TF. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

THE CROWN vs RUSSELL EDWARD BRAND ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖⚖️ Evidence and Witnesses. The commentary on witnesses and evidence in the Russell Brand case is all over the show. A few things urgently need clearing up. WITNESSES. Brand and Complainant 5 were alone together at his home, in his bedroom. Nobody else was in that bedroom the entire time she was there. So there are no witnesses. Full stop. And because there can be no witnesses, that is precisely what makes it a he-said / she-said case. Unlike a true creep and predator, Brand did not have cameras set up secretly recording their rendezvous. Which is actually quite ironic. Recording the encounter is almost something you could guarantee a real predator and sick monster would do. The fact he did not record it, is a strong argument that he treated her with ordinary respect and decency, not as prey. EVIDENCE As for what constitutes “evidence” This is where I see the most confusion in the discourse. And this is why it is imperative to understand the specifics of this case. People are arguing about forensic evidence and the lack thereof, as though it is somehow important here. Those discussions only expose the commentator as having no clue about this specific matter. I am genuinely bloody gobsmacked at how few people have taken five minutes to learn the basic established facts. Forensic evidence is not important here because Brand has never denied he had sexual relations with Complainant 5. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW Russell Brand is serving a nine-year prison term for a rape conviction because he cannot prove he had consent. So when it comes to the topic of evidence, the ONLY evidence that matters here is PROOF OF CONSENT. And herein lies the problem that affects everyone: what “proof” will satisfy the law that two adults both consented to sex? Brand is behind bars tonight because he cannot prove consent. So the question becomes: what constitutes consent in the eyes of the law? What does it look like? Do we need a written contract agreeing to sex from now on? Do we need to record a video clearly stating we give content? Or in this case, to be fair — what could Russell have produced in court to satisfy the claim that he did have consent? The answer is nothing. There is nothing he could have produced to prove he had consent, despite everything that led to Complainant 5 arriving at his home being the normal motions any of us would go through to have consensual sex with a partner. And that’s the injustice. The judge gave no indication or direction — as he handed down the sentence putting Brand in prison and praised all the stunning and brave groupies for coming forward 20 years later — as to what in God’s name he would accept as proof of consent. All other discourse about witnesses and evidence is pointless, and it misses the mark as to the very concerning precedent this sets for everyone else in the realms of the Commonwealth.