The Metropolitan Police has received a report of an alleged sexual assault in 2003 in the wake of media allegations about Russell Brand.

Officers did not name Brand, but said they were in contact with the woman and were "providing her with support".

Over the weekend the comedian and actor was accused of rape and sexual assaults between 2006 and 2013, which he denies.

Following the allegations, upcoming shows on Brand's live tour have been postponed, the promoter confirmed.

On Monday one of the women whose allegations against Brand were part of the investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches told the BBC the comedian's behaviour had been an "open secret", and described his denials as "laughable".

In a statement the Met said it was aware of the media allegations and continued: "On Sunday, 17 September, the Met received a report of a sexual assault which was alleged to have taken place in Soho in central London in 2003."

 

The force first spoke to the Sunday Times on Saturday, it said, and has since made further approaches to the newspaper and Channel 4 to ensure anyone who believes they are a victim of a sexual offence "no matter how long ago it was" knows how to report it to the police.

The force has not said they have begun a criminal investigation or that any arrests have been made.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

 

Seems women are somehow prohibited from reporting rape directly after the incident. Now, 20 yrs seems to be the legit waiting period.

 

Please explain........

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Seems women are somehow prohibited from reporting rape directly after the incident. Now, 20 yrs seems to be the legit waiting period.

 

Please explain........

There’s swaths of academic research on the subject, this will get you started:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7298584/

 

AsuMing of course you want to find out the answer to your question.

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s swaths of academic research on the subject, this will get you started:

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7298584/

 

AsuMing of course you want to find out the answer to your question.

So, you don't know either. Seems to be quite the thing these days. 

5 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

So, you don't know either. Seems to be quite the thing these days. 

I do at least know where to find the answer.

 

It was you who asked, but perhaps you didn’t want an answer.

39 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Seems women are somehow prohibited from reporting rape directly after the incident. Now, 20 yrs seems to be the legit waiting period.

 

Please explain........

Come on, whose diary ISN'T booked up for the next 20 years?

 

Generally they tend to wait for someone else to come forward with an accusation and then make a similar accusation. I'd expect a few more to come out of the woodwork in coming days. Following the scent of money like a bear to honey. Often it's ex partners who claim that even though they slept with X,Y or Z for 6 months, they later felt violated and hence it was non consensual.

 

Same with Spacey, they all wanted a piece of the pie. He was later found not guilty.

 

Some of them don't even bother going to the police, they go to journalists instead. Cutting out the middle man, so to speak.

 

It's a mad world to think that someone you slept with 20 years ago could turn up today and accuse you of rape. But that's the world we live in.

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Come on, whose diary ISN'T booked up for the next 20 years?

 

Generally they tend to wait for someone else to come forward with an accusation and then make a similar accusation. I'd expect a few more to come out of the woodwork in coming days. Following the scent of money like a bear to honey. Often it's ex partners who claim that even though they slept with X,Y or Z for 6 months, they later felt violated and hence it was non consensual.

 

Same with Spacey, they all wanted a piece of the pie. He was later found not guilty.

 

Some of them don't even bother going to the police, they go to journalists instead. Cutting out the middle man, so to speak.

 

It's a mad world to think that someone you slept with 20 years ago could turn up today and accuse you of rape. But that's the world we live in.

But, the accusations must be looked into, if they are not, the likes of Harris and Saville would still be doing their thing under the umbrella of being a celebrity...... ????

There's an assault on the American male. Before having sex the male should have a consent form handy before the deed is done. Either straight or gay, seems not to matter.

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

There's an assault on the American male. Before having sex the male should have a consent form handy before the deed is done. Either straight or gay, seems not to matter.

Great idea, or even a handy wallet size plastic card.............

Well, it would sort out the deemed untouchable.....????

49 minutes ago, transam said:

But, the accusations must be looked into, if they are not, the likes of Harris and Saville would still be doing their thing under the umbrella of being a celebrity...... ????

Agreed.

