Branding Russell II

I wrote on this subject less than a week ago, but reading comments on social media has crystalized my thoughts, especially arguing the toss with people who obviously believe Brand to be The Messiah (he's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy) and are Brexiteers to boot, thus demonstrating the limits of their research skills; namely taking an emotional position and then furiously seeking out confirmatory information and ignoring anything contrary, especially if from experts. Some of the following is repetition, but most is new.

Let's look at this dispassionately, rather than emotionally, and I'm more than willing to be shot down in flames.

So, the police are now investigating claims.

As I have said before, the presumption of innocence is a legal device that puts the onus on the prosecution to prove a case. It does not apply outside of a court. Savile was never prosecuted - so was he innocent? 

What protects the accused is the libel laws. Brand has every right to sue those who say he is guilty before a trial for defamation, if he so chooses. 

As for publicity prejudicing a trial, yes, that is possible, if the publicity organ declares Brand guilty; however, it is individuals on social media who are possibly suggesting his guilt (or his innocence). Even then, any appeal following a jury trial is heard before a judge, not a jury, and a judge will disregard any publicity. Many are saying the case is subjudice, but subjudice literally means subject to a judicial decision - not before a case has come to trial.

Why have the accusers taken so long to go public? Firstly, very few possible victims of abuse have the wherewithal to take someone with a £16m bank account to court, or to face a defamation action if the accused is among the over 98% that are found not guilty through the difficulty in getting evidence; they would be bankrupted first by a long and costly action, so they keep quiet, sometimes for decades. Media organisations, however, do have deep enough pockets to take on the wealthy and collate disparate cases on the basis of widely circulating rumours. They can also compound the under 2% conviction rate by aggregating cases - 4 people, each with a 2% chance of winning, have a much greater chance than a single person acting on their own.

Secondly, rape is very difficult to prove - it can be one person's word against another. This is where investigative journalism comes in - showing a pattern of behaviour over time, which can be very persuasive in a court - rapists tend to repeat offend (between 2 and 6 times, according to the literature) and, due to the evidential problem, it's almost the perfect crime. Investigating journalism can also persuade others to come forward, as seems to be the case now.

Thirdly, many rape victims keep quiet for years out of pure, unadulterated embarrassment, fear or trauma. Also they know their lives will be ripped to pieces by the defence to find a single weakness in their character, even if totally unrelated

The media has reported that multiple accusations have been made (fact - at least one incident corroborated by medical records - but it's for a court to decide if the accusations are true, although a pattern of behaviour is alleged); that Brand has issued a rebuttal (fact) and have gone over his previous, colourful (factual) behaviour with clips. That's not trial by media - it's factual reporting, and they have teams of lawyers to ensure they don't stray into libel. If they do, Brand can sue for defamation. He's being treated no different to film producers, footballers, actors or other high-profile people accused of the same activity. The only difference is that Brand has a huge, devoted following who are extremely supportive and treat his as a Messiah. 

Remember, Daniel Khalife has pleaded not guilty of escaping from Wandsworth, despite this ignoring observed reality - the guilty also have a habit of shouting their innocence. Luis Rubiales insisted his kiss of Jenni Hermoso was consensual, despite never having asked her permission. Overbearing men see everything they do as consensual - it's the nature of the beast. Remember how Trump boasted of grabbing women's crotches (and his acolytes ignore that). A denial is not proof of innocence, except in the eyes of the devotee. Similarly, allegations are not proof of guilt until a trial. 

As for TV and radio channels continuing to employ him, despite the numerous rumours, you can't sack people on rumour without opening yourself up to libel. They're in a difficult position. 

Brand's disciples maintain he's so important that the media machine is ganging up on him because he's a threat. He's actually irrelevant and nothing more than a mouth on a stick, repeating what much more relevant people have been saying for years. The vast majority treat him as a clever crank who knows how to monetise the disaffected and conspiracy theorists. A good gig, if you can get it, and you can't blame him for that - there are many politicians and religious leaders who do precisely this.