Minister Does Not Rule Out Staggering Age Of Consent After Russell Brand Outcry
Findings are available in the analysis below.1 finding Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article never says that Brand denied Latter's allegations when they were first reported, or that the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to include her case in his trial. S3 gives her account and S4 then states his rape and sexual assault convictions. Without the missing facts, a reader can believe her allegation was among the charges a jury convicted him on, when it was never tried and he denies it. The outlet gives Walliams's denial in S6 but gives no denial from Brand on this allegation.
How we know
- The Guardian reported“Brand denied all of the allegations made against him by Latter when they were first reported in 2023 by the Times.”UK government to consider changing age of consent after allegations against Russell Brand (opens in a new tab)
- The Guardian reported“the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to include her case in Brand's trial at Southwark Crown Court”UK government to consider changing age of consent after allegations against Russell Brand (opens in a new tab)
- Daily Mail reported“Brand denied all the allegations of the original investigation in 2023.”Andy Burnham 'to consider' calls to stagger the age of consent after fresh Russell Brand claims (opens in a new tab)
We do not republish articles from HuffPost UK. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
Read the original article on huffingtonpost.co.uk (opens in a new tab)What we found (1)
HuffPost UK reports a minister's comments that the government will probably consider a staggered age of consent after Mia Latter's allegation against Russell Brand, and it attributes her account as a claim. Its wording does not mislead. It does leave out that Brand denies her allegation and that prosecutors kept her case out of his trial, and it places her account directly before the line on his conviction, so a reader can wrongly take her allegation as one that was tried and proven.
Leaves out what changes the picture
Serious
What is missing
The article never says that Brand denied Latter's allegations when they were first reported, or that the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to include her case in his trial. S3 gives her account and S4 then states his rape and sexual assault convictions. Without the missing facts, a reader can believe her allegation was among the charges a jury convicted him on, when it was never tried and he denies it. The outlet gives Walliams's denial in S6 but gives no denial from Brand on this allegation.
How we know
- The Guardian reported“Brand denied all of the allegations made against him by Latter when they were first reported in 2023 by the Times.”UK government to consider changing age of consent after allegations against Russell Brand (opens in a new tab)
- The Guardian reported“the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to include her case in Brand's trial at Southwark Crown Court”UK government to consider changing age of consent after allegations against Russell Brand (opens in a new tab)
- Daily Mail reported“Brand denied all the allegations of the original investigation in 2023.”Andy Burnham 'to consider' calls to stagger the age of consent after fresh Russell Brand claims (opens in a new tab)
Show where it belongs