It's very difficult to referee other people's discussion without appearing churlish, but I'm sincerely grateful to you for trying. A central facet to the entire debate here is the unlikelihood of a trial, in tandem with the seemingly overwhelming evidence. I have not judged Brand to be guilty, but I have concluded that it is more likely that he is guilty of these crimes than the various theories in this thread suggesting that he is being unfairly canceled because of his opinions about vaccines.
> I have concluded that it is more likely that he is guilty of these crimes than the various theories in this thread suggesting that he is being unfairly canceled because of his opinions about vaccines
I agree, but that isn't enough. The presumption of innocence is important. In the unlikelihood of a trial even more so.
> seemingly overwhelming evidence
Things aren't always what they seem, and sometimes they are.
