| Russell Brand is guilty 15:54 - Nov 5 with 26456 views | E17hoop |
Good, I hope he really suffers in clinky wink. |  |
| |  |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 10:04 - Nov 13 with 0 views | nix |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 08:31 - Nov 13 by KensalT |
I don't think Walliams has been judged by the media.
But he has been tried by the media, and they've left it to the Great British public to do the judging.
The court of public opinion can be brutal.
Some might think that sort of treatment is unfair. An earlier poster mentioned the media being present to cover the police raid on Cliff Richard, who has never been charged with anything and subsequently received £210k in damages from the BBC plus a further £2m towards his legal costs:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ent
On the other hand, grown men who mess around with 15 year-old girls are playing a dangerous game and can expect to be judged harshly.
FWIW - There might not (yet) be any clear evidence that Walliams has committed a criminal offence and he has certainly denied doing anything criminal.
What Walliams hasn't denied is knowing these young girls and forming intimate relationships with them.
So perhaps he deserves what he gets! |
My son’s 22 and he wouldn’t go out with an 18 year old. It isn’t just the age gap it’s the different stage of life and the power imbalance. A 27 year old going out with a 22 year old is completely different- same life stage.
I do remember when I was 20 and clubbing 40 year olds hanging round us. They might as well have been 80 as far as I was concerned. A guy in his 30s hanging round with 15 year olds unless he’s their teacher and it’s in a group in a school setting is all kinds of wrong. The fact that he went on and had sex with her when she was 17 says it all. |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 10:27 - Nov 13 with 0 views | Landshark |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 09:48 - Nov 13 by wombat |
saw one intresting fact the other day, esp as grooming seems to be a popular subject at the moment .
Elvis met priscilla when she was 14 years old , so would he put into he groomed her squad ? he was in the army at the time . |
I'm not sure why musicians of a certain age get a free pass.
Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Mick Jagger all apparently had relationships with children under 16 yet ended up having very full careers. |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 10:47 - Nov 13 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 10:27 - Nov 13 by Landshark |
I'm not sure why musicians of a certain age get a free pass.
Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Mick Jagger all apparently had relationships with children under 16 yet ended up having very full careers. |
They make mountains of money for very powerful people who work very hard to protect them. |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 11:19 - Nov 13 with 0 views | wombat |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 10:47 - Nov 13 by KensalT |
They make mountains of money for very powerful people who work very hard to protect them. |
you could say that to anyone on tv/ film though they are a product , they find a niche and exploit it to make money for themselves and who employ them ,
same as a footballer , asseble a good team they challenge for a trophy or title ,fans spend money clubs earn money through tv sponsership etc bigger gates
everyone in the entertainment industry is a product to make money |  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 11:59 - Nov 13 with 0 views | CamberleyR |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 10:03 - Nov 13 by KensalT |
That would depend upon the age of consent in the State where he met her, and maybe also how old he was at the time.
In some States the age of consent is (or has in the past) been as low as 14.
But as Antti says it is still worrying.
As an aside, Charlie Chaplin was known throughout his life for liking young girls and being a bit reckless with the age of consent but what did for him in America was his Communist views. But he never faced criminal charges and towards the end of his life he was welcomed back to Hollywood and presented with an Oscar for lifetime achievement. Go figure. |
He met her out in Germany. Priscilla's step father was a US Air Force officer also serving out there at the time. [Post edited 13 Nov 12:03]
|  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:13 - Nov 13 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 11:59 - Nov 13 by CamberleyR |
He met her out in Germany. Priscilla's step father was a US Air Force officer also serving out there at the time. [Post edited 13 Nov 12:03]
|
Fair enough.
I've no idea how German law might have treated that.
If they were living on a US Air Force base then it might have come under American jurisdiction. And again I don't know how that matter would have been treated. If the step father was regarded as her legal guardian it might just come down to whether or not he or her mother gave consent.
Military discipline can be severe but wherever possible they like to keep their dirty laundry inhouse. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:22 - Nov 13 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 11:19 - Nov 13 by wombat |
you could say that to anyone on tv/ film though they are a product , they find a niche and exploit it to make money for themselves and who employ them ,
same as a footballer , asseble a good team they challenge for a trophy or title ,fans spend money clubs earn money through tv sponsership etc bigger gates
everyone in the entertainment industry is a product to make money |
Exactly.
