It's not uncommon for anonymity to be used on the front end of a program, but the press will be more careful than usual to have all the relevant Ts crossed and Is dotted behind the scenes when doing it because of the risk of a court case. That the famously litigious Brand hasn't mooted one yet is fairly notable in and of itself.
Assuming he is charged, he'd probably apply for bail ahead of the trial. There is always the potential of flight risk....This could be considerably reduced if they kneecap him now.
How is this all going down?
its literally trial by media
I feared that was the point you were making, but wanted to check.
He won't be convicted by the 'mainstream media,' although they've done a great job of researching his activities and collecting testimonies from his victims. And producing such a water tight case that they're not bothered by any legal threats Brand may wield.
Well the standard media stance would be that that are just reporting on the fact that allegations have been made not on the truth of them - until tested in court.
Anyone wanting to come forward, talk to the Met and Operation Hydrant officers for it is they whom will build a case, and the CPS that will decide if it is one. Everything else is just enabling Article 6 Human Rights Act issues
I wish you'd stop telling me what I think. I've told you what I think. The fact this is a backbench group does change things significantly as it's not the government directly intervening. But the point about state overreach stands. I don't oppose state overreach only when it's done to people I like or approve of.
It's hardly a thin distinction when you have said yourself that legislation would be preferable to government intervention. This is a committee of the legislature asking questions, however pointed, as part of the process of performing oversight of the relevant government department. They're demonstrating their capacity to ask tough questions so that they can make recommendations to the DCMS, such as whether to introduce new legislation or not-for instance because the sector showed the capacity to self regulate rapey grifters without the state needing to get involved.
The bit I disliked most about the letter was that it mentioned both illegal behaviour and inappropriate behaviour. That's where the overreach comes in.
Have you managed to completely miss the lengthy explanations by women why they've been reluctant to talk to the police and why they haven't fancied taking on rich, powerful men and possibly being exposed and most likely abused by their fanatical followers?
This is the cental problem with this crap.
In living memory - well within living memory - the state has locked people up with neither crime nor trial taking place.
Yes, but not in this case.
Oh not in this case. Fortunately. But precedents will be set and as I said above people who aren't as widely despised as rb may be targets in the future
Assuming criminal charges are brought.
