Quote Originally Posted by Newish Pie View Post
I think the point that I was trying to make was that the right way forward lay between the two extremes, not that I thought you necessarily endorsed the extreme view. Just that you can go wrong at least as badly by accepting nothing short of criminal convictions as evidence for anything ever, just as you can by believing everything you hear.

Do you think that the serious allegations against Brand are merely "gossip"? Surely not.

Surely they're significantly more than gossip, even if it's not yet a criminal conviction. I'm arguing that there's this complicated, messy middle ground which we have to work out how to deal with, and which we can't inflate to the same status as a criminal conviction or deflate to the point at which it's just gossip and hearsay and carries no weight whatsoever.
The allegations against him... I don't think about them at all. When they result in charges, that'll be a data point. Another one with a conviction, another sentencing etc. If I were interested (I'm not) I'd read the sentencing judge's summary if published. Those can run into hundreds of pages but if you're actually interested in the case it'll tell you a tonne more than every press article about it put together.

I personally can't form an opinion on innocence or guilt based on "modern journalism".