That you might regard this as “done and dusted” is a personal choice but one that is very unlikely to be a reality. It seems it is only at the beginning.

Brand may well be a political nonentity but he represents an attitude that most find offensive at best and now potentially criminal. Exposing this attitude will serve as a warning to others that no matter how much time elapses their behaviour can be called to account. That alone makes this worthwhile. If it restricts others from abusing the vulnerable then it serves a purpose.

Savile was never prosecuted, for obvious reasons, but no one disputes his crimes or excuses them. Brand may not be prosecuted because of a lack of admissible evidence, although there does seem some that could be. Does he deserve a free pass if he isn’t prosecuted? Will anyone doubt his behaviour was criminal?

If Savile is universally now regarded as a sexual predator why would Brand not be? I know Savile abused children but Brand has been recorded as trying to assist him in that. If Savile matters then so does Brand. Especially as he is still here, pontificating, spreading misinformation and monetising prejudice.

Those who abuse their power for sexual gratification, or in any other way, need to have their behaviour exposed. That applies to every walk of life, not just entertainment. In an ideal situation it needs to be done in a Court but sometimes the legal system is either inadequate or needs help. This seems such a case.

Were they on actual phones or obtained by journalists from phone company records or via other means?

I cannot remember my number 10 years ago, but deep in my pile of junk in my garage I could find my old Nokia. If I trawled back through old records I could probably unearth my number.

It’s what investigative journalists do.

That you might regard this as “done and dusted” is a personal choice but one that is very unlikely to be a reality. It seems it is only at the beginning.

Brand may well be a political nonentity but he represents an attitude that most find offensive at best and now potentially criminal. Exposing this attitude will serve as a warning to others that no matter how much time elapses their behaviour can be called to account. That alone makes this worthwhile. If it restricts others from abusing the vulnerable then it serves a purpose.

Savile was never prosecuted, for obvious reasons, but no one disputes his crimes or excuses them. Brand may not be prosecuted because of a lack of admissible evidence, although there does seem some that could be. Does he deserve a free pass if he isn’t prosecuted? Will anyone doubt his behaviour was criminal?

If Savile is universally now regarded as a sexual predator why would Brand not be? I know Savile abused children but Brand has been recorded as trying to assist him in that. If Savile matters then so does Brand. Especially as he is still here, pontificating, spreading misinformation and monetising prejudice.

Those who abuse their power for sexual gratification, or in any other way, need to have their behaviour exposed. That applies to every walk of life, not just entertainment. In an ideal situation it needs to be done in a Court but sometimes the legal system is either inadequate or needs help. This seems such a case.

Sounds like you've already made your judgement. The Media have done their job. Why do we even need a justice system at all ?!

Yes, and we've all seen how good his judgement is.

The issue is not really about Brand but about trial by TV and the motivations for it.

Wisbech seems to think that destroying someone's life before any criminality is proven is OK.

Just a shame this orchestrated stuff is keeping real news off the agenda.
Just as more schools are identified as having poor concrete and pushed Laura Kuenssberg: State of Chaos documentary about BJ's tenure as PM into oblivion.