This kind of article is, to say the least... problematic, mainly because the Guardian chooses to link it to allegations against Russell Brand, who, as they must know, surely, hasn't been interviewed by the police, hasn't subsequently been cautioned or charged, hasn't been tried in court of law, and, finaly hasn't been found guilty of committing any crime, yet.

This is an attempt to establish guilt by association between Brand and a vast number of other sexual crimes and allegations about sexual crimes. It's extremely poor journalism and harmful to Brand and could so taint him in the eyes of the public that his chances of a fair trial by a jury, who have been 'groomed' by the Guardian and the rest of the media, undermines the presumption of innocence and due process. Thankfully, juries seem to take their responsibilities seriously, unlike Guardian journalists.

This all reminds me of the way the Guardian covered the Assange Affair and the outrageous accusations against Jeremy Corbyn. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but this, on a purely factual basis, seems to look like a pattern of behavior by the Guardian, which certainly resemble a form of unwitting conspiracy aimed at an individual the Guardian takes an exception to for some reason.

Who actually 'enjoys' going to the police or becoming involved with a police investigation? What about the victims of robberies? What about people involved in violence? The Guardian's allegation is that the police deliberately don't take women 'seriously' who come forward with claims about sexual violence and then the conviction rates problem is lumped in with that, to show that the lack of convictions is a structural problem caused by police attitudes and lack of action, because the claimants are women.

That's a pretty big claim by the Guardian and feminist activists, which requires really big evidence to back it up.

What if it isn't the fault of the police or the courts, but is really about the nature of the crime? The circumstances surrounding the offence?

This is