• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Russell Brand: From Comic To Icke-Esque Conspiracist & Possible Abuser?

maximus otter said:
The news item appeared on the very same day that the Beeb reported the jailing of a woman for 8½ years for multiple false rape allegations.

Despite this, and nothing having been proven against Brand, I had to be very careful about removing negative implications in the report I quoted above in order to produce a short, objective and dispassionate post.

The Metro throws about words like "troubling" and "worryingly", and makes snide remarks about Brand's perceived political stance.

Only in the very last line of a lengthy article do they include the words, "Brand has not been arrested, charged, or found guilty of any crimes."

maximus otter
Click to expand...

Regardless of what Brand has or hasn't done, false allegations are rare and the amount of rapists who get off without even going to trial is absolutely ridiculous. We are all aware he's not been found guilty but I do hope he faces trial and answers these allegations somewhere.

In all honesty though, my comment was more disbelief that anyone has any interest in what he has to say full stop.
 
Matt said:
Are you saying that because one woman has been caught lying we should doubt all other women?

The detective in the article that you linked to says "The majority of people would never lie about something like this so there's no reason not to believe somebody, but it's my job to establish the facts."

And at the beginning of the video the reporter says "False allegations of rape are extremely rare."

Sorry if I have misunderstood you.
Click to expand...
Yes he is. It’s a tactic used by Brand himself as pointed out in the video in 556 - take one example & extrapolate to paint the whole world with it.

The police investigation in her case over a number of years resulted in her claims falling apart. It’s an extreme example which can't be taken as a general rule.
 
Matt said:
Are you saying that because one woman has been caught lying we should doubt all other women?

The detective in the article that you linked to says "The majority of people would never lie about something like this so there's no reason not to believe somebody, but it's my job to establish the facts."

And at the beginning of the video the reporter says "False allegations of rape are extremely rare."

Sorry if I have misunderstood you.
Click to expand...

I’m saying that false allegations occur, and more frequently than we would like to believe; that the media source l quoted seemed to do everything up to, but not quite, accuse Brand, before metaphorically holding its nose and acknowledging that he hasn’t even been arrested for anything, much less charged; and reminding everyone that “the plural of allegation is not data.”

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
I’m saying that false allegations occur, and more frequently than we would like to believe; that the media source l quoted seemed to do everything up to, but not quite, accuse Brand, before metaphorically holding its nose and acknowledging that he hasn’t even been arrested for anything, much less charged; and reminding everyone that “the plural of allegation is not data.”

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Interestingly, this quote is quite wrong & the original is in fact the exact opposite - “the plural of anecdote is data”

Here it is from the horses mouth:

“I said ‘The plural of anecdote is data’ some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student’s dismissal of a simple factual statement–by another student or me–as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder. Since then I have missed few opportunities to quote myself. The only appearance in print that I can remember is Nelson Polsby’s accurate quotation and attribution in an article in PS: Political Science and Politics in 1993; I believe it was in the first issue of the year.”

What is interesting about this saying is that it seems to have morphed into its opposite – “Data is not the plural of anecdote” – in some people’s minds.
Click to expand...

A case of The Mandela Effect
 
Trial by media surely compromises a following legal trial. As I say, has he been found guilty of the allegations against him?
 
Analogue Boy said:
Trial by media surely compromises a following legal trial. As I say, has he been found guilty of the allegations against him?
Click to expand...

Plenty of cases have media coverage ahead of (and during) a trial. If any of these cases ever get to court, Brand being in the public eye will make it more challenging to ensure there isn't bias, but that's down to the courts, judges, jury selection and other factors to manage.

Otherwise what are we to do when a public figure has potentially committed serious offenses - throw our hands up in the air and say oh well, there might be bias so we can't have a trial? We can't completely mitigate these risks, we just have to manage them as best we can in the hope that justice prevails.

It is never a perfect system and in cases of sexual assault it is particularly frustrating. Sometimes innocent people are sent to prison and that in itself is sickening, but more often than not victims rarely get any justice.
 
That's one of the problems with our 'celebrity culture'.
The more a celeb is known, the harder it is to find someone who has either not heard of them or no opinion of them. This might lead to a sense that a defence in any trial can be 'unfair bias'.
The 'Trial by Public Opinion' has always been with us. First it was limited to how far gossip could go. Then it was influenced by print media. Now, t'internet has made it world-wide. And the impact of public opinion is hard to control when you give the 'right' of informed judgement to a jury of ordinary people. It's not as easy as recusing oneself because of a personal link; the widespread publicity/information/disinformation makes it nigh-on impossible to find anyone without an opinion.
The important thing to note is that in court, the jury member swears a serious oath to carry out their duties fairly, and form a judgement based on evidence presented and nothing else. It's hard to enforce but they're exhorted to ignore media commentary on the case especially while the case is being heard. The courts (and the people outside) must trust in this oath, and the sense of fairness in the jury.
In Brand's case, he's always been a very vocal self-publicist. His pronouncements are intentionally incendiary. He has built up a following. It might be suspected that he's intentionally built up a 'shield' - "How can I have a fair trial if everyone has heard of me, or have an opinion about me?" Look at this 'shield' magnified ten-fold with the Michael Jackson trial.
If you live your life in the glare of publicity then you risk trial by public opinion; too bad. You can't complain when you've promoted your career by the same.
 