It's the way of the world. And I'm not condoning it.
Once someone in the entertainment, media, or sports world becomes a big enough name they stop being treated like an employee and become an asset to be protected.
The bigger the name the more protection they get. Which might explain why so many of these wrong 'uns get away with it for decades. Anyone tempted to speak out is discouraged or leant on.
I still haven't seen the full Lucy Beaumont interview but I have seen clips and she does say she is worried about her career prospects now that she has spoken out.
In truth lots of industries work that way. Especially in the professional world with tight networks. Once you get a reputation for being 'unreliable' the best jobs suddenly become out of reach. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:25 - Nov 13 with 0 views | CamberleyR |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:13 - Nov 13 by KensalT |
Fair enough.
I've no idea how German law might have treated that.
If they were living on a US Air Force base then it might have come under American jurisdiction. And again I don't know how that matter would have been treated. If the step father was regarded as her legal guardian it might just come down to whether or not he or her mother gave consent.
Military discipline can be severe but wherever possible they like to keep their dirty laundry inhouse. |
He was her legal guardian. Her natural father had died in a plane crash when she was a baby. Her mother re-married a few years later and Priscilla eventually took his name presumably as he adopted her. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:33 - Nov 13 with 0 views | CamberleyR |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 09:48 - Nov 13 by wombat |
saw one intresting fact the other day, esp as grooming seems to be a popular subject at the moment .
Elvis met priscilla when she was 14 years old , so would he put into he groomed her squad ? he was in the army at the time . |
The DJ Ed Stewart was another one who met his future wife when she was a child (13). He was 16 years older and working for her father (Jimmy Henney) who worked in the entertainment/music business. They married four years later and were married for 30 years.
https://www.genxculture.com/ta [Post edited 13 Nov 12:44]
| |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:49 - Nov 13 with 0 views | TwoHalves |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 09:47 - Nov 13 by E17hoop |
We need investigative reporting more than ever, but that doesn't mean one man with a YiuTube channel. Proper journalism requires detailed search, attribution, cross checking evidence, confirming sourcing, and 100 other things. T
he journalists at the Times should be applauded for their work and interesting that, as suggested earlier, publicising crimes that women feel ashamed to be victims of gives them agency. A further 6 women have come forward with reports of his behaviour which can only be a good outcome. |
As you say, proper investigative journalism is incredibly labour intensive and therefore can’t be provided on the cheap, which is why I think it’s important for individuals to support the institutions that provide it via subscriptions or donations (more important than ever, these days, when everyone seems to want something for nothing).
Off the top of my head I’m thinking of publications like Private Eye over here, online platforms like ProPublica and Mother Jones in the US or Rukshana Media, which gives Afghan women a much-needed voice. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:54 - Nov 13 with 0 views | ed_83 |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 08:31 - Nov 13 by KensalT |
I don't think Walliams has been judged by the media.
But he has been tried by the media, and they've left it to the Great British public to do the judging.
The court of public opinion can be brutal.
Some might think that sort of treatment is unfair. An earlier poster mentioned the media being present to cover the police raid on Cliff Richard, who has never been charged with anything and subsequently received £210k in damages from the BBC plus a further £2m towards his legal costs:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ent
On the other hand, grown men who mess around with 15 year-old girls are playing a dangerous game and can expect to be judged harshly.
FWIW - There might not (yet) be any clear evidence that Walliams has committed a criminal offence and he has certainly denied doing anything criminal.
What Walliams hasn't denied is knowing these young girls and forming intimate relationships with them.
So perhaps he deserves what he gets! |
These are completely different situations, though, as you allude to.
Cliff was the subject of an anonymous complaint to the police, who then leaked that fact to the press. It was a massive, obvious abuse of process. and appears now to have been completely unsubstantiated.
Walliams and Brand were the subject of multiple allegations from many different women and girls, verified by journalists and editors before publication. They weren't (at the time, in Brand's case) under police investigation.
The whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to apply to how you're treated *by the state*, not by society as a whole. It protects you against unjust prosecution, imprisonment or police harassment, it's not supposed to stop other people (including the media) talking about things that make you look bad.
That's why Cliff's situation was (with hindsight) such a travesty, and why Walliams and Brand, as uncomfortable as it might be for them personally, deserve having their actions brought to public attention. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:01 - Nov 13 with 0 views | DavieQPR |
There are 112 Super Injunctions put in place over the last 10 years for sex offences. To protect their right to s family life. Seems wrong when the offenders have more rights than the offended. |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:02 - Nov 13 with 0 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
It's worth watching The Times on YouTube and Giles Coran discussing Brand and Walliams.
He makes a good point, while not defending their actions, that had neither of them been famous and been indulged by the entertainment industry its highly unlikely they would have committed those offences. He talks about the shyte that was on TV in the early 2000s, Big Brother, Naked Attraction etc and how that seedy TV was driven by the hangover of the 'Lads' culture of 1990s. This then created the environment for those like Brand etc to commit their crimes unchallenged.
It did get me thinking as someone who is the same age as Brand, that in 2004 onwards when he was committing his crimes and acting like an arrogant tw×t, I had a mortgage and a kid. He never grew up. | |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:10 - Nov 13 with 0 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 10:27 - Nov 13 by Landshark |
I'm not sure why musicians of a certain age get a free pass.
Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Mick Jagger all apparently had relationships with children under 16 yet ended up having very full careers. |
Rock stars are still quite cool and high status even when old and ugly. I doubt many women looked at David Bowie when he was old and thought "ew....I can't believe I let him do that to me years ago" and made a complaint.
TV presenters, DJs and comedians past their sell by date are another story. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:18 - Nov 13 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:54 - Nov 13 by ed_83 |
These are completely different situations, though, as you allude to.
Cliff was the subject of an anonymous complaint to the police, who then leaked that fact to the press. It was a massive, obvious abuse of process. and appears now to have been completely unsubstantiated.
Walliams and Brand were the subject of multiple allegations from many different women and girls, verified by journalists and editors before publication. They weren't (at the time, in Brand's case) under police investigation.
The whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to apply to how you're treated *by the state*, not by society as a whole. It protects you against unjust prosecution, imprisonment or police harassment, it's not supposed to stop other people (including the media) talking about things that make you look bad.
That's why Cliff's situation was (with hindsight) such a travesty, and why Walliams and Brand, as uncomfortable as it might be for them personally, deserve having their actions brought to public attention. |
The Cliff situation is incredible.
Who in the Police thought it would be a good idea to tip off the media about one of their raids?
Utterly brainless. Particularly since they didn't have enough evidence to proceed with charging him and were probably hoping the raid would turn up something incriminating. You would think the security around that would be watertight.
I agree with everything you say except to add that there still hasn't been a complaint made against Walliams. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:35 - Nov 13 with 0 views | Bluce_Ree |
https://youtube.com/shorts/255
Stick with it, it's a video about bass but you'll see the point pretty quickly. [Post edited 13 Nov 13:38]
|  |
| Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. Stefan Moore, Stefan Moore running down the wing. He runs like a cheetah, his crosses couldn't be sweeter. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. Stefan Moore. |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:59 - Nov 13 with 0 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 13:10 - Nov 13 by Clive_Anderson |
Rock stars are still quite cool and high status even when old and ugly. I doubt many women looked at David Bowie when he was old and thought "ew....I can't believe I let him do that to me years ago" and made a complaint.
TV presenters, DJs and comedians past their sell by date are another story. |
I bet they thought about it when ever they heard the 'Laughing Gnome' being played! |  |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:55 - Nov 13 with 0 views | QPRcounsellor |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 11:59 - Nov 13 by CamberleyR |
He met her out in Germany. Priscilla's step father was a US Air Force officer also serving out there at the time. [Post edited 13 Nov 12:03]
|
Charlie Chaplin had Communist views but liked young girls? What a surprise. Another person who takes the perceived "socially just" side while having no personal morals whatsoever! | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 19:11 - Nov 13 with 0 views | DiggertheMole |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:13 - Nov 13 by KensalT |
Fair enough.
