Its not quite the same as you 23 years ago. Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations, The Times and the Dispatches documentary programme. We should presume innocence until guilt is proven, however, The text message apologizing to a question of what sounded like an accusation of rape. That's going to be difficult to explain away. Whereas it appears that people who don't like Russell Brand have already assumed that he is guilty, those 6.5 million followers of his on YouTube will never believe that he is guilty, and will dismiss any evidence, no matter how overwhelming.

Ah Robbie this is one part of the problem. "What sounds like rape" implies that it's what could, in 2023, be described as rape but might just have been grudging consent under pressure at the time. The apology could be expressing remorse about that which, at the time, might have been genuine regret at going too close to the line without crossing it. In these days it's clear and accepted that NO MEANS NO. Decades ago, wrongly, many times NO meant Yes please. And decades before that, in the James Bond/Benny Hill era, it was even more acceptable to cross the line.

In MY era - wrongly - the ages of consent were different. Between males it was 21 whilst heterosexual sex was considered fine at 16. And lesbianism has been legal at any age.

Blurring the lines of legality was the police/media way of getting convictions (and a good story). That is what is happening now (and 23 years ago in a different way). It is perfectly possible that BRand DID cross today's line back then. Or the woman in question may be genuinely remembering bad behaviour as nudging across the line. Who knows? Not even those involved. But apologising for bad behaviour is NOT proof of rape.

Also "respected media organisations"???? Sadly these days - no such thing amongst thinking humans.

robbiex wrote:
Its not quite the same as you 23 years ago. Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations, The Times and the Dispatches documentary programme. We should presume innocence until guilt is proven, however, The text message apologizing to a question of what sounded like an accusation of rape. That's going to be difficult to explain away. Whereas it appears that people who don't like Russell Brand have already assumed that he is guilty, those 6.5 million followers of his on YouTube will never believe that he is guilty, and will dismiss any evidence, no matter how overwhelming.

Robbie, the fact that "Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations" is as worthless as a cowpat.

They are NOT the police, despite what they think.

JK2006 wrote:
Also "respected media organisations"???? Sadly these days - no such thing amongst thinking humans.

Oh sorry Mr King. You beat me to it. I was too incensed for scrolling.

Honey wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Its not quite the same as you 23 years ago. Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations, The Times and the Dispatches documentary programme. We should presume innocence until guilt is proven, however, The text message apologizing to a question of what sounded like an accusation of rape. That's going to be difficult to explain away. Whereas it appears that people who don't like Russell Brand have already assumed that he is guilty, those 6.5 million followers of his on YouTube will never believe that he is guilty, and will dismiss any evidence, no matter how overwhelming.

Robbie, the fact that "Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations" is as worthless as a cowpat.

They are NOT the police, despite what they think.

No, they are not the police, they are respected.

Honey wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Its not quite the same as you 23 years ago. Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations, The Times and the Dispatches documentary programme. We should presume innocence until guilt is proven, however, The text message apologizing to a question of what sounded like an accusation of rape. That's going to be difficult to explain away. Whereas it appears that people who don't like Russell Brand have already assumed that he is guilty, those 6.5 million followers of his on YouTube will never believe that he is guilty, and will dismiss any evidence, no matter how overwhelming.

Robbie, the fact that "Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations" is as worthless as a cowpat.

They are NOT the police, despite what they think.

Six million subscribers is not huge and I bet most are bot accounts. Pewdiepie, Mr Beast Logan Paul get tens of millions subscribers.

I doubt every R.B subscriber agrees with him, they might be dedicated fans who liked in his stand up days. (God knows why)

He still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He is probably a rapist but there needs to be concrete evidence to say that. The L.A crisis centre is key IMHO, it might of been consensual and ended up being violent. Some people have no pause button.

Operation Yewtree is when the allegations should of come out a lot of big names were mentioned. Jim Davidson is still selling out theatre's after proving he is innocent. He is an arrogant and ghastly; I have met him via work.

Freddie Starr was an absolute gent when I met him and very shy. I have heard numerous things about him and antics.

My record dealer knew him quite well and said he was just wild. If I saw that side of Freddie. I would of laughed and give banter etc. If he shat in a guitar, I would of asked him to sign the guitar after jet hosing it thoroughly. Or take him to a G.G Allin gig.

