Innocent until proven guilty? Michael Tullberg/Getty Images
Should the presumption of innocence apply to Russell Brand in the court of public opinion, as it should in a court of law? It is a question that has sharply divided social media this past week, and both sides have a point. To say, as one prominent commentator did, that “the state” has to presume your innocence, whereas the “average person” does not, is simplifying things a bit. After all, the police will in practice often have to presume guilt if they hope to assemble enough evidence to charge a person.
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is a specific legal doctrine which seeks to limit the potential dangers arising from prosecution by the state. It is the most important decision-making rule in the criminal procedure.
Yet the precise implications of the rule, and the effects that it ought to have, are disputed by lawyers and legal academics. Many, for instance, think that a practice such as the use of the dock in British courts violates the presumption, as it risks prejudicing a defendant in front of a jury. Others disagree. But few would dispute that the core of the idea is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Today, English judges are advised to tell a jury that they must be “sure” of a defendant’s guilt before convicting.
The reason for the rule is commonly thought to be to protect the individual citizen from the power of the state, and the presumption does indeed have this effect. Nobody will have their property or liberty taken from them by the Crown’s judicial servants, unless the prosecutor, an agent of the Crown Prosecution Service, is able to make a jury or magistrate “sure” that the person violated the criminal law. This emphasis on liberty, however, obscures another side to this heavy burden of proof.
When a jury declares itself sure that the law was broken, it also implicitly declares its belief that the state’s immense penal power is being used in the public interest, and not being abused in pursuit of private or factional interests, for personal revenge or political advantage. In other words, the presumption of innocence protects the integrity and the authority of the state as a truly public institution. It reassures us, the Crown’s subjects, that the Crown’s agents are what they claim to be: the representatives of the supposed common interests protected by the criminal law, even if they sometimes get it wrong. That the presumption is a guarantee of the state’s authority is the underlying reason why it is so important in modern nations, and why even obviously repressive or corrupt regimes will often pretend to uphold it.
So, those who claim the presumption of innocence does not apply to public debate about Brand’s guilt are partly correct. The presumption is a core rule of public law which serves critical and specific political functions, and perhaps its name should be honoured by reserving it for legal proceedings. The weakness of their argument, however, is that the same considerations that lead the state to maintain the legal rule should lead ordinary citizens to be very cautious about public statements concerning the guilt of a person accused of wrongdoing.
When people who do not have direct evidence concerning Brand’s alleged offences make arguments that assume his guilt, the rest of us know that, since they neither witnessed anything nor heard all the evidence tested in court, they cannot possibly know for “sure” one way or the other. As a result, they reveal themselves as people who share the qualities of a state that does not maintain the presumption of innocence in its legal procedures.
” those who imply guilt without sufficient knowledge… are willing to defame another person on mere suspicion that the accused might have broken the law.”
“Consider how YouTube has already decided to stop Brand making any money from his channel, though none of the accusations is proved.”
Here is the question I have raised many times in the Unherd comments section, and also on another site where I’m a subscriber: what legal recourse is available to people who are publicly persecuted on social media, or elsewhere, to the point they lose job, livelihood, and/or reputation?
I am thinking specifically of remedies under US and UK law. I recognize that the law differs between those countries, although they share the common law tradition. I also recognize that, even in the US, the law differs between states and state law differs from federal law.
But surely there are core defenses to these types of reputational attacks: recourse might lie in employment law where a person is unjustly dismissed. The law of defamation might apply to reputational harm. In the US, the tort referred to as intentional interference with contractual relations might apply to loss of livelihood. Then there are possible constitutional protections of free speech, and even civil rights protection if the attack is arguably based, for example, on race. I’m sure there are many other possible lines of defense.
I see very few examples of “cancelled” people successfully suing institutions, and no examples of people successfully identifying and suing accusers who hide behind anonymous email accounts.
Until individuals and institutions pay a hefty financial penalty for attacking the reputation and livelihoods of targeted people, this type of behavior will not stop.
Does anyone know of an academic article (or even a book) that analyzes the types of legal defenses used by “cancelled” people, and the success of each type of defense? Are there lawyers out there specializing in defending people subject to reputational or financial cancellation? I wonder if Unherd would consider interviewing such a lawyer.
The corollary of your argument though, might be an even greater curtailment of free speech if individuals were successfully able to prosecute those who speak out against media personalities without contravening existing laws on defamation.
Any number of people or institutions commenting to the effect: “i don’t like what you’re doing, it may be causing harm and you should consider that in your actions” does not – and never should – constitute grounds for prosecution, as it may well do so in authoritarian regimes.
I think this misses the point. The only legal defence against defamation is the law against slander and libel. This defence is only available to the very rich, and to nobody at all if the attacks come from anonymous social media accounts.
No, that’s rather missing the point. I refer to the right to criticise the behaviour of someone without it being taken as a criminal allegation, even where there may be criminality involved. That’s for the due process of law to decide, not you or I. The learned professor and the comment i replied to are based on the assumption that the critique we’re witnessing of Brand is necessarily proclaiming his guilt under criminal.law, when (in most cases) it’s not.
Somehow, I find this discussion confusing. It’s because the topic of those who feed on notoriety might include (apart from the accused themselves) people in various categories and with various motives: the credentialed lawyers and judges; the moral or ideological gatekeepers, the journalists and political pundits, the pop-psychologists, the malicious or prurient onlookers, the bored twitterati, the vigilantes and so on. I find it hard to keep track of precisely who, in this rambling discussion, is referring to precisely which group.
Of greatest concern to me, at any rate, are the vigilantes. The latter no longer run around in hysterical mobs with torches and pitchforks. In one way or another, though, they bypass the law and defy even the ideal of due process. In other words, they undermine the fragile order on which society depends. Clarence Thomas called his hearing as a nominee for the Supreme Court a “high-tech lynching.” And the same phenomenon, though known throughout history, has been occurring more and more frequently, often in the emotionally charged contexts of moral panics.