I've no idea how German law might have treated that.
If they were living on a US Air Force base then it might have come under American jurisdiction. And again I don't know how that matter would have been treated. If the step father was regarded as her legal guardian it might just come down to whether or not he or her mother gave consent.
Military discipline can be severe but wherever possible they like to keep their dirty laundry inhouse. |
I think the Jerry Lee Lewis situation where he married his under-age cousin says more about the peculiarities of different state's legal provisions than we have in the UK. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 19:24 - Nov 13 with 0 views | E17hoop |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 16:55 - Nov 13 by QPRcounsellor |
Charlie Chaplin had Communist views but liked young girls? What a surprise. Another person who takes the perceived "socially just" side while having no personal morals whatsoever! |
I could reply, "Jimmy Savile was close friends with Margaret Thatcher but abused children? What a surprise. Another person who takes the perceived 'conservative values' side while having no personal morals whatsoever!"
But I'm not going to, because it diminishes the experiences of victims of horrific abuse. The political leanings of the perpetrator have little or no bearing on the crimes they committed, and using those crimes to make a political point shifts attention away from the people who suffered and the harm done to them. | |
| |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 22:54 - Nov 13 with 0 views | Northernr |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 09:47 - Nov 13 by E17hoop |
We need investigative reporting more than ever, but that doesn't mean one man with a YiuTube channel. Proper journalism requires detailed search, attribution, cross checking evidence, confirming sourcing, and 100 other things. T
he journalists at the Times should be applauded for their work and interesting that, as suggested earlier, publicising crimes that women feel ashamed to be victims of gives them agency. A further 6 women have come forward with reports of his behaviour which can only be a good outcome. |
Worth adding on this, we live in the libel capital of certainly Europe if not the world.
People come here from abroad to sue for libel because we are so far weighted in favour of the person being written about rather than the person doing the writing. I worry about it on here constantly, and that's just over a silly football club.
Essentially, if you've got money, powerful relatives, Carter Ruck on your side, you can do what you like and it's incredibly difficult and punitively expensive for any newspaper or TV channel to expose it. This at a time when newspapers and broadcasters are seeing their business models and incomes collapse.
Hence you're seeing joint investigations between ITV/Times, Channel 4/Guardian to pool resource and finances. And you're also seeing cases like Brand, which were obvious and known about and spoken about openly in industry circles (there were a couple more names doing the rounds at Edinburgh this year), take decades to come to light and even then only in dribs and drabs and part of the story.
If you're reading about Walliams/Brand now then the evidence must be absolutely overwhelming just to get it into print, the truth about them is likely far worse, and there will be dozens more cases out there able to hide behind this sht.
The journalists are not the bad guys here.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:28 - Nov 14 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 22:54 - Nov 13 by Northernr |
Worth adding on this, we live in the libel capital of certainly Europe if not the world.
People come here from abroad to sue for libel because we are so far weighted in favour of the person being written about rather than the person doing the writing. I worry about it on here constantly, and that's just over a silly football club.
Essentially, if you've got money, powerful relatives, Carter Ruck on your side, you can do what you like and it's incredibly difficult and punitively expensive for any newspaper or TV channel to expose it. This at a time when newspapers and broadcasters are seeing their business models and incomes collapse.
Hence you're seeing joint investigations between ITV/Times, Channel 4/Guardian to pool resource and finances. And you're also seeing cases like Brand, which were obvious and known about and spoken about openly in industry circles (there were a couple more names doing the rounds at Edinburgh this year), take decades to come to light and even then only in dribs and drabs and part of the story.
If you're reading about Walliams/Brand now then the evidence must be absolutely overwhelming just to get it into print, the truth about them is likely far worse, and there will be dozens more cases out there able to hide behind this sht.
The journalists are not the bad guys here.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Aren't the joint investigations to some degree a consequence of the sharp downturn in newspaper sales and revenues over recent decades?
The Press Gazette has a rolling page of journalism redundancies this year and it's grim reading
https://pressgazette.co.uk/new
When Murdoch closed the News of the World in 2011 their circulation was 2.6 million.
