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

Generally news media organisations don't do three year long investigations on Dave from down the Dog And Duck. I'm sure you can understand the reasons why. Or maybe you can't.

Your primary response is to look for imagined bad motive. A conspiracy against the REAL victim Russell Brand, in other words, rather than dealing with what multiple women are telling you Russell Brand is.

As somebody once said, one of the greatest tricks of the totalitarian elites of the 1920s and 1930s was to twist any statement of fact into a question of motive.

The programme was not announced with fanfare. Most people only came to know it would be broadcast because Russell Brand himself announced it.

The “motives” of the programme makers are something secondary in my view- Shirley the key information within that programme are the statements descriptions and stories, which if true are shocking.

I don’t know how or why the programme got funding but from the producers explanation, it appears that both CH4 and The (Sunday) Times we’re struggling to get places with their individual investigations so pooled resources.

Complaints were made to Brands representative company 4 years ago which apparently triggered the investigation in the first place, is what I’ve deduced but I could be mistaken on that.

Just like that Michael Jackson documentary a few years ago, the statements from these alleged victims are just one side of a story. From a public perspective, some will believe them and others will shout conspiracy or what not- that’s why I’m not a fan of such programmes as it doesn’t leave either side with satisfaction- and if the victims are indeed telling the whole truth, they could be greatly damaged in any backlash from his “fans” and “followers” , even without them being named publicly.

What “multiple motives” are you referring to?

It's cult of personality in a social media age unfortunately. You get conspiracy theorists, Putin Supporters etc who will flock around Brand etc. Then you've got there people who would probably defend Weinstein and every other rapist.

One concern I have right huge social media profiles is that it's increasingly likely that they end up in jury pools.

it's always the ones you suspect the most

A lot of cranks and misfits with anti-social tendencies are drawn towards conspiracy theorists and right wing / far right politics. The ideology becomes far more important than issues such as personal morality.

douglas adams the creator of dilbert comics.

Iirc, there was a few users on here that defended Weinstein.

It also gives the “appearance” of mass support for the individual in question, given the internets global reach. In reality, it’s just a few people relatively speaking shouting very loudly in certain forums.

So, If you don’t participate in Twitter/X or these conspiracy forums, you’re left with just the ordinary public and your own close associates to influence how you might think and who’s views are more likely going to differ greatly from this small group of fanatics.

That's Scott Adams.

There was literally a disclaimer saying nobody got paid for their input.

Is it just me or does it seem that show business is full of these predator types? We've had Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Weinstein and a few others and I am sure that is only the tip of the iceberg. Is there something that attracts them or are they corrupted by the fame and people fanning over them?