Cloudbusting said:
...false allegations [of rape] are rare...
Click to expand...

"December 2014: At least 109 women have been prosecuted in the last five years for making false rape allegations in the UK..."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations

Note: That is prosecuted. We are not told how many total allegations were made; how many were disposed of via caution, etc.; or how many did not proceed because the individual making the allegation was deemed - in that convenient 21st century catchall word - to be "vulnerable."

This UK Government document assesses that (depending on your criteria) between 3% and 12% of rape allegations are "false." (Page 21.)

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
"December 2014: At least 109 women have been prosecuted in the last five years for making false rape allegations in the UK..."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations

Note: That is prosecuted. We are not told how many total allegations were made; how many were disposed of via caution, etc.; or how many did not proceed because the individual making the allegation was deemed - in that convenient 21st century catchall word - to be "vulnerable."

This UK Government document assesses that (depending on your criteria) between 3% and 12% of rape allegations are "false." (Page 21.)

maximus otter
Click to expand...

Looking at that document and the criteria used, I'd say the narrower definition (giving 3%) is a better measure. The 12% figures includes many questionable criteria - including cases where potential victims were intoxicated. It also appears that it is a retrospective assessment - there's no indication that these people were cautioned let alone prosecuted.

Many rapes go unreported, where (for a variety of reasons) a formal allegation is never logged. Women are acutely aware of the perils of making such an accusation, let alone a false one. Obviously we will never know for sure but there is no doubt that rape is an underreported crime. As such, if we were to look at proven false allegations as a proportion of potential cases then I suspect that % would reduce considerably.
 
Analogue Boy said:
Trial by media surely compromises a following legal trial. As I say, has he been found guilty of the allegations against him?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, has Savile? No, but there are vanishingly few who would defend him.

The accusations against Brand are far fewer and arguably far less heinous but there are some parallels: famous wealthy man accused of using his position to commit sexual abuse. Both to some extent have been "hiding in plain sight" - Savile was blatant and dropped all manner of hints over decades. With Brand it could be argued that there's all manner of smoke in terms of his being a comedian and his persona as a rake or libertine.
 
On a tangent but maybe relevant.

maximus otter said:
Frankly, this would have been one occasion when I’d have hoped for a “No comment” interview. I don’t know if Brand has committed any offences, but he’s definitely guilty of “Felony loving the sound of his own voice.”

maximus otter
Click to expand...

A genuine question out of curiosity, Max - is there technically or legally any difference between an offence and a crime?

I often hear Police talk about offences but the word crime is often avoided. Is it a case that when people are arrested they are charged with offences and then prosecuted for offences and only if guilty then they have committed crimes.

Know what I mean? When does an offence become a crime?
 
I’m no great fan of Brand as I wemember Wossy and him having to duck down and keep a low profile after Sachsgate.
What I am wary of is needy celebrities used to a culture where everyone sues everyone else for defamation going after tabloids and other media outlets who have published early judgements on their cases and I don’t think we, as a ‘proper’ forum should fall into that category. Not that Russell Brand would do that to us of course.
 
Back to work today after Covid. On t'sofa, shattered, half-watching TV, reading this thread.

Had a micro-dream about Bangor (north Wales) pier. The tide was unusually high, lapping against the pier walkway.

There were knotholes in the wooden pier boards. I watched Russell Brand float along on his back, naked, underneath the pier and shove his erect nob up through one of the holes.

It might be time for cocoa and bed.
 
escargot said:
Back to work today after Covid. On t'sofa, shattered, half-watching TV, reading this thread.

Had a micro-dream about Bangor (north Wales) pier. The tide was unusually high, lapping against the pier walkway.

There were knotholes in the wooden pier boards. I watched Russell Brand float along on his back, naked, underneath the pier and shove his erect nob up through one of the holes.

It might be time for cocoa and bed.
Click to expand...

It does sound like something he would do.

Maybe you've had a premonition
 
escargot said:
Back to work today after Covid. On t'sofa, shattered, half-watching TV, reading this thread.

Had a micro-dream about Bangor (north Wales) pier. The tide was unusually high, lapping against the pier walkway.

