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

How do you out someone as being an abuser without being sued? Only the victims could out hik and if they didn't know anyone who would have also been abused and would also testify then not many people would put themselves through an ordeal of a court case.

We’ve seen stories like this in the past but where the alleged perpetrator wasn’t named - we’re sort of in somewhat new territory now (along with Weinstein and Cosby) where the perpetrator is named but yet no criminal investigation has yet commenced as no formal complaint has been made to the designated legal authorities

- it’s obviously a situation that doesn’t sit well with some, me included, but for different reasons also.

I don’t like it because as much as the formal justice system is flawed, I believe we should use it where possible as it’s much better than this trial by social media bull.

If no criminal complaints are made by the current anonymous alleged victims, what happens? Obviously Brands ability to make a living in the future is severely curtailed but is that it?

I don’t see justice here; I don’t see alleged victim satisfaction here; I don’t really see anything positive happening for the alleged victims, as a result of this programme being aired, and Brand being named. But I don’t think society in general are comfortable with “justice by media” - media has a role to play in helping to improve justice for all and especially the most vulnerable in society, but this isn’t the way to do it

Said without evidence, dismissed withoug evidence.

Youre asking about a non-event? If theres a non-event then theres no change i suppose.

Are these hypothetical accusers sincere?

The women's account in the documentary is "actual evidence" it would be valid in a court case. The text message exchange between the woman called Nadia and Brand is actual evidence.

Obviously for any legal punishment there will need to be a court case so Brand will get due process.

This is not idle gossip like a Facebook comment or a YouTube video, it is a well researched investigative journalism.

It was this type of work that unearthed Watergate, clerical abuses, Jimmy Savillle, Weinstein to name a few.

It is not idle gossip.

I would agree that going to trial is the best option for society. I'm not sure why you are so aggressive in your posts, as I never said otherwise.

Some people that are sexually abused just can't put themselves through a trial knowing that they may not be believed by the jury. Publicising the case may communicate to other women that they were not alone in being abused by Brand so this could assist a court case so publicising in the media a claim like this is not always a bad thing.

The story of him turning up outside a school to pick up a 16 year old while hes in his 30s could only be defended by far right boomer types.

But you would concede that the allegations were so compelling that it required a bench trial, cross examination or defense evidence to finally determine there was insufficient cause to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. It still warranted investigation it still warranted indictment and/or arrest. While everyone is innocent until proven guilty, they can sit credibly accused, can they not.

Cliff Ruchards started his FAIR campaign to ask for anonymity for the accused and i could why given he was treated so badly by the media. It is difficult moral question.

We have seen in the past how rich people such as weinstein, Epstein, Cosby and organisations such as the Catholic Church have only been brought to justice by first media campaigns putting the spotlight on them ensuring no backroom deals could be done through the justice system to get them off. The justice system was initially found to be inadequate to deal with these cases. Some people or organisations are just too powerful and rich to have any fear of the justice system.

Harvey Weinstein was proteted by Hollywood executives from 1991 when he started abusing to 2020 when he was finally convicted. Here's a partial list of people who defended Weinstein, many of them after his acccusers went public in 2017.

Attorneys Gloria Allred, Lisa Bloom and David Boies. Hillary Clinton's publicist Nick Merrill, NBC CEO Stephen Burke, NBC president Noah Oppenheim, NBC and MSNMC Chariman Andrew Lack, MSNBC president Phil Griffin. These are people that didn't just defend him, they actively lied on his behalf and tried to impair or stop investigations.

All are either members of the Democratic party, large donors to the Democratic party, and/or politically liberal leftists like almost all of Hollywood.

Does that mean liberal leftists are all rape apologists or support rapists? These ones for sure did, and were a lot more influential than posters on boards. I wouldn't smear all leftists with the same brush though, that would be idiotic.