FabSwingers.com forum: Utube suspends adverts on russel brands videos.

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

Apparently utube have now suspended adverts on russell brands videos following the allegations, so that he cant earn an income from it.

He is at the center of a major media storm where accusations have come against him, these would have been over a seven year period during the peak of his fame.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It seems odd to take away someone’s ability to earn money before there’s even been a criminal trial, he’s essentially been sacked via an unproved allegation

At the same time, YouTube is a private company and are allowed to choose who they associate with

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

Trial by Media and social media.

The lynch mob mentality out to get him before all the facts are out.

In the eyes of the media and public he's already guilty.

I'm not defending him as I have no allegiance to him and not a fan.

However I do believe that this trend of naming and shaming before the facts are proven is a very very dangerous thing,it's only a matter of time before an innocent man is accused of something and they take their lives or someone does it.

Also if there's victims involved having their assaults smeared all over the tabloids and social media must be very traumatic.

I don't think YouTube are doing it for any other reason other than saving self preservation.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

YouTube/Google are a business and if they don't want to be associated with him, then they don't have to be. It's not like the government going "right, because of the accusations against you, you can't get universal credit or a pension".

YouTube/Google don't wanna be seen as a place that potential sex pests can go to make money.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *orny-DJMan
over a year ago

Leigh-on-Sea

I hate it when organisations such as this do this sort of thing.

Disney did the same with Johnny Depp, dropping him over allegations which, in the end, turned out to be completely false.

Clearly, businesses like this have learned nothing from that.

Personally, I can't stand Russell Brand, but, we have a principle in our justice system whereby someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I have no idea what these allegations are, but, from what I understand, he hasn't even been arrested for anything, let alone charged with any offence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is what it issssssssssssss

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *omsubdevonCouple
over a year ago

Newton Abbot

Since the Cliff Richard scandal, when the BBC had to pay Cliff £2m in damages, the media have been very careful indeed about making allegations. Phil Schofield? True. BBC Newsreader? True.

Channel 4 and the Times would not have run this story if there wasn't solid evidence to say the allegations were provable.

He is done for in my eyes. Never liked him anyway

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ealMissShadyWoman
over a year ago

St Albans/ Welsh Borders

I believe the situation has escalated and Police are investigating.

More women are coming forward with new allegations....

Good move on YouTube's part because what kind of message does it send to victims of SA if he's allowed to profit from his bile

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *a LunaWoman
over a year ago

South Wales

I think it should be suspended whilst allegations are investigated. If nothing legal is done (I.e charging him) then he should be reinstated.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rixie_BlondeWoman
over a year ago

London (She/Her)

The State has a duty to presume innocence until proven guilty. Individuals and businesses are under no such obligation. Utube is not a State owned enterprise, it can have whatever rules it likes about sanctioning it’s contributors

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What I find very strange, is why didn't these women go to the police, instead of the media.

The last thing I would do if I'd been sexually assaulted is to even think about going to the media.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.

I'm not saying he isn't guilty but you have to ask yourself the question.

He needs to be allowed a fair investigation and a trial if needed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"I think it should be suspended whilst allegations are investigated. If nothing legal is done (I.e charging him) then he should be reinstated.

And be able to claim enormous compensation for loss of earning from the rumour mongers i.e. Dispatches.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Since the Cliff Richard scandal, when the BBC had to pay Cliff £2m in damages, the media have been very careful indeed about making allegations. Phil Schofield? True. BBC Newsreader? True.

Channel 4 and the Times would not have run this story if there wasn't solid evidence to say the allegations were provable.

He is done for in my eyes. Never liked him anyway "

I can’t stand him but there is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

To say that media outlets would not run stories takes me back to my grandparents saying “the Sun wouldn’t dare print things unless they are true” back in the day.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uke_silverMan
over a year ago

London

"The State has a duty to presume innocence until proven guilty. Individuals and businesses are under no such obligation. Utube is not a State owned enterprise, it can have whatever rules it likes about sanctioning it’s contributors "

This! The presumption of innocence is a legal principle related to the burden of proof. Even if someone is acquitted in a criminal trial, that still doesn't mean individuals or business can't choose to disassociate themselves from that person - there is no requirement that 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' extends to life outside a court of law.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"Since the Cliff Richard scandal, when the BBC had to pay Cliff £2m in damages, the media have been very careful indeed about making allegations. Phil Schofield? True. BBC Newsreader? True.