Green Man wrote:
Honey wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Its not quite the same as you 23 years ago. Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations, The Times and the Dispatches documentary programme. We should presume innocence until guilt is proven, however, The text message apologizing to a question of what sounded like an accusation of rape. That's going to be difficult to explain away. Whereas it appears that people who don't like Russell Brand have already assumed that he is guilty, those 6.5 million followers of his on YouTube will never believe that he is guilty, and will dismiss any evidence, no matter how overwhelming.

Robbie, the fact that "Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations" is as worthless as a cowpat.

They are NOT the police, despite what they think.

Six million subscribers is not huge and I bet most are bot accounts. Pewdiepie, Mr Beast Logan Paul get tens of millions subscribers.

I doubt every R.B subscriber agrees with him, they might be dedicated fans who liked in his stand up days. (God knows why)

He still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He is probably a rapist but there needs to be concrete evidence to say that. The L.A crisis centre is key IMHO, it might of been consensual and ended up being violent. Some people have no pause button.

Operation Yewtree is when the allegations should of come out a lot of big names were mentioned. Jim Davidson is still selling out theatre's after proving he is innocent. He is an arrogant and ghastly; I have met him via work.

Freddie Starr was an absolute gent when I met him and very shy. I have heard numerous things about him and antics.

My record dealer knew him quite well and said he was just wild. If I saw that side of Freddie. I would of laughed and give banter etc. If he shat in a guitar, I would of asked him to sign the guitar after jet hosing it thoroughly. Or take him to a G.G Allin gig.

I'm not saying that he is guilty of any crimes, but after watching the documentary or reading the Times article, it is fair to come to the conclusion that he is a slimeball. I don't think that his content should be removed from spotify, bbc, channel 4, prime, netflix etc which seems to have happened.

Robbiex wrote:
Honey wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Its not quite the same as you 23 years ago. Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations, The Times and the Dispatches documentary programme. We should presume innocence until guilt is proven, however, The text message apologizing to a question of what sounded like an accusation of rape. That's going to be difficult to explain away. Whereas it appears that people who don't like Russell Brand have already assumed that he is guilty, those 6.5 million followers of his on YouTube will never believe that he is guilty, and will dismiss any evidence, no matter how overwhelming.

Robbie, the fact that "Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations" is as worthless as a cowpat.

They are NOT the police, despite what they think.

No, they are not the police, they are respected.

But unqualified to conduct a criminal investigation.

If they do so knowing that this might well scupper a fair trial for both the accused and any possible victims, what do you think their motive could be, because it certainly is not justice?

I wouldn't even say he was a "slimeball" without seeing further proof. I would say his public image was (intentionally) that of a slimeball - as most of the awful "lads culture" people were - but our opinion is unimportant here (I hope I would not be considered a "slimeball" by any who know me but, as the love of my life said when I said in prison "I'm not a vile pervert", "Yes you are; you're just a very nice vile pervert").

My public image was definitely SLIMEBALL to many when I dared to criticise Band Aid and Live Aid.

Honey wrote:
Robbiex wrote:
Honey wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Its not quite the same as you 23 years ago. Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations, The Times and the Dispatches documentary programme. We should presume innocence until guilt is proven, however, The text message apologizing to a question of what sounded like an accusation of rape. That's going to be difficult to explain away. Whereas it appears that people who don't like Russell Brand have already assumed that he is guilty, those 6.5 million followers of his on YouTube will never believe that he is guilty, and will dismiss any evidence, no matter how overwhelming.

Robbie, the fact that "Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations" is as worthless as a cowpat.

They are NOT the police, despite what they think.

No, they are not the police, they are respected.

But unqualified to conduct a criminal investigation.

If they do so knowing that this might well scupper a fair trial for both the accused and any possible victims, what do you think their motive could be, because it certainly is not justice?

So do you think that newspapers and tv companys shouldn't highlight any wrongdoing or investigate any allegations. That is a large part of their work to expose bad behaviour in public figures. It is so predictable that Brand would claim that this was a conspiracy of the mainstream media to bring down free speech.

He is a slime ball and a dirt bag Robbie, however accusations are not evidence.

