Brand would have to show that the organisation he is suing published the statement and that it is defamatory,

The publisher has to prove the statements were true.

In this scenario, an allegation of rape would be defamatory if there was no conviction in a criminal court.

The waters are very muddied as an alleged victim may believe they were raped but the circumstances do not fall into the definition the law requires

THis will run and run until the next one comes along

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

That Brand has found a nice little earner in recent years feeding the prejudices of those who distrust authority of every kind and see conspiracies around every corner, is beyond dispute. We have seen regular evidence of it posted here.

That it is clever, or that people are entitled to believe it, is also beyond dispute as is the right of others to expose it.

None of that though has the slightest relevance to the claims now being made against him. They stand alone and to link them in any way as a basis of a defence ridiculous.

Some want to postulate, as Brand himself seems to want to, that the reason why such claims are being made is down to the “elites” not liking the criticisms he makes of them. Conspiracy theorists will always invent conspiracy theories to explain anything that they don’t like.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

With regard to your last sentence, we have said exactly the same. Interesting isn’t it

I'm not arguing the values of investigative journalism; when done right it's a valuable tool. But that names and reputations should be left out of it, and handed to the relevant authorities to preserve the rights of that individual(s) until such a time that guilt can be proven.

You've mentioned Jury's in another post - these are supposed to be unbiased members of the public. How can a jury be assigned to this case now (if it makes it that far) when the media have done as much they can to bias public opinion?

The stories told by mainstream media (especially when celebrity scoops are involved) cannot be relied upon. The evidence they present are designed to prove one point; their point. All without the possibility of cross examination = and people lap it up and believe every word. They (the media) have too much control and too much influence, up to a point now that I have stopped really listening to what they have to say. There is still plenty of high quality journalism out there, but its undiscernible from the sensationalist rhetoric spouted by their colleagues and peers.

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Part of the reason for naming the individual is to encourage others to come forward so that a case can be put together. It’s just letting the genie out of the bottle.

A jury can be instructed to disregard all they have heard before. It’s not unusual. The Judge will tell them how to do this.

You can distrust the media all you wish but you cannot disregard the personal testimony of those making the claims. It’s for us to judge their authenticity at this stage and reach our own conclusions. Alongside that is other, hard, evidence. The texts and videos.

This wasn’t done by a tabloid trying to create a splash headline. It is a lengthy, thorough piece of investigative journalism by serious newspapers and broadcasters.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

If the suspect isn't a celebrity there is no genie to be let out of anywhere. Media outlets report on famous people to increase their sales not out of any kind of altruism or public spirit.