R
Raining_Roses
Guest
This isn’t a post about innocence or guilt, but rather the methods for determining it. Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you would have heard about/seen the C4 Dispatches expose on Russell Brand, a well-known TV & Radio personality turned Youtube ‘conspiracy theorist’.
The yearlong by investigation by The Times and C4 produced a 90-minute program that gave accounts from victims of sexual assault perpetrated by him; witness accounts to his behaviour from crew on shows he worked on and exposed a culture of silence and protection of his crimes in the media industry. His behaviour was allegedly an ‘open secret’ among fellow comedians and crew working with him, with one male comedian coming forward, disclosing that there have been rumours about his behaviour for years and those that mentioned it or made jokes about it were quickly shut down. After one alleged assault, Brand texted his victim to apologise for his behaviour. One victim also visited a rape crisis centre the morning after she was assaulted and documentation at the time verified the account that she had alleged her perpetrator was a high-profile celebrity. Another- an ex-partner- wrote about the abuse from him in her book and did not remain anonymous. The victims, the witnesses, the circumstantial and written evidence all mounted up.
In his defence, Brand came forward before it was aired via his Youtube and X accounts to refute the accusations and state that all his sexual relationships have been consensual. In his view, he is being attacked for his anti-establishment views and opposition to the COVID vaccine. Like Andrew Tate, Elon Musk and Lawrence Fox, he is being shut down for ‘telling the truth’ by ‘the Matrix’ and as C4 collected the nights TV ratings, he was packing out Wembley, all the time avoiding the big f*cking elephant in the room.
What will happen next is anyone’s guess- will there be a very public lawsuit; a very public court case or will Brand simply disappear into obscurity for a while? He has a staunch group of followers, so while he may disappear from the wider media, he’ll no doubt live on in his ‘guru’ persona on social media (he’s a narc- he’ll have to get the attention from somewhere!).
But whatever happens next, the question is should this have happened?
It’s journalism! In journalism, the subjects rarely get a right to reply, unless through a lawsuit, so perhaps it’s not a case of trial by media, but simply good journalism. These women had made complaints in some way or other to either the companies they were working for, colleagues or the rape crisis centre, and they all knew/believed that no action would be taken by the police because of who he was. They didn’t think they would be believed. After all, in media industry, high profile perpetrators have been getting away with it for years. But there’s also Brand’s background- many, many disparaging, highly sexualised comments on air, sexual harassment of a colleague on air and a highly dubious interview with Saville in 2007. It was well-known in TV circles at that time what Saville was and Brand certainly works that reputation in the phone interview.
Yet- there has been no police investigation and bar his social media accounts, he’s had no right to reply or been offered the opportunity to put his account of the alleged incidents across. Journalism doesn't allow for such, so the one view pervading the minds of the interested public would be ‘Guilty’. After all, they become the Jury, seeing all that is reported as the facts and evidence. In our comfortable armchairs, we can condemn on the masterfully directed snippets of ‘evidence’, rather than seeing the raw, originals for ourselves and we believe we can judge on shadows and actors imitating the victim’s emotions.
We, the public, then become the Judges. We stop buying tickets for his shows, watching him on social media and effectively cancelling him.
So, do we need to be cautious about these kinds of exposes? After all, we are not the Judge’s and the Jury and unless we have both sides of the story- and consequently, both sets of evidence- should the subject of these exposes be kept confidential until the evidence is presented to the police and the case is presented in court?
The yearlong by investigation by The Times and C4 produced a 90-minute program that gave accounts from victims of sexual assault perpetrated by him; witness accounts to his behaviour from crew on shows he worked on and exposed a culture of silence and protection of his crimes in the media industry. His behaviour was allegedly an ‘open secret’ among fellow comedians and crew working with him, with one male comedian coming forward, disclosing that there have been rumours about his behaviour for years and those that mentioned it or made jokes about it were quickly shut down. After one alleged assault, Brand texted his victim to apologise for his behaviour. One victim also visited a rape crisis centre the morning after she was assaulted and documentation at the time verified the account that she had alleged her perpetrator was a high-profile celebrity. Another- an ex-partner- wrote about the abuse from him in her book and did not remain anonymous. The victims, the witnesses, the circumstantial and written evidence all mounted up.
In his defence, Brand came forward before it was aired via his Youtube and X accounts to refute the accusations and state that all his sexual relationships have been consensual. In his view, he is being attacked for his anti-establishment views and opposition to the COVID vaccine. Like Andrew Tate, Elon Musk and Lawrence Fox, he is being shut down for ‘telling the truth’ by ‘the Matrix’ and as C4 collected the nights TV ratings, he was packing out Wembley, all the time avoiding the big f*cking elephant in the room.
What will happen next is anyone’s guess- will there be a very public lawsuit; a very public court case or will Brand simply disappear into obscurity for a while? He has a staunch group of followers, so while he may disappear from the wider media, he’ll no doubt live on in his ‘guru’ persona on social media (he’s a narc- he’ll have to get the attention from somewhere!).
But whatever happens next, the question is should this have happened?
It’s journalism! In journalism, the subjects rarely get a right to reply, unless through a lawsuit, so perhaps it’s not a case of trial by media, but simply good journalism. These women had made complaints in some way or other to either the companies they were working for, colleagues or the rape crisis centre, and they all knew/believed that no action would be taken by the police because of who he was. They didn’t think they would be believed. After all, in media industry, high profile perpetrators have been getting away with it for years. But there’s also Brand’s background- many, many disparaging, highly sexualised comments on air, sexual harassment of a colleague on air and a highly dubious interview with Saville in 2007. It was well-known in TV circles at that time what Saville was and Brand certainly works that reputation in the phone interview.
Yet- there has been no police investigation and bar his social media accounts, he’s had no right to reply or been offered the opportunity to put his account of the alleged incidents across. Journalism doesn't allow for such, so the one view pervading the minds of the interested public would be ‘Guilty’. After all, they become the Jury, seeing all that is reported as the facts and evidence. In our comfortable armchairs, we can condemn on the masterfully directed snippets of ‘evidence’, rather than seeing the raw, originals for ourselves and we believe we can judge on shadows and actors imitating the victim’s emotions.
We, the public, then become the Judges. We stop buying tickets for his shows, watching him on social media and effectively cancelling him.
So, do we need to be cautious about these kinds of exposes? After all, we are not the Judge’s and the Jury and unless we have both sides of the story- and consequently, both sets of evidence- should the subject of these exposes be kept confidential until the evidence is presented to the police and the case is presented in court?