Clarence Thomas was a whole different matter. He was having a job interview and had to prove he wasn’t flawed. He pulled the race card and got the job despite being flawed as his subsequent behavior had proven.
I disagree, Clare. It was not “a whole different matter.” My comment was not about whether Thomas was innocent or guilty of an allegation but about the vigilantes who used it to disqualify him. Why did they do that? It’s probably true that they disapproved of his conservative point of view, not his race or even his personal decorum. But his analogy to a “high-tech lynching” holds, because they relied on the manipulation of public opinion (he said, she said), not on hard evidence.
As for his “flaws,” you must mean that you don’t like his legal opinions. I do like the ones that I’ve read about, including Dobbs. But neither my opinion on constitutional law nor yours has anything to do with his fitness for serving on the court.
Totally agree. Brand did some terrible things in the past and needs to own that. No one forced him to pursue celebrity. On the other hand, he hasn’t even been charged with a crime yet. The worst and most dangerous thing to happen in this entire incident is YouTube demonetizing someone who hasn’t even been charged with a crime.
You don’t have to be a Mary Whitehouse to demonise RB. You just need to be a caring Mother and/or Father of daughters and not want a public broadcasting industry that is in cohoots with a sycophantic abusive sex maniac.
Best teach girls then to be fastidious and chaste.
The porn industry is full of unchaste girls. Girls have to be the keepers of their own morality. Men are mostly not that good at it apart from a decent few.
I agree. We are innocent until proven guilty, at least with regard to the law. In some Europen countries you are guilty until proven innocent which can lead to some very unfair outcomes. It appears Youtube have judged that he is guilty because of social media opinions. Youtube are not the best arbiters of truth judging by the way they outlaw people who speak of vaccine damage etc. They are a very woke company it would seem.
Steve, agreed. There are two different things going on over the RB saga. One, the acusation of a crime; that is for the courts to decide, and my guess is since rape and sexual assault are very hard to prove and as a consequence have damn near impunity, he’s probably not going to be convicted of these alleged crimes.
The other matter is one that not only brings in RB, but also those who support him. The media, broadcasting companies, (NB Paxman and RB Newsnight interview whereby RB was ‘respected’ by our middle class so called intellectuals FGS!) and the condition they publically bring about of this nation’s ‘received’ attitude to women and girls,i.e. depicted by a cesspool of a media. That world happens to be a sick world of revolting, misogyist,vulgar, men, and some women who “like that sort of thing” which we, the public, have a freedom of speech, the right to openly declaim as revolting and unaccepetable for a decent caring and responble society. And let’s shout this out very loud and often and noisily until it’s head.
It’s odd I’m thinking -in view of the point made here – that the media and the Establishment ( who are not the establishment circa 1955,the now establishment who all dabbled with a bit of weed at uni and includes the likes of Mick Jagger)they all loved Russell Brand back in the noughties,no matter how outrageous and noxious he was,they encouraged and enabled him. They cheered him on. It was the tail end of the ‘anything goes” culture of the 1960s that the reviled Mrs Whitehouse tried to warn people about,that it might hurt and damage them,that a lot of people might end up crying. Now,a lot of people are in therapy,are telling of the psychological damage done them,both male and female,are some of them seeking legal redress and financial compensation. So,a reformed and REDEEMED Mr Brand who isn’t promoting sexually disgraceful behavior is not liked by the (new) establishment. As he’s wealthy I’m not going to waste too much worry but it’s not the money aspect to me that is significant. It’s the silencing of a voice. Mr Brand has a particularly crack team of researchers who were tracking down those obscure documents about the way all over the world rules, regulations and laws are being brought in line to control the population,us,and in.a much more draconian way than we’ve ever known.
Yes he is certainly exposing current deceptions we are living under in spite of his mispent youth.
“individuals were successfully able to prosecute those who speak out against media personalities”
We are not talking about those individuals.
It’s about
a. Institutions which financially harm or fire people based on no evidence
and
b. Individuals who use online anonymity to state obviously false stories intended primarily to harm someone’s reputation (ie which constitutes genuine defamation)
Yeah, yeah, i get all that – do you think i wouldn’t?
The professor makes no reference to what you reference. It’s a separate issue. Creating “false stories” is not critiquing behaviour.
oh it gets better – the House of Parliament have (over-?)reached out to Rumble… https://x.com/darrengrimes_/status/1704663106801025426?s=20
A Modern Star Chamber. Both dangerous to us all and quite sickening especially given the Spacy verdicts… One could also point out the public flogging of Sir Cliff Richard as well…
Well said Sir!
So many juicy tidbits in this article to which one might respond!
As a Yank, I find this one irresistible:
“ If the authorities were to take no action, to fail to investigate an individual following public accusations, then matters might be different.”
Impossible NOT to think of Merrick Garland, the Biden regime (especially Hunter and Joe), the FBI, CIA, DHS, and every other American institutional acronym for “DOING” exactly what the author underscored in this paragraph.
And how globally and utterly IRONIC that within the nation that makes the boldest proclamation of judiciary integrity—INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY—America is so completely flaccid in the application of this declaration.
In closing, #YouTube is the current global example of Orwellian CrushThink. The silly video platform has already condemned and executed Brand when as yet there is zero substance to the recent #MeToo claims barfed into the social wind.
Sick and sad.
You are so right about Youtube being the current global example of Orwellian Crush think. Are they paid by Gates or George Soros?
In answer to the last couple of questions: the legal team of the FSU (Free Speech Union) are very knowledgeable about legal defences of this kind, and have had numerous legal successes in the courts and tribunals. Bryn Harris is their main legal eagle.
