JonnyF

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...

I don't think you understand how promotional companies make their money.

Wouldn't work. They'd claim she was too drunk/high and shouldn't have been asked to sign it.

Agreed. The problem is when people's careers are ruined before it even goes to court. Then they are often found not guilty but they are forever tarnished with the reputation of being a sex pest despite there being no evidence and a not guilty verdict. It's a bit like what Amber Heard tried to do to Depp. In that case it backfired eventually (incredibly she actually won the UK case) but that's an exception to the rule. Generally, there are very little consequences for the accuser even if the claims are proved to be false so it's like a free bet for them.

Come on, whose diary ISN'T booked up for the next 20 years? Generally they tend to wait for someone else to come forward with an accusation and then make a similar accusation. I'd expect a few more to come out of the woodwork in coming days. Following the scent of money like a bear to honey. Often it's ex partners who claim that even though they slept with X,Y or Z for 6 months, they later felt violated and hence it was non consensual. Same with Spacey, they all wanted a piece of the pie. He was later found not guilty. Some of them don't even bother going to the police, they go to journalists instead. Cutting out the middle man, so to speak. It's a mad world to think that someone you slept with 20 years ago could turn up today and accuse you of rape. But that's the world we live in.

From your link. Luke Pollard, a Plymouth MP, had suggested that the show should be cancelled. He posted on X (formerly Twitter): “On Russell Brand’s gig in #Plymouth on Friday: in any other job after serious allegations of rape and sexual assault where the alleged perpetrator still has access to women, they would be suspended pending investigation. This is the equivalent of cancelling or postponing shows.” He's a Labour MP, obviously.