Julian Assange was accused of all sorts of sexual depravity after exposed the Obama war regime. Now they want him dead for espionage.

robbiex wrote:
Honey wrote:
Robbiex wrote:
Honey wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Its not quite the same as you 23 years ago. Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations, The Times and the Dispatches documentary programme. We should presume innocence until guilt is proven, however, The text message apologizing to a question of what sounded like an accusation of rape. That's going to be difficult to explain away. Whereas it appears that people who don't like Russell Brand have already assumed that he is guilty, those 6.5 million followers of his on YouTube will never believe that he is guilty, and will dismiss any evidence, no matter how overwhelming.

Robbie, the fact that "Brand has been under a 4-year investigation by 2 respected media organisations" is as worthless as a cowpat.

They are NOT the police, despite what they think.

No, they are not the police, they are respected.

But unqualified to conduct a criminal investigation.

If they do so knowing that this might well scupper a fair trial for both the accused and any possible victims, what do you think their motive could be, because it certainly is not justice?

So do you think that newspapers and tv companys shouldn't highlight any wrongdoing or investigate any allegations. That is a large part of their work to expose bad behaviour in public figures. It is so predictable that Brand would claim that this was a conspiracy of the mainstream media to bring down free speech.

No it isn't. It isn't their job to do that. This is why we have a police force and not Channel four. It is not the same thing, and investigations have to be carried out in a certain way to be admissible in court.

IF some women have been raped by that man, you want them to have justice in court, I assume, and not to have that right taken from them for the sake of a crappy TV show?

JK2006 wrote:
I wouldn't even say he was a "slimeball" without seeing further proof. I would say his public image was (intentionally) that of a slimeball - as most of the awful "lads culture" people were - but our opinion is unimportant here (I hope I would not be considered a "slimeball" by any who know me but, as the love of my life said when I said in prison "I'm not a vile pervert", "Yes you are; you're just a very nice vile pervert").

My public image was definitely SLIMEBALL to many when I dared to criticise Band Aid and Live Aid.

You were talking to yourself?

Green Man wrote:
He is a slime ball and a dirt bag Robbie, however accusations are not evidence.



Accusations are evidence GM. It is how they are weighted and judged. This is (far from perfectly but best we have currently) done in a court of law.

Even CCTV and DNA can be misread or taken out of context.

I read lots of people saying accusations are not evidence. But if they are not ask yourself then - what is?

Green Man wrote:
He is a slime ball and a dirt bag Robbie, however accusations are not evidence.

Julian Assange was accused of all sorts of sexual depravity after exposed the Obama war regime. Now they want him dead for espionage.

Accusations aren't evidence I agree. However, text messages apologising to another message saying no means no is evidence, or at least there are questions to be answered.

Very witty Honey - but I actually feel part of the problem with humanity is hating OR loving oneself instead of the truth - ACCEPTING oneself. With neither pride nor shame.

And Wyot - I'm afraid I do go along that accusations are NOT evidence. They require investigation but they are not proof. That was my problem in 2001 - claims were considered evidence but there was not one jot of proof (as the crimes had never happened). "Similar facts" were used but the similarities had nothing to do with the accusations - which the jury, understandably, failed to understand.

And yes, Robbie, apologising for a misunderstanding can be ibnterpreted as an admission but it really is NOT always "proof". People simply DON'T write "I apologise for taking your sugar but I genuinely thought you'd said I could take it and whilst I understand your fury at theft it was not intended as such".

JK2006 wrote:
Very witty Honey - but I actually feel part of the problem with humanity is hating OR loving oneself instead of the truth - ACCEPTING oneself. With neither pride nor shame.

And Wyot - I'm afraid I do go along that accusations are NOT evidence. They require investigation but they are not proof. That was my problem in 2001 - claims were considered evidence but there was not one jot of proof (as the crimes had never happened). "Similar facts" were used but the similarities had nothing to do with the accusations - which the jury, understandably, failed to understand.

Ours is probably more a semantic difference than anything else JK. However, I do think it is important.

Neither accusations or evidence are proof, accusations are evidence of a claim being made; which may be malicious, untrue or revealing of guilt.

The problem comes when accusations and proof are conflated and the thoughtful weighting of evidence is skipped over.

The heart of the question for Brand, and as you say in your case was: what are the accusations evidence of? And what does this tell us? If we didn't class Beech's accusations as evidence he could not be in prison.

When people are faced with the choice of coming down for either believing accusation or innocence in this emotive zero sum argument world - 90% will believe accusation.

In how many cases do we EVER get proof?