So I’m just going to point out that an otherwise fine piece is somewhat ruined by the small matter of legal factual inaccuracy.
The term presumed innocent and beyond reasonable doubt do not apply to the offences which are being so heavily linked to RB. That nice man Blunkett got rid reasonable doubt for a range of offences during the New Labour years. It is now on “balance of probability”, would have though a law professor might have picked up on that. So that nice level of protection, the author refers to no longer exists for many offences in the UK.
As for presumption of innocence, again the vast majority of regular folk accused of that sort of offence (and a number of others viewed as similarly serious) will be remanded in custody until trial….. so again, I’m not sure what that says about the presumptive slant that has been subtly changed in our legal system.
It grows worse and worse as far as I can see. One cannot presume justice as much as was.
Apparently the Ministry of Culture and Sport has written to Rumble to ask if they are going to demonetise Brand, a truly shocking escalation in this increasingly transparent hit-job.
Apologies; Dame somebody from a House of Commons Committee no less ( Just like the other be-nice Dame at Coutts Bank).
So the ‘online harm prevention bill ‘ will probably achieve very little as regards groomers and gamblers and self-harmers, but could come in very handy in shutting down inconvenient truth tellers.
Precisely. Here in the US, the media is being unleashed to attack anyone not lining up with the accepted government narrative. Decry men pretending to be women in sports, like Riley Gaines? Set loose the mob and demonize her on the socials. Cop a feel in a theatre, like Lauren Boebert? Scream from the digital headlines that she could be prosecuted and imprisoned for public lewdness.
Ah, but take pics of yourself smoking crack while driving 100 mph, f*cking hookers tax-free whilst paying them from your millions of bribe money, 10% of which goes to your criminally corrupt and stupid father when you’re not stashing the rest in 20 shell companies? It’s all good. The State Department will get 51 paid-for cronies to swear on their mothers it was all just a Russian disinformation scheme, and the CIA-run media will bark as they’re told.
I am utterly sick to my stomach by it all. I hope Brand, Spacey, and the many others who have been digitally executed by the 8th Grade girls running the media will sue their persecutors into oblivion.
Yes, just as with Covid lockdowns etc various Western Governments are marching in lockstep once again in their ‘war on misinformation’ – ie inconvenient truth.
Bravo!
“So the ‘online harm prevention bill ‘ will probably achieve very little as regards groomers and gamblers and self-harmers, but could come in very handy in shutting down inconvenient truth tellers.”
Of course, that is its main purpose but like so much these days it was enough to wrap it up in the mantle of caring to get it passed by the tools in parliament. Any hope the Lords will stop it? Sadly not.
“The welfare of the people…has always been the alibi of tyrants…giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” Camus
Dark days ahead.
That’s what it’s for.
One organ of the state has already presumed guilt and demands summary punishment. There are letters from the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Caroline Dinneage, doing the rounds to Rumble:
“We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.”
And to TikTok:
“… we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his TikTok posts…”
Rumble has told her to metaphorically stick her letter where the sun doesn’t shine.
It gets better on Dinenage 🙂
Register of Interests: Guest of YouTube/Google at Glastonbury 2022, value £3302 (https://members.parliament.uk/member/4008/registeredinterests)
Husband: Baron Mark Lancaster: Deputy Commander of the 77th Brigade, 2018-2020 (https://www.forces.net/news/new-line-ministry-defence)
Nice sleuthing! Shines an interesting light on this sordid affair! By which I mean the letter, not Brand. I’ve always found Brand very sleazy but that does not give a Parliamentary Committee the right to try deplatform him!
Thanks, but I can’t claim credit for the Register of Interests find. More in my brief write-up here:
https://glitches.substack.com/p/who-is-caroline-dinenage
A couple of corrections while I’m here – I spelt her name wrong in my OP and the Glasto visit was in 2023.
Excellent article, “Publicly assuming that unproven criminal accusations are true for political gain only undermines trust in the good faith of political participants, and trust in public life as a whole.” ~ says it all really!
Pretending to act with the authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Dame Caroline Dinenage has been writing to American and Canadian companies, which of course are not subject to that authority, to command them to remove or demonetise Russell Brand, against whom the Police are investigating precisely one allegation, from 20 years ago, and unconnected to the efforts of Dispatches, The Times and the Sunday Times. If Brand has not been arrested by noon on Sunday, then his accusers do not exist. Prove me wrong. In any event, he should immediately announce his intention to contest the seat of Gosport.
Presumably those females,who were all over the age of 16,even the one who was 16 – and by the sound of her is still 16 – had no say in the matter. Being female in legal terms is like being a child then. Even if you consent,your consent has no legal validity because being female you are lesser in understanding and responsibility,thus incapable,as a child is,of actually consenting. This is what I take from this case and the admissions of these women.
It appears that the government have requested that Rumble demonetise Brand’s channel there. I don’t know if they have done so.
Trust our institutions, eh?
Rumble, politely, told them where they can shove it.
Good!
I guess its a lot easier than doing something useful-like maybe having a coherent long term energy policy or immigration policy-but that would require hard work and doesn’t score as highly on the virtue signalling top ten.
It is slightly surprising that the article does not touch on contempt of court by publication. This rule is an attempt to prevent the publication of prejudicial material that would be excluded from Court during active cases ie after the arrest of an individual.
The way Criminal Court proceedings are conducted is aimed to exclude from consideration by the jury material that is regarded as prejudicial such as previous convictions and material that is not tested in court. The purpose is to produce a fair trial. Jurors should not decide on the basis that he has done it before so he must have done it again or lots of people claim he has done it before so he he must be guilty of it.