 

The problem is when people's careers are ruined before it even goes to court. Then they are often found not guilty but they are forever tarnished with the reputation of being a sex pest despite there being no evidence and a not guilty verdict.

 

It's a bit like what Amber Heard tried to do to Depp. In that case it backfired eventually (incredibly she actually won the UK case) but that's an exception to the rule.

 

Generally, there are very little consequences for the accuser even if the claims are proved to be false so it's like a free bet for them.

53 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

There's an assault on the American male. Before having sex the male should have a consent form handy before the deed is done. Either straight or gay, seems not to matter.

Wouldn't work. They'd claim she was too drunk/high and shouldn't have been asked to sign it.

49 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Agreed.

 

The problem is when people's careers are ruined before it even goes to court. Then they are often found not guilty but they are forever tarnished with the reputation of being a sex pest despite there being no evidence and a not guilty verdict.

 

It's a bit like what Amber Heard tried to do to Depp. In that case it backfired eventually (incredibly she actually won the UK case) but that's an exception to the rule.

 

Generally, there are very little consequences for the accuser even if the claims are proved to be false so it's like a free bet for them.

Yes, I also remember Cliff Richards dilemma...????

2 hours ago, transam said:

But, the accusations must be looked into, if they are not, the likes of Harris and Saville would still be doing their thing under the umbrella of being a celebrity...... ????

Precisely.

 

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

There's an assault on the American male. Before having sex the male should have a consent form handy before the deed is done. Either straight or gay, seems not to matter.

You would need the signed consent form,

But also 2 independent witnesses, and a doctors report stating she was of sound mind and sober. And I was told that by a lawyer at a Law lecture in university 1975.

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by BritManToo

From Social Media........

 

 

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Seems women are somehow prohibited from reporting rape directly after the incident. Now, 20 yrs seems to be the legit waiting period.

 

Please explain........

One of them did, she went to a rape center, got counseling and help, was very close to making an official complaint with the police but then backed out because of his status at the time. It is very clear in the initial report in the Sunday Times. There are even text messages from him after, saying he was "sorry" 

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Seems women are somehow prohibited from reporting rape directly after the incident. Now, 20 yrs seems to be the legit waiting period.

 

Please explain........

It happens. A mate of mine was sexually abused by his Doctor in his teens. He didn't report it or confide in anyone until his early 30's.

There was then an additional wait of several more years before the police felt they had sufficient complainants/evidence to launch a criminal investigation.

He would have been around 40 years old by the time the Doctor was convicted, jailed and struck-off. 

 

In general, I am still trying to figure out how I feel about the increasing trend of serious charges/accusations being made via the media. I suppose this is the classic investigative media expose which may well empower additional complainants to report their own issues but at what point do the hacks sit back and think they might have a moral obligation to hand over to the police rather than generating copy, to what extent does this kind of publicity impair any future judicial hearing and is it fair on the accused to be publicly exposed in this way outside the normal judicial process ? 

6 hours ago, transam said:

But, the accusations must be looked into, if they are not, the likes of Harris and Saville would still be doing their thing under the umbrella of being a celebrity...... ????

Trans, Didn't think that I would ever respond to one of your posts in this way but, spot on.

 

Wrt to other posters' concerns about those falsely accused, yes it is an issue. Imo it should be pretty simple - through legal channels - to financially compensate such individuals for loss of earnings, etc. Compensating them for the effects on their mental well-being, family, etc is a whole lot more difficult (impossible?). 

 

No easy answers but, as Trans infers, I guess that the question that we all have to answer for ourselves is along the lines of: "Is it better for some to be falsely accused if it means that the likes of Saville are stopped in their tracks and punished?"

7 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

There's an assault on the American male. Before having sex the male should have a consent form handy before the deed is done. Either straight or gay, seems not to matter.

brand is from the UK

12 hours ago, n00dle said:

brand is from the UK

Yes, you're quite right. I wonder which country is responsible for this insanity.

