Russell Brand charged with rape today.

Iam64

I’ve just read an article in the Independent suggesting Brand is becoming popular with fans of Andrew Tate as a result of the accusations

Ye Gods!! So much for making the streets safer for women when the likes of Tate and Brand have followers of like minds.

What’s happened do we think, that a growing number of men believe this nonsense

Rosie51

They won't be able to 'not hear or unread' the stuff they've heard or read, but having served on juries and one very well known local case, I can say they should (and we did) only consider the evidence that is presented during the trial. One jury I was on 'thought' the defendant guilty but the evidence just wasn't there so we acquitted. The judge will summarise the evidence presented both for and against and the jurors do to take an oath to reach a decision based solely on the evidence presented. Have a bit more faith in your fellows.

I'd suggest that you watch the recent documentary about the two juries watching the exact same case (they didn't know each were there), both presented with the exact same evidence, all reasonable people. The jurys came back with entirely different verdicts. It was thought that the powerful voices in each jury were the reason for each verdict.
I personally don't think it's a perfect system & I'm sure jurys have convicted wrongly.
In any case it's doubtful that RB will get a fair trial in the UK simply because too many people's know about the case. Far too much information & speculation in the public arena.

The jury system is far from perfect. I’m equally certain guilty people have walked

So trial by jury is luck dip

Nanna49 I too watched the programme to which you refer. I agree, it's worrying.

Nana49

Rosie51

They won't be able to 'not hear or unread' the stuff they've heard or read, but having served on juries and one very well known local case, I can say they should (and we did) only consider the evidence that is presented during the trial. One jury I was on 'thought' the defendant guilty but the evidence just wasn't there so we acquitted. The judge will summarise the evidence presented both for and against and the jurors do to take an oath to reach a decision based solely on the evidence presented. Have a bit more faith in your fellows.

I'd suggest that you watch the recent documentary about the two juries watching the exact same case (they didn't know each were there), both presented with the exact same evidence, all reasonable people. The jurys came back with entirely different verdicts. It was thought that the powerful voices in each jury were the reason for each verdict.
I personally don't think it's a perfect system & I'm sure jurys have convicted wrongly.
In any case it's doubtful that RB will get a fair trial in the UK simply because too many people's know about the case. Far too much information & speculation in the public arena.

I've served on enough juries to have witnessed at first hand the weaknesses of the jury system. What I say is that it's the best we have unless you want judges to sit and decide on their own. I still think RB will get as fair a trial as anyone else. Even he has declared that he's "incredibly grateful" to get his chance to defend the charges in court. It would seem he has more faith in the system than you. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0457d02e9go

Do you really think well known people shouldn't have to face charges no matter what because of public speculation?

I personally don't think it's a perfect system & I'm sure jurys have convicted wrongly. I don't think anybody has ever claimed it's a perfect system, but I'd bet the house on more guilty people going free than innocents being convicted, and that's the way it should be.

That different people would hear the same evidence and find it compelling or not shouldn't surprise anyone. There are enough threads on GN where people reading the same article reach different conclusions.

Anniebach

So trial by jury is luck dip

To a point yes. When you are gathering random strangers together there's always an element of luck whether good or bad. I heard a program on the radio (sorry can't reference it, it was weeks ago) that said most people who can be tried in a magistrates court but can opt for trial by jury choose the jury option because the chances of acquittal are greater. This was said in a discussion about trying to speed up the clearing of the backlog of cases to come before the courts. Various options were being discussed, and the removal of this right was being proposed as magistrates courts are cheaper and quicker than full jury trials.

‘End of ‘ wHat does that even mean? Please try to talk at least fairly sensibley

Or is that beyond you?

Did you mean sensibly?

Grannylynj

‘End of ‘ wHat does that even mean? Please try to talk at least fairly sensibley

It would help if you quoted the person to whom this is addressed.

Grannylynj refers to a quote from*Anniebach*. Annie means, 'so there's no more to be said?'
Not difficult to understand, in my opinion Grannylynj.

Thank you Aldom yes , ‘no more to be said ‘ = end of

Anniebach

I wouldn’t attempt to claim I know what every jury member thinks after instruction from the judge .

When a jury meets it is made absolutely clear that a judgement has to be made on the evidence presented. When the jury chairman is chosen they are also reminded of this very clearly.

The discussion in the jury room is entirely based on the evidence presented and if anyone deviates from that they will be reminded of that by the jury chairman. The amount of discussion that takes place before reaching a decision makes it very clear that the accused is convicted or acquitted on that evidence alone.

Of course there might be the occasional case, when there is a deviation from that, but in the vast majority cases the the result of a trial is a clearly based on the evidence presented.

Russell Brand may be a hate figure, but there have been plenty of trials of people who were much loved popular people, Rolf Harris, for example, where their popularity and positive image did not stop them being convicted of heinous crimes and imprisoned for long periods. Why should the reverse not be true?

Yes MOnica there might be the occasional case? There are cases

I think it's unlikely that he's really wanting to defend himself in court I'm sure RB would rather be doing something else. No-one would be grateful for that let's be real!

