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

And what are the rules that they operate under? I don't think you understand the importance of due process.

Brands life is ruined, so called "cancelled" and yet what has he been charged with exactly?

You can criticise any one, especially any public figure all you want, go right ahead. But what has happened to Brand is not "discussion or criticism". His life is in tatters and will probably never recover.

Oh and small point, he hasn't been found guilty of abusing anyone. But that would be those pesky "facts" again, getting in the way of your mob rule.

With the defamation laws in the UK favouring the accused

Do they favour the accused?

Particularly in a case where Journalist Privilege would feature so heavily.

It could run for years.

Depp brought a case in the UK and the US.

He lost the UK one and won the US one.

Also Amber Heard testified on behalf of The Sun. She wasn't anonymised.

That isn't going to happen here I'd imagine.

So I don't given the nature of this particular case and protection offered to journalists how the odds are stacked in Brands favour?

It seems to have become fact on this thread but once put under a small bit of scrutiny falls apart.

Maybe it is stacked in his favour but there hasn't been an adequate explanation why?

We have heard on here if he doesn't take a defamation case he is guilty apparently.

To have any chance he would have to argue against journalistic privilege, which while not impossible will be extremely hard and in all likelihood take years.

It mentions it here that the uk system is usually more favourable to the claimant:

In comparison to the US which is irrelevant to the claim which would be UK based only. Also he won the case in the US and lost the one in UK.

Anyway completely different type case, apples and oranges.

I don't think investigative journalists should be muzzled or publications like Private Eye put out of business by not being able to publish their findings.

They aren't they have many and varied legal protections.

I can’t say I’m surprised, Brand a self confessed drug and sex addict that rang Manuel from faulty towers live on the air to tell him he had sex with his granddaughter. Class act all the way.

Ryanair sued Dispatches for defamation in 2013 it took years.

But again it's not my claim, the claim I challenged was that the odds are stacked in Brands favour to win a defamation case of this type.

My point was that one of this nature which will surely have a journalistic privileged argument, which may have to go to other courts. Which can take years.

Is it only a problem if it's a crime?

Why are elements of the UK government getting involved in this? It's very odd to say the least

Incorrect, I think he should be held to account by the justice system, not a bunch of keyboard warriors.

You seem to keep forgetting that he hasnt been convicted of anything yet?

I highlighted it yesterday.

It's like they are trying to best to prejudice any potential trial to earn cred.

As the Sach case has been mentioned, once the politicians starting doing the same thing with Ross and Brand the mood music completely changed in favour of them.

Antony who plays for Man United and Brazil, infinitely more famous than Brand has been accused of some horrendous and violent acts.

He also has a very large social media following. I assume Dame Caroline has written a letter about him too?

We know the justice system is flawed but is this method the correct alternative?

We know in this case that through his well publicised and his own accounts of behaviour through the years no less the rumour mill, this was somewhat of an inevitability.

But does this mean that from now on anyone who’s suspected of such behaviour gets outed, either through social media or wherever, as opposed to handing that information over to the police?

If there’s so much evidence against Brand (5/6 credible sounding stories) , it’s really disappointing that the first step wasn’t a criminal complaint by the victims and then give it time to let the police do their work.

Anyone advocating this method, whatever the crime, how would you feel if it was you or your loved ones being accused? We either have legal rights and a legal and criminal process or we don’t - with such compelling stories and accounts I would have been very surprised if a criminal case wasn’t taken - it wouldn’t have been so “instant” but I believe a better outcome would have been realised .

I can see the privacy point, but I think it is fair that they are suspended. A police officer making rape jokes or taking photos of naked dead women is gross misconduct to me, and they could well be called out to a rape case in the line of duty.