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

Yes, the standard legal route that would have been expected from Brand is to seek a gagging order.

His legal representatives received notification and could have responded before publication.

C4 and The Times would have had to meet the bar as outlined below if challenged in court.

That no such attempt was made is telling.

https://www.lawble.co.uk/gagging-orders/#:~:text=A%20gagging%20order%20can%20be,about%20to%20be%20made%20public.

One of the many reasons victims don't go to the police is proof/evidence. How do you prove someone raped you?

People here demand evidence, what do you require exactly? One victim went to a rape service but that documented evidence isn't proof enough apparently. Should she have asked brand to stop raping her for a few minutes so she could video her ordeal?

There are text messages to another but still more "proof" is required.

Many high profile women have called him a predator and he openly makes rape jokes and publicly behaves in a sleazy way but the onus is on victims to not get raped? and if they do have the audacity to get sexually assaulted can they make sure they have video and photographic evidence please and witnesses.

This sh1t is why people don't report it to the police.

And if they are 'ruined' and don't comeback it is typically because there was enough reputational damage from the behaviour which was established about them (short of criminal behaviour).

Not necessarily. It could be construed that way. And even if so construed, it would seem better to prevent the specific allegations from being published - if they are without merit or foundation. All that would be known if that Brand got a gagging order, there could many possible reasons - accusations of drug use, involvement with married person etc etc

Where did I say anything about an automatic right to a gagging order? I linked an article listing the possible grounds one can be obtained.

No attempt seems to have been made by Brand \ his legal representatives to seek a gagging order or injunction.

Paul Morgan-Bentley, head of investigations at The Times, was one of the journalists who worked on the Brand story:

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."

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

Listen you are coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories to apply guilt.

If he didn't get a gagging order it is telling, if he doesn't take a civil case it is telling.

Whilst at the same time telling us all how rich and powerful he is and how he would be able to afford the best legal representation in Britain.

Has it not occurred to you he is doing exactly what his legal team are telling him to do.

The game changed after Spacey, you don't tweet out an apology on events you don't fully understand or remember.

You deny. Then you say nothing.

It's working, the amount of articles written about Brand including the tabloids has nose dived in the past 2 days.

The interest peaked on Monday, for a story that only gained real traction on the Sunday.

Also some of the behaviour of some journalists and some politicians are giving some credence to his narrative.

His lawyers if they are expensive and powerful are also acutely aware that people are tired of cancel culture.

Let it play out. It's not a Netflix show, you can't binge watch it in a sitting.

I would agree he is playing the media game well. He will not lose his rumble show anytime soon but it will also be hard for him to issue any new episodes with the elphant in the room. I don't see his youtube channel being monetised anytime soon too.

What happens next depends on if there is a police investigation. That could drag on.

So you haven't considered it.

If there is absolutely no room for doubt in your own opinion and theories, why are you on a messaging board?

Has R Kelly had his channels restored or remonetized?

Has Brand been charged and jailed?

Has it occurred to you that the reason Brand may not seek defamation case is that the allegations are true?

Ahhhh. I am one of the few on here that has honestly stated he is not innocent. I did that by looking at what is available and engaging in debate not by using stringent ideology. I'd have some reservations about the veracity of some of the commentary though.

Also Me pointing out to you the last time Dispatches were sued for defamation by a multi billion pound company they "won" was in response to your claim that he would easily knock out a defamation case in court and if he didn't go through with it he is guilty.

Also going through a civil case might just end with the public learning more about the extent of the allegations. Plus the more media attention that happens makes it more likely for people to come forward about his behaviour.

I'm still amazed that there are posters entirely ignoring the fact that a woman went to a rape crisis clinic the day after. Others texted and emailed him in relation to being raped by him. That makes them credible claims whatever way you wish to paint it and the odds of him winning any case seem low and more likely to further damage his reputation.

There is speculation that Nadia's text message has been doctored. Some cut and paste work seems to have been done on it.

Her concern seems to be that Brand didn't use a condom and that she might have an STD and needs to get tested. The documentary implies that her "no means no" and Brand's subsequent apology mean that they had sex without her consent. But it seems more likely that they're both referring to the lack of condom use. Maybe she consented to sex but unbeknownst to her he wasn't using a sheath.

Of course, the sensationalist documentary flashed her whole text up very briefly and then just highlighted the "no means no" part, leaving out the context. They also showed the rape centre report but redacted nearly all of it—it would be interesting to see the whole lot of it.

If she consented to sex and didn't ask him to use a condom but assumed he was—would that be rape?

I'm sure posters are gonna get outraged about this pretty bizarre conspiracy theory. You really think channel 4 would happily use doctored messages that would have to be disclosed if he ever went to court? Where exactly are you getting this speculation from?