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

Best of luck getting an answer to your last question. Those who want to see Brand hung without trial continually ignore that question.

Relying on "sure you can always sue for defamation" as some sort of answer to your life being destroyed.

Its a committee, not a minister.

The Public Accounts Committee here for example is not part of the Government.

I think there is a spread of views here.

Some just to muzzle the findings of channel 4 and sunday times investigation. Some want no investigations from journalists that result in claims against individuals to be published until those individuals are charged ignoring the fact that investigations tend to be against the rich and powerful who are powerful enough to not get charged.

I don't want Brand hung I just want the claims against him to be heard. With only 1.6% of rape accusations resulting in anyone being charged in the UK ( in ireland it is 14% as a comparison) the odds would be that the accusations against Brand would never be heard.

You mentioned this earlier and I replied pointing out that in the Ryanair case, the judge said that in relation to anonymous witnesses, if brought to court, Dispatches would not be able to rely on their testimony as part of their defence.

One of the reasons why it took years was because Ryanair sought to force Dispatches to reveal the names of their anonymous sources. C4 claimed journalistic privilege for that.

The judge found in favour of C4, with the above caveat.

You ignore all of these nuances completely, and pop up now repeating the same statements without standing or foundation.

The way you present the scenario, no media organisation could ever lose for defamation as they could just claim journalistic privilege. And yet, the UK is renowned for the opposite. Your claims have no standing or foundation.

Ryanair were on a fishing expedition. They'd already been given sufficient access to the documents as per the legal process.

By these standards, Justice Hogan was satisfied that Ryanair was aware in broad terms the case it would have to meet.

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/court-of-appeal-ryanair-not-entitled-to-better-particulars-from-pilot-in-defamation-proceedings

The judge (Mr Justice Charles Meenan) also said that by invoking journalistic privilege, Channel 4 would be precluded from calling the four anonymous pilots without waiving such privilege. That may be of advantage to Ryanair at the hearing, he said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/channel-4-allowed-privilege-claim-in-ryanair-defamation-case-1.3245349

The way you present the scenario, no media organisation could ever lose for defamation

No, I didn't present anything like that, you interrupted that way. That's on you.

I said given the nature of the case similar to the Ryanair case where journalist privilege may need to tested by other courts it could take years. It was you who kept repeating without evidence that the odds are stacked in Brands favour.

This isn't your stereo typical tabloid inference case, Leveson made publications far more "savvy" in how they print or publish.

This is pre Leveson

There were parliamentary committees about Schofield and Edwards also.

What have they got to do with Russell Brand or Social Media companies or the UK Parliament trying to use their influence to monetarily penalise someone who has not been convicted or charged with a crime?

Has the committee written a letter asking the same for Antony?

If not, why not?

The burden of proof is on those making the accusations. Unlike in the US where organisations have to be seriously at fault, with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

So yes, the odds are stacked in favour of Brand or any one bringing proceedings. Your claims to the contrary have zero standing or foundation and are thoroughly discredited below.

 The Sunday Times and Channel 4 would have to rely on what is called the truth defence which means you will need to prove in the high court that these claims are “substantially true” on “the balance of probabilities.”

British libel law — one of the strictest in the world — ensures that a high bar is imposed for any accusations of impropriety. 

High-profile figures can also use the legal system to frustrate and delay reporting... Sometimes outlets face injunctions taken by such people that prevent the publication of a particular issue. Injunctions also prevent the reporting of the fact the injunction exists... There is no evidence Brand has taken steps to acquire an injunction in this case, or taken any legal action whatsoever.

Mr Morgan-Bentley said: "There has been some correspondence with a legal firm that has gone very quiet. They certainly did not address specific allegations. "Initially, they tried to demand the identities of the women, which we weren't willing to give up but we gave them plenty of information that would have made it straightforward for him to know who these women were. So they tried to push back, but they haven't come back with any details."

https://news.sky.com/story/why-are-the-allegations-against-russell-brand-only-coming-out-now-12964995

All of which asked and answered in my previous posts and ignored or not interpreted correctly by you.

They were not precluded from handing over the documents in a trial. I have cited articles on the court cases, articles on UK libel in general, you have ignored all of this and presented exactly zero supporting citations of your own to justify any of your claims.

That is not what the High Court said, you entirely mispresent it. Nowhere is it stated the material would not be handed over.

This is what the High Court said. It can be clearly seen you have misrepresented it.

it would be generally unfair to require a defendant to plead to such a high level of particularity in advance of discovery

The onus is not on Brand to prove he was defamed, again you mispresent the situation without foundation.

 The Sunday Times and Channel 4 would have to rely on what is called the truth defence which means you will need to prove in the high court that these claims are “substantially true” on “the balance of probabilities.”

https://www.sunderland.ac.uk/more/news/story/russell-brand-a-lesson-in-libel-for-everyone-2224

Apologies I meant to say impossible for Channel 4 to prove he wasn't defamed without violating journalist privilege.

Exactly what happened in the Ryanair Case, therefore the Judge through it out.

I don't know why you keep posting Carlolines opinion which appear to amount guessing what Channel 4 did and bizarrely finishing with the advice don't be a twit on twitter.

Also the opening segment of her "article" really does set the tone for the rest of it.

As comedian and wellness guru Russell Brand is accused of rape and other sexual assaults, University of Sunderland media law lecturer Carole Watson explains why investigative journalism costs time and money, and why Twitter users need to take more care.

The keyboard warriors inexplicably and shamefully supporting Russell Brand have taken to social media in their droves with conspiracy theories as to why The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches team have aired their allegations now. 

After what number of accusers does the premise of innocence pivot to presumption of guilt?

The burden of proof is only required if you want a successful legal prosecution, if you want a successful public "prosecution" you don't have the same burden it would appear. Brand, along with others, has been ruined without any trial or any burden of proof.