Sex, truth, justice and Russell Brand.
"I no longer believe, the State in any form, is capable of meaningfully, and in good grace, representing the will of the people." Russell Brand.So Russell Brand has deservedly been 'banged to rights' for past sexual behaviour, some might think. I take a somewhat more sanguine view for a number of reasons that I will describe, not least mindful of the old aphorism, "there but for the grace of god go all."
Brand, now fifty one (born 1975) did not deny or defend the actions of his younger self, though he did claim that all his sexual encounters had been consensual. This interpretation is challenged by the account of an incident, for which he was found guilty of rape but even in this case, the victim does not refute the fact that she had had consensual sex on a former occasion and went back for more, prior to the element of the interaction that she claimed was non-consensual. This the Judge decided was worthy of a term of of nine and a half years in gaol.
Clearly, men have to be very careful what they do in bed with a person who has agreed to join them, if they are not to run the risk of ending locked-up in a gaol cell.
The social and legal context of rape.
Sex between people is as old as man himself. It is a fundamental of all living forms. It is instinctive and powerful and for that reason in all societies is contextualized both socially and legally. In western society over perhaps the last hundred years, the rules have been progressively weakened to allow and even encourage sex outside the bounds of formal marital contracts that some see is indicative of moral decline and degeneracy, whilst others as sign of individual independence and libertarianism.
It would appear that now the rule is, anything goes, no matter how bizarre or grotesque as long as it is consensual. Whether someone has agreed or not can be problematic and can only be judged by the claim and the circumstantial evidence. The more time that elapses after the claimed event, the more problematical the issue becomes but this does not explain the general 'rape landscape' or why there is such disparity in the prosecution process.
'Statutory Rape' in the UK
In Britain, 'statutory rape' is defined as follows: Any case where a person over the age of eighteen, has sex with a person under the age of sixteen. The law regards it as a serious offense, for which there can be no mitigating circumstances. Life experience may however not be so clear cut.
Brand has admitted to having a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old when he was thirty-two, but as far as I am aware it has never resulted in a complaint from the female involved or suggestion of criminality, although clearly he was flying close to the wind.
His reputation for pursuing women and his stated aim to bed five thousand was well known at the time but it does not seem to have majorly interfered with his professional progress. We do not know how far he got in achieving his ambition, but the relative silence from his partners must say something. What, can only be surmised.
"Rape" in the UK
Rape has to be distinguished from "statutory rape", and is defined in Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 as follows:
"A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents."
It may be worth noting this definition dates from the relevant period of Brand's alleged sociopathic misbehaviour.
In relation to the offence for which he was found guilty, the Jury was obviously persuaded, despite the circumstances described, not only that the female had not given her consent to the act in question, but also that Brand could not have reasonably believed she had consented. This despite her agreement previously and up to that point.
I wonder if the graphic and rather disagreeable description of the alleged detail, influenced the Jury to convict? For some reason, in the two other cases of alleged rape, the Jury was not not convinced he was guilty. Why we do not know.
Rape statistics in Britain
It is instructive to consider the general context of rape allegations and the response of police and prosecutors in Britain as it relates to the Brand case. We may reasonably ask why certain cases come to trial, while vast majority don't, and whether this indicates other factors, despite all the claimed checks and balances, may have a bearing on whether to prosecute or not. Obviously Brand believes other factors were involved and I can see why he thinks that way.
The figures I have before me suggest about 740,000 women were raped or sexually assaulted in the year up to March 2025. How this figure was calculated is not stated but it is said to be increasing. Note this does not include the rape of males which must be significant. In the same period 74.000 cases of rape were recorded but of these only about 2% ever get to court where the conviction rate stands at about 60%. So we may conclude that only 2 alleged rapists in a hundred ever get prosecuted, let alone convicted and that even the recorded figure is only a small proportion of total cases.
As one might expect, the Crown Prosecution Service attempts to put a more positive spin on its figures:
Siobhan Blake, National CPS Lead for Rape and Serious Sexual Offences, said:
“Victims of rape deserve a justice system that will fight to bring their abusers to account. Our prosecutors are completing record numbers of rape prosecutions and working hard to secure swift access to justice for victims, even in the face of significant pressures on the justice system.
“Completed rape prosecutions are at their highest level in a decade. We continue to charge well over seven in ten rape cases referred to us and, crucially, we are seeing fewer victims withdrawing before their cases conclude. That reflects the tireless work of our prosecutors and staff to ensure victims feel supported every step of the way.
“I hope this can encourages more victims to come forward with the confidence their case will be taken seriously and handled with care. We will continue working closely with police and our criminal justice partners to deliver justice for as many victims as possible." Completed rape prosecutions reach highest level in a decade, new data shows | The Crown Prosecution Service
Leaving aside the many notorious recent cases where police forces have refused to act against rape gangs, the huge attrition rate of reported and logged cases begs an important question: what actually in practice determines whether someone is prosecuted or not? More specifically, why was Russell Brand singled out for prosecution, for what in the scheme of things might be regarded as questionable circumstances? Are we to believe that objectively considered, the claimed rape of which he was convicted was more egregious than at least 70,000 others that were never prosecuted? If other factors came into the mix, what might they have been? I may be tempted to suggest a few.
Reels of Irony: Russell Brand. 'The Confession he never Made'
Massive GRIFTER!" Piers Morgan Grills Russell Brand On Allegations, Prison, 'Truth' & Religion
"Russell Brand is one of the most polarising figures in modern media: comedian, actor, commentator, and now a man at the centre of intense public debate.
In tonight's Uncensored interview, Brand discusses his evolving identity: from Hollywood star to political voice, his association with MAGA and his recent conversion to Christianity, explored in his new book.
However, the conversation also turns to the serious allegations he is currently facing - issues that continue to divide opinion and dominate headlines.
Piers Morgan is joined by Russell Brand for a striking, in-depth conversation on belief, controversy and the forces shaping his life today."
"WARNING: Contains graphic descriptions of sexual assault and discussion of topics some may find distressing.
Russell Brand is set to return to court today to be sentenced for raping one of his fans and sexually assaulting three other women during his showbiz career.
The former comedian and actor, now 51, was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court of raping a woman in 2009, as well as sexually assaulting female TV and radio workers between 2004 and 2009.
He was cleared by the jury of two counts of rape and one charge of attempted indecent assault.
Mr Justice Bennathan ordered Brand to start his prison sentence immediately after being found guilty last Thursday afternoon, sending him straight to prison.
The judge will pass sentence today, telling the shamed star how long he must now serve in custody."
On Thursday, 5th November, 2026*, Russell Brand was found guilty of four offences, and not guilty of three. Here's a recap of the charges:
(Ed: Incidentally (?) exactly 440 years after the 'Gunpowder Plot'!)
Guilty
- Brand was found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman whose breasts he grabbed at a bar in London in 2004
- He was also guilty of sexually assaulting a woman at the Choice FM studios in London in either 2004 or 2005, when he grabbed her face and kissed her before touching her breasts and bottom
- Brand was guilty of anally raping a woman at his then-home in London in 2009 after meeting her at a comedy show in Hammersmith
- He was also guilty of a sexual assault charge while working on a Channel 4 project in 2009, when he laid his head into the groin area of a woman working with him without her consent
Not guilty:
- He was cleared of an allegation that he raped a woman at a hotel in Bournemouth in 1999, during the Labour Party conference
- He was found not guilty of orally raping a woman in a toilet at a bar in London - the same woman he was found guilty of sexually assaulting when he grabbed her breasts
- He was also found not guilty of attempted indecent assault - he was accused of grabbing a woman’s arm and pulling her towards a toilet in 2001
Judge Mr Justice Bennathan opened his sentencing remarks by describing Russell Brand as a "sexual predator".
First, the judge talked about a sexual assault that took place in a bar in Soho in 2004 - he said that Brand's claim during the trial that he had "never touched a woman without her consent" was one of a "series of lies".
Moving on to a sexual assault against a woman at the Choice FM studios in 2004 or 2005, where Brand grabbed the victim's face and kissed her before touching her breasts and bottom, the judge said this was sustained and there was added humiliation in front of others.
Addressing the rape in 2009, the judge said when Brand ordered the victim to clean his sheets, it was a "humiliation".
Justice Bennathan said the sexual assault by Brand at Channel 4 in 2009 yet again showed his "staggering arrogance", adding: "Your entourage indulged your dreadful behaviour."
The judge then moved to sentence Brand to 10 years and six months in prison for rape and sexual assault. (Ed: Eligible for parole after two thirds. Placed on sex offenders' list and subject to licence conditions. If further complaintants come forward there could be further prosecutions and sentences!)
Brand did not react to the sentence, our reporter in court described, but he mouthed to his wife "I love you".
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.