4 ms·

Your comment seems either mistaken or disingenuous to me: > Anonymous allegations The identity of the alleged victims is not public, but that is not the same

Your comment seems either mistaken or disingenuous to me: > Anonymous allegations The identity of the alleged victims is not public, but that is not the same thing as an anonymous allegation. The newspaper and television channel know the identities of the individuals, as does Brand. > from more than a decade ago Utterly irrelevant. > procured by a fishing reporter It's unclear what you mean by this. I can't find anything in any of the stories which suggests that the journalists simply began investigating him hoping to find a story or promulgate the misapprehension that he is a rapist. In fact, the Times' investigation seems to insinuate that the 16 year old Brand was dating when he was 31 approached his publisher seeking an apology before being rebuffed. That seems to me to be the most likely origin for the investigation. > should not lead to the cancellation of someone's means of supporting themselves Suspension without pay is extremely common whilst investigations of serious misconduct in or outside of the workplace are carried out, but even if that weren't the case: YouTube is not Brand's employer, he chooses to publish on their platform [presumably] knowing the terms of service, and is not beholden to YouTube as his only source of income. After he was "censored" by YouTube during COVID for espousing inane conspiratorial drivel, he began posting on a service called "Rumble", not to mention the royalties and residuals he still receives from his previous work and of course not forgetting his option to use one of his myriad other platforms (or indeed YouTube's, if it's within the ToS) to encourage his brainless fans to remunerate him directly or via other means. > This is absurd Even your straw man retelling of this situation is fairly benign-seeming. > this is tyrannical Lol. > Even the "testimony" they released was recorded by an actor. You could be forgiven for not knowing this if you get all of your news from Elon and Russell Brand, but it is absolutely the de facto standard in journalism to protect the identity of individuals with a mixture of actors and altered voices. If you watch the Channel 4 documentary you will note that at times they use the real people, with altered voices, and at times they use actors. None of this undermines the credibility of the reporting or the accusations, and -- again -- the identities of the individuals in the reporting are known to both the journalists and Brand, and the police know the identity of the _further_ individual who came forward in light of the allegations to make _another_ accusation.

TryIntegrity972 3y ago
[dead]
qup 3y ago
>> from more than a decade ago >Utterly irrelevant. I disagree. It's relevant to me. It's not absolution, but it's relevant.
- georgespencer 3y ago
  It's conceivably relevant to you, but when weighing the credibility of a claim and/or an accuser, it is irrelevant -- except as a means of assessing that the person who believes it to be relevant is uninformed. Here's why in general terms: NSVRC estimates that 63% of all sexual assaults are not reported to the police. You likely know the reasons for this, but just in case: fear of not being believed, low prosecution/conviction rates, frequently insurmountable burden of proof given the specific nature of most rapes, the fear of an extended criminal trial, victims blaming themselves or in some cases (including one of Brand's accusers) not wanting to admit that they were raped (easier when many violent sexual assaults are not the cartoon example of a man in a balaclava in the park, but someone you know and had previously trusted). I presume that you accept that there are, in general, many women who are raped and simply do not come forward, and that the passing of time in such cases does not in any way diminish their claim? More specifically, in California, the law reflects this uneasy reality for victims: from 2017 onwards, there is no statute of limitations on rape accusations. It's not possible for the criminal standard of proof to be changed to account for the fact that, axiomatically, rapes are difficult to prove, therefore the state grants an unlimited amount of time to come forward, which gives prosecutors the benefit of being able to build the most robust case possible. Proving criminal actions beyond reasonable doubt literally means that the court/jurors find the evidence so compelling that no reasonable person could conclude anything other than guilt. And in a similar fashion, California's penal code seems designed to say that no reasonable person could find a decade passing between a rape and the victim coming forward as relevant to the credibility of the claims. It's simply settled at this point: coming forward about a rape is a brutally unfair, hard, and thankless task. That's why the vast majority of victims do not come forward. That's why it's important that we understand what it means to "believe women": it doesn't mean that we abandon legal principles and convict men at the whim of their accusers, it means that we collectively create an environment in which the victims of serious, life-deranging, deeply personal, embarrassing, hard-to-prosecute crimes are not given yet another reason to do nothing by people who don't seem to understand that there are vastly fewer false accusations of rape than there are unreported ones. It needs to work the other way around.

TryIntegrity972 3y ago

[dead]

qup 3y ago

>> from more than a decade ago >Utterly irrelevant. I disagree. It's relevant to me. It's not absolution, but it's relevant.

georgespencer 3y ago
It's conceivably relevant to you, but when weighing the credibility of a claim and/or an accuser, it is irrelevant -- except as a means of assessing that the person who believes it to be relevant is uninformed. Here's why in general terms: NSVRC estimates that 63% of all sexual assaults are not reported to the police. You likely know the reasons for this, but just in case: fear of not being believed, low prosecution/conviction rates, frequently insurmountable burden of proof given the specific nature of most rapes, the fear of an extended criminal trial, victims blaming themselves or in some cases (including one of Brand's accusers) not wanting to admit that they were raped (easier when many violent sexual assaults are not the cartoon example of a man in a balaclava in the park, but someone you know and had previously trusted). I presume that you accept that there are, in general, many women who are raped and simply do not come forward, and that the passing of time in such cases does not in any way diminish their claim? More specifically, in California, the law reflects this uneasy reality for victims: from 2017 onwards, there is no statute of limitations on rape accusations. It's not possible for the criminal standard of proof to be changed to account for the fact that, axiomatically, rapes are difficult to prove, therefore the state grants an unlimited amount of time to come forward, which gives prosecutors the benefit of being able to build the most robust case possible. Proving criminal actions beyond reasonable doubt literally means that the court/jurors find the evidence so compelling that no reasonable person could conclude anything other than guilt. And in a similar fashion, California's penal code seems designed to say that no reasonable person could find a decade passing between a rape and the victim coming forward as relevant to the credibility of the claims. It's simply settled at this point: coming forward about a rape is a brutally unfair, hard, and thankless task. That's why the vast majority of victims do not come forward. That's why it's important that we understand what it means to "believe women": it doesn't mean that we abandon legal principles and convict men at the whim of their accusers, it means that we collectively create an environment in which the victims of serious, life-deranging, deeply personal, embarrassing, hard-to-prosecute crimes are not given yet another reason to do nothing by people who don't seem to understand that there are vastly fewer false accusations of rape than there are unreported ones. It needs to work the other way around.