Dispatches channel 4 expose **Read Opening Post before posting**

K-9

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136055#Comment_121136055

Maybe they don't have much confidence in the police and courts system to do much about it?

Tbh, I wouldn't blame them, or read a whole lot into it, there are understandable reasons why they might think it isn't worth it.

It is like wondering why Brand hasn't sued yet AFAWK

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136067#Comment_121136067

You continually ignore the points made by multiple posters on the thread about the reasons why women dont go to the police, about the tiny number of successful prosecutions for rape and sexual assault versus number in fact committed.

Would you be happy for a "paedo" (your phrasing not mine) to continue to be able to prey on children until found guilty in a court of law? Sure you can always report them afterwards or sue them for damages. That will "fix their lives afterwards" - again, your phrasing.

Or you can, after serious consideration of the allegations, issue a warning as a first step. Such action should not be taken lightly because defamation laws are there to protect against abuse of that.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136119#Comment_121136119

Do you think participating in this programme will be more cathartic or more harmful to them, assuming none of them actually proceed with a criminal complaint?

BorneTobyWilde

The position of trust laws in the UK should be amended to include celebrities, In 2022, following the ''Close the Loophole campaign '', England, Wales and Northern Ireland made changes to the law to include faith group leaders and sports coaches, but celebrities still can abuse their power balance over kids, like Schofield admits to. Surely celebrities have even more power over kids than teachers, doctors, care workers , coaches, faith leader, etc, the position of trust age of consent is 18, not 16, so I think it's about time celebrities were included.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136025#Comment_121136025

In that conversation we were talking about other celebrities suspecting that Brand was an abuser, but not publicly calling him out. Like what was happening with Weinstein.

You seem to have a lot of faith in the legal system, that failed the victims of Epstein, Cosby, Weinstein and the catholic Church. Rich people will lawyer up and sometimes need the investigations of media outlets to bring their crimes to light.

Sudden Valley

double post

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136121#Comment_121136121

The points made are about why victims dont go to the police at the time. The question that continually is avoided by yourself and others is why are the going to the media now? How is it less stressful to have this in public than in private?

Well who knows that they are a paedo until they have been found guilty? Thats kinda the whole point to be honest. There are some things that you cant just accuse people of without following the proper procedures. In these cases accusations are as damaging as any conviction.

BTW who are you saying can issue that warning in your last paragraph? It should be the police, at the moment its Channel 4. Therein lies the problem.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136223#Comment_121136223

I have more faith in the legal system than I do in Channel 4 reporters or social media. Why not just go straight to pitchforks if we are going to ignore the legal system?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136106#Comment_121136106

Again I will ask, would you not use whatever means you had at your disposal to stop someone from make a false claim against you in public? I know I would.

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136223#Comment_121136223

I totally disagree - one of the most serious of the alleged crimes in this tv programme happened in the UK which has far more protections for alleged victims than the US does and likely a much more level plainfield for prosecuting so called “celebrities” than the US does.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136251#Comment_121136251

If this was the Epstein case and channel 4 and the Sunday times were sitting on this information- the pitchforks would be out for them. I believe in their investigation performed by two publications that could be sued not some random posts on social media. Investigative journalism has brought down Presidents in the USA. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slow and investigative journalism can speed it up.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136270#Comment_121136270

I believe it also easier for celebrities to sue publications for slander in the Uk vs the US giving more protection for those that can hire the best lawyers to kill stories against them.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136272#Comment_121136272

Who says they have to sit on it? Why don't they go to police if they believe they have knowledge of a crime?

Its almost as if they get something out of it for themselves by going public.

And again, how do they decide who to go after? Any chance that they go after specific people or are you trying to tell me that Brand is the only person that they have this sort of salacious information on?

amandstu

Why cannot women who think they have been sexually assaulted to whatever degree or characterization not report the matter to the police as a matter of course without necessarily pressing charges?

I tend to go to the police if I have a problem.The last time I was bitten by a dog but the matter was delicate as I didn't want to name the owner and yet they were never in when I went to let them know

I got advice from the police but no more . But at least I had reported it(I did manage to tell the owner a bit later)

And there was also a fake door to door salesman that I reported (to no effect) another time

If all women (or men) reported those offenses then would be under no pressure to press charges against their inclination but the police might say to them that they were not the first to identify the person and a prosecution would be easier.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136315#Comment_121136315

Its the CPS who brings the case, not the alleged victim, but the point still stands. You could report something and then decline to take any further part and it would at least be on record.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136299#Comment_121136299

I would suspect that a paper can't go to a police with an accusation without the permission of the accuser. and then again we are back to why women don't go to the police with rape claims.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66843086

in this article they state " the 70,633 offences recorded by police in the year to September 2022, just 1.6% led to someone being charged. Of those charged, only a proportion will be convicted - when someone is found guilty of a crime."

