Dispatches channel 4 expose **Read Opening Post before posting**

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133324#Comment_121133324

I'd argue he was absolutely a celebrity in America. He was appearing in Judd Apatow films (the star of one even), late night chat show appearances, his stand up show was on Comedy Central. The degree of celebrity he had is debatable, but he was a celebrity, not to mention the incident with the 16 year old was in Britain and he was absolutely a celebrity in Britain at that point.

But yes, they are allegations. Many of which with corroboratory evidence. Nobody here can say definitively whether or not the allegations are true, we can only offer our own opinion based on the information we've reviewed and also our opinion on the strength of that information, and we as the public don't have full access to all that information. The women involved however are entitled to come forward with their allegations regardless of how long its been or why they're doing it. Russell Brand is absolutely entitled to challenge those allegations, seek damages & apologies if proven they were lies, call out the media for lying about him etc.

But companies are also entitled to decide to stop doing business or pull old content from Brand. And people can still offer their opinion of him and whether they believe he's guilty or not. And people can change their minds after too.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133700#Comment_121133700

Also, Brand is entirely dependent on public acclaim for his wealth, fame and popularity. Channel 4 and the Times can rightly argue that it is in the public interest for people to know that he is (allegedly) a disgusting creep and sexual predator, irrespective of anything happening with police investigations and court cases.

Become Death

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133614#Comment_121133614

I think tarring anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you, as Russell Brand followers, grifters, alt-right, rightwing incel types is quite cynical.

It would make people afraid to speak about any concerns they may have had with the documentary for fear of being labelled as above.

Some people here are parroting the theory that he only turned right wing to protect himself from accusations that were going to come out. That's as credible as media taking him out because he speaks of big pharma.

I mean, they both could be true, but most sensible people would doubt them.

But yeah, normally people who have an issue with "both-sides" of a position being highlighted are the ones with an entrenched myopic view.

Personally I think seeing and hearing both sides is good, especially when done respectfully and in a non-confrontational tone.

Don't think that is often possible on here.

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133715#Comment_121133715

Channel 4 and the Times can rightly argue that it is in the public interest for people to know that he is (allegedly) a disgusting creep and sexual predator, irrespective of anything happening with police investigations and court cases.

Many people are allegedly things that they aren't though, which is the problem. Should we as a society honestly lower ourselves to the point of allowing things claimed vs things proven, dictate how society views people? If so, in many cases, we'll be allowing what many would call gossip govern us. How people can view that as anything but a massive step backwards is beyond me.

joe40

I heard an interview with one of the reporters on this case and she was talking about how much pressure they felt to make sure their story was credible. She talked about the financial damage to the paper not to mention the reputational damage to both the paper and the individual journalists if there were holes in their story.

They're not reporting idle gossip, if the stories fall apart their reputations will be ruined.

Obviously Brand is innocent until proven guilty in a court case but the allegations are credible and my personal opinion would be to believe them. After all that is what ajury would have to do base their verdict on, who they believe, since there will be no physical evidence.

We shouldn't forget it was investigative journalism of this sort which exposed the clerical abuse scandals in our own country. These programmes can serve a purpose in delivering justice for victims when there are multiple victims but until they come together can be easily dismissed on an individual case.

One woman accusing Brand in this way could be dodgy, but multiple accusations from unrelated victims is much more compellling.

Become Death

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133804#Comment_121133804

Isn't there a danger though that Brand, even if guilty, can now, rightly, claim that it's impossible to get a fair unbiased trial due to the media coverage of the allegations?

I may be wrong.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133734#Comment_121133734

It's a very fine balancing act of course : what is in the public interest for them to know and what isn't. Channel 4 and the Times may have taken the view that it is was unlikely that Brand would ever have found himself in a courtroom and in that case that it was in the public interest for people to know about his alleged dark side.

Interestingly, I'm not sure I see that much sympathy for Brand outside the usual right wing media cranks and his conspiracy theory followers, so it might be argued that on balance Channel 4 and the Times made the right decision.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133804#Comment_121133804

Each one of the allegations will be treated on its own merits in a court of law, as we’ve seen recently in the not guilty verdicts in the Kevin Spacey trial - multiple allegations doesn’t automatically imply guilt.

In fact given Brands eh, reported excesses in the bedroom and also his reported brash nature, it’s very possible that others may appear alleging wrongdoing but that’s no guarantee of a guilty verdict

Inquitus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133921#Comment_121133921

The problem with these historical cases is even if you are guilty it is not often that easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This was true in Spacey's case and may be true here as well. It's largely he/she said, versus he/she said. That said if he doesn't sue for libel that tells it's own story.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134169#Comment_121134169

Take a look at the text message allegedly between Brand and a woman.

If that text is true, it's not a he said / she said scenario anymore.

Cienciano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133604#Comment_121133604

Yeah, by remaining anonymous, saying what they're comfortable with and not being cross examination by a high paid barrister that's out to humiliate her. Seriously dude, do people need to be spoonfed everything?

Another reason not to go to court would be the reaction of his fans. Just reading comment sections on Katherine Ryan and it's a torrent of hate. Ugly, nobody, annoying, weird voice, slut, not funny, horrible person etc etc.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132711#Comment_121132711

How is it whataboutery? We have no clue what actually happened here, my speculation is just as valid as yours chief.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134318#Comment_121134318

We have a decent amount of info, actually. These defences of people like Brand are tedious.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132726#Comment_121132726

Its much more important to make some accusations public than it is to verify and prove your allegations first? If there is no conviction then there is no illegal conduct, right?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132742#Comment_121132742

If they cant bring charges then the age of the accuser is irrelevant surely?

