Instant justice

Russell Brand has been found guilty-by-media of rape.

Anyone who reads my blog will know that I normally put in a link to the bbc website for the story I'm on about. However the BBC seems to have this strange idea about not reporting people accused in rape cases. So I've linked this in instead.*

It does seem in this case that a woman has been raped as she's been sensible enough to go to the hospital to receive forensic tests. However, no-one knows who has raped her and as it would seem a DNA test will identify who did (and more importantly who didn't) rape her I don't see why those involved have to be named. Famous or not.

The victim is allowed (quite rightly) to remain anonymous but the accused is not. It doesn't make any sense.

As I've said before, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but regardless of the outcome Russell Brand's name will now always be associated (by some) with rape.

Craig Charles to this day is still associated with rape despite being found innocent in court... My wife didn't even know he was found innocent until she saw me typing this. Why does this happen?

Because a media circus is created when the allegations come out but when the celebrity in question turns out to be innocent the media rarely seem interested in letting everyone know.

It doesn't help that the press complaints association is a toothless organisation run for the media by the media. If any form of media makes an allegation about someone which later turns out to be false then the retraction should be to the same scale as the allegation. (e.g. if it was a front page filling story, it should be a front page filling retraction)

* I should also point out that Russell Brand has a show on Radio 6 so the BBC may not be inclined to cover the story on those grounds.