Here’s the long and short of it, I guess: if the Crown Prosecution Service is going to declare Russell Brand a confirmed serial rapist — a depraved sexual predator of monumental proportions — and moreover, if the British media is just going to uniformly echo these charges with barely disguised delight, one would THINK (would one not?) that the factual predicate for such reputation-obliterating, permanent-society-outcasting, long-term-liberty-depriving censure would be 100% absolutely rock-solid.
The rape conviction is a disgrace, and I can't help but ask the obvious question: who's next? Is it time to parade in octogenarians and put Mick Jagger and Rod Stewart in the dock for shit that happened on tour in 1971? Seventeen years is a hell of a gap when the verdict turns on exactly what happened in a room. Memories lose detail. Records disappear. Then the shortcuts take over: a vivid account feels accurate, a confident witness sounds certain, and a bad reputation starts doing work the evidence ought to do. A witness can be entirely sincere and still remember a decisive detail wrong. Calling Brand a “serial rapist” after the jury acquitted him on two of three rape counts goes beyond the verdict. The headlines don’t get to retry the acquittals.
If you were to publish a complainant's name, access to your substack and any other social media mention in the UK would be barred. It might have consequences for the providers so they might take it out on you. However, re the rape, I understand the complainant was worried about HIV from non-condom sex and said she'd had a test. I don't know if 'medical records' were produced about this but she sent him a text which appeared to still exist. One wonders however, how she was not bothered by the risk of HIV when she willingly put her tongue up his anus having just met him 'the oral sex'. Maybe she didn't think it was transmissible by such but it's a point in question. Descriptions of ladies being buggered, consensually or not, tends to have a repellent effect on juries in the UK though I would have thought consensual anal licking might have a similar effect, given you've only just met. A lot of evidence in these cases is alleged psych 'effects' - the hidden menace of 'trauma' over the years creating a great future behind you that you can later trace to just that event that might make you a whole load of compo cash just to make up for it. And you'll be lauded as an anon heroine, If there's a sexual attacker or rapist afoot, a prompt police report is the right thing to do, whether believed or not, not your responsibility, you've done the right thing in the public interest to protect others. Lifts the threat of lifelong trauma. And prompt reports can be investigated rather than regurgitated and 'believed' on the say so decades later. Anyway, licentious fool that Brand was, it doesn't necessarily make him a rapist. But thank you for raising awareness of the UK courts on this matter which convict the innocent, as well as the guilty, day by day without any publicity or alarm. Not that this will change anything; rather we seem to be heading for worse, where complainants' 'feelings' are so paramount the possibility of any defence recedes into infinity. Same happened in the French revolution reign of terror 'reason' was trumped by 'feelings' so defence was scrapped.
Went to the dog park with my pup the other day. Arrived to a bit of commotion; lots of folk reining in crazy mutts & associated chatter.
From the corner of my eye, I noticed a African looking dude hanging out near some distant trees. I assumed he was with dog walking folk.
Minutes passed, everyone cleared out, bar me & pup. Said man approached. As he got nearer, I noticed he was dishevelled. Life clearly wasn't being kind to him. Xanthous teeth, grinned at my dog. “Du kan klappa min hund”, I offered. He readily took up the free dog love (who wouldn't?) After someenthusiastic dog petting, he kissed my hand. Nothing nefarious, just a lonely bloke, with bad Swedish looking to connect. Then, as I withdrew my hand, he grabbed my wrist forcefully pulling me towards him.
Now I'm not easily cowered. I can throw a fine punch. But for just a second, my heart skipped. I loudly said “sluta”. He backed away, no problemo.
My point is. There I was, decently dressed in snugg layers with my beautiful pup. And this man, who's probably homeless, addicted, or God knows what, just doesn't know how to relate.
And this is the kinda thing that gets histrionically reported as some kind sex crime. Next thing you know someone who's already got a whole heap of bad things on their plate, gets served up a whole heap more. It's just drama maxing.
