JonnyF

An excellent article on the absurdity of Big Tech deplatforming him. https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/19/big-tech-must-not-be-judge-jury-and-executioner/

This will form part of his next manifesto. At least I hope it does, because it will be very popular with the electorate who are sick of the green agenda and being forced to accept a lower standard of living at a higher cost to appease the doomsday cult of climate alarmism.

They voted for the Conservative party Chomhpherh. We don't vote for "the president" in Britain. You're not in Kansas anymore. Heat pumps are extremely ineffecient at very low temperates typical of a British winter. Plus they cost thousands to install. Same as EV's reduce petrol bills. As long as you have 20 grand to buy one. OK for you sat in your ivory tower preaching about the cult of climate alarmism, many people don't have that kind of money to waste on the folly of net zero. Good job Rishi.

Or don't hold the 'wrong' views. Or don't get accused of something from 20 years ago.

Of course not. The issue is having your ability to support yourself and your family removed before you've even BEEN investigated. But you already knew that...

It's a scary thing. All you need now is an accusation and your ability to support yourself and your family is removed within days. Welcome to 2023. Trial by social media. Guilty until proven innocent.

Indeed. A great tool. But when you look at the profile of the owners and the culture within the company it becomes all too clear why they are canceling people they disagree with. They're a bit like Twitter before Musk came along.

I think he's saying Masterson was guilty so Brand must be guilty as well. Another poster knew he was guilty "just by looking at his face". Another is denying YouTube cancelled him over this. I think your expectations might be too high given the type of posters on this thread. ????

#believeallwomen was a ridiculous concept. Because of course, women NEVER lie ????. I can't stand Brand. Just his voice winds me up, the dropping of the T's in every word is enough to make me switch off. But canceling him before he's seen the inside of a court is absolutely shameful behaviour. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? YouTube have essentially removed his ability to support himself on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim. Contemptible. If found not guilty I hope he sues them to oblivion.

Good move by Sunak. Nobody voted to be poorer. The obsession with net zero is just making people's lives miserable.

That's not really how they do it here. They make blanket laws that in effect cover everyone. Then they selectively apply it to the groups that the law was intended to apply to. Keeps it simple for them in terms of drafting the law, and also keeps their options open if they wish to apply it to more groups in the future they don't need to amend the law. There is no way they are going to apply this to Brian Smith from Rotherham and his meagre pension spent in the bars of Pattaya. I'd expect a clarification/reassurance from them pretty shortly. Misunderstood this blah blah misinterpreted that blah blah.

YouTube for starters. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66851698 Deplatforming him and taking away his living before he's even been before a judge/jury. Cancel culture at it's finest. Once again by lefty bekind tech billionaires. You must be loving this.????

If concerns over his behaviour were not based on morals, what were they based on?

While I agree on his lack of talent, being unfunny is not a crime. If it were, his namesake Jo Brand would be doing life without parole.

Allegedly. Whilst it is undoubtedly creepy (if it actually happened), it is not illegal. And there is no reason to wait 20 years before reporting it. Would you wait 20 years to report it if it was your daughter?

Why do I need to explain things to you that you are suggesting?? ???? May I remind you of your post 10 minutes ago?

They are weak minded people. Incapable of forming their own moral code, they need someone else to tell them what is right and wrong. They are the type of people that allow atrocities to happen because they have been told to do something by their "superiors". The "I was only following orders" mentality. Pathetic little scrotes. I'm the same as the OP in that if it doesn't harm anyone else, I'm OK with it. Couldn't give a toss what some lawmaker deems legal or illegal (other than ensuring I don't end up behind bars) especially when some laws are so blatantly stupid e.g. vaping illegal but cigarettes legal.

Yes promoters are well known for putting morals before profits ????.

It's obvious why it was cancelled. I already explained to you. Pretending to not understand changes nothing. Do you have an alternative theory? Do share your wisdom...????

Guilt written all over his face? That settles it then, throw away the key... Maybe the women made it up for a quick buck? Have you checked their faces for guilt? Please check and report back.

The event was cancelled so that's a pretty dumb question isn't it... His ilk don't generally have the guts to do the protesting anyway. They're the ones shouting "fight fight fight" from a safe distance.

Innocent or not, I wouldn't fancy getting up on stage with all this going on. I can't even imagine what it would be like to be accused of this. If it was a false accusation it would probably be even worse. I've never liked the bloke, but these social media pile-ons based on nothing more than an accusation from years back are pretty crazy.

Already linked to the Labour MP joining the Twitter pile on. Pathetic, but then what do you expect from a Labour MP?

It happens a lot. Even when there are no celebs involved. They sleep around and then regret it. So blame the man. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-64950862 Add in the potential for an out of court settlement or payment via a civil case and it's easy to see why celebrities are accused so often depsite having no shortage of loose women to choose from without having to resort to forcing themselves on women. One of them was in a relationship with him for 6 months. Another went straight to the press. And they all came out at the same time up to 20 years after the event. Amazing.

If it's clear that everyone will boycott the show then the promoter has no choice but to cancel it. He isn't going to pay all the outgoings to host the event if people aren't going to attend, have people blocking the entrance, protesting people who attend etc. You think the promoter is cancelling it due to his conscience? It's purely a business decision based on the fact that his client has effectively been tried in the court of public opinion/social media and cancelled. But then, you already knew that...