At what age do you think a victims word should be taken over any facts?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121132780#Comment_121132780

I dont believe anyone said that becuase she didnt go to the police it didnt happen. The question I asked was why go public instead of the police?

And your strawman point about mentioning being burgled 10 years later is totally irrelevant.

A better analogy would be that after 10 years you go public and state that X burgled you 10 years ago.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134346#Comment_121134346

Celebrities cheating on their partners are often exposed by the press, even though there is no criminal element to the story or court case...ditto with recreational drug taking. The idea that there has to be a police investigation, court case and a guilty conviction before anything comes into the public domain is not credible. Brand is totally relying on public acclaim for his vast wealth and popularity. If he's a vile creep, it can be argued that it is in the public interest that this be made known.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133734#Comment_121133734

Depends on the type of claim.

There is a spectrum. At one end of that spectrum would be e.g. speculative gossip by a questionable source, at the other end would be something like this multi-year joint investigation by multiple media outlets (who open themselves up to huge claims if any portion of the claims are false), bolstered by a police report, plus other women coming forward

In the case with Brand, the claims against him carry significant weight.

People have every right to judge the situation based on those claims.

As mentioned previously, if Brand was a teacher in your school, with these same claims against him, teaching your teenage child, you would be very much be judging and likely demanding suspension pending investigation.

Like others (Weinstein, Ghislaine, etc) the claims are on the strong and very serious end of the spectrum. It's not just "gossip".

Very much hoping these is a proper investigation/case and Brand gets to court to either clear his name, or face justice.

greencap

Ok they think they cant win in the courts so theyre going for the smear campaign. Maybe it will work.

If it does work then congrats to them on their successful street justice, or their operation against a rival, or their payday or whatever the reality may be behind the scenes.

The problem is that the success will bring copycat campaigns, sincere or malicious. Over and over until society adapts and smears become so frequent that they eventually fail to work. A case of 'whos smearing who today'. Until society just tires of the same old and disregards them as noise.

Another point this thread keeps missing is that a counter case doesnt work to the publics short timespan, i.e. if someone doesnt counter-sue within the time it takes to read a sht tabloid cover and wave your fist, that doesnt suggest anything.

A counter suit may take many months to be built. So maybe hold your whist just 1 week.

If Brand does win we'll never know the complainants/plaintiffs identities.

But we sure all know his by now, and thats fuked up.

ancapailldorcha

The conspiracy theory thing is truly demented.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134444#Comment_121134444

Your post makes no sense.

Brand could have sought an injunction if it was a smear without foundation.

If Brand counter sues the onus is on The Times and C4 to defend the accusations. Brand has the benefit of the doubt.

If there are smears without foundation then that opens up a huge payout for Brand and reputational damage for the nedia outlets.

Absolute nonsense already discredited a dozen times on the thread. It comes from a fantasy land where the UK defamation laws dont exist.

Become Death

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134337#Comment_121134337

Labelling anyone who doesn't immediately jump to "brand is definitely guilty" is a defender?

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134453#Comment_121134453

I understand the concerns around the publishing of accusations but I think channel 4 and the Sunday times were in a no win situation. They couldn't just sit on an accusation against a public personality and do nothing.

I know cliff Richards was subject to a false claim and has pushed for anonymity for those accused of sexual offences until charged but I think this sort of legislation could just provide cover for those serial offenders like Weinstein and Cosby to continue for years intimidating vicitms to stay silent.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134169#Comment_121134169

The problem with these historical cases is even if you are guilty it is not often that easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This was true in Spacey's case and may be true here as well.

Well no that isn't true all, but you have made a pertinent point by your assertion that Spacey is still Guilty.

Why Spacey was found not guilty has nothing to do with the passage of time, that became largely moot because Spacey is a clinical hoarder. He kept everything.

Spacey wasn't found not guilty on a technicality or weak evidence , he proved his innocence with irrefutable evidence.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121133614#Comment_121133614

You have enaged in 30+ pages of partisan-political point scoring from the beginning and you may have another 30 pages in you yet.

It speaks for itself. I'm out

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134310#Comment_121134310

Eh they’re all ready getting that- Twitter and the likes of those forums are full of victim shaming comments.

I don’t need any spoon feeding thank you- I’m quite clear in what I think and why I think it. But this isn’t “justice” in any way- let’s be clear about that.

it’s putting out stories than can and are treated in whatever way people wish to receive them- if that makes the alleged victims happy, so be it, but I’d doubt they are.

2smiggy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134494#Comment_121134494

of course they could sit on the accusations, if they thought they were false. can't think what benefit it would be to them to publish accusations they were not sure about

Overheal

Right wing women believe the women

https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/candace-owens-turns-on-russell-brand-assault-allegation-looks-legitimate/

https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/megyn-kelly-blasts-those-smearing-russell-brands-accusers-they-may-be-telling-the-truth-its-worth-investigating/

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134169#Comment_121134169

In my view, suing for liable or not suing for liable doesn’t really “prove” anything - instigating civil proceedings could well kick start a queue at the local police station of alleged victims which is certainly not something he would want, so I wouldn’t be quick to judge Brand on whether he instigates a liable suit or not.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121134539#Comment_121134539

I would think after doing further investigation they were confident of their veracity. But it seems even at this stage some posters here think they should just sit on the information to protect the accused. It is not a simple answer to know what the correct course if action is. You are either protecting a Weinstein or a cliff Richards.