26 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

The moral of the story? 

 

Do whatever you feel in your youth, just don't make any money????

Sounds like you're conceding that Brand is guilty as alleged.  You're probably right.

26 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Sounds like you're conceding that Brand is guilty as alleged.  You're probably right.

No. You have to think first and not judge.

 

My point is that were he not famous and perceived wealthy, and it maybe the fame not the wealth,  then all the tarts would not be coming out of the woodwork.

If they had sex with a tradesman when they were 16 this would not be an issue.

Edited September 22, 20232 yr by VocalNeal

On 9/19/2023 at 12:33 PM, JonnyF said:

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.

Not just careers being ruined, but the government leaning on various social media platforms to defund and deplatform Brand before he is even charged with a crime. Never mind convicted. This is scary.  

He may very well be guilty and if so, he should face the music. But being deprived of his income before an investigation even starts is too much.

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Not just careers being ruined, but the government leaning on various social media platforms to defund and deplatform Brand before he is even charged with a crime. Never mind convicted. This is scary.  

He may very well be guilty and if so, he should face the music. But being deprived of his income before an investigation even starts is too much.

Thought it was up to whoever is paying his wages, and perhaps those who are, are thinking of their own business first in case of repercussions......

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Thought it was up to whoever is paying his wages, and perhaps those who are, are thinking of their own business first in case of repercussions......

Well, the House of Commons is sending letters to media corporations asking them to freeze Brand out. Why is it their business? As you said, it is up to his sponsors. Not a group of politicians. Youtube caved in, Rumble did not.

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Well, the House of Commons is sending letters to media corporations asking them to freeze Brand out. Why is it their business? As you said, it is up to his sponsors. Not a group of politicians. Youtube caved in, Rumble did not.

Can you provide a link regarding the House of Commons, not read that...?

1 minute ago, transam said:

Can you provide a link regarding the House of Commons, not read that...?

 From the BBC the letter to Rumble from MP Dame Caroline Dimemage ;

 

"While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.

"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.

"We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

 From the BBC the letter to Rumble from MP Dame Caroline Dimemage ;

 

"While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.

"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.

"We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128

Was there a House vote on it............?  ????

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

No. You have to think first and not judge.

 

My point is that were he not famous and perceived wealthy, and it maybe the fame not the wealth,  then all the tarts would not be coming out of the woodwork.

If they had sex with a tradesman when they were 16 this would not be an issue.

Yet the first thing you've done is judge:

 

"then all the tarts would not be coming out of the woodwork."

 

Which tarts would this be?

8 minutes ago, transam said:

Was there a House vote on it............?  ????

Of course not. Just authoritatian do-gooders trying to virtue signal. Parliament has more important things to do than hassle social media companies.

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Of course not. Just authoritatian do-gooders trying to virtue signal. Parliament has more important things to do than hassle social media companies.

Well, you did say The House of Commons................????

19 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Well, the House of Commons is sending letters to media corporations asking them to freeze Brand out. Why is it their business? As you said, it is up to his sponsors. Not a group of politicians. Youtube caved in, Rumble did not.

Youtube caved in? Was that not their own decision? Not seen any letter from the House of Commons addressed to them and they never mentioned it when they suspended the monetization of Brand’s account.

it's typical that after a traumatic event such as rape, people are unable to even think about it, let alone talk about it or take action. Anecdotally, I've heard that for the typical holocaust survivor this period was 40 years. So 20 years after a rape sounds about right (not dismissing the trauma of a rape, but for many holocaust survivors the trauma was ongoing, and in many cases, even more brutal).  If you're interested in the delay many survivors experience in being able to talk about it, google the search phrase why-many-people-dont-talk-about-traumatic-events-until-long-after-they-occur.

1 minute ago, dundas said:

it's typical that after a traumatic event such as rape, people are unable to even think about it, let alone talk about it or take action. Anecdotally, I've heard that for the typical holocaust survivor this period was 40 years. So 20 years after a rape sounds about right (not dismissing the trauma of a rape, but for many holocaust survivors the trauma was ongoing, and in many cases, even more brutal).  If you're interested in the delay many survivors experience in being able to talk about it, google the search phrase why-many-people-dont-talk-about-traumatic-events-until-long-after-they-occur.

Not interested at all,

Report within 14 days or no case to answer IMHO.

There really does need to be physical evidence and witnesses else it's just 'Believe women'.

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Youtube caved in? Was that not their own decision? Not seen any letter from the House of Commons addressed to them and they never mentioned it when they suspended the monetization of Brand’s account.

That is not really the point though is it?   The UK government are leaning on platforms where he makes money to try and cut off the way he makes money.    It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that they are attempting to silence him, not for what he has alleged to have done, but for what he is saying as there is no precedent for this Orwellian over reach by the UK government.   Did they write to Man Utd to encourage them to stop paying Mason Greenwood after allegations came out about him for example?    Of course not.  

 

If Brand has committed these crimes then he should face justice in a court of law and be given every opportunity to present his case and defend himself.   If convicted and found guilty then he should he face punishment for his alleged crimes, not just on the basis of anonymous accusations that have neither been tested or proven in court.    It baffles me that someones life can be so easily destroyed in this way and how so many people agree with this (lack of due) process. 

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

That is not really the point though is it?   The UK government are leaning on platforms where he makes money to try and cut off the way he makes money.    It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that they are attempting to silence him, not for what he has alleged to have done, but for what he is saying as there is no precedent for this Orwellian over reach by the UK government. 

The request was to make sure that Brand doesn't reply to the allegations on his You Tube channels , that would interfere with justice and may stop other victims coming forward .

