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

I don't think girl or boy, is at any fault in this situation. It would be creepy for a 31 year old male or female to ride a 16 year old, if it's consensual, that's all it is, an absolute weirdo riding a child who is legal because that's what a 16 year old is, a child, it wouldn't be hard to manipulate a child as a 31 year old celebrity. It's legal but it is morally questionable. If I had a friend who did that, I would ask him if he was afraid of women his own age.

Some things might be legal but morally reprehensible. Reverseing the genders makes no difference in this case.

"They (young women) get to **** their crushes while most men are lucky to get a match on tinder"

Weird and unhealthy attitude there.

Ah a Simpsons link , you must be a legal heavyweight and know your stuff

Its not illegal, is it morally right for a 31 year old to use his celebrity status to woo a teenager? Clearly not. Is this a person that we should take our moral compass from? That's his defence in the youtube videos. "They wanna shut me down cause I say the truth" bollocks .

He went down the rabbit hole of conspiracy and deep state, cannot get out of it anymore and goes full attack. Common pattern here, if you look at other cases like Till Lindeman, Andrew Tate or Douglas Adams.

The band came out and said "Actually what he did was a bit weird, we cannot fully support it" then they fired the chaperone.

Bill Badbody said something yesterday, although not in context of that issue that fits the issue of coming forward:

"If anyone has a problem with me, please say it to my large team of well paid lawyers who will crush you into financial oblivion."

When one of the girls reached out to Russel, this was threatened to her.

The girls who came out and reported Tills escapades were smashed to the ground by lawyers and the fans.

You have gone from... why don't they go to the police, that's a sign that aren't genuine ... to, even if found guilty, they may be innocent of rape. You refute your own posts from one to the next.

All I see in your posts are insinuations against the women here, anything to spread doubt - which becomes a defence and cover for rapists to operate. Yes, mud is easy to sling. And that seems to be the thrust of your posts... mud slinging against women who have been the victim of sexual assault and rapes. It is the default response of your posts. And you wonder why they don't come forward!

With added whataboutery about India, an entirely different jurisdiction. And not once do you show any concern or curiosity the number of rapes and sexual assault that do occur in India. You are completely misrepresenting the statistic - India classifies as 'false' does not mean they found the accusation to be false or that the complainant was lying. It simply means the case was not proceeded with, which could be for a whole host of reasons.

Any argument, excuse, muddying of the waters or mud slinging will be reached for to cast doubt on women.

Not once acknowledging the very real number of rapes that do occur and do not lead to a successful prosecution. Not once showing the slightest concern for such women, or how it might be remedied.

Not once acknowledging that rape might occur in circumstances that would be difficult to prove in a criminal court, as it comes down to one person's word against another e.g. in this case a 16 year old girl allegedly Brand orally raped here and she did not consent. How do you go about proving that in a court of law? You can establish sexual relations occurred, but how do you establish consent?

Brand can vindicate his good name in the courts if he thinks he can. The odds are stacked for him in such a trial, the onus is on C4 and the Times to justify their accusations.

Ok, take a step back here.

Can a 16 year old, of whatever gender, give informed consent to a 31 year old?

Surely the responsibility is on the 31 year old to think: 16 is a bit young to be sending taxis round so they can have sex with me?

No, I don't think anything criminally relevant (such as the use of knockout drops) happened. No. I don't think anything illegal was going on, I've never seen anything like it, nor heard anything like it from any of our crew of 100 people. All I heard from Till's parties were adults celebrating together. And yet things seem to have happened that, although legally ok, I personally don't think are ok. Certain structures have grown that went beyond the limits and values of the other band members. It is also important to us that Till's parties are not confused with our official after-show parties.

In bold the main point that can also be applied to Russell.

Had Tom Humphries been a shamanic looking demagogue with a "larger than life" personality who did a right wing conspiracy podcast, instead of a heavy set man in his late 40s who wrote about sport for the Irish Times, he'd have had a massive cult of cretinous simpletons defending him too.

I don't remember anybody saying that the allegations against Tom Humphries were "a conspiracy"?

True, but also, it is more of an open and shut case when the victim is below the age of consent in the jurisdiction.

Would the likes of Ch4 and the Times spend 3 YEARS undercover on someone less famous and less controversial, and announce it with such fanfare?

There are multiple different motives at play here that we should be mindful off.

Who is Adams?