Unfortunately, when publication of general allegations that are unlikely to be tested in court by TV documentaries, the MSM and internet comment a general belief in the guilt of someone like Russel Brand may become so prevalent that a fair trial becomes difficult to achieve despite the fact that no contempt of court has occurred because no arrest or charge has yet occurred. As the case of Kevin Spacey shows it is not impossible for a jury to reach a verdict of innocence despite the publication of prejudicial material but that may be small compensation if a career has been trashed in the meantime. The fact that Russell Brand may or may not have acted in a sleazy or even criminal manner ought not to affect his value as a commentator or his ability to monetise any such value.
The Court of Public Opinion is an inherently unfair and unreliable Court subject to manipulation and prejudice and ought to be curbed rather than encouraged. The difficulty is curbing it.
A feminist writer, Chloe Laws, writing in Glamour magazine, espouses a typical feminist position, namely that she’s fed up with all this “innocent until presumed guilty” nonsense:
“The state has to presume your innocence, in court, the average person does not. I do not have to presume Brand’s innocence, on a personal level, until a jury finds him to not be. I have every right to, and do, believe victims of sexual assault as my default.”
That is, the preferred modern feminist position is “guilty until proven innocent”. And note the “believe” word.
The problem with her position is that *society, and the criminal courts, are not hermetically sealed off from each other*. Criminal courts rely on juries. Juries are made up of people, people like Ms. Laws and people whose attitudes have been influenced by people like Ms. Laws. Frankly, if you had enough people like her on any jury, no accused bloke would have any chance – like most modern feminists, she’s a raving bigot, and proud of it.
Her justification for this blanket assumption of male guilt is the same as white rich folk use to justify hanging. They don’t care if some black or poor people are hanged in error, and (the ironically named) Laws doesn’t care a jot if some men are jailed in error either.
Victims of sexual assault. Most of whom spent hours in a bar drinking with their alleged attacker,flirting and giving out the come on. Went back to his dwelling place, probably drank some more. I’m finding this current infantilisation of adult women a new and strange phenomenon. It’s now a stock accepted thing that anyone under the age of 16 cannot in legal terms consent to sex ( does this apply to boys too) even if they do. But now I’m noticing women like the Brand accusers making the case,not overtly (yet) but by their choice of wording that somehow they were so totally under the spell of a charismatic male persons that their “consent” was invalid. That was the underlying implication. I find this ducking of responsibility INFANTILISING. It’s like saying “I’m only a girlie,I’m a weak female,swayed by emotion and passion thus any decisions I make have no legal validity”. I never ever saw Russell Brand on tv back then so having seen what he looked like theni suggest women should be a bit more fastidious. Those women all obviously needed a visit to Specsavers and had such low standards,well they all worked on TV shows that encouraged the lowest forms of behaviour + their work seems to have been as procureses. Men DONT have all the blame in these circumstances.
Sadly even elected politicians have turned to the law to exert pressure on their political opponents. It’s hardly surprising when the law is used as a subordinate tool that it becomes debased.
“Even”?
Most of the opprobrium directed towards Brand is not based on a consideration of criminality. People are not usually claiming that certain events happened, and that his actions in these events were illegal.
Rather, they are expressing satisfaction that someone they believed to be a wrong ‘un in a much more generic sense is getting his comeuppance. The standards of proof for that are far more relaxed.
And that’s entirely as it should be. If you make a very comfortable living playing on the baser instincts of your audience (getting them to snigger at how often and offensively you can talk about your winky) then you can hardly object when that living is dented by some other base instincts that the public find they have.
Whacked with his own shtick.
“Live by the pork sword, die by the pork sword”?
But there is a huge difference between the public deciding he’s now unsavory and no longer following him, and the platform itself denying him access.
Exactly.
Brand is not being judged for his current actions, but for his actions in the distant past, over which he now has no control. And he is being judged by current standards of behaviour, rather than by those that existed when the events took place.
I agree with you so far as that goes but it’s not THAT Brand they are going for. In fact THAT BRAND would probably still be on TV and getting bigged up and promoted by the distraction merchants,I mean the media. They are gunning for the NEW BRAND,the “new creation”, the REDEEMED man speaking truth to power, and power wants to silence him. And all the rest of us too.
Interesting and important as this article and its arguments are I would like to know just why there has been such a pile-on with many days headlines in all the daily papers and the broadcast channels about such an insignificant person who appears quite able to damage himself just by opening his mouth without any outside help. I know little about the man and care even less but I am concerned that there is something else going on, some other agenda, when so many organs have sought to dismember a single person. My doubts are corrosive and damage my trust -already thin – in the State.
We all witnessed Brand’s behaviour when he was on the BBC. Plus the evidence that these women have presented seems too detailed and specific in nature to be invented.
At the same time it is probably true that he has been singled out from amongst many similar men because of his political profile. After all, the Guardian was still defending him, publishing his writing and fawning over him at public events as late as 2014.
So it’s difficult. Personally I would prefer those coming out in his defence to devote their energies to resisting the deportation of Julian Assange.
Was his BBC behaviour unlawful or was it behaviour that people didn’t like? (I have not seen it).
Exactly. I haven’t seen it either.
It wasn’t unlawful. But it should have been sufficient to ensure that he no longer had a public platform. Instead he continued to be lionised by Owen Jones and others. That’s my point.
I didn’t watch any of that stuff. I only know the new creation,the REDEEMED Brand. All this is to silence a voice telling us inconvenient truths. We don’t need to worry,it’s not about us,it’s nothing to do with us,we are just ordinary people going about our ordinary lives. We are never ” going to Poland”. That Niemoller chap got it wrong!
It’s a tough one.
Just don ‘t come across as ‘creepy.’ Because that’s what these guys are being punished for.
With his weird high pitched voice and vicious looking teeth, Brand, attractive obviously to some women, perhaps didn’t know that he made a lot of other people’s skin crawl.