Channel 4 and the Times would not have run this story if there wasn't solid evidence to say the allegations were provable.

He is done for in my eyes. Never liked him anyway "

I think he is done for in anyone's eyes and before any truth has been established.

Is it okay for that to happen , in a 'fair' system, just because someone doesn't like someone else ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What I find very strange, is why didn't these women go to the police, instead of the media.

The last thing I would do if I'd been sexually assaulted is to even think about going to the media.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.

I'm not saying he isn't guilty but you have to ask yourself the question.

He needs to be allowed a fair investigation and a trial if needed."

I think people being too afraid to and not wanting to go to the police is pretty normal and understandable. Especially given prosecution rates for these kinds of cases and also given the perception people have about how police handle these crimes from other victim’s experiences. Anonymously going on this show allows a platform to tell your story uninterrupted. It allows that and other victims might come forward too.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"What I find very strange, is why didn't these women go to the police, instead of the media.

The last thing I would do if I'd been sexually assaulted is to even think about going to the media.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.

I'm not saying he isn't guilty but you have to ask yourself the question.

He needs to be allowed a fair investigation and a trial if needed."

Because, I would hazard a guess , that the media went to THEM....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I had no idea he was Jo Brand's son.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

This will now play into the 'conspiracy theory' mob.

It argues that rather than investigate and prosecute, they're trying to take away his dignity and earnings.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *mashingPumpkinMan
over a year ago

Carmarthen

The media have a hit list of celebrities to destroy!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oofy321Man
over a year ago

moon base zero

"I hate it when organisations such as this do this sort of thing.

Disney did the same with Johnny Depp, dropping him over allegations which, in the end, turned out to be completely false.

Clearly, businesses like this have learned nothing from that.

Personally, I can't stand Russell Brand, but, we have a principle in our justice system whereby someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I have no idea what these allegations are, but, from what I understand, he hasn't even been arrested for anything, let alone charged with any offence."

Depp was different because he was found guilty in a UK Court

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illan-KillashMan
over a year ago

London/Sussex/Surrey/Berks/Hants

So far we have;

He's innocent because he's funny.

He's guilty because he's not funny.

He's guilty because people don't like him.

To date we have is a media investigation and the accusations of several women.

I'll wait for a proper investigation by the authorities, charges to be made, a trial held and a verdict reached.

What I think or believe are irrelevant to the actual established facts.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illan-KillashMan
over a year ago

London/Sussex/Surrey/Berks/Hants

"This will now play into the 'conspiracy theory' mob.

It argues that rather than investigate and prosecute, they're trying to take away his dignity and earnings. "

Yesterday's thread on him a perfect case in point. It was an eye roller......

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I hate it when organisations such as this do this sort of thing.

Disney did the same with Johnny Depp, dropping him over allegations which, in the end, turned out to be completely false.

Clearly, businesses like this have learned nothing from that.

Personally, I can't stand Russell Brand, but, we have a principle in our justice system whereby someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I have no idea what these allegations are, but, from what I understand, he hasn't even been arrested for anything, let alone charged with any offence."

He cant be arrested if the police have no complaint from a victim. To date I dont believe the victims have gone to police.

A number of the alleged attacks were reported to have happenned in USA. An arrest by

UK police would need an extradition request from the US authorities.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

It might seem a sudden and knee-jerk reaction, but in reality, the investigation has been going on for years, YouTube will have known about it for quite some time, and they will have satisfied themselves that they are in a strong legal position to take the action that they have taken.

What has not happened is some bloke from YouTube watching Dispatches or reading headlines and taking this decision.

