As of right now (about 45 minutes through the documentary) they have detailed descriptions of lurid sexual behaviour that’s distasteful, controlling and coercive but probably not actually illegal (though in certain specific circumstances sex between an adult and a child aged 16 or 17 actually is illegal), plus at least one allegation of rape, in LA, which was reported to a support service but not pursued with the police.
They haven’t claimed his behaviour is criminal except where his victim has done. In that case I suspect they know there’s little chance of Brand suing them because there is contemporaneous evidence, held by the rape support service the woman went to. They have alleged he breached his contract with Big Brother by having sex with multiple members of the production team but that’s a civil matter.
I find it highly compelling that all these women, who don’t know each other, are all independently describing their encounters with Brand in the same terms. Channel 4 and the Times have built a compelling picture of outrageous, predatory behaviour that any woman coming into his orbit needs to be aware of.
---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
No evidence required these days, along with the constant misuse of language and terms.
|
In ant criminal or civil court, independent witnesses consistently describing the same pattern of behaviour is evidence.