BRAND: A RUINED REPUTATION BUT INNOCENT?

It seems that Times Newspapers and  Channel 4 TV have done an excellent hatchet job on a loud mouthed  comedian, former film personality and currently stand up performer  who apparently makes £millions from telling those who are interested of his promiscuous lifestyle.  But then there are those who remember the fiasco in 2014 when helicopters  swooped over the house of Cliff Richard after accepting statements from Carl Beech compulsive liar and later to be convicted fraudster and paedophile. The BBC said the coverage would cause Sir Cliff "distress" but was "in the public interest," while police called it "intrusive".  The net result was damages for Sir Cliff and others, conviction of Beech and the presentation to parliament of  the Anonymity of Suspects Bill last year.  CPS guidance on such matters is available here. 

And so to Brand.  His accusers i.e. their legal departments, must have burnt the midnight oil as they discussed the merits of going public.  In the few days since his followers of whom there are millions active and passive have focussed their hysterical opinions on the mass media out for blood.  Indeed their reactions are similar to those supporters of the former antisemitic leader of the Labour Party who maintain a sinister cabal i.e. Jews were out to remove him from position.  The similarity of his supporters and Brand`s is that they resemble a cult; a word which first appeared in English in 1617 derived from the French culte, meaning "worship" which in turn originated from the Latin word cultus meaning "care, cultivation, worship".  Until the early 20th century the term usually was associated with religion.  However in recent years other ideologies can be said to have had a cult following bordering on hysteria.  It could, I suppose, be argued that the "Me Too" movement has itself morphed into a cult where any apparent deviation from its self defined recognised tenets of male/female interaction leads to calls for those involved to be sanctioned.  By putting Brand`s name and alleged offending in the headlines his media accusers are doing what individuals have been unable or unwilling to do themselves.  The hidden crimes of Jimmy Savile come to mind: criminality that was known to hundreds including this blogger many years in advance of their being in the public eye was knowingly suppressed by those who had the power to expose him [not this blogger].  The police will investigate if any laws were broken.  Until then his reputation is forever tainted and his income decimated.  The problems will really hit the fan if there are charges made against him.  What then of his being considered innocent until proved guilty?  Is it necessary to be legally guilty before the truth emerges?