Fact is, we are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg at the moment, and a lot more will be known than has been published

Having said that, I find it strange that YouTube have that power, to cut off income without a conviction or being able to point to their own investigation or disciplinary process. But obviously they do have that power

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *a LunaWoman
over a year ago

South Wales

The issue I have with this whole thing is that it is alledged to have happened years and years ago.

As a victim, unless you kept evidence of it, told people, got medical notes, dna evidence, it is hard to prove. But if you do have that evidence then why not go to the Police first?

As an alledged perpetrator, how the hell are you supposed to clear your name unless you have a diary. I can’t remember what I had for tea last Friday, never mind remembering what my movements were back a few years. I appreciate if you’re famous it’s a bit different as you would have had a PA who manages your movements for events etc. but still…..it’ll be hard going.

Also, I’m confused. The dispatches programme played out the statements from the alleged victims and then played out parts of Brands stage acts over the years, where he more or less said stuff that the victims accused him of. So which happened first? The stage act material or the alledged abuse?

Also, the 16 year old went on to gain employment with Channel 4 who then made the Dispatches programme. How is that unbiased reporting?

Trial by media really needs to stop. Let the Police and the Courts do their jobs. Or at the very least give them an opportunity to do their jobs.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

He signed a lucrative contact, potentially earning millions from churning out dross, so has to abide by that, like all businesses do. He's free, subject to terms that he wanted. The world could be a better place without his shite.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ts the taking part thatMan
over a year ago

southampton

"Since the Cliff Richard scandal, when the BBC had to pay Cliff £2m in damages, the media have been very careful indeed about making allegations. Phil Schofield? True. BBC Newsreader? True.

Channel 4 and the Times would not have run this story if there wasn't solid evidence to say the allegations were provable.

He is done for in my eyes. Never liked him anyway "

Imagine your guilt being based on if someone likes you, that there Sums through hole situation up.

I've always felt he is as false as Jimmy Saville when interviewed etc but no idea on his guilt. Courts will decide not the public based on TV shows.

Complaints after 20 years or more lose so much value. Opinions may differ.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

"The issue I have with this whole thing is that it is alledged to have happened years and years ago.

As a victim, unless you kept evidence of it, told people, got medical notes, dna evidence, it is hard to prove. But if you do have that evidence then why not go to the Police first?

Also, the 16 year old went on to gain employment with Channel 4 who then made the Dispatches programme. How is that unbiased reporting?

Trial by media really needs to stop. Let the Police and the Courts do their jobs. Or at the very least give them an opportunity to do their jobs. "

Your logic has no power here! Now be gone before people notice it makes sense.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"I think it should be suspended whilst allegations are investigated. If nothing legal is done (I.e charging him) then he should be reinstated.

And be able to claim enormous compensation for loss of earning from the rumour mongers i.e. Dispatches. "

You are dismissing the Dispatches findings as “rumours”?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The reason they go to the media instead of the police is because they probably know they don’t have enough evidence to gain a criminal conviction

So the next best thing is to take it to the court of public opinion where you are guilty until proven innocent

Can’t prove you didn’t do something decades ago? Guilty.

If you seriously think you can get a criminal conviction one of the worst things you can do is go to the media. The first thing Brands lawyers will do now is try to get off on the fact that the documentary and media frenzy makes it impossible to have an impartial jury and that Brand hasn’t been given a fair trial

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"The issue I have with this whole thing is that it is alledged to have happened years and years ago.

As a victim, unless you kept evidence of it, told people, got medical notes, dna evidence, it is hard to prove. But if you do have that evidence then why not go to the Police first?

Also, the 16 year old went on to gain employment with Channel 4 who then made the Dispatches programme. How is that unbiased reporting?

Trial by media really needs to stop. Let the Police and the Courts do their jobs. Or at the very least give them an opportunity to do their jobs. "

You seem to be saying that there is no place for investigative journalism, which I find staggering.

Watergate only became a police matter because of the work done by investigative journalists. And investigative journalists in mu home country of Ireland were instrumental in shining a light on organised crime, with the legal system lumbering slowly behind.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

. But if you do have that evidence then why not go to the Police first?

