What surprises me is that those responsible for a four year enquiry which apparently unearthed evidence of serious crimes didn't think to inform the police of their findings.
Is he guilty? Not until a court finds him to be; this is the bedrock of our legal system and personal feelings about the accused shouldn't alter the fact.

This from someone whose opinion can routinely be disregarded.

On the basis of anonymity, yes, especially when they weren’t aware of one another at the time.

I would hope, and expect, the journalists to have encouraged them to also go to the police and that they would support them with the evidence they had.

The suggestion, made recently by another poster, that any allegation of rape would necessarily be reported to the police is nonsense. It just doesn’t happen like that. There are many stories of embarrassment, shame or distrust restraining what ought to happen in every case.

Politically Matov we are poles apart, but on this we have complete agreement.

Back on topic, I listened to a woman who was invited on to the Today Program to discuss her "experience". She explained that she was "only" 16 and Brand was 30. She claimed not have had the life experience to inform her ability to make a choice as to the giving of consent in a heart-tugging, bleating voice. There was no suggestion that he had invited her to his house to e.g. give her a leg up (so to speak) on her proposed media career. Indeed, there was no coercion alleged at all. Even my feminist wife was shouting at the radio on that interview. She willingly got in a car in order to go to a well known lothario's house of her own free will with the inevitable consequences.

30 year old men have been happily having it away with even happier 16 year old girls since time immemorial, so why was this case singled out?

Also, Parliament argued to the death the age of consent and arrived at the conclusion that changes in mental development meant that by that age girls had shifted from fancying their teachers and friends' dads. It was a "safe" age and remains so.

Questions not asked of the interviewee but ones directly relevant to issues of proper and valid consent.

1. Were you a virgin?
2. How many sexual partners had you before then?
3. What were their ages?
4. What did you think was the consequence of getting in the car?
5. Was the consequence more or less what you had thought it would be?
6. Did you enjoy yourself?
7. Was he emotionally or physically abusive/controlling?
8. Did he force himself in any way (other than the obvious)?

None asked. This was legal consensual intercourse. So why was the BBC steaming in suggesting some impropriety? Why had they given this revisionist, opportunist young woman the time of day?

Now I am a fierce defender of the BBC, as you know, but not in this case. The car and driver sent to pick this 16 year old girl up and take her to a house to have it off with a celeb was paid for by the license payer? Now, that is a story!

to some people, making allegations is 'evidence'