17 hours ago, BritManToo said:

You would need the signed consent form,

But also 2 independent witnesses, and a doctors report stating she was of sound mind and sober. And I was told that by a lawyer at a Law lecture in university 1975.

Naaa just get a rental when you are done send her home roll over and go to sleep

20 hours ago, BritManToo said:

You would need the signed consent form,

But also 2 independent witnesses, and a doctors report stating she was of sound mind and sober. And I was told that by a lawyer at a Law lecture in university 1975.

Self inflamed grievance stroking raises its ugly head.

 

You are being tortured by your own imagination.

On 9/19/2023 at 10:33 AM, JonnyF said:

 

The problem is when people's careers are ruined before it even goes to court.

Agreed, even before court all his programs have been removed by the beeb etc, banned from youtube, 

 

Seems you get a day on tv before  day in court

 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, realfunster said:

It happens. A mate of mine was sexually abused by his Doctor in his teens. He didn't report it or confide in anyone until his early 30's.

There was then an additional wait of several more years before the police felt they had sufficient complainants/evidence to launch a criminal investigation.

He would have been around 40 years old by the time the Doctor was convicted, jailed and struck-off. 

 

In general, I am still trying to figure out how I feel about the increasing trend of serious charges/accusations being made via the media. I suppose this is the classic investigative media expose which may well empower additional complainants to report their own issues but at what point do the hacks sit back and think they might have a moral obligation to hand over to the police rather than generating copy, to what extent does this kind of publicity impair any future judicial hearing and is it fair on the accused to be publicly exposed in this way outside the normal judicial process ? 

At what point did you think 'hack' and 'moral obligation' belonged in the same sentence?

On 9/19/2023 at 8:40 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Seems women are somehow prohibited from reporting rape directly after the incident. Now, 20 yrs seems to be the legit waiting period.

 

Please explain........

Are you a woman? Do you have any idea what it's like to go out in public in a woman's skin? Didn't think so.

On 9/19/2023 at 10:13 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I do at least know where to find the answer.

There is no "the answer". 

 

On 9/19/2023 at 9:05 AM, realfunster said:

It happens. A mate of mine was sexually abused by his Doctor in his teens. He didn't report it or confide in anyone until his early 30's.

There was then an additional wait of several more years before the police felt they had sufficient complainants/evidence to launch a criminal investigation.

He would have been around 40 years old by the time the Doctor was convicted, jailed and struck-off. 

 

In general, I am still trying to figure out how I feel about the increasing trend of serious charges/accusations being made via the media. I suppose this is the classic investigative media expose which may well empower additional complainants to report their own issues but at what point do the hacks sit back and think they might have a moral obligation to hand over to the police rather than generating copy, to what extent does this kind of publicity impair any future judicial hearing and is it fair on the accused to be publicly exposed in this way outside the normal judicial process ? 

In the cases of Savile and Prince Andrew, going to the police had no effect, owing to the protection afforded by their position. Reports were shelved/lost and it was only when a victim went to the papers that an investigation would start. I believe this was also the case with Epstein and Weinstein. Only when exposed in the press will the police then act as they are then unable to just sweep the matter under the carpet. Wealthy people have a number of ways of silencing accusers in the courts. Some injunctions are so severe, it is even illegal to report that one exists and then there is also the possibility of paying off the victim so the perp can continue without facing justice, as we have seen.

The deference paid to the rich and famous allows them to do what they like, cheat on their tax and get away with it and if anyone dares to challenge them, they have usually been brushed aside by the authorities protecting them or they bleat that they cannot get a fair trial as they have been exposed. I don't believe that is a valid excuse to let them continue their deeds unchecked as has happened so many times in the past.

On 9/19/2023 at 3:00 AM, PremiumLane said:

There are even text messages from him after, saying he was "sorry" 

Good idea there; never delete a text message. Two decades later it may come in handy. 

He wasn't rich and famous 20 years ago. Not worth reporting.  

The moral of the story? 

 

Do whatever you feel in your youth, just don't make any money????