Russell Brand: rape and sexual abuse allegations, grifting and general dodginess - discussion

[Magnus McGinty]

It increases rapidly over time, he has literarily hundred of millions of views, and he does a lot of long videos.

This is because (I think) creators can slap more adverts on longer form videos.

 

[nogojones]

Victim testimony is never enough.

(You also mentioned in another post about no paper trail. There is DNA in rape trials and it's still he said she said - that's where the problem lies. Belief. And...well, you know why it's the woman who is less often believed).

But back to my first line. I was on jury for the most obvious case of stealing you've ever seen in your life. Enough, easily, for the CPS to bring it to trial. Not caught red-handed, because he got away, but chased from the home red-handed for a long way. Picked out separately by two people in that line-up thing they do. Guilty as fuck.

Not guilty.

Prosecution? Poor Bangladeshi family with CPS shit lawyers.

Defence? Son of a magistrate with the best (most fucking boring to be honest) lawyer money could buy. Spent a whole day discussing the colour of the guy's curtains.

It's not about evidence. It's about lawyers (and patriarchy in rape cases).

Totally. The lad who was up for rape when I was a juror had money in the family. He turned up for his police interview fully lawyered up, with a pre-prepared statement. His barrister was amazing. Totally pickled all the defense witnesses and half the jurors just with dates and times, flitting back and forth till they couldn't tell you the day of the week.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

‘Between £1.28 and £23.23” per 1000 views for long videos . What a weird world. Got to be to do with the advertising yep. Who would choose to advertise on RB videos probably health supplements and things like that.

Advertising reflects the viewer. I always get tech or software adverts.

 

[nogojones]

‘Between £1.28 and £23.23” per 1000 views for long videos . What a weird world. Got to be to do with the advertising yep. Who would choose to advertise on RB videos probably health supplements and things like that.

I think advertisers would be slightly more inclined to use his vids as the audience are going to be generally a bit more gullible.

 

[Aladdin]

I corrected it in my reply to you by quoting Wikipedia which states the law correctly. Seems to be a few people on here that jump on anything here for points rather than bother to be civil.

Not at all..
I didn't jump on you. And I rarely engage in pile ons.

I just spent my working life working with teenagers and understanding how the law and Child Protection actually works when it comes to underage sexual activity. It's too important to understand that the "lee way " afforded to certain cases amongst consenting teenagers is not actually legalising their activity or underage sex. It is so that they are not prosecuted. It still doesn't allow all 15 to 17 yr olds freedom to break the law and it is looked at in terms of individual cases.

Admittedly this scenario rarely comes to prosecution but there have been times when I heard social workers debate that certain cases should be prosecuted. Ultimately it either goes on to Gardai or it is investigated by TUSLA who either refer on to Gardai or step back.

 

[Sweet FA]

Totally. The lad who was up for rape when I was a juror had money in the family. He turned up for his police interview fully lawyered up, with a per-prepared statement. His barrister was amazing. Totally pickled all the defense witnesses and half the jurors just with dates and times, flitting back and forth till they couldn't tell you the day of the week.

Read this at the weekend re: rape & sexual assault @ universities.

‘It’s a power game’: students accused in university rape hearings call in lawyers

Parents of young men facing conduct panels over assaults are raising the stakes by bringing barristers to them, academics say

www.theguardian.com

 

[cupid_stunt]

I think advertisers would be slightly more inclined to use his vids as the audience are going to be generally a bit more gullible.

I don't think advertisers pick what YT channels they appear on, that's down to how YT's system places the ads, which is why there's been reports over the years of advertisers objecting to how YT is placing their ads, and insisting their ads are withdrawn from being shown against certain content.

Much like advertisers being surprised that their ads are appearing on GB News, because Sky Media as the 'sales house' for almost every TV channel except those operated by ITV & C-4, bundles up all the smaller channels in cheap packages that are sold per 'x' number of viewers, and the advertisers have to opt out of being shown on GB News, after they get complaints on twitter that they are supporting GB News.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I don't think advertisers pick what YT channels they appear on, that's down to how YT's system places the ads, which is why there's been reports over the years of advertisers objecting to how YT is placing their ads, and insisting their ads are withdrawn from being shown against certain content.

Much like advertisers being surprised that their ads are appearing on GB News, because Sky Media as the 'sales house' for almost every TV channel except those operated by ITV & C-4, bundles up all the smaller channels in cheap packages that are sold per 'x' number of viewers, and the advertisers have to opt out of being shown on GB News, after they get complaints on twitter that they are supporting GB News.

Coincidentally, those spotting the adverts on GB News are also supporting GB News by watching the adverts.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

It still doesn't allow all 15 to 17 yr olds freedom to break the law and it is looked at in terms of individual cases.