   The move would actually stop a trial by media

2 minutes ago, James105 said:

That is not really the point though is it?   The UK government are leaning on platforms where he makes money to try and cut off the way he makes money.    It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that they are attempting to silence him, not for what he has alleged to have done, but for what he is saying as there is no precedent for this Orwellian over reach by the UK government.   Did they write to Man Utd to encourage them to stop paying Mason Greenwood after allegations came out about him for example?    Of course not.  

 

If Brand has committed these crimes then he should face justice in a court of law and be given every opportunity to present his case and defend himself.   If convicted and found guilty then he should he face punishment for his alleged crimes, not just on the basis of anonymous accusations that have neither been tested or proven in court.    It baffles me that someones life can be so easily destroyed in this way and how so many people agree with this (lack of due) process. 

"That is not really the point though is it? "

 

Actually its exactly the point I was making in response to the post I quoted, my highlights.

 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Well, the House of Commons is sending letters to media corporations asking them to freeze Brand out. Why is it their business? As you said, it is up to his sponsors. Not a group of politicians. Youtube caved in, Rumble did not.

The rest of your post on whether the UK gov should lean on other platforms or not, well I will go with private entities should make their own decisions as they have the right to in their terms and conditions. Hence why Rumble declined along with X. Again YouTube made their decision independently.

 

I also note that Youtube still allow his videos that have sponsors in them, its only the advertisers that  cannot be monetized. Youtube was also not his main source of income.

 

9 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

The request was to make sure that Brand doesn't reply to the allegations on his You Tube channels , that would interfere with justice and may stop other victims coming forward .

   The move would actually stop a trial by media

So what have YouTube done that stops him from doing that?  All they have done is ensure YouTube can still make money from his content, but Russell Brand cannot.   If he wants to upload a video then he still can.   I didn't realise that people can make accusations (anonymously) and the accused is not allowed to refute them.    Is defending yourself from (possibly false) allegations "interfering with justice?" then?  

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"That is not really the point though is it? "

 

Actually its exactly the point I was making in response to the post I quoted, my highlights.

 

The rest of your post on whether the UK gov should lean on other platforms or not, well I will go with private entities should make their own decisions as they have the right to in their terms and conditions. Hence why Rumble declined along with X. Again YouTube made their decision independently.

 

I also note that Youtube still allow his videos that have sponsors in them, its only the advertisers that  cannot be monetized. Youtube was also not his main source of income.

 

I personally would have preferred to see the government sticking by the democratic principle that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and if the government was inclined to write letters to private companies then perhaps the letter should have gone to YouTube reminding them of that fact, and not to those platforms that were abiding by that principle.   

 

Obviously some people prefer the Salem witch trial approach where merely the accusation itself is enough to prove someones guilt (depending on the political views they have of course), but somewhat controversially I still prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to justice because it feels a little bit fairer.   

Just now, James105 said:

I personally would have preferred to see the government sticking by the democratic principle that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and if the government was inclined to write letters to private companies then perhaps the letter should have gone to YouTube reminding them of that fact, and not to those platforms that were abiding by that principle.   

 

Obviously some people prefer the Salem witch trial approach where merely the accusation itself is enough to prove someones guilt (depending on the political views they have of course), but somewhat controversially I still prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to justice because it feels a little bit fairer.   

I see no Salem witch trials approach, you're just making it up now. I do see a lot of victim blaming going on though, calling potential victims tarts as one poster did is not a good look.

Here is an excerpt from Russel Brands radio show on BBC Radio

He had gone into an small office where there was a woman there , he got his knob out and presented it to the woman and said that he was "going to f**** her"

   He then went on the radio and told the listeners about it , you can hear it here in the link

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66882644

On 9/19/2023 at 2:40 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Seems women are somehow prohibited from reporting rape directly after the incident. Now, 20 yrs seems to be the legit waiting period.

 

Please explain........

The girls at the time thought the no one would believe them and for one reason or another they didn't report it , but once other girls have made the allegation, those girls feel confident someone would believe them and so they make a police report as well 

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

The girls at the time thought the no one would believe them and for one reason or another they didn't report it , but once other girls have made the allegation, those girls feel confident someone would believe them and so they make a police report as well 

Alternatively, there was no evidence at the time, because it didn't happen or was consensual.

But now, with no evidence required and just pointing the finger and accusing evidence enough, why not accuse?

8 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Alternatively, there was no evidence at the time, because it didn't happen or was consensual.

But now, with no evidence required and just pointing the finger and accusing evidence enough, why not accuse?

No evidence?

 

underwear and other samples as evidence, which were frozen after visiting a rape crisis center.

18 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Not interested at all,

Report within 14 days or no case to answer IMHO.

There really does need to be physical evidence and witnesses else it's just 'Believe women'.

Don’t ever find yourself trying that as a defense in court.

 

 

16 hours ago, James105 said:

I personally would have preferred to see the government sticking by the democratic principle that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and if the government was inclined to write letters to private companies then perhaps the letter should have gone to YouTube reminding them of that fact, and not to those platforms that were abiding by that principle.   

 

Obviously some people prefer the Salem witch trial approach where merely the accusation itself is enough to prove someones guilt (depending on the political views they have of course), but somewhat controversially I still prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to justice because it feels a little bit fairer.   

The principle of ‘Innocent until proven guilty within the Justice system’ is not a principle of democracy.

 

22 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

The girls at the time thought the no one would believe them and for one reason or another they didn't report it , but once other girls have made the allegation, those girls feel confident someone would believe them and so they make a police report as well 

No one would believe them?

 

So all those that hate him, feel he makes them cringe, think he's creepy....etc, didn't think so 15 years ago?

 

As someone who feels he is a bit weird and cringe worthy, I'd have to disagree. I've never liked him.

 

However, just because I don't like him doesn't mean I think it's right to believe the accusations of "alleged" rape and harassment against him before there has been a fair trial.