Originally Posted by
Newish Pie
It's a lot more complicated than "innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty/guilty beyond reasonable doubt are the standards for criminal prosecution and criminal conviction. That's the standard that has to be reached for the state to take away your liberty as a citizen (through prison or community service and arguably speed awareness courses) or to levy a fine.
But that's not the standard for civil cases, where it's decided on the balance of probabilities.
Brand has the option to deny the charges and sue for libel if he chooses. These are very serious accusations, and he'd surely win a fortune if he won the legal case. Only... there's very little chance (in my opinion) that the Dispatches and Times investigation hasn't been lawyered half to death and says nothing that they can't absolutely substantiate. That's why it's not unreasonable to conclude that the accusations are... if not the tip of the iceberg, then at least only the accusations that are rock solid.
"Trial by media" is just a metaphor. He's not in prison, he's not under arrest, he's not having to explain himself under caution. He's living his millionaire lifestyle as before, he's being talked about and is relevant again, after heading off into the crank wilderness spouting nonsense to the gullible.
It doesn't feel satisfactory to me to just say, well, regardless of how many women (and girls, let's not forget, literal girls) complain about his behaviour, no-one could or should think any the worse of him or do anything different until it's proved in a court of law.
Now granted, I have some sympathy for the view that people shouldn't be damned in the eyes of public opinion of the basis of a few allegations. One of the interesting things that came out of the Huw Edwards case was just how many complaints are made to the BBC about their staff, and how many are spurious, confused, malicious, or possibly from people who are mentally unwell. But actually... the Sun made a very serious allegation that it couldn't stand up, probably not understanding the implications of what it claimed. It was a disgraceful bit of journalism. I'm not sure that Edwards has been "cancelled"... I think he's been very unwell.
With Schofield... I think he said what he did was "unwise, but not illegal". Let's take him at his word. There's plenty of behaviour that we may think is reprehensible but not illegal. We might think that some of that kind of behaviour isn't compatible with hosting a daytime TV show... which is a privilege, not a right. And to repeat... Schofield is not in prison, he's still enjoying his millionaire lifestyle. He's lost some jobs, and may or may not get others in the future.
With Brand... the allegations are extremely serious, extremely detailed, multiple, and, to me, credible. Yes, he should be proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers before he faces any criminal sanction (such as a long prison stretch), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't face other sanctions. Such as people and organisations deciding they want nothing whatsoever to do with him... don't want to platform him, don't want to support him directly or indirectly.
Or, to put it another way... the saying "there's no smoke without fire" is a tricky one. It feels wrong to assume that there's a fire just because there's a scent of smoke on the breeze. But it also feels wrong not to assume there's a fire somewhere when there are massive plumes of smoke and the acrid smell of burning fills your nostrils.
Think there will be some difficult/borderline cases, but RB doesn't feel like one of them.