I don't work in any aspect of law / law enforcement or child protection, but I have a feeling that the system in england doesn't often prosecute consenting activity where both participants are close to age of consent - it's certainly not something that gets reported often. there is a concept of 'not in the public interest to prosecute'.

but (from what i can remember when there were arguments some years back about equalising age of consent for same-sex activity) i'm aware that some countries do have a two-tier AoC, with (broadly) a lower age below which nothing is allowed, an upper age where anything is allowed, and a few years in between where it's only allowed if there's a small age gap. the concept in england of person in position of authority and 16/17 year old being illegal is relatively new.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Coincidentally, those spotting the adverts on GB News are also supporting GB News by watching the adverts.

It doesn't work like that, unless you are part of the very tiny number of people that are on the BARB panel, or watching online.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I’ve never seen it. Don’t even know where to find it or care enough to.

 

[nogojones]

I don't think advertisers pick what YT channels they appear on, that's down to how YT's system places the ads, which is why there's been reports over the years of advertisers objecting to how YT is placing their ads, and insisting their ads are withdrawn from being shown against certain content.

Much like advertisers being surprised that their ads are appearing on GB News, because Sky Media as the 'sales house' for almost every TV channel except those operated by ITV & C-4, bundles up all the smaller channels in cheap packages that are sold per 'x' number of viewers, and the advertisers have to opt out of being shown on GB News, after they get complaints on twitter that they are supporting GB News.

You... going around and spoiling things with your facts

 

[girasol]

i know i'm being annoying, with the evidence thing. It's coming from a glum place of thinking about how the really hard part isn't reforming the police or fiddling about with consent law its how to deal with the fact that people like brand (and his famous supporters) they dont just get tolerated they're adored, admired and celebrated and rewarded, so it feels like what needs to change is so big.

I thought similarly earlier in the thread, ie no evidence, unlike there'd be prosecution. However the LA woman actually went to a rape center afterwards. I think this is the strongest case, except it's in the US.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Cold War Steve

 

[Sasaferrato]

Money talks yeh listen can't you hear it

They're calculating that remaining associated with rb will cost them more than he'd bring in. No morality, simple cost/benefit analysis

Of course. You weren't expecting it to be a sudden onset of conscience were you?

 

[bluescreen]

I thought similarly earlier in the thread, ie no evidence, unlike there'd be prosecution. However the LA woman actually went to a rape center afterwards. I think this is the strongest case, except it's in the US.

What is the effect of statute of limitations on that case, which is alleged to have occurred in 2012? It's only indefinite, afaict, for offenses committed on or after 1 January 2017. IANAL but suspect that case may be time-barred.

 

[maomao]

This is because (I think) creators can slap more adverts on longer form videos.

 

[Raheem]

What is the effect of statute of limitations on that case, which is alleged to have occurred in 2012? It's only indefinite, afaict, for offenses committed on or after 1 January 2017. IANAL but suspect that case may be time-barred.

Google suggests that California has no time-limit in rape cases. Gathering evidence over a decade later may present difficulties, I suppose.

 

[bluescreen]

Google suggests that California has no time-limit in rape cases. Gathering evidence over a decade later may present difficulties, I suppose.

It suggests there is no time limit on cases after jan 2017 but this was 2012 so idk.

 

[NoXion]

How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.

 

[gosub]

How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.

You are Captain Renault. I claim my 5 francs

 

[Part 2]

Yotube stats here.

https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/russell_brand

 

[Epona]

How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.

Previous convictions cannot be taken into account in terms of reaching a verdict at any type of criminal case - each is tried separately.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.

fairly long established bit of english (UK?) law - a defendant's previous convictions aren't allowed to be told to the jury during a trial, whether that's burglary or sexual offences or what.

there are past cases (not necessarily sexual offences) where police have pretty much decided that because Mr X has a record, they will fit him up for this crime.

 

[Epona]

And they tend to become known to the court during sentencing, if someone has been found guilty of this particular crime, because they may have a bearing on sentencing.
But no bearing on whether someone is guilty or not guilty of this particular crime that is being tried. That has to stand or fall on the evidence and merits (or otherwise) of that particular case.

 

[Ax^]

How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.

ok without just linking Sex offenders

to keep a trail free and open and not based they don't bring up someone previous convictions till after they been found guilty


otherwise any copper with a problem could just look at a bunch of people records and link them to that case because of previous convictions

it is quite a sensible rule

 

[NoXion]

I was talking about the courts, not the police. If the cops want to fit someone up then they don't need any previous convictions in order to do so.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

but it's also likely to influence a jury to make assumptions.

 

[Dystopiary]

Yet the defence are allowed to drag up all kinds of shit on the victim like what underwear she was wearing or past boyfriends etc, as if it has any relevance.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

He's developed his own revenue stream, I don't think he'll give much of a fuck about two gigs being cancelled. It will be interesting to see what the social media channels do about this given he's not been found guilty or even charged with anything. I think he makes most of his money out of YouTube.

That’s a lot of money he’s missing out on, plus if YouTube ban him that’s the majority of his income gone.