Now the seven biggest titles combined just about get 2.6 million between them and the trend is downwards:
https://pressgazette.co.uk/med
Advertising revenue from their websites and social media will offset some of that but revenues across the board are falling, as reflected in the redundancy numbers.
Smaller revenues mean smaller reserves in case of libel payouts. And full insurance coverage for any such payouts is probably harder to get.
In 1987 The Sun paid Elton John £1m in libel damages and had to publish a full front page grovelling apology. A settlement like that now would probably be enough to finish one of the daily newspapers.
And the demographics aren't good for newspapers either. It's mostly the 65+ post war baby boomers who still read newspapers. If the print media can't reach new audiences the daily paper could be a thing of the past in another twenty years or so. | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:29 - Nov 14 with 0 views | Northernr |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:28 - Nov 14 by KensalT |
Aren't the joint investigations to some degree a consequence of the sharp downturn in newspaper sales and revenues over recent decades?
The Press Gazette has a rolling page of journalism redundancies this year and it's grim reading
https://pressgazette.co.uk/new
When Murdoch closed the News of the World in 2011 their circulation was 2.6 million.
Now the seven biggest titles combined just about get 2.6 million between them and the trend is downwards:
https://pressgazette.co.uk/med
Advertising revenue from their websites and social media will offset some of that but revenues across the board are falling, as reflected in the redundancy numbers.
Smaller revenues mean smaller reserves in case of libel payouts. And full insurance coverage for any such payouts is probably harder to get.
In 1987 The Sun paid Elton John £1m in libel damages and had to publish a full front page grovelling apology. A settlement like that now would probably be enough to finish one of the daily newspapers.
And the demographics aren't good for newspapers either. It's mostly the 65+ post war baby boomers who still read newspapers. If the print media can't reach new audiences the daily paper could be a thing of the past in another twenty years or so. |
"This at a time when newspapers and broadcasters are seeing their business models and incomes collapse." | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:48 - Nov 14 with 0 views | KensalT |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 12:29 - Nov 14 by Northernr |
"This at a time when newspapers and broadcasters are seeing their business models and incomes collapse." |
OK. My bad.
Went off on one without reading thoroughly the post I was responding to 
When's the football back on? | | | |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 15:48 - Nov 14 with 0 views | Beckenhamhoop |
| Russell Brand is guilty on 22:54 - Nov 13 by Northernr |
Worth adding on this, we live in the libel capital of certainly Europe if not the world.
People come here from abroad to sue for libel because we are so far weighted in favour of the person being written about rather than the person doing the writing. I worry about it on here constantly, and that's just over a silly football club.
Essentially, if you've got money, powerful relatives, Carter Ruck on your side, you can do what you like and it's incredibly difficult and punitively expensive for any newspaper or TV channel to expose it. This at a time when newspapers and broadcasters are seeing their business models and incomes collapse.
Hence you're seeing joint investigations between ITV/Times, Channel 4/Guardian to pool resource and finances. And you're also seeing cases like Brand, which were obvious and known about and spoken about openly in industry circles (there were a couple more names doing the rounds at Edinburgh this year), take decades to come to light and even then only in dribs and drabs and part of the story.
If you're reading about Walliams/Brand now then the evidence must be absolutely overwhelming just to get it into print, the truth about them is likely far worse, and there will be dozens more cases out there able to hide behind this sht.
The journalists are not the bad guys here.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Journalists should not get a free run at it though. They’ve abused their positions in the past with the phone hacking scandal, the fake Sheikh, entrapment of young stars for newspaper headlines and, as I’ve mentioned several times on this thread, the reporting of cases around Operation Midland and other high profile investigations that turned out to be complete nonsense. Peoples livelihoods and reputations forever damaged as a result. Some people died before being exonerated.
Your post also highlights an inherent risk for journalism; the need for a story to increase circulation. As you say, it’s a money making enterprise and you’ll pay for a good story which may affect the honesty or credibility of an informant or the honesty or integrity of a journalist for that matter.
As with all things in life, their is a balance to be struck. My point, throughout this thread, has been that matters of this type should sit with the Police, not journalists and the media. That way you wouldn’t be in any danger of being sued for libel. Win, win. [Post edited 14 Nov 15:56]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
