Oh dear what a pity, Karma is a bitch.

[Lance]

or the deep pockets of Brand, BBC & ITV who allegedly enabled him.

Don't forget the rape vigilantes- only 2% ever get convicted so 98% get away with it.

To suggest that of the 98% who aren't convicted have 'got away with it' is probably unfair.
But the legal bias clearly favours men rather than women. It's complex though.

I am of the strong opinion that this story has been meticulously researched and is an excellent piece of journalism. We shall see what comes of it over the coming months.
I also recall how many people said Savile/Weinstein/Prince Andrew/etc weren't guilty based on nothing other than preconceptions and bias.

[SueEllen]

The TV executives who hired him, who put restrictions in his contract and moved female employees off shows he was presenting should investigated by the police and hopefully charged.

Too late for that.

Not helped by the fact that Endemol doesn't exist.

Also lots of work contracts have in them you can't have relationships with more junior employees e.g. https://nypost.com/2023/01/09/mcdona...d-400k-by-sec/

[NotAllThere]

I am of the strong opinion that this story has been meticulously researched and is an excellent piece of journalism.

The claims have been worked on since 2019. Most of the effort was in corroborating the claims.

None of the women know each other.
None have been paid.

Brand denies all of the allegations and says all of his relationships have been consensual.

[vetran]

To suggest that of the 98% who aren't convicted have 'got away with it' is probably unfair.
But the legal bias clearly favours men rather than women. It's complex though.

I am of the strong opinion that this story has been meticulously researched and is an excellent piece of journalism. We shall see what comes of it over the coming months.
I also recall how many people said Savile/Weinstein/Prince Andrew/etc weren't guilty based on nothing other than preconceptions and bias.

First sentence is the stance of the "all men are rapists" faction. They are quite vocal.

The legal system stipulates "innocent until proven guilty" there isn't "legal bias that favours men" unless you mean only those with a penis can actually in law commit rape. The issue is that in rape it is difficult to prove guilt without actual evidence that sex was not consensual.

False accusations of rape are made but rarely prosecuted.
https://www.reeds.co.uk/insight/help...cused-of-rape/
https://sharpcriminalattorney.com/se...cases-reasons/

Anyone who suggests such lies are unreasonable needs to look at paternity fraud which is estimated at 3.85% that is an unpleasant sustained lie to two people you claim to love over many years.
https://www.menshealth.com/trending-...renting-fraud/

And of course 1 in five women have had an affair or affairs.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...n-strayed.html

Because rape covers such a wide spectrum from she had a few drinks like me and isn't capable of consent, to a lover going "oh go on you enjoyed it last time" to 5 men grabbing you in a park few juries will convict those accused of the former 2.

Yes it does seem they have done their homework.


Saville was actively protected by the Police & BBC, Weinstein by the industry and Prince Andrew there wasn't enough evidence or he bought his way out of the accusations.

[malvolio]

The claims have been worked on since 2019. Most of the effort was in corroborating the claims.

None of the women know each other.
None have been paid.

Brand denies all of the allegations and says all of his relationships have been consensual.

Given his long-standing pseudo-intellectual approach to semantics, I suspect he has his own definition of "consensual".

[Lance]

Given his long-standing pseudo-intellectual approach to semantics, I suspect he has his own definition of "consensual".

Nine "no"s and a yes means yes.
Could be the title of his new bookie wook.

[vetran]

Nine "no"s and a yes means yes.
Could be the title of his new bookie wook.

sadly technically I suspect it does.

[JustKeepSwimming]

sadly technically I suspect it does.

Consent is far more complex than simply 'yes'.

[vetran]

Consent is far more complex than simply 'yes'.

OK - explain that to the jury...

If they are sober, capable, of age and say yes and then don't change their mind to say no before the act that seems to meet the standard.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-inform...exual-consent/

https://www.rainn.org/articles/what-is-consent

Now do you see why they fail to convict? Its a nightmare.

[JustKeepSwimming]

OK - explain that to the jury...

If they are sober, capable, of age and say yes and then don't change their mind to say no before the act that seems to meet the standard.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-inform...exual-consent/

https://www.rainn.org/articles/what-is-consent

Now do you see why they fail to convict? Its a nightmare.

I'm fully aware why prosecutions fail. Frankly you kind unwittingly highlighted the point by not understanding consent. Not to mention consent can be withdrawn during the act and failure to cease immediatele is rape.

You completely ignored the nine 'no's prior to the 'yes'. Do you not think that raises the question of undue influence?