I think they were investigating Brand as they received information he was doing something wrong. Do you have a problem with them investigating him?

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136258#Comment_121136258

And he didn't attempt to block it in the courts pre broadcast which says a lot tbh. He hasn't taken any legal action. Instead it's claiming a conspiracy against him.... Also we've got texts, emails with the victims where rape is directly referred to. The reason the victims are in a better position legally in contrast to a few years ago is the case built by channel 4 and the fact channel 4 and the Times are confident in the case.

Plenty of powerful people have buried such cases by virtue of wealth rather than innocence.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136326#Comment_121136326

No problem with them investigating anyone. I have a problem with them publishing accusations.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136341#Comment_121136341

He's perfectly free to take legal action against them.... Also this is exactly how everything about Weinstein came out....

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136331#Comment_121136331

But that doesn't mean that every wealthy person accused of something is guilty. Its pretty shocking how often that sort of thinking gets trotted out here as some sort of defence to ignoring the standard legal process.

We've had numerous examples of other celebrities from presidents to others in the media, as if that somehow lends some veracity to these accusations.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136341#Comment_121136341

So a newspaper investigates some celebrity. They find four women who give testimony to them and provides some texts etc. but are unwilling to go to the police or give permission to the newspaper to share their testimony with the police. In your mind, what should be their next course of action?

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136350#Comment_121136350

And there's a wealth of contemporary evidence in this case. The victims might not win a criminal case on the back of this but I imagine they have a strong civil case similar to E Jean Caroll if they wished to pursue it.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136331#Comment_121136331

So on one hand him not blocking it "says a lot" and on the other we are using the fact that he tried to stop one of the accusers as evidence of his guilt?

We know that when a celebrity tries to block something it just adds fuel to the pitchfork brigade, just like we know that victims of rape will typically not report it.

Its interesting how some of you are willing to pick and choose when to draw your conclusions from others inactions to suit your preconceived opinions.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136351#Comment_121136351

I would have though it was obvious by now but..."go to the police" with their information and let the police investigate?

This idea that the police wont investigate unless its firsthand information is so bogus. How do you think they investigate murders, a bloody séance with the victim first, just to kick things off?

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136364#Comment_121136364

He's free to sue channel 4 and co for millions. It'll damage Dispatches pretty exemplary reputation and work towards clearing his name by highlighting mistruths etc.

Do you think Ronan Farrow and co shouldn't have exposed Harvey Weinstein? Cause by your own logic, it should never have been published....

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136241#Comment_121136241

They arent avoided, its just another demonstration of you not engaging with the victims perpective. Multiple posters have explained to you why someone who thinks they are a single victim of an attack without witnesses did not speak up at the time but may come forward later. The question hasnt been ignored but was answered multiple times on the thread. So your statement is without foundation.

Read some of the testimony from victims as to why they dont go to the police. There are multiple such citations on the thread if you genuinely want to find out instead of asking me for a rehash.

Your posts show more concern about Brands (or similarly accuseds) reputation than about possible victims of rape. Reputational damage can be more easily compensated for / good name vindicated in court than rape or assault can be recovered from.

And you again continually ignore the point put to you about the tiny number of successful prosecutions for rape / assault versus the number actually committed.

The rules you have outlined would mean nobody could say anything about a sexual predator until they have actually been found guilty in a criminal trial.

You should write a strongly worded letter to The Times telling them they havent followed the 'proper procedure' in issuing the warning that they did about Brands conduct.

If C4 and The Times havent done due diligence on this they open themselves up to being sued and losing, suffering reputational damage and possible financial hit. So it appears thus far they have followed the 'proper procedure' in publishing this story.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136346#Comment_121136346

I guess I'll just keep asking and you guys can keep ignoring then?

Would you be happy to be wrongly accused of something heinous in public? Content in the fact that your life is in the toilet but you were awarded some money by a court?

K-9

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136192#Comment_121136192

I'd say cathartic plus satisfaction in warning others about a sexual predator who got away with it for over 20 years.

Going the court certainly isn't easy either. You'd get all this attention and probably worse when the case got to court. That's assuming the cps actually take it up.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136367#Comment_121136367

Great example - a crime that leaves the carcass of the victim compared to a crime where they dont have the testimony of the alleged victim and there is no physical evidence. How far do you think that is going to go? I quoted above how few rape offences recorded by police result in someone being charged for refence and they are most probably reported by the rape victim themselves.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121136346#Comment_121136346

What if a hypothetical person in a similar position to Brand had no funds to defend their name?

Would they be free to take a case against a media outlet with deep pockets and expensive legal advice?

Could it still be done with legal aid?