And that as he got older and paunchier, the things that made him seem precocious and youthful, a wunderkind for an unwundrous age, would make him an ideal sacrificial victim for the media machine that made him.
The destruction tends to be total. A lot of people loathed the Barrymore guy even before the death at his ‘mansion’ (it’s a posh bungalow.) He now lives in New Zealand, even tho the father of the bloke who died accepted MB had absolutely nothing to do with the death.
I think many can agree that he is guilty of being a disappointing boyfriend, however guilt of actual crimes, especially those that are hard to prove, which is what he is being accused of, is something that most of us would prefer to be left in the hands of the police. This, interestingly, works well with Kats article. Brand’s detractors have compared him to Saville, hiding in plain sight, and Kats article speaks of comedians making bank of stories that they “claim” to be true but are completely fabricated for effect.
I have been involved in an interesting discussion on X (was twitter) regard the use of the term “criminal” when describing Brands alleged behaviour. I asked a simple question; when are his behaviours determined such that they can legitimately be called “criminal”. Who decides and when? I could not get a reply.
But don’t you understand all females are girlies,being weak and frail and subject to fascination with the charisma of a glamorous male we have no moral agency. Thus even if we “consent” our consent has no legal basis because we are incapable of making legally binding choices due to our empowered girl power girliness.
Russell Brand recently (last week?) interviewed RFK jr.
Part of the podcast focused on the CIA and DOD involvement in project Warp Speed and Project 201.
Good luck finding the podcast!!!!
p.s. Russel needs to identify as a woman and all of this will stop.
Oooh now that would be a plot twist! (Laughing emoji!)
Well said.
A couple of years ago, when Cliff Richard was victim of allegations which turned out to have no basis, I remember a young friend of mine saying ‘I’ve always found him creepy, I’m sure he’s guilty’. I pointed out that her personal feelings towards the man were no proof of his guilt. Funnily enough, remembering that helped me view the situation with Russell Brand in a more neutral light. I am rather repulsed by the man but have decided to wait and see, as everyone else should.
Exactly. One can still have a feeling about someone just don’t say what you feel out loud.
Why would anyone find Cliff Richard creepy. Maybe she finds Michael Barrymore not creepy. Maybe a lot of people back in the day found Jesus creepy,a man who advocated turning your back on your family,giving all your money away (but you have to make money first in order to have it to give away) and telling the total lie that poverty is a blessed state.
“Nobody will have their property or liberty taken from them by the Crown’s judicial servants, unless the prosecutor, an agent of the Crown Prosecution Service, is able to make a jury or magistrate “sure” that the person violated the criminal law.”
Unfortunately it has not been like that for years eg civil recovery, cash forfeiture, cash seizure. Burden of proof completely reversed!
In Canada, laws that allow the state to take children from their parents completely ignore ‘principles of fundamental justice’: presumption of innocence, due process proportionality, etc. An anonymous report can result in the state removing a child for months or years. The fact that the state has a long track record of abusing and killing children is not a factor in ‘balancing’ risks and rights.
I love Canada so much, I think there should be 13 of them.
Fascinating article. I’m uncomfortable that the “verdict” on Brand should hinge on a documentary – even if it had been a rigorous, traditional investigative doc, it would still be uncomfortable – but the tabloid style of that one makes it particularly difficult.
Even an utter knob like Brand should be entitled to a fair hearing. In the 24/7 churn of online opinionating, it’s very difficult to see how the presumption of innocence can be maintained.
But seeing as he obviously did those things,what’s he guilty of? Being bad mannered,being unpleasant,being callow and brutish. Do you get sent to prison for that? Or do we send Mr Brand to live alone on a deserted Scottish island way out in the Atlantic,St Kildas say. Actually far from a punishment that would be a lot of people’s ultimate dream life,so maybe not. Make him be a road sweeper and public toilet cleaner. Because we want to show him what scum we think he is.
But isnt that derogatory to actual road sweepers and toilet cleaners who are ok people and might be dojng that job as a sideline to a very good life. How about take all his money away. But he might start from scratch and make a whole nother fortune as others have done. It’s like they say ” you can take away my money but you can’t take away my talent”. That’s the challenge for RB.
For God’s sake UnHerd this is the FOURTH essay in as many days on Mr Brand, enough is enough.
Surely there is something more interesting to write about?
Brand himself isn’t interesting. I’ve never liked him, and still don’t.
The story here (which UnHerd is doing a better job of than most) is trial-by-media, cheered on by government and Big Tech:
https://x.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118?s=20
There’s also a good deal of hypocrisy in the leftwing media establishment worth exposing (Channel 4, Guardian, BBC). While he was “their S.O.B.”, they were willing to overlook (even enable) a lot of bad behaviour. Now he’s gone rogue, they’re going after him.
But you’re right that we shouldn’t allow this story to distract from others, such as the WHO pandemic treaty.
There’s room for both.
A shedload of laws are being shooed through ” parliaments” all over the world right now,ones we don’t even know about,as no one tells us. Instead they give us a nice juicy sex controversy to fill out minds. I’ve written to my (labour) mp about my concerns over the Energy Bill and just had a standard acknowledgement. Because I already know from previous correspondence that Labour,if they get in,if we even ever have another general election,intend to keep all these new laws but use them much more efficiently. The one thing you can say for this current lot is that they are too disorganized and ramshackle to use most of these draconian new laws they’ve shooed in by order from THEIR controllers.
Quite! I’m more suspicious about the obsessive and manic need to flood every media outlet with pages and pages about this character and these allegations than I am about the actual subject matter. It’s all click bait. It’s really unsettling. We’re living in weird times.
It’s not ‘about’ Brand; it’s a discussion of the basic principle underpinning the criminal law
Then we ought to be discussing the ‘Show Trial of the Century’ against Soldier F, currently running in Belfast.
