And so the C4 preparing to air an 'investigation' into a celebrity over alleged criminal activity.
I think investigative journalism (if that is what it is) in cases like this, should be passed to the CPS before they air it in public.
Also think it is wrong of media outlets (like the BBC) to report on alleged cases and (maybe) suspects. Look what happened with Sir Cliff.
The meeja have learned nothing, as 'historic' cases with no evidence are regurgitated as unsupported fact/allegation.

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

After previous scandals involving TV “stars” resulted in the TV companies introducing tighter regulations and reporting requirements why should we be surprised to see those being applied?

Brand’s behaviour was always questionable and often completely unacceptable, at least to the majority.

Him being the focus of attention in the context of these revised expectations is only to be expected. Perhaps he has been expecting it and his attacks on the MSM are connected to preparing a defence whilst also providing a new source of income as the old ones had dried up because his behaviour had become recognised as unacceptable.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think it's fair to criticise Brand's highly promiscuous past as with the drug stuff, he has himself but it's fair....we are all entitled to that opinion but it's only that.

However, we are living in the 'OnlyFans' era and highly promiscuous people are usually not being shamed in the mainstream (perhaps they should be).

For me what happened with that phone call about Andrew Sachs's granddaughter was the worst and bad taste thing he did.....but he appeared genuinely remorseful for it as did Ross.....both are on the left so I can hardly be accused of batting for them.

But in regards to what has happened here it is of no surprise to me that if you run through that number of women that there is going to be some with an axe to grind for whatever reason.

Some might question that if Brand had been guilty of something that why we are hearing about it on a TV programme rather than from the Police.

Brand is a multi millionaire and can defend himself so I imagine that lawyers will be all over this.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Sep 2023 2.53pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

in the case of Elvis Presley....all those women threw themselves at him.

There are shocking stories about some of the Beatles, in their early days.....again, seemingly consensual.

are women attracted to wealthy/famous blokes like flies to a UV light ?

no smoke without fire......i reckon Brand is not somebody i could warm to. Is he a Psychopath ?

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Well, thank god for UK courts & not someone who is, so out of touch, it beggar's belief. In the highlighted bit, you have Brand guilty of Rape. You yourself have said you believe the 'unknown' women & that Brand's does not stand up. How many more bbc employee's are you going to stand up for when the overwhelming evidence says otherwise, Brand was an employee & before you start, yes i know he was sack/let go. Whoopy fcukin doo.

Brand, whether you like him or not, has been tried by TV, that is not legally binding. Too many people, incl you, jump on the 'snowflake' band wagon. Nothing has been 'proved' apart from the unknown women spouting off what ever they were paid to say.

I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold,
When a blind man cries, Lord, he feels it from his soul.
[Link]

What I said was the truth, and nothing but the truth. The issue is accusations of unlawful behaviour, including rape and not anything distasteful but legal. No-one has yet been tried, let alone convicted. That I found the statements by the women more believable than that of Brand does not mean a Court will. Due process is the only way to determine probable truth, which I also acknowledged.

Nothing in the way the women described their experiences gave any indication they were being paid, indeed one specifically rejected any such suggestion as a motivation. For sure if and when a Court hears their claims the defence will probe hard to find that out, examine bank accounts and lifestyles and during the exchanges of document disclosures. They would be extremely foolish to accept payment and the TV and Newspaper carrying out the investigation plain stupid to offer it.

Brand has not been tried by TV. An investigation has thrown up some allegations which could, in due time and following due process, result in a trial.

Deciding to make that investigation public, rather than take it directly to the police, can be questioned. No doubt that C4 and The Times would claim it's in the public interest but I would suggest it's more in the interest of the alleged victims to know they are not alone and that any case would be prosecuted jointly.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.