In a joint investigation by C4 Despatches, The Times and the Sunday Times.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66836556

It used to be the Police who conducted investigations. Now it's trial via media.

It's called "investigative journalism" and it's been around for a long time. For whatever reason, the police the police often don't conduct investigations. Consider the Rotherham (UK) grooming gangs.

In this case it's a 4 year investigation. None of the women know each other, and they have not received money. It's taken so long as they journalists have been very meticiulous in ensuring as best they can that the alleged victims stories can be corroborated.

The whole matter of publishing allegations like this in the media without a fair trial is troubling. Kevin Spacey has recently managed to clear his name following several court cases, however not before it completely destroyed his career.

The whole “metoo” movement was not good for equity, where people’s stories should be believed at face value without due process. This seems to be an extension of that.

If they want to accuse him then go to the police. “Investigative journalism” is not the same as being tried by a jury of your peers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWGwCOi5XAI

Donald Trump

Julian Assange

Brett Kavanaugh

Andrew Tate

It seems to be the new norm to do against contrarians

Of those four, which three are the good, the bad and the ugly?

Brand denies the allegations and said that his relationships have all been consensual.

Text message screenshot

Right. But something seems off about this...

I get your sentiment and mostly agree with it (see Jon Ronson's book 'So you've been publicly shamed') but your logic doesn't work. For there to be a trial there has to be a prior allegation. The issue is actually, 'should these accusations be published in various media before a possible trial or does public discussion of the allegation prevent a fair trial and the accusations should be made 'in private''

Apparently part of the investigation got hold of threatening letters from lawyers discouraging women from reporting him. If he is so diligent in keeping lawyers intimidating his victims with threats of ruining their lives, why on earth did he enter into easily screenshot-able SMS confessions and apologies with them?

Also, how did Brand and, earlier in the summer, Huw Edwards, end up with their stories in the press but serial sex pest and blackmailer, Dan Wootton, has basically come up smelling of roses despite the sheer weight of evidence?

Yes. Same as with Rammstein... by now have state attorneys in several countries closed their investigation into Till Lindemann and therefore started questioning some of the ladies for false rape allegations. But in the public opinion will it stick for years no matter what investigators or courts find out.

The press making vague allegations into big letter headlines of sexual abuse is in this form rather... "difficult" to say the least.

Allegations should just be made to the police. I think the accused should also have the right to anonymity.

None of them are good.

Arrogance? Stupidity? He only got lawyered up when he realised he was in precarious position? Who knows?

Wootton has had his column in the Mail suspended, pending investigation, but he remains nightly on GB News.

The situation with Lindemann is not clear:

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellsc...-19171979.html

2:25 to 15:40
Unfortunately podcast in German.

Lindemann courted publicity, including directly for Rammsteins "sex parties". The allegations were not vague, but none has led yet to a court case. Lindemann has not been successful in a court in getting a retraction of any articles.

I have no data, but just a gut feeling that serious press investigations have led to many more criminals being convicted that innocent people being convicted by the court of public opinion. The gutter press and social media are a different situation.

The accuser should go to jail if allegations turn out to be bogus. This opportunistic approach to fame and money is doing nobody anything good.

I wouldn’t go that far. We shouldn’t be putting barriers in the way of potential rape victims coming forward. Unless of course the false accusation can be proven to be malicious.

The issue is, things can be bad without being illegal, which I suspect is the case in this instance. This shouldn’t give the right to smear peoples names in the press. Anonymity would solve a lot of these problems.

Sort of. What should happen is: if there's reasonable grounds to believe the allegations are bogus, in that they did not happen, then there should be a court case, and if it's established beyond reasonable doubt that they did not happen, then there should be sanction. Which is as the law stands in most places.

Isn't it already covered under defamation of character? Punishment then depends on degree of damage and whether it was intentionally malicious.