Trivial things you don't understand/mildly annoy you

[horlock07]

Why isn’t the ‘evidence’ just given straight up to the police?

Cos I suspect the women involved have seen what rape victims have to go through if the police get involved and it goes to court and decided it isn't worth it.

[Audrey]

Possibly. Let’s hope C4 carries on with all the other Hollywood creeps. Keep ‘em going for years!

[adje]

They may all be true, and none of us will be amazed if they are.

But to often you seem to see people’s names dragged through the mud, and it turns out too be false, and the accusers carry on with their lives anonymously whilst the accused have to rebuild theirs.

Has never say right with me.

This is true

[Jimmy Quinn]

Where's the News of the World when you need them!

[Audrey]

Christ. He’s fucking mega creepy. Can’t watch any more.

[oxonrobin]

Why isn’t the ‘evidence’ just given straight up to the police?

Statistically a waste of time, for a lot of heartache for the victim.

Without video and audio evidence, normally one persons word against another.

Takes years to get to a court room, even in best case scenario.

[Audrey]

That’s the point, though. ‘Without evidence’.

Kevin Spacey had similar. Accused by the media, career cancelled, went to court and found innocent.

No matter how obviously disgusting Brand is trial by media doesn’t sit right.

[Bogus Dave]

Many different studies have found that the false accusation rate for sexual assault is around 5% (some slightly higher, some slightly lower)

The burden of proof and the ability to gather evidence is so difficult to achieve that, as has been stated, court cases almost always fall down into a ‘he said / she said’ debate. The nature of this debate means that women are forced to re-live deeply traumatic events and put under incredible pressure (and remember, at least 95% if not more of these cases will be legitimate) for a process which is unlikely to achieve justice. Therefore why would you put yourself through it?

There’s also cultural issues at play, in so much as sexualisation towards women and what is deemed ‘normal’ - albeit that is changing, slowly. And then you have instances of power over individuals, be it legally or to influence their careers.

There are a myriad of reasons why a woman might not want to go through the process of supporting a conviction. But when you have stats like at least 25% of women believe they’ve been victims of sexual assault in their lives, false accusation rates being so low and individual cases like brand which have such a weight of anecdotal evidence behind them, then there has to be a view that the court of public opinion is a fair judge.

[Audrey]

Then you have to ask why these kind of accusations are almost always historic and what, 15 or so years after the event, motivates the alleged victims to then speak out. Apparently C4 has supposed dirt on loads more comedians - no idea why they’ve chosen that particular group.

Why don’t they dig into the celebrities that enjoyed their trips to Epstein Island as well. They seem to choose who they go after very carefully.

[horlock07]

That’s the point, though. ‘Without evidence’.

Kevin Spacey had similar. Accused by the media, career cancelled, went to court and found innocent.

No matter how obviously disgusting Brand is trial by media doesn’t sit right.

Did you watch the piece or read the story in the Times?

There is loads of evidence from multiple unrelated sources, plus they have done plenty of digging around to confirm stuff independently of  the initial source.

Also worth bearing in mind the location of these revelations, this isn't some random ranting on you tube or pop bitch, these are credible media sources doing what journalists should be doing, taking note of this country's laws it would have been lawyered up way beyond its eyeballs before it ever saw the light of day.

As for why Brand and not others, not sure anyone can answer that as ultimately no one outside the media can answer that, maybe he was less subtle than others, maybe there was more material to work from. What is total bollocks is this idea he is trying to propagate that he has been targeted by some sort establishment plot as he was getting near the truth.

[Audrey]

Surely the bedrock of our legislature is for the accused to face his accuser in court and be judged by his peers.

I watched what I could last night but had to turn it off.

If there’s loads of evidence get it to the police.Simple.

[oxonrobin]

1% conviction rate, suggests that decision is far from “simple”

[Audrey]

Not according to this. Anyway, even if that was the case it’s the process that needs addressing not ditching the basis of justice.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit#:~:text=The%20study%20analysed%20almost%20six,up%20from%2055%25%20in%202007.

[mystical_goat]

Why isn’t the ‘evidence’ just given straight up to the police?

Probably for the same reasons that universities are investigating rape claims

As the number of serious sexual assaults escalates across universities, experts say female students often do not want to go to the police, fearing delays and traumatising questioning, and knowing only 1% of rape cases end in conviction. Universities say increasing numbers of women are instead turning to them to investigate, leaving institutions wrestling with complex cases

The quote above is from here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/17/its-a-power-game-students-accused-in-university-hearings-call-in-lawyers

[Audrey]

So you just ignore this

‘ The study analysed almost six million charges against defendants and includes every single verdict reached by a jury on rape charges in this period (68,863 jury verdicts by deliberation).

In 2021, the most recent year with full data, the jury conviction rate for all rape charges was 75%, up from 55% in 2007. The finding that juries convict more often than they acquit defendants in rape cases was also true regardless of the age or sex of the rape complainant.’

I’d rather believe in an extensive study than ‘experts say’.