And if you were assaulted? You would have forgiven your attacker? b/c “circumstances “? Also this anecdote is irrelevant. Consensual sex is never rape. But immigration invader behaviour through force is
I really hope you find and publish those names. And then do another "To which I replied with a citation of the First Amendment, which may not exist in the United Kingdom, but thankfully still does exist in the United States." victory lap!!!
Well, Michael, you're right: I can't subject myself to the video, but the article was good enough. Thanks! Just more Bad News as we hurtle into our Authoritarian future.
I do like to read Michael Tracey being righteously indignant about the various absurdities in the world.
A better writer than a speaker though. Hearing him speak can be a little annoying sometimes because he keeps going on tangents about various absurd aspects of an absurd situation.
You wrote: "Not only are members of the press subject to criminal punishment should they dare to disclose the identity of an individual who was formally adjudicated to not have been victimized..."
You might be a moral reprobate but you're not stupid. Failing to return a guilty verdict on an accusation by a person does not formally adjudicate that person not to have been victimized, as you well know. It merely says the evidence presented was not sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict. Many people are accused of crimes, sent to a jury and not convicted. That doesn't prove the victim not to have been victimized.
There was a high profile case in Nashville a few years ago where two gang members in a stolen car drove up alongside a nurse on her way to work and fired a half dozen bullets in to her chest. A coworker of mine was on the jury. Prosecution argued for murder 1, defense admitted the killing but sought murder 2. They wound up getting murder 2. That was hardly an adjudication that the deceased nurse wasn't a victim. As this juror recounted to me, they just didn't present evidence sufficient to convict on that one.
Also your practice of going around doxxing these women is morally reprehensible. You know better, or should know better. I can't imagine what happened to you that you believe this is now acceptable.
Firstly, yes, the way the case was constructed is strange. It seems likely that there was some kind of political motivation for it, at least in part. However, the content of the trial seems neutral and serious, not political. The circumstances are certainly interesting, sure. What does it matter for the case itself though? Is the concern here that the process was corrupted by the political motivations? I do share that concern, but with the trial being so secretive, how is it reasonable to claim that's what happened? The secrecy itself is also a problem, I suppose, but insofar as we can trust the state's processes, what is so bad about the actual trial?
Secondly, the article calls the 2009 rape verdict ludicrous. Unfortunately, we are once again delving into gory details here, sigh, but so be it. I don't understand the argument. Let's say the complainant's version is correct, insofar as we even know about it. The first part was consensual. Sure, fine. Then came the anal part. It is reasonable enough that Russell initiated a new type of sex act without asking. It happens. It's a weird legalistic fantasy that every decision needs explicit questioning over consent, that's just not how real humans operate. Fair enough. Then she said stop, and he did not stop. How is that not rape? If that is not rape, then where is the line? I can even easily accept the article's alternative resolution proposals, that's great, but why is it ludicrous to call this rape? We don't have the evidence that the jury was given. The jury could be composed of fools, of course, but how can we claim to know better than them if we don't have the evidence?
Because sex crimes have become a convenient vehicle for the state to weild their ferocious power. And because very few people ask if accusations meet the standard of proof required for conviction of other types of crime.
Do you seriously think there's not enough rapes, accompanied by actual evidence of violence to keep the courts busy for the the next 10 years? They could pump these prosections out, no worries. But they don't why? In other words, in part, this is about prosecutorial discretion. Or as the legal folk say “ appetite for prosection”.
They SHOULD pump out the prosecutions!! Women should be safe in our own bodies. The fact that men protected each other for centuries needs to be corrected and if a few idiots get caught up in the overcorrection, that’s because men refused to take the needed responsibility for centuries.
The rape conviction is a disgrace, and I can't help but ask the obvious question: who's next? Is it time to parade in octogenarians and put Mick Jagger and Rod Stewart in the dock for shit that happened on tour in 1971? Seventeen years is a hell of a gap when the verdict turns on exactly what happened in a room. Memories lose detail. Records disappear. Then the shortcuts take over: a vivid account feels accurate, a confident witness sounds certain, and a bad reputation starts doing work the evidence ought to do. A witness can be entirely sincere and still remember a decisive detail wrong. Calling Brand a “serial rapist” after the jury acquitted him on two of three rape counts goes beyond the verdict. The headlines don’t get to retry the acquittals.
