Russell Brand charged with rape today.

I think Andrew Sachs died never getting over that prank by Brand & Ross.
Johnathan Ross was just as bad getting involved, I think he was suspended from tv for a while, whilst RB was banned indefinitely. I can’t stand either of them, both sleazy characters.

Well I'm obviously in the minority here as I always thought he was really funny but then I do have a rather strange off the wall sense of humour. I bought his book many years ago

I hope he gets a fair trial although I have to admit it's not looking good

So sad for all those women 😢

Anniebach

Agree Doodledog but there is also the thought of ‘how brave to risk so much’

I’m not sure what you are getting at Annie. Yes, the women are brave. Maybe if they get a chance to speak out if he is proven guilty it might change the system so that in future women don’t need to be brave to report assault.

Esmay

Agree Doodledog but there is also the thought of ‘how brave to risk so much’

He always looks like he needs a good scrubbing with soap and water. Just looking at him turns my stomach. As for guilty or not, we must leave that decision to the Courts.

Innocent until proved guilty though I've never liked him .
His treatment of the late Andrew Sachs was absolutely disgusting.
But I wonder how many men in the UK are quaking in their boots -now women are reporting them for sexual assault .
I googled the name of the man who tried to rape me .
It was fortunate that he was disturbed .
He died some years ago .
I also googled the name of another man who also tried to assault me -only he's fallen off the radar .

I understand people's unease, and I also want him to get a fair trial. If he doesn't, there will be grounds for an appeal. I also want the accusers to get justice.

I can easily see why it can take many years for people to come forward. Feelings of shame, thinking that many people won't believe them, knowing that it is your word against that of a celebrity, that he can afford the best legal representation, knowing that if you lose you will have a reputation as 'that woman who wrongly accused X' are all powerful disincentives. Where the accused is wealthy, there will always be those who suggest that accusers are doing it for the money. It's not something that many people would do lightly.

M0nica

I am doing a 'Disgusted, Tonbridge Wells' act today. I have been disgusted to see that a phottograph of this man dominates most of the front pages of the national newspapers.

Yes, it is front page news that this unpleasant man is getting his come-uppance at last, the trial and everything going with it, whether guilty or innocent, will not be nice for him, but look what he did to Andrew Sachs and his family, but why do so many of the national news papers feel a need to illustrate the news items with really huge centre front page dominating photographs of him. It can only pander to his overwheening vanity.

That's an interesting perspective, I was just thinking how shameful & embarrassing it would be to have rape claims all over the paper about you & how most people would really struggle with it. I don't know, but I think none of us know what happened & we got to wait to see in the case - if it gets to court & whether the allegations hold up.

GeorgeKirrin

I've never been a fan or seen the comic appeal but there was definitely a period in British comedy when lewd, laddish behaviour was seen as funny ( I'm not talking about the bawdy Carry On type of humour). He was definitely encouraged in that by the producers commissioning programmes and he was made famous because of his "skill" in it.
Like everyone else, I have no idea if he is guilty or not and I'm glad I won't be on the jury but am I the only one who always feels a bit uncomfortable when these allegations are made that refer to things that happened a quarter of a century ago? I have no idea what I was doing on a particular day in 2019 and couldn't hope to defend myself if someone claimed I was doing something awful. I'm interested in how they will prove it but, in the meantime, mud sticks and he is being treated as guilty before the trial. There are other celebrities that have been accused of stuff and then acquitted but all I remember is that they were accused and can never recall if they were found guilty or not.
I'm sure I will get piled on and can assure you that my sympathy is always with victims but I always wonder about how you could prove your innocence over something that happened 25 years ago.

I mean especially as he was off his face, definitely being encouraged by his production company & those around him. How does it take 25 years to report & arrest someone. It wasn't as if in those days you couldn't report. Unless they did & no further action was taken. In which case why not if there's such a compelling case?

It does seem that it's become a lot more acceptable to make historic allegations & for those allegations to be taken forward.
I will say though that RB is unlikely to get a fair trial in the UK.

I think it may be considered that he won't get a fair trial in the UK, too much discussion & speculation. Everyone knows about the case.

Oh I agree that he was definitely enabled in his behaviour.

I've never been a fan or seen the comic appeal but there was definitely a period in British comedy when lewd, laddish behaviour was seen as funny ( I'm not talking about the bawdy Carry On type of humour). He was definitely encouraged in that by the producers commissioning programmes and he was made famous because of his "skill" in it.
Like everyone else, I have no idea if he is guilty or not and I'm glad I won't be on the jury but am I the only one who always feels a bit uncomfortable when these allegations are made that refer to things that happened a quarter of a century ago? I have no idea what I was doing on a particular day in 2019 and couldn't hope to defend myself if someone claimed I was doing something awful. I'm interested in how they will prove it but, in the meantime, mud sticks and he is being treated as guilty before the trial. There are other celebrities that have been accused of stuff and then acquitted but all I remember is that they were accused and can never recall if they were found guilty or not.
I'm sure I will get piled on and can assure you that my sympathy is always with victims but I always wonder about how you could prove your innocence over something that happened 25 years ago.

I think he will be found guilty, definitely guilty here by the first
posts on the allegations

Statistically it is much less likely that those making allegations of sexual assault will receive justice.

According to the Director General's guidance, link above, thank you Allira, discussion of character can be held as contempt. Maybe the press do not want the trial to go ahead. It seems less and less likely Brand will get a fair trial.

I am doing a 'Disgusted, Tonbridge Wells' act today. I have been disgusted to see that a phottograph of this man dominates most of the front pages of the national newspapers.

Yes, it is front page news that this unpleasant man is getting his come-uppance at last, the trial and everything going with it, whether guilty or innocent, will not be nice for him, but look what he did to Andrew Sachs and his family, but why do so many of the national news papers feel a need to illustrate the news items with really huge centre front page dominating photographs of him. It can only pander to his overwheening vanity.

Ilovecheese

Hmm.. why are those accused of burglary not given the same anonymity as the householders whose stuff has gone missing?

People who are burgled have no right to anonymity.

I am certain that Russell Brand is an obnoxious, lewd individual. I am glad he will now be tried by a jury of his peers on the offences he is charged with. They, and they alone, will decide his innocence or guilt based on the evidence presented to them. I've been called for jury service 5 times and served on several trials over 4 of those occasions. I was rather relieved just after lockdown to get the message I wouldn't actually be required, and was therefore dismissed.

Of course he’s not guilty until convicted, but unless someone introduces information that is not in the public domain they are not compromising a trial. The jury will hear from accusers and will have more information than we do, which is what matters. Talking about what we already know (eg saying he is a vile individual or that he and Jonathan Ross phoned Andrew Sachs about sleeping with his granddaughter) is not contempt, according to the link posted above.

Of course he should have a fair trial. So should his accusers. False allegations happen but are rare. Here we have a number of alleged victims.
The Police and CPS will have considered the evidence very carefully, generally, it’s my understanding they consider charging only when around 80% certain of conviction. I’m not judge and jury here, simply pointing out how few allegations are made and the very small number that go to trial.

Not guilty until convicted. He needs a fair trial and nothing to prejudice it.

I agree.
Let’s wait now until 2nd May.

I agree not guilty until convicted. Having said that he is a revolting
man! So full of self importance, can't bear him .

Sorry, just a link to what's allowed and not.

I hope he has a fair trial and that nothing will prejudice it.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60d4a59dd3bf7f7c3716c60d/Contempt_of_court_-_fact_sheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi3hMDg5r6MAxWEXEEAHRmrKJMQFnoECCkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1xmITgdVusvmsx9tLks9dW