Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Ah, so another one cancelled by "trial by the media".
[ Without, as best I can tell, any concrete proof or actual convictions ].
|
Since when did a newspaper investigation have to wait for someone to be convicted? Dispatches and the Times have done what investigative journalists have been doing for as long as the profession has existed. They have researched and published evidence of wrongdoing. The only legal bar they have to clear is to satisfy themselves they could defend a defamation claim if one were to be brought - to do that in these circumstances they would have to show that it is more likely than not that Brand has done the things claimed. They would have no trouble doing that given the number of women independently giving the same details. They have demonstrated a pattern of behaviour.
It is for others to decide what action, if any, to take on the basis of what they have reported. Having read the Times article and watched the Dispatches report, I think platforms that are temporarily removing his content are acting wisely. There’s more than enough evidence out there now to take precautions, especially given recent criminal convictions of other powerful media men who got away with it for years and whose media profile continued to shield them.