New legal stance on women and sex. No woman of any age whatever has the innate moral agency to consent to sex. There is no Age of Consent in reality because all girlies are weak and subject to the charm of a charismatic male thus any consent is invalid. Girl Power eh?
Hear, hear.
This culture of mob rule and the incessant witch hunts will not stop until we can all openly talk about what happened in 2020 and since without fear of public persecution. While we all carry on with our lives ignoring the massive elephant in the room, or angrily shouting each other down, we are destined forever to be plagued by a media class desperate to distract everyone’s attention with salacious scandals and hysterical headlines, because it doesn’t want to face its own guilt at failing to do its job when it really mattered. Maybe it was ever thus, but we are dangerously overdue a reality check. We must no longer speak as if there really was a “deadly pandemic”. The coronavirus has always presented much like flu. There were ZERO “novel symptoms”. Every observed symptom had been seen in previous cold and flu viruses. Only the response was “novel”. Deadly drugs (Remdesivir) and procedures (ventilators) killed most people. The general population was also subjected to an intense campaign of fear. This was intentional (as documented in SAGE minutes). No “face mask” in the world can stop someone getting a respiratory virus. In fact they can weaken the immune system and increase susceptibility to viruses. The mRNA shots were an unmitigated disaster. At best, useless; at worst, deadly. The agenda to digitise every element of our lives, subject us to mass surveillance and associated controls that is being pushed by unelected bodies like the WHO and the WEF is quite open and available for scrutiny (and challenge – let’s pray!) Our institutions have all been captured by industry and collectivist ideology. And the British Monarchy probably died with QE2. That’s where we are. But nothing lasts forever and the pushback has begun, loud and strong. No one seriously cares about Brand or Letby or any of the other front-page stories. They just want to be able to live their lives in peace. And the only way to do that is to speak truth and resist the lies. Keep talking to people in real life. That’s how we get to the other side of this mess. People power!
In the Noughties, some of us tried to tell you that the popular culture was horrific. Your beloved New Labour was the Government on every day of that decade, at once defining that culture and defined by it. Long after that, while Russell Brand held the line politically, then no one said a word. Even now, the Police “have received” precisely one allegation, from 20 years ago, and unconnected to anything that was broadcast on Saturday or published on Sunday. There has been no arrest.
Yet the scam is well and truly on. Anyone who agrees with anything that Brand has ever said about economic or foreign policy, or which has ever been said by any of his interviewees (Tucker Carlson, Cornel West, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Stella Assange) since he stepped out of “the mainstream” in search of actual viewers, must be a “rape apologist”. Leading the charge is Dame Caroline Dinenage. It is hilarious that she thinks that even Chinese companies should obey her. But from June 2018 to July 2020, her husband, the Conservative Peer and former Minister Mark Lancaster, was Deputy Commander of the 77th Brigade. Until the very, very recent past, the mere existence of that Brigade was a “conspiracy theory”. Now it publicly bemoans the removal of its serving Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Tobias Ellwood MP, as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. And it does this. In plain sight, indeed.
The lesson here is clear though – when you are on the left, you can do and get away with anything. Just ask Bill Clinton or Bob Hawke. Or Hunter Biden.
You can riot, burn down police stations, take over Seattle and Portland, loot, march in the middle of a lockdown, vandalise private property, identify as a woman to appropriate female spaces, collude with Communists to stop your opponents meeting and speaking, take millions every months in ‘payments’ from client states, whatever and it’s all good.
As soon as someone identifies with the right, they may as well have identified as Hitler’s spawn and all bets are off. They cannot protest, they cannot speak publicly, the media will trawl through their past and their supporters, they will be vilified, have their income and bank accounts frozen and the full force of the legal system will be used to take them down.
The Left are Good. They can do anything. They are the modern day clergy. No allegations will be published against them. The Right are Bad. They are already guilty, we just need to determine the specifics.
It’s not about presumption of innocence. It’s about the weaponising of politics and ideology.
Is this becoming our 21st century version of ‘l’affaire Dreyfus’ I wonder ?
Whose side are you on ?
Whose side?
Well, it’s one of those Iran-Iraq War moments.
The side of truth!!!
It’s not so much a case of whether Russell Brand is guilty of what he has been accused of, but rather what it reveals about his character and attitude to women. There are many videos and audio excerpts of him behaving in an appalling way toward women. Those videos and audios can’t be denied. Regardless of whether he is guilty of these various alleged offences, what has been revealed has forever changed my perception and attitude towards him. TBH, I hadn’t even heard of Russell Brand prior to Covid during which time I inadvertently discovered his YouTube channel. I followed him for a while but then got so turned off by his loud, aggressive, motor mouth style of presentation that I switched off him. Therefore it doesn’t surprise me that these accusations have arisen, notwithstanding the fact of the four year investigation by the Times and Channel 4. Whether he is guilty or not, this simply raises the question of the level to which our once fine culture has descended over the past 50 years, where smut becomes the norm and no one questions it. In fact the more the merrier.
Jeez, another day, another Russell Brand attack piece on Unherd. Move on.
Russel Brand needs to identify as a woman – and all of this will end.
How about an article called, “Russel Brand and the ridiculous amount of attention the media is giving this sordid, stupid story”.
I was the FIRST to comment at approximately 0700hrs BST but you appear to have CENSORED it, why?
Here’s a similar scandal that Unherd seems not to have heard of at all. Even involves Dame Caroline Dinenage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66875133
We could have a refreshing change-of-pace from all the Russell stories with Dan W stories.
Even the BBC can manage it, so it can’t be hard!!