. "

There are many valid reasons why.

Think about discussing your last sexual encounter with a stranger, with them asking you very very detailed questuins about every aspect of that encounter. Thats not going to be a comfortable experience. And that would be, presumably, talking about a consensual and enjoyable experience. Now imagine how much harder that would be for a non consensual experience.

The questioning motivations of how and when victims/survivors choose to reveal their experiences is one of the reasons for the delays in sone cases.

It adds to the victim blaming narrative, which in turn makes it even harder for victims, which delays reporting, which becomes a vicious cycle.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

"Since the Cliff Richard scandal, when the BBC had to pay Cliff £2m in damages, the media have been very careful indeed about making allegations. Phil Schofield? True. BBC Newsreader? True.

Channel 4 and the Times would not have run this story if there wasn't solid evidence to say the allegations were provable.

He is done for in my eyes. Never liked him anyway

Imagine your guilt being based on if someone likes you, that there Sums through hole situation up.

I've always felt he is as false as Jimmy Saville when interviewed etc but no idea on his guilt. Courts will decide not the public based on TV shows.

Complaints after 20 years or more lose so much value. Opinions may differ.

Exactly why they take things like this to court of public opinion. It influences, twists and turns, causes biased opinions. Regardless of true or not it's a smear campaign, not a crusade of justice (for the media) - they don't care for the victims, they just love the drama and chaos. It keeps them relevant.

As was said above you can be sure the media went to these victims, not that the victims suddenly came forward. They will have been paid rather nicely for their stories (true or not). All this shit should have been passed to police and allowed to be done in private - why wasn't it? Because the media would not be able to shake things up in the same way if it went nowhere with the police.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"I think it should be suspended whilst allegations are investigated. If nothing legal is done (I.e charging him) then he should be reinstated.

Actually, YouTube can set and enforce their own rules.

I can be fired from a job without having broken any laws, but having broken company rules.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *a LunaWoman
over a year ago

South Wales

And also (sorry, I’m on my soapbox now) but whilst I agree there is no doubt that his “comedy” and stuff was bloody awful and the way he treated women on tv shows was (looking back) bloody awful and cringe inducing, it was, unfortunately, a sign of the times.

He said awful stuff on the telly AND the radio. But at the time he was allowed to do it. Viewing again, in those times he was allowed to get away with it and was probably encouraged to do it ( just like Oliver Reed was, and many others).

But that was then. Times have moved on. He has moved on. What people can do and get away with has changed.

I’m not sure what the point I’m trying to make is, but it just seems a bit. I dunno.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Innocent until proven guilty in a Court is how it needs to be.

It’s got to the stage I no longer believe anything in the media.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"Since the Cliff Richard scandal, when the BBC had to pay Cliff £2m in damages, the media have been very careful indeed about making allegations. Phil Schofield? True. BBC Newsreader? True.

Channel 4 and the Times would not have run this story if there wasn't solid evidence to say the allegations were provable.

He is done for in my eyes. Never liked him anyway

Imagine your guilt being based on if someone likes you, that there Sums through hole situation up.

I've always felt he is as false as Jimmy Saville when interviewed etc but no idea on his guilt. Courts will decide not the public based on TV shows.

Complaints after 20 years or more lose so much value. Opinions may differ.

Keeps them relevant? But most of the accusers have remained anonymous. They’re not on the cover of a newspaper with a larger cheque for their story. The reason people do this is often to protect others

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *a LunaWoman
over a year ago

South Wales

"The issue I have with this whole thing is that it is alledged to have happened years and years ago.

As a victim, unless you kept evidence of it, told people, got medical notes, dna evidence, it is hard to prove. But if you do have that evidence then why not go to the Police first?

Also, the 16 year old went on to gain employment with Channel 4 who then made the Dispatches programme. How is that unbiased reporting?

Trial by media really needs to stop. Let the Police and the Courts do their jobs. Or at the very least give them an opportunity to do their jobs.