We SHOULD have locked all of them up 50 years ago.
Rock and Roll will never die… except in prison.
If you were to publish a complainant's name, access to your substack and any other social media mention in the UK would be barred. It might have consequences for the providers so they might take it out on you. However, re the rape, I understand the complainant was worried about HIV from non-condom sex and said she'd had a test. I don't know if 'medical records' were produced about this but she sent him a text which appeared to still exist. One wonders however, how she was not bothered by the risk of HIV when she willingly put her tongue up his anus having just met him 'the oral sex'. Maybe she didn't think it was transmissible by such but it's a point in question. Descriptions of ladies being buggered, consensually or not, tends to have a repellent effect on juries in the UK though I would have thought consensual anal licking might have a similar effect, given you've only just met. A lot of evidence in these cases is alleged psych 'effects' - the hidden menace of 'trauma' over the years creating a great future behind you that you can later trace to just that event that might make you a whole load of compo cash just to make up for it. And you'll be lauded as an anon heroine, If there's a sexual attacker or rapist afoot, a prompt police report is the right thing to do, whether believed or not, not your responsibility, you've done the right thing in the public interest to protect others. Lifts the threat of lifelong trauma. And prompt reports can be investigated rather than regurgitated and 'believed' on the say so decades later. Anyway, licentious fool that Brand was, it doesn't necessarily make him a rapist. But thank you for raising awareness of the UK courts on this matter which convict the innocent, as well as the guilty, day by day without any publicity or alarm. Not that this will change anything; rather we seem to be heading for worse, where complainants' 'feelings' are so paramount the possibility of any defence recedes into infinity. Same happened in the French revolution reign of terror 'reason' was trumped by 'feelings' so defence was scrapped.
All Brand has to do to make this go away is convert to Islam and claim Pakistani descent in his blood. 🤷♂️🤷♂️
Went to the dog park with my pup the other day. Arrived to a bit of commotion; lots of folk reining in crazy mutts & associated chatter.
From the corner of my eye, I noticed a African looking dude hanging out near some distant trees. I assumed he was with dog walking folk.
Minutes passed, everyone cleared out, bar me & pup. Said man approached. As he got nearer, I noticed he was dishevelled. Life clearly wasn't being kind to him. Xanthous teeth, grinned at my dog. “Du kan klappa min hund”, I offered. He readily took up the free dog love (who wouldn't?) After someenthusiastic dog petting, he kissed my hand. Nothing nefarious, just a lonely bloke, with bad Swedish looking to connect. Then, as I withdrew my hand, he grabbed my wrist forcefully pulling me towards him.
Now I'm not easily cowered. I can throw a fine punch. But for just a second, my heart skipped. I loudly said “sluta”. He backed away, no problemo.
My point is. There I was, decently dressed in snugg layers with my beautiful pup. And this man, who's probably homeless, addicted, or God knows what, just doesn't know how to relate.
And this is the kinda thing that gets histrionically reported as some kind sex crime. Next thing you know someone who's already got a whole heap of bad things on their plate, gets served up a whole heap more. It's just drama maxing.
And if you were assaulted? You would have forgiven your attacker? b/c “circumstances “? Also this anecdote is irrelevant. Consensual sex is never rape. But immigration invader behaviour through force is
You are a one of a kind wordsmith!! Please write a book.
I really hope you find and publish those names. And then do another "To which I replied with a citation of the First Amendment, which may not exist in the United Kingdom, but thankfully still does exist in the United States." victory lap!!!
Well, Michael, you're right: I can't subject myself to the video, but the article was good enough. Thanks! Just more Bad News as we hurtle into our Authoritarian future.
I do like to read Michael Tracey being righteously indignant about the various absurdities in the world.