Typical comment from a lawyer. Not one even oblique reference to victims and survivors. I don’t care about whether RB is guilty of a criminal offence, although he probably is. Indecent exposure in Los Angeles was certainly an offence when I last checked. Does anyone seriously believe this was made up? RB himself admitted it on air. The problem with this type of comment is that it suggests that if it’s not criminal then somehow the behaviour is OK. The behaviour is bestial. The BBC is one of many mainstream media companies (now the target of RB’s rants) to realise that this problem is seismic. Public opinion has it right. The authorities will do what they do.
Oh no! The victim word. Those silly tarts got what they deserved. In fact they all deserve a good slapping even now. Calling yourself a “victim” is implying that you have no moral agency so you’re in the same legal status as a child. But then it is called Girl Power,not Woman Power.
Trial by liberal media seems to be a pathology at least partly stemming from the phenomenon of the culture war. The certainty of belonging to the right ideological camps justifies the utterly amoral move of hanging an individual and his reputation out to dry without any criminal proceedings being involved.
The Brand case is the most paradigmatic so far – a seeming ‘political revenge’ posing as a retro moral crusade against a once-popular actor/comedian taking a libertarian approach to the state authoritarianism of the Covid-19 pandemic and the blanket media support for funding the military stalemate in the campaign.
Yet The Times, Guardian, Channel 4 and BBC took a similar approach to Boris Johnson and his governnment, doing much of the work of Britains’ political opposition. Again, trial by media expressed a focused political agenda – hyper-partisan and full of misplaced cultural certainty given that said Opposition (the Labour Party and allies) did absolutely nothing to challenge the Johnson’s goverment pursuit of a 2-year lockdown regime that has done untold harm to the education of British children, to already precarious households and to the health of the nation.
If Brand cannot sue, then perhaps backers of the wealth of E Musk might look at funds or funding mechanism enabling an appropriate defence by individuals attacked by an amoral news media who have grown far too powerful as a political instrument over recent years.
You maintain a presumption of innocence not for the person accused, but for yourself.
Because thats how you want to be.
Whilst the author makes his case eloquently (as might be expected of someone in his position) there is a distinction to be drawn between public discourse which deems Brand to have broken a law on the UK’s statute books, and public discourse which revolves around whether the actions of Brand are worthy of being admired, supported or tolerated. Such discourse, should it conclude that his actions are not worthy of the approbation hitherto granted, does not fall foul of “being found guilty in the court of public opinion”.
The timing of this change in public perception (which quite a few people may have thought privately for some time) is a different matter, and Kathleen Stock set out the arguments around this point in her Unherd article.
However, to suggest that YouTube, in denying Brand the means of earning money from the channel is “finding him guilty” of having broken the law is incorrect; it’s more a case of the withdrawal of support, pending further developments. I make no judgement in setting out this case. It could be argued, for instance, that Kathleen Stock fell foul of a similar circumstance in losing her tenure at Sussex University, hence perhaps her feeling compelled to enter the public debate early.
To recap: the author writes about being found guilty of breaking the law, through due legal process or via public opinion. There is a further option: withdrawal of public approbation.
I agree with most of that, Steve. Until the last sentence where I find it really difficult to understand why he could ever be regarded as having had public approbation capable of withdrawl.
Yes ! Now have a word with the Editor please.
The problem as I see it is that we all know he did all that stuff. He’s told us. Not the specifics but he’s put in print,on those tv clips etc how appalling his life was. So yes,he’s “guilty’ of those actions. (Go to prison guilty? Of course not,those stupid bimbos should have been more fastidious in their behaviour. Bunch of tarts). But those of us who started watching RB as a political commentator had a huge surprise to find an intelligent and thoughtful man telling us the truth about LIFE. The man worked VERY HARD in rehab finally and he now is the most striking example of the concept of REDEMPTION I have ever seen. And this concept seems to be totally forgotten by the nasty,vengeful society we now live in. So Russell Brand is going to be our Mr Bulstrode then.
Calling the women stupid bimbos and bunch of tarts does not exactly embellish your argument. Bulstrode committed fraud not rape. You are living proof of my point that jury trials, when juries contain victim blaming women like you, are a danger to the public.
very good article
The frenzied and frequently premature reaction of both authority and media to the familiar post-dated scandal of guru and polemicist Russell Brand, threatens not just the subject’s presumption of innocence, but also the balance of response to any issue or debate with which the subject is associated .As McLuhan observes, the medium is the message and in the free-fall chaos of modern life , we shoot the messenger at our peril.
Ok, here’s the thing. Rape is not like other crimes of aggression like mugging with weapons, murder etc for the blindingly obvious reason that women and men do consent to sex all the time. Most people do not consent to burglary unless trying to set up an insurance scam, they do not consent to murder unless they are suicidal or extreme masochists who die by accident etc etc
Therefore the innocent until proven guilty formula is spectacularly unsuited to fairness in rape trials because the accuser becomes guilty until proven innocent – of either fabricating or being too crazy/drunk/ unreliable to know what they are talking about.
Unless you are at an orgy, or a threesome, or actually in public, no-one witnesses sex. Then people started filming rapes – and even in these circumstances, with video evidence, the convictions don’t happen.
Unfortunately barristers are immune from defamation law while defaming witnesses and in rape cases, this is what they always do, even previously in trials concerning minors.
Nobody who is raped, whether male, female, child or adult can have due confidence that the law or the public will protect them. It is the most victim blamed crime of all. Those like Sammy Woodhouse of the infamous Rochdale case are brave just to put themselves in court
Savile was never convicted in a court – trial by media but the evidence was overwhelming. Weinstein trial got the conviction by having a rape expert explain why people often stay in contact with their abuser afterwards. Without the work of female journalists and social media, he would never get to court.
We have a Metropolitan police force in London which has harboured several rapists, the forces ‘dealing’ with the Wests contained officers who were regularly going to the house where Rosemary prostituted herself. Sarah Everard killed by a police officer.