You seem to be saying that there is no place for investigative journalism, which I find staggering.

I’m not saying that. But there is investigative journalists who investigate stuff and take their findings to the Police first. Before they make a tv program that has the potential to ruin lives and fuck up the chances of a) victims getting justice or b) a man getting a fair trial.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Since the Cliff Richard scandal, when the BBC had to pay Cliff £2m in damages, the media have been very careful indeed about making allegations. Phil Schofield? True. BBC Newsreader? True.

Channel 4 and the Times would not have run this story if there wasn't solid evidence to say the allegations were provable.

He is done for in my eyes. Never liked him anyway

Imagine your guilt being based on if someone likes you, that there Sums through hole situation up.

I've always felt he is as false as Jimmy Saville when interviewed etc but no idea on his guilt. Courts will decide not the public based on TV shows.

Complaints after 20 years or more lose so much value. Opinions may differ.

Pretty sure it was meant that it keeps the media source relevant. But hey, as soon as emotion gets hold, cognitive thinking seems to go out of the window.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"And also (sorry, I’m on my soapbox now) but whilst I agree there is no doubt that his “comedy” and stuff was bloody awful and the way he treated women on tv shows was (looking back) bloody awful and cringe inducing, it was, unfortunately, a sign of the times.

But that was then. Times have moved on. He has moved on. What people can do and get away with has changed.

I’m not sure what the point I’m trying to make is, but it just seems a bit. I dunno. "

The Dispatches programme wasn’t about his antics on tv or radio though. We all saw that stuff and we’re either fans or weren’t. It is about what was going on in the background.

Yes, times have changed, and the culture of they time looks awful when viewed like this

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *leasureseekers123Couple
over a year ago

Heathrow

I can’t believe that after all that has gone on over the last 10 years or so with women being brave enough to relive trauma’s from their past and coming forward to talk about them (I’m thinking things like Saville and Harris) that people still say

“What I don’t understand is why they didn’t go to the police in the first place. Makes you wonder”

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not a fan of the accused. Media have slaughtered him already. If those allegations are true send him down if not leave him alone.

Is he guilty, now he has to prove his innocence.

He knows what he did was wrong even consenting...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The issue I have with this whole thing is that it is alledged to have happened years and years ago.

As a victim, unless you kept evidence of it, told people, got medical notes, dna evidence, it is hard to prove. But if you do have that evidence then why not go to the Police first?

Also, the 16 year old went on to gain employment with Channel 4 who then made the Dispatches programme. How is that unbiased reporting?

Trial by media really needs to stop. Let the Police and the Courts do their jobs. Or at the very least give them an opportunity to do their jobs. "

To be fair the woman who was r*ped had the texts which were proven to have been between her phone and a phone belonging to RB. She also went to a shelter didn’t she? Where they examined her and interviewed her which we see excerpts of in the doc. And totally understandable why she didn’t go to the police at that time. Any victim that doesn’t trust going to the police about r*pe is valid imo. Especially because of how victims are treated according to people that speak about their experiences and how traumatic it is. She also explains why she didn’t- his fame at the time and the risks around that. And it was in the report from the shelter place.

I think on the 16 year old, I thought it was weird she ended up at C4 but I did also think it was interesting dispatches reached out to C4 for comment on many things and got wishy washy answers so it did seem to be a decent journalism job that appears to be pretty impartial. She also speaks ill of C4 at points talking about the way they handled discussing hiring him don’t they. Saying they’ll just get no women on the production team or something.

Idk I think maybe if the legal system made victims feel they could trust them to get justice and not be traumatised further and then labelled liars I think more people would trust going to them. But as said already, this kind of journalism is important for cases like this and has been over the years.

We’ll see what happens.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

"Exactly why they take things like this to court of public opinion. It influences, twists and turns, causes biased opinions. Regardless of true or not it's a smear campaign, not a crusade of justice (for the media) - they don't care for the victims, they just love the drama and chaos. It keeps them relevant.