A better writer than a speaker though. Hearing him speak can be a little annoying sometimes because he keeps going on tangents about various absurd aspects of an absurd situation.
To fair, it'd be hard not to go on tangents. It's become such a complex issue both politically, socially & legally
You wrote: "Not only are members of the press subject to criminal punishment should they dare to disclose the identity of an individual who was formally adjudicated to not have been victimized..."
You might be a moral reprobate but you're not stupid. Failing to return a guilty verdict on an accusation by a person does not formally adjudicate that person not to have been victimized, as you well know. It merely says the evidence presented was not sufficient to obtain a guilty verdict. Many people are accused of crimes, sent to a jury and not convicted. That doesn't prove the victim not to have been victimized.
There was a high profile case in Nashville a few years ago where two gang members in a stolen car drove up alongside a nurse on her way to work and fired a half dozen bullets in to her chest. A coworker of mine was on the jury. Prosecution argued for murder 1, defense admitted the killing but sought murder 2. They wound up getting murder 2. That was hardly an adjudication that the deceased nurse wasn't a victim. As this juror recounted to me, they just didn't present evidence sufficient to convict on that one.
Also your practice of going around doxxing these women is morally reprehensible. You know better, or should know better. I can't imagine what happened to you that you believe this is now acceptable.
Don’t ever go to the UK; remember Assange locked up for supposed sexual crimes that were really about politics. They know no limits.
I have two questions about this.
Firstly, yes, the way the case was constructed is strange. It seems likely that there was some kind of political motivation for it, at least in part. However, the content of the trial seems neutral and serious, not political. The circumstances are certainly interesting, sure. What does it matter for the case itself though? Is the concern here that the process was corrupted by the political motivations? I do share that concern, but with the trial being so secretive, how is it reasonable to claim that's what happened? The secrecy itself is also a problem, I suppose, but insofar as we can trust the state's processes, what is so bad about the actual trial?
Secondly, the article calls the 2009 rape verdict ludicrous. Unfortunately, we are once again delving into gory details here, sigh, but so be it. I don't understand the argument. Let's say the complainant's version is correct, insofar as we even know about it. The first part was consensual. Sure, fine. Then came the anal part. It is reasonable enough that Russell initiated a new type of sex act without asking. It happens. It's a weird legalistic fantasy that every decision needs explicit questioning over consent, that's just not how real humans operate. Fair enough. Then she said stop, and he did not stop. How is that not rape? If that is not rape, then where is the line? I can even easily accept the article's alternative resolution proposals, that's great, but why is it ludicrous to call this rape? We don't have the evidence that the jury was given. The jury could be composed of fools, of course, but how can we claim to know better than them if we don't have the evidence?
The rape verdict is stupid but so is Brand’s behavior. Fucking in his dressing room with a groupy?
Anyway I don’t have £30,000 to contribute but I would gladly chip in a 100 bucks. Now you just need 299 more contributors.
She may as well have said “ I thought he was going to be Mr Darcy but he turned out to be Wickham “
You think violence and sexual assault will be made right by locking men up with other violent/ misogynistic men? How?
Complainant #1 invited Brand to *her* hotel room in Bournemouth as a woman in her twenties.
Why have you decided to become the tribune of rapists? Please explain why defending rapista nd sex traffickers is so important to you?
Because sex crimes have become a convenient vehicle for the state to weild their ferocious power. And because very few people ask if accusations meet the standard of proof required for conviction of other types of crime.
Do you seriously think there's not enough rapes, accompanied by actual evidence of violence to keep the courts busy for the the next 10 years? They could pump these prosections out, no worries. But they don't why? In other words, in part, this is about prosecutorial discretion. Or as the legal folk say “ appetite for prosection”.
They SHOULD pump out the prosecutions!! Women should be safe in our own bodies. The fact that men protected each other for centuries needs to be corrected and if a few idiots get caught up in the overcorrection, that’s because men refused to take the needed responsibility for centuries.
Women!
*laughs*
Women.