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

Weird, ignoring the Weinstein question altogether.....

You havent engaged at all with the victims perspective. That you feel this is something you "have to" be persuaded / bargained to engage with speaks volumes.

Asked and answered:

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.

So how about asking ie reading the testimony of the rape victims who dont report or did report but saw no charges pressed? What is their way back?

Your identity as a victim remains anonymous in the UK justice system - people are disputing their accounts quite possibly because they didn’t go to the police in the first instance and instead went this route- as it’s “just a tv programme” people can say whatever they like about it and do- that’s not an easy route either and yet no justice at the end of it - Brand hate him or otherwise does actually have rights here too and probably more so right now as there is no criminal investigation

Weird, you didnt ask a question, you made a statement?

But its pretty clear that we dont rely on facts in this thread!

The majority of posters here are only seeing the alleged victims pov, someone has to stand up for the legal system and the premise of innocent until proven guilty, despite how we might feel about Brand as a person. Thats the point of having a legal system, you let the facts decide.

Why do I have to engage with anyones perspective? Why dont you go read the accounts of people who's lives have been ruined, who;s families have disowned them, all on the back of unproven allegations?

Oh I forgot, Brand is rich and a celebrity so it doesnt matter, sure he can just sue if he wants.

Why dont the same rules apply for all?

I did in a follow up post. So do you oppose the fact Weinstein was exposed via investigative journalism? Do you oppose all investigative journalism that exposes criminality?

Lol, but its grand for the accused yeah?

You aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

with only 1.6% of accusations resulting in charges and thus even lower conviction rates I would say the odds are not in their favour.

But sure continue to smear the accusers.

Neither experience will be pleasant - absolutely - I just have a preference for using the justice system over the social media court of law that’s all

False accusations about anyone other than Brand hmm strange then that you keep bringing up this concern about lives and livelihoods ruined by false accusations.

"Why dont you go read the accounts of people who's lives have been ruined, who;s families have disowned them, all on the back of unproven allegations?"

So you have entirely discredited your own argument.

Why would you "have to" engage with the victims perspective? Have to be persuaded to engage with the perspective of rape victims in a thread duscussing rape allegations? Of course you dont have to but not doing so demonstrates the moral shortsightedness and intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

The point about engaging with the victims perspective is it explains the difficulties / failings / gaps in the criminal justice system in dealing with these cases.

It explains why real cases of rape may only come to light through media involvement.

You keep "just asking the question here" and ignoring the answers... refusing to engage with the victims explanations. So you can continue to ask the same questions... your posts have no answers, offer no concern or comfort for actual victims of rape except the tiny minority who see their assailant convicted.

On the face of it, the victims, C4 and The Times have acted with responsibility in bringing these allegations to light. The law allows them to take this course of action and they are within their rights to do so. Innocent until proven guilty is only one legal principle and its scope applies to specific situations only. It does not trump the rights of C4 etc to do what they have done. Or the right of Brand to vindicate his good name if they have abused those rights.

None of those gaps in the system make it ok to bypass the system and ruin someones life. I guess thats the fundamental difference, you think its ok to go around the legal system if you dont think it will work for you. I'd call that anarchy.

I'm gonna give a list of major crimes exposed via investigative journalism.

1. Harvey Weinstein, he wouldn't be in jail without it

2. Jimmy Savile - He was so litigious that nobody would go near the story, the police did nothing. So not exposed till he died

3. Sexual abuse in the church in both Ireland and abroad

4. Abuse in industrial schools etc

And now that's just a handful off the top of my head. By your logic, none of these investigations should ever have been aired or published. In spite of the fact they often led to prosecutions or simply exposed unpleasant realities that we refused to somewhere. Investigative journalism is ridiculously important and reveals failures in our systems. It also often holds the state to account.

The alleged victims should be going public with things they cant prove, hence we have defamatory laws.

But regardless of the outcome you will always have some reputational damage that money cant fix, "theres no smoke without fire" type of nonsense.

I dont know how you can say the system has failed these women, if there is no proof then there is no case? You can't fault the system for lack of evidence, unless you want to lower the bar on the burden of proof ?

Nope, much of the time going public with this info was what resulted in the police or Gardai investigating crimes. Eg there were multiple investigations of Weinstein but he smeared the victims, pressured police etc. And your logic appears to be, newspaper invests years of time and money into an investigation that law enforcement won't pursue and they should report it to the police and hope they handle it? I don't think you understand the important role of investigative journalism.... It's a public service.