By Ben Kerrigan-
The Attorney General, Victoria Prentis is under fire for issuing out a warning to journalists over its reporting of Russell Brand allegations.
In her statement, Prentis stressed the importance of not publishing material that could potentially prejudice any criminal investigation or prosecutions.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Brand finds himself embroiled in a growing scandal as multiple women have come forward with accusations of sexual assault, rape, and manipulation dating back to the height of his fame.
The allegations, which have rocked the entertainment industry, have been vehemently denied by Brand.
The accusations against the 48-year-old comedian first came to light in an investigation published by The Times, in collaboration with Channel 4’s Dispatches and The Sunday Times.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Several women, including one who claims to have been 16 years old at the time of the alleged incident, have accused Brand of sexual misconduct.
Each of the women claim the comedian forced himself against them against their will, including one who states she had to punch the comedian when he forced his private part up her throat.
A statement from The Metropolitan Police said the allegations were all non-recent.
A statement said: “Following an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and The Sunday Times, the Met has received a number of allegations of sexual offences in London.
“We have also received a number of allegations of sexual offences committed elsewhere in the country and will investigate these.”
There have been no arrests and enquiries continue.
Russell Brand has chosen to address the allegations through the right-wing platform Rumble, where he dismissed the accusations as part of a ‘war on free speech.’
In a surprising twist, Brand also appealed to his followers for financial support.
In her statement, Prentis stressed the importance of not publishing material that could potentially prejudice any criminal investigation or prosecutions.
Prentis’ warning received a backlash from media outlets, including The Times, which had conducted the initial investigation. The Times argued that every word of their reporting had been rigorously scrutinized before publication.
They called for an immediate withdrawal of Prentis’ advisory, citing the critical role played by journalists in uncovering the allegations against Brand.
Sean O’Neill, a senior writer at The Times, penned an opinion piece questioning the Attorney General’s understanding of contempt laws and suggested that the advisory was a thinly veiled threat meant to deter reporting on the allegations.
He further raised concerns that the government might be attempting to stifle the voices of women who have courageously come forward with their stories.
O’Neill pointed out that while the media faces restrictions, Brand remains free to express himself on social media platforms. He termed Prentis’s intervention as “a shocking overreach” and asserted that it was the duty of reporters to uncover misconduct and wrongdoing, potentially leading to criminal trials.
The column concluded with a call for the immediate withdrawal of the “censorious warning” and emphasized that it had no basis in law.
Responding to the controversy, a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office clarified their commitment to the principles of open justice and press freedom.
They explained that the media advisory was issued due to the extended period and nature of the coverage of the allegations, asking journalists to exercise caution as common law contempt considerations apply, even though criminal proceedings are not currently “active.”
This view is disputed o the grounds that common law in question was abolished 40 years ago.
.As the legal and public relations battles unfold, the voices of the women making these accusations remain at the center of this developing story.
The Attorney General has been asked by The Eye Of Media to address the criticisms against the warnings she issued.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar