> You have a whole lot of words here

Inane beyond belief.

> and are making a lot of claims

Just for fun, here's an unabridged list of the "claims" I made in the post you replied to:

1. That the parent did not provide any evidence in support of their claims.

2. That I believe YouTube is correct in its treatment of Brand.

3. That the people supporting Brand appear to be overwhelmingly fringe and far right figures who espouse similar views.

4. That the credibility of investigative journalism is in no way undermined by the protection of sources.

5. That OP seems to be supporting Brand's discredited conspiracy theories about big pharma.

Which of these do you think requires substantiation?

> one of your claims was […]

You then go on to quote something which specifically begins with "[the journalists report] seems to insinuate…".

This is obviously entirely subjective, but if you've read the report you'll recall the following:

1. This was a 2-3 year long investigation,

2. The then-16 year old Brand is accused of having groomed approached his publishers _independently_ of the journalists in 2020 seeking an apology for his behaviour, and was rebuffed,

3. The journalists then approached the publishers in 2023 and after investigation they severed ties with him and apologised.

The wording The Times used was very careful and I believe, based on my subjective experience of knowing a handful of investigative journalists very well, that in a situation where the then-16 year old girl approached the journalists and instigated the investigation they carried out, she would be protected in exactly this manner.

Investigative journalism, like police work, does not begin with the aim of taking someone down. Sources, tips, rumours, and allegations are investigated.

But let's say for a second that I grant you these women were approached by the journalists, rather than coming forward. You still have all your work ahead of you to explain how the journalists managed to find the handful of people willing to fake reams of evidence (again: text messages from Brand, or someone using his telephone number, apologising for raping someone; the 16 year old girl's family on the record as having witnessed his predation; the woman he allegedly raped having both worked with him and having sought emergency medical care and months of therapy as a rape victim) about this specific man whilst not receiving anything in return: they are not selling their story to a tabloid for 5 minutes of fame, their identities have been protected both because it affords them a degree of privacy in the face of humiliating allegations (and the vitriol of conspiracy theorists online), and because it lends them credibility as people not seeking payment.

Let's say that the journalists began investigating Brand after they overheard someone in a pub saying "I heard Russell Brand dated a 16 year old at one point". This does not undermine the credibility of the reporting, or the alleged victims' testimony, or in any way justify the comment I was replying to, which suggested that specifically because the anonymity of the alleged victims was protected, the reporting is not credible.

So for the purposes of this discussion let's say that yes, the journalists approached the girls. What difference does it make? How in any way does that give undue deference to the journalists?

> This directly contradicts what you said

It does not. I read this, and it is incorporated into my perspective that it is likely the then-sixteen year old approached the journalists.

> I don’t know what the truth of the matter is, but after hearing Russell Brand admit openly to a lot of gross stuff, it seems like he’s not trying to hide anything here.

I don't purport to be a master logician or anything, but if you sincerely believe that the alleged perpetrator's perceived transparency about "a lot of gross stuff" goes any way towards impugn multiple independently corroborated accusations with documentary evidence, then I think we're probably done here. Do you know of many rapists who have publicly confessed to their crimes unbidden?

What a completely fatuous line of thought.

> I’ve also seen accounts from other women who have completely different stories about how he did not mistreat them (and they spoke openly without having actresses speak for them).

Just so I have this straight: there are women Brand did not mistreat who are willing to speak without having their identities protected, and you think that this diminishes the credibility of the several women claiming that Brand _did_ sexually assault them?

Simple question: do you understand why it is de rigueur for the privacy of the victims of sexual assault to be protected during broadcasts? I don't mean to be rude but saying "women he didn't mistreat don't hide their names!" to refute the testimony of alleged rape victims too upset or afraid to have their identities made public is perhaps the stupidest thing anyone, anywhere, has ever said.