved in what allegedly went on.
As a self confessed sex addict these stories are no more of a surprise than an alcoholic going on a bender.
He says all his many sexual exploits were consensual, that may be the case but as with Philip Schofield (grooming possibly in his case) pimping and using employees for exploitation is wrong.
To me it feels like a non story compared to Schofield as Brand isn't high profile outside of social media

The one thing that struck me as interesting, Daniel Sloss a popular modern comedian said that female comics have a what's app group for avoiding or discussing Brands behaviour.
I think Katherine Ryan had mentioned a sexual predator comic that she refuses to work with but didn't out him.
Does she have a duty of care to come forward?
I dont think he will pay any hush money nor will he get prosecuted but dare I say won't work in mainstream tv again.

I have read his autobiography and his dad was a piece of work getting him a prostitute at 14, but it doesn't condone his misogynistic behaviour but might go some way to explain it

Edit :I have watched some of his stuff on YouTube today and if I was a conspiracy theorist tit looks like the very establishment he is attacking in his videos are out to silence him.

Lizzo still not guilty of anything official btw

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 3:06 pm As you probably know, C4 did a programme on accusation against Russell Brand last night. I haven't seen it, but it's also all over the news on the BBC etc. But if he's been accused of rape and other sexual offences, should this not go to court before they start making television programmes about it?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxn3dm/ ... pps-arrest

Considering this is what happens when people do go to the police, I would suggest no.

There are clearly a lot of awful people in the police, and you can't always rely on them to do a good job, but I think going to the police versus making a Channel 4 documentary is a false dichotomy. It's not one or the other. Plus it doesn't really work in general, given the 99.99% of cases that don't involve a celebrity.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:17 am There are clearly a lot of awful people in the police, and you can't always rely on them to do a good job, but I think going to the police versus making a Channel 4 documentary is a false dichotomy. It's not one or the other. Plus it doesn't really work in general, given the 99.99% of cases that don't involve a celebrity.

Certainly going to the police is better than setting up a WhatsApp group.
There is an air of 'stay well clear of him' in the same way that lots of people in the industry knew about Saville and did nothing.
Not that I'm comparing Brand to Saville

Andrew Neil has got it spot on.

Andrew Neil wrote:Lot of nonsense spouted about “trial by media” re Russell Brand.
The media has no power to try and/or convict. Rightly. But it has a responsibility to research, reveal and expose wrongdoing. Which it has in the Brand investigation by @Channel4 @thetimes — responsibly and thoroughly in this case. It is proper journalism which so-called alternative media (like Brand himself these days) has neither the patience nor resource nor expertise to carry it. It just bloviates and spreads conspiracies based on fake news while the much-despised mainstream media still does the necessary heavy lifting.

Trial by media is a metaphor. Saying they have no power to convict completely misses the point.

Remember the movie Spotlight. They named priests who had only been accused before any trial convicted them, based on journalistic investigation. This is exactly what the media and proper journalism should do.

On a side note, getting me to agree with Rhys and Andrew Neil is almost the worst thing Russel Brand has done.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:11 pm On a side note, getting me to agree with Rhys and Andrew Neil is almost the worst thing Russel Brand has done.

Well this is one reason why I can't now change my position. But I'll be following this with interest. Might even watch the documentary actually.

The Whatsapp group mentioned above certainly isn't just to talk about Brand by the sound of it. It's necessary in other groups too where wronguns continue to prey.

Where bad/criminal behaviour can be dismissed by perpetrators with more power as consensual, or due to drunkenness, misunderstandings, "that's what everyone did", then convictions are unlikely, and personal career and self-esteem damage is very likely for accusers. Until this stuff is highlighted, that power is very difficult to surpass. Well done to the journalists.

Tbf the media in the main do get it right only super injunctions and NDAs get in the way, yes I'm talking about Schofield

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:11 pm Remember the movie Spotlight. They named priests who had only been accused before any trial convicted them, based on journalistic investigation. This is exactly what the media and proper journalism should do.

On a side note, getting me to agree with Rhys and Andrew Neil is almost the worst thing Russel Brand has done.

Even a broken clock........

This entirely male thread should maybe listen to women about why they don't often go to the police, so that we don't get comments such as...

Certainly going to the police is better than setting up a WhatsApp group.

...ones where we don't tell women "certainly" what is "better".

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 7:15 pm This entirely male thread should maybe listen to women about why they don't often go to the police, so that we don't get comments such as...

Certainly going to the police is better than setting up a WhatsApp group.

...ones where we don't tell women "certainly" what is "better".

This was not a comment aimed at just women but in the context of it being about Russell Brand then obviously women are involved.
The point I was trying to make is that if WhatsApp was a thing during the 70s and 80s there would have been one for Saville and most of the others caught through Yew Tree.
Its this implication that 'we know what they are like but let's not make a fuss as we are safe'
The likes of Katherine Ryan and here cryptic comments rather than naming him publicly is distasteful

There absolutely would have been WhatsApps about Saville et all in the 70s you nobhead. Katherine Ryan couldn't name names in public without being sued. It took journalists at least four years of work to be able to bring this to the table without that threat. Especially with libel laws in the UK.

And besides, you can be a sex pest that women would want to warn other women about without verging into criminal territory.

Again, have you seen Spotlight? One of the journalists couldn't tell his neighbours there was suspected paedophiles in his area because they had to get the story right. Was that distasteful?

implication that 'we know what they are like but let's not make a fuss as we are safe'

How on earth was this your takeaway?

OK, so you know, arguably I was a bit hasty to say that the documentary shouldn't have been made. I think the idea is that they made the documentary on the basis that they are confident enough in the claims that if Russell Brand wants to sue, then he can go for it. I've made a start on the documentary but haven't seen it all yet. There is proof beyond reasonable doubt that he is a massive twat, but that probably goes without saying.

I suppose the trial by media part comes when the whole thing is then dissected at length in other media and the whole thing becomes a bit of a talking shop, and this is of debatable utility.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 8:04 pm

implication that 'we know what they are like but let's not make a fuss as we are safe'

How on earth was this your takeaway?

I watched a Netflix series that Katherine Ryan made about comedians backstage and this was the vibe I got.from when she was talking about it.
Equally after watching plenty of documentaries etc on Saville there was a culture of industry insiders and fellow pros that knew about it but didn't do anything about it.
Im talking about both sexes (can I say that without someone getting offended)
Btw I have seen Spotlight and the superior French made similar version.
I would say that trying to get a conviction against Catholic Priests a is a lot harder than against a low level celebrity no longer in the public eye.
But of course as I have said earlier, well done Journalists for getting to the bottom of it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66843086
Worth a read