The media, not the accusers. There are far bigger issues (yes there are) that go unreported or get far less media attention. They just don't have the drama or attention grabbing power of a "celebrity" doing wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"The issue I have with this whole thing is that it is alledged to have happened years and years ago.

As a victim, unless you kept evidence of it, told people, got medical notes, dna evidence, it is hard to prove. But if you do have that evidence then why not go to the Police first?

Also, the 16 year old went on to gain employment with Channel 4 who then made the Dispatches programme. How is that unbiased reporting?

Trial by media really needs to stop. Let the Police and the Courts do their jobs. Or at the very least give them an opportunity to do their jobs.

You seem to be saying that there is no place for investigative journalism, which I find staggering.

Investigative journalists publish their findings. That’s the entire point, they shine a light on a subject, whether it’s corruption or whatever, and legal system follows.

Investigative journalists don’t do the hard work and then simply quietly hand their findings to the police.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *loria JamesTV/TS
over a year ago

Durham

YouTube have strict rules for monetisation, they apply to Mr Brand in the same way they apply to everyone else.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What I find very strange, is why didn't these women go to the police, instead of the media.

The last thing I would do if I'd been sexually assaulted is to even think about going to the media.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.

I'm not saying he isn't guilty but you have to ask yourself the question.

He needs to be allowed a fair investigation and a trial if needed.

Because, I would hazard a guess , that the media went to THEM....

How would the media know to approach the women? How would the media know that anything had happened?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"YouTube have strict rules for monetisation, they apply to Mr Brand in the same way they apply to everyone else."

True. And they will not have taken this decision on a whim.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *a LunaWoman
over a year ago

South Wales

"The issue I have with this whole thing is that it is alledged to have happened years and years ago.

As a victim, unless you kept evidence of it, told people, got medical notes, dna evidence, it is hard to prove. But if you do have that evidence then why not go to the Police first?

Also, the 16 year old went on to gain employment with Channel 4 who then made the Dispatches programme. How is that unbiased reporting?

Trial by media really needs to stop. Let the Police and the Courts do their jobs. Or at the very least give them an opportunity to do their jobs.

You seem to be saying that there is no place for investigative journalism, which I find staggering.

Investigative journalists publish their findings. That’s the entire point, they shine a light on a subject, whether it’s corruption or whatever, and legal system follows.

Investigative journalists don’t do the hard work and then simply quietly hand their findings to the police. "

Well, I think they should. And then if the Police do bugger all and it looks like a cover up THEN they should go public.

I’m a bit naive in my faith of our legal system I guess - I still expect them to do their jobs, fairly.

But I know that’s not always how it works.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"What I find very strange, is why didn't these women go to the police, instead of the media.

The last thing I would do if I'd been sexually assaulted is to even think about going to the media.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.

I'm not saying he isn't guilty but you have to ask yourself the question.

He needs to be allowed a fair investigation and a trial if needed.

Because, I would hazard a guess , that the media went to THEM....

How would the media know to approach the women? How would the media know that anything had happened?"

The investigation will have had a starting point … a whistleblower, a witness, an alleged victim, and from that point, investigative journalists have worked on this story for 4 years.

We keep hearing that rumours were rife in the industry, and that his behaviour was an open secret.

But no, 5 women didn’t suddenly go running to the press at the same time, the journalists will have tracked them down. They may also have tracked down others who didn’t want to go on the record as they didn’t want to end up involved in any legal proceedings that may follow

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What I find very strange, is why didn't these women go to the police, instead of the media.

The last thing I would do if I'd been sexually assaulted is to even think about going to the media.

Makes you wonder doesn't it.

I'm not saying he isn't guilty but you have to ask yourself the question.

He needs to be allowed a fair investigation and a trial if needed.

Because, I would hazard a guess , that the media went to THEM....

How would the media know to approach the women? How would the media know that anything had happened?

The investigation will have had a starting point … a whistleblower, a witness, an alleged victim, and from that point, investigative journalists have worked on this story for 4 years.

We keep hearing that rumours were rife in the industry, and that his behaviour was an open secret.

Ahhhh ok