Public institutions have a long way to go before they will even start to protect members of the public from rape.
At least if you work as a teacher, you are required to have a police check, but this does not apply to other professions where men (and women) come into contact with minors or vulnerable people.
Please do not be so naive.
I disapprove of trial by media but until jury trial is dumped and there are trials in closed courts by judges and teams of sexual abuse experts, rapists will continue to go free.
You are just not listening.
How could he be prosecuted when the victims were so powerless, when the experience of reporting rape to the police is so inept and harrowing? When people who knew openly said they couldn’t report it as Brand was so litigious? This is a man who boasted he liked choking young girls with his p***s till they couldn’t breath and ‘their mascara ran’. On air. The sixteen year old has confirmed this. Did she tell police this? no of course not. The humiliation had been enough already. The misogyny of the police is a fact. Women know this. I know this, you as a man obviously don’t or you don’t care. He hasn’t apologized for his past behavior nor deny it all he has done is say it was consensual. Basically relying on the fact that he was good looking and famous therefore attractive to a lot of women. Did that mean they should have been sexually abused and humiliated ? Was that criminal or was it funny or something that should be shared to warn others and to put people off wanting to laugh? The market drop people when they no longer have a willing audience. Nothing to do with the law. The first stage of lawful prosecution the police force is corrupt. Start from there.
This whole topic is extremely important because we should be very worried about private companies taking away from individuals basic utilities like their bank accounts (eg Nigel Farage and the Canadian Truckers) and their social media platforms, based purely on their political views (or lewd behaviour). Provided the bank accounts are not being used for criminal activity, and the content of the social media platforms complies with the law, it should not be possible to take these things away without judicial process. In the EU everyone has a right to a bank account. I am a Brexiteer but that is a right I think we need to enact in the UK (and hopefully it will happen soon). We also need a right not to have other facilities taken away from us because of our particular political stance. There is also a lot of existing legislation/policy regarding the rehabilitation of offenders. It is accepted that criminals who have served their time should be able and encouraged to start anew, living a good life. I know Russell has not so far been convicted, and may never be, but his appalling behaviour happened 10 or 20 years ago. He is now a reformed character – at least he is not behaving like that now. Furthermore, his past appalling behaviour cannot be likened to Saville or Epstein – women have thrown themselves at him for years. I agree he was a sex pest and he has confessed to this and to having a sex addiction (overcome now, like his drug addiction). But all the allegations are made by women who were in a relationship with him, and the women were found by the press – not the other way around. Watch Kim Iversen’s analysis of the charges for an excellent and even handed view. She thinks that under US law (where the rape allegation was made), saying no to sex without a condom, and the man going ahead nonetheless without a condom (as RB did) is not rape as such, but rather a battery. Still it is a criminal offence. All the other allegations are more probably civil and more like sexual harassment in the work place. Kim Iversen says that even if RB is guilty of the criminal offence of battery, and the civil wrongs of sex harassment, he should not be demonetised by You Tube as none of the allegations are relevant to the content of his platform. As she said, convicts should have the right to earn a living provided they do so lawfully. I agree with her. What is so worrying is that although RB probably did do quite a bit of what is alleged, the timing of it strongly suggests it is a hit job by the powers that be, who do not like the fact that RB questions the establishment narrative. I’m a huge fan of the current RB. I hope that he can weather this storm. I expect him to behave decently and pay compensation/serve time as required. But I hope he can still keep being a truth seeker and truth teller – I and the other 6 million subscribers on You Tube rely on RB for that.
I do believe Brand is guilty, but I think Youtube was wrong to demonetize his channel. If he did what he has been accused of doing, he belongs in prison. This is something that should be tried in a court of law, not the media. What disgusts me most about this whole thing is how victims of sexual violence are kicked around like a political football, with neither side genuinely caring about their pain and suffering.
I always worry when I read or hear anyone saying “I believe”. Blind belief – and all belief is wilfully blind – in secular creeds is what is destroying Western societies. A rational person would have said that: “there is a possibility that Brand is guilty, but he might be innocent.” Beliefs and rationality are incompatible – and beliefs and justice are incompatible. If the feminists took over, it’d be worse than the inquisition.
If you know something is a fact you don’t need to belive.
I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows….I do actually.
I believe life is good. I need some PROBLEMS. Heck,I can’t even get sexually assaulted. Even in Paris at Pigalle or Bvd St Denis. I’ll never get to be a real human being this way
Boo hoo.
That’s fair enough as an opinion. I have no opinion other than he has had allegations levelled against him. Nothing more than that and there have been moves afoot to defenestrate him merely on those allegations. That is very concerning.
They’re coming for you next…..
We did not “see” the women or just bits a chin,back of head,and was it their own voices or actors,anyway the impression I got was that in other circumstances these women ,they all seemed to still work in media, they would present themselves as strong,capable, independent woman ,equals in a man’s world,making decisions and running an office. So by claiming “victim” status in this matter,they are infantilising themselves.In my opinion.
Innocent of what? I suspect most fairly sensible on whether he can be deemed guilty of rape without proper process and evidence with good recognition you are innocent until proven guilty.
But isn’t this about more than the specifics of the Law?
Brand dined out on his ‘Shagger of the Year’ rep. (A Sun Headline before we forget Right Wing media loved him too). He delighted in the 1000 conquests. And whether he’s guilty of forcing himself without consent on a victim – where the burden of proof is often difficult – this is no ‘Gentleman’ and quite a creepy, at best, character. ‘Live by the sword, Die by the sword’ perhaps.
The presumption of innocence in law cannot stop the human instincts one has about a person, and in this case, the person is a wrongun.
Yes, you can’t help having feelings but you have a choice about acting on those feelings, and that includes speaking out.