There were knotholes in the wooden pier boards. I watched Russell Brand float along on his back, naked, underneath the pier and shove his erect nob up through one of the holes.

It might be time for cocoa and bed.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a parody of the Rider-Waite Tarot deck re-imagined by Ken Russell. At least one card in the Swords suit depicts a corpse, or seeming corpse, floating in water with knives sticking out of it. (the Seven, Nine and Ten of Swords are variations on this theme and convey the mystical and metaphysical message of "Don't bother getting out of bed today, it really isn't a good idea just now").

As any good Freudian knows, rigid sharp blades are also a metaphor for what is coyly referred to as "the male principle". Tarot decks are chokka with Freudianism, and if they're not, the designer needs to be taken discreetly aside in order for a few things to be explained to them before they go back to the drawing board for another go.

This dream image appears to be a Tarot Sword with the middleman removed: somebody generally considered to be a not-very-pleasant individual floating in water with an erect penis, that he then randomly inserts whether you want to see it or not. Somebody unpleasant is out to get you, whether you want it or not... (Nine of Swords or a very unpleasant Ace).
 
AgProv said:
This sounds like a parody of the Rider-Waite Tarot deck re-imagined by Ken Russell. At least one card in the Swords suit depicts a corpse, or seeming corpse, floating in water with knives sticking out of it. (the Seven, Nine and Ten of Swords are variations on this theme and convey the mystical and metaphysical message of "Don't bother getting out of bed today, it really isn't a good idea just now").

As any good Freudian knows, rigid sharp blades are also a metaphor for what is coyly referred to as "the male principle". Tarot decks are chokka with Freudianism, and if they're not, the designer needs to be taken discreetly aside in order for a few things to be explained to them before they go back to the drawing board for another go.

This dream image appears to be a Tarot Sword with the middleman removed: somebody generally considered to be a not-very-pleasant individual floating in water with an erect penis, that he then randomly inserts whether you want to see it or not. Somebody unpleasant is out to get you, whether you want it or not... (Nine of Swords or a very unpleasant Ace).
Click to expand...
Bangor, the place in the dream with the pier, is somewhere I'm going today for work.
I'll be wearing the heavy boots with which in the dream I was just about to stomp the protruding member.

There might be a-coming a day when Brand is the one who shouldn't bother getting out of bed. :chuckle:
 
escargot said:
Bangor, the place in the dream with the pier, is somewhere I'm going today for work.
I'll be wearing the heavy boots with which in the dream I was just about to stomp the protruding member.

There might be a-coming a day when Brand is the one who shouldn't bother getting out of bed. :chuckle:
Click to expand...
It's what is alleged to have happened in bed that is the concern...
 
Analogue Boy said:
I’m no great fan of Brand as I wemember Wossy and him having to duck down and keep a low profile after Sachsgate.
What I am wary of is needy celebrities used to a culture where everyone sues everyone else for defamation going after tabloids and other media outlets who have published early judgements on their cases and I don’t think we, as a ‘proper’ forum should fall into that category. Not that Russell Brand would do that to us of course.
Click to expand...
Celebs love publicity surrounding their 'reputation protection stories' and people being sued. You don't get publicity for when these claims are thrown out of court. Only high profile cases are chased by the meeja, such as the royal family.
Ever since The Streisand Effect though, they consider this action very carefully. On both sides, the legal teams really keep quiet about it because they know any publicity won't help either side.
A complete gag order for the legal reps to use as a 'blanket ban' on using their name are rare to be issued. They tend to attract attention.
 
Ringo said:
...is there technically or legally any difference between an offence and a crime?
Click to expand...

Oddly, there is no universally-accepted definition of "crime" in the UK. Various attempts have been made, usually along the lines of, "Behaviour deemed by the State to be illegal, and punishable under statute or the Common Law."

In many cases, the words "offence" and "crime" can be used interchangeably. I could quite acceptably refer to rape as either, for example. In practical terms, however, I would say that there are many things that are offences but not crimes, e.g. parking on double yellow lines, or dropping a Coke can in the High Street; but I can't think of anything that would be a crime but not an offence.

Beyond that... :dunno:

maximus otter
 
I suppose it's the same difference between 'offender' and 'criminal'?
 
maximus otter said:
...I can't think of anything that would be a crime but not an offence.
Click to expand...

I'm toying with the idea that an action committed in a foreign jursidiction where it is deemed illegal that would be legal if committed in the UK might be described as an offence but not a crime.

He committed an offence under Bhutanese Law.

Crime has a moral connotation; offence a technical one.
  • Yith should be arrested for crimes again fashion.
  • Maximus's only crime was one of passion.
Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love’s day...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top