But secondly, good luck with sitting on multiple jurys you seem to be being picked for in a system that doesn't actually work by your own admission.

28M0nica

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, was Rolf Harris popular & is RB a hate figure? I don't know.

But I think it's irrelevant. No-one really knew much about the details of the case against Rolf Harris, there weren't any documentaries made before his trial. Unlike RB, the details are everywhere & the women have given quite detailed accounts that are easy to hear. This is the issue with a fair trial, it's quite apart from popularity.

‘Heaven forbid that a trial could be thrown out because of chat on Gransnet’ quote from Allira - love it 🤣🤣

Nana49 The argument about a far trial is based on him being unpopular. I know, none of the details of his case.

Rolf Harris'es case was before social medi and the internet took off and I remember reading a lot in the papers and he was a very popular children's entertainer.

Having served on a jury, not anyone famous, I do rememeber how meticulous the judge was in reminding us that we could only reach a decision on the facts put before us and how careful the chairman of the jury was in reminding members of that if they did stray away from that.

Juries can be very mixed, ours was, but I was very impressed with how seriously everyone took their responsibilities.

There were aspects of the events that led up to the trial that did have us speculating among ourselves outside the jury room. But once we were sent out to consider our verdict, everyone took it very seriously indeed and stuck to the rules.

M0nica

Nana49 The argument about a far trial is based on him being unpopular. I know, none of the details of his case.

Rolf Harris'es case was before social medi and the internet took off and I remember reading a lot in the papers and he was a very popular children's entertainer.

Having served on a jury, not anyone famous, I do rememeber how meticulous the judge was in reminding us that we could only reach a decision on the facts put before us and how careful the chairman of the jury was in reminding members of that if they did stray away from that.

Juries can be very mixed, ours was, but I was very impressed with how seriously everyone took their responsibilities.

There were aspects of the events that led up to the trial that did have us speculating among ourselves outside the jury room. But once we were sent out to consider our verdict, everyone took it very seriously indeed and stuck to the rules.

I don't think RB is unpopular though. He's got a lot of followers on social media & I believe so much is in the public arena, far more than RH because Social media is extensive now & even a TV program has been done about it. A few reports in the rags aren't the same. Much less was known about the RH allegations I remember too.
RH he was pretty out of the spotlight by the time the allegations & arrests were made. This is completely different & not comparable at all imo.

But also we don't have anything like a perfect system, even if you have faith others don't & won't. It depends on individuals & we're all flawed with our own prejudices & judgements. As shown in this thread... innocent until proven guilty... doesn't look like everyone feels like that does it

Well, many people have always considered Russell Brand to be an unpleasant man and remember his bullying on air phone call to Andrew Sachs.

Those who admire him, seem to admire him because he is unpleasant and nasty - there is no accounting for taste -

I have consistently arged that he is innocent until proven guilty and that he will get a fair trial with the evidence fairly considered by a jury of 12 people, drawn randomly from the voting register, who will be instructed clearly by the judge. There may be differences within the jury room, but at the end of the day 12 people from different backgrounds with different prejudices will reach a conclusion.

Can you suggest a better way of getting a fair verdict?

Nana49

I think it's unlikely that he's really wanting to defend himself in court I'm sure RB would rather be doing something else. No-one would be grateful for that let's be real!

But secondly, good luck with sitting on multiple jurys you seem to be being picked for in a system that doesn't actually work by your own admission.

I haven't said it doesn't work. I actually think it works as well as it can while acknowledging there are weak spots but I can't think of a better system, maybe you can?
You seem to be saying that RB shouldn't have to face any charges in court. He has been talking to the media, declaring his innocence and saying all sexual encounters have been consensual. Are you thinking he was lying in the video he posted on X when he said he was grateful for the opportunity to defend himself? I'd think anyone who was being 'tried by media' would like the chance to defend themselves in open court.

Don’t take this the wrong way, as no-one could be more disgusted at the antics of that feeble apology for a man than I am! But ……when I first saw the details of what he had done, the first thought that came into my mind was that ‘the only way he could get a woman to have sex with him would be by force.’ (Obviously, that is not me condoning it!) He is so utterly revolting both in personality and looks. I, for one, would rather chop my hands off than be intimate with such a creature and I have no idea how he ‘got’ girlfriends.
I hope his punishment is as severe as is allowed! My late husband used to say that rapists like him should be stuck in a room with their female victims who’d be armed with carving knives! That would cool his ardour for sure! Yuk, yuk, yuk!

Well I don't know being that I'm not actually him. But I'd guess that he's possibly saying that to put a positive spin on the situation. I'm saying that no-one would really be looking forward to the opportunity to defend themselves in a court. Because any court case is definitely stressful & no I'm certain he's getting enough public support not to want or need to do that. The point is he's not got a choice he's probably going to have to go to court.

I'm not though saying it's a lie so you don't need to be putting words into my mouth thanks.

And I'm also not saying anything about whether he should or shouldn't be facing charges in court, only that he probably would rather not. That seems very obvious to me.