It's an alt-right video sharing platform set up by I think a Canadian that basically doesn't censor content. Dare say it's possibly got some stuff on it that might qualify it as some kind of proscribed organisation.
I’m with Rumble on this one. Let the law take its course and for f*ck’s sake politicians do something useful instead of grandstanding on whatever story is on the front of the Mail.
What do the media committee want the principle to be here? "As soon as allegations are made against you, and before any legal proceedings, you must be blocked from earning anything at all." I've always thought Brand was a khunt but this is just stupid.
That's a different argument, Bertha - you're saying his online stuff should be shut down because you don't like the content (not because of the accusations of being a bit rapey?)
I can understand the principle that nobody should be subjected to any detriment based on allegations before they have been convicted of a crime, but surely even those firmly wedded to that principle must accept that there is a point at which the evidence against someone is so damning that it is obvious that they are guilty of the crime, and therefore detriments are justified.
Let's just say there was a video available of Brand which exists and which actually shows him drugging and then raping an unconscious person, clearly demonstrating a criminal offence. Should he still at that point be able to monetise his content, pending the ensuing criminal trial? I don't think so.
So in my view it's about how damning the evidence is. On the text message exchange alone, he's admitted a sexual assault if not rape. On that basis, my bovvered bag is empty that he's losing some internet income from being a conspiracy nutjob. Not least because I think there's a decent chance he's specifically morphed into a conspiracy nutjob to gain an army of followers to play down these allegations, which he must have known were coming given MeToo.
“there is a point at which the evidence against someone is so damning that it is obvious that they are guilty of the crime, and therefore detriments are justified”
Yes indeed. The point at which a jury has considered that evidence and concluded that it amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Pinko, if you were accused of these actions, but not yet charged, would you be suspended from your job without pay?
If I was accused of these actions with this evidence and the same amount of press attention, I have no doubt I would have been fired, with notice, rather than suspended.
But as Chimp says, Brand isn't in an employment relationship (deliberately, his own tax benefit) with any of the people who engage his services and content, so the comparison is ridiculous.
Yes indeed. The point at which a jury has considered that evidence and concluded that it amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Nah. It's obvious a crime has been committed well before a jury or beak convicts in many cases, based on undisputed evidence. Of course, that's the legal test for a criminal conviction, but the test for celebrity cancellation is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy lower than that. Christ, some celebs have been cancelled for stating actual facts with no whiff of a crime at all.
Of all the cancellations, based on the evidence this one bothers me not one jot.
Whilst my bovvered bag is somewhat empty here on the basis that Brand is a dick and the evidence is pretty bad - You With The Face - are you actually a lawyer?
I agree private persons and orgs can start to make their own judgements about the guy based on available evidence, but I dont think that should affect legal matters until the legal system has judged the evidence.
So here - it is really up to Rumble, whoever they are, whether they wish to continue their relationship with Brand and/or terminate any contracs. If need be these processes can be litigated. But its really no business of the govt at all.
Separately I am bit concerned about these media trials and cancellations without any due process. Not sure this is a good development at all.
I agree private persons and orgs can start to make their own judgements about the guy based on available evidence, but I dont think that should affect legal matters until the legal system has judged the evidence.
When did I say it should affect legal matters. I said I wasn’t bothered about private organisations not contracting with him any more. That’s not a legal matter.
This recently disclosed (but mentioned in clear on the radio at the time) incident happened in LA in 2008. I am not aware the UK has a criminal limitation statute for serious felonies.
St John there is no limitation period for indecent exposure. The only limitation periods are for offences triable only in the Magistrates. So he could be prosecuted for a 2008 flashing.
0
3
Don’t know but plenty of other people that I haven’t heard of either recommend it as an alternative to YouTube to host my videos
1
1
It's an alt-right video sharing platform set up by I think a Canadian that basically doesn't censor content. Dare say it's possibly got some stuff on it that might qualify it as some kind of proscribed organisation.
2
0
Hive of assorted conspiracy garbage. Landing place for such luminaries as Katie Hopkins and Alex Jones.
3
0
I’m with Rumble on this one. Let the law take its course and for f*ck’s sake politicians do something useful instead of grandstanding on whatever story is on the front of the Mail.
1
1
What do the media committee want the principle to be here? "As soon as allegations are made against you, and before any legal proceedings, you must be blocked from earning anything at all." I've always thought Brand was a khunt but this is just stupid.
2
2
Perhaps we should stop the earnings of MPs who are subject to allegations of impropriety? Would save the Exchequer a fair amount.
1
1
Brand has made millions peddling falsehoods. Turn off the tap.
0
1
Stupid and embarrassing move by the government.
I do hope he sues the Times and C4 though, I really want to see what they held back (and the barristers drain his bank account)
0
0
That's a different argument, Bertha - you're saying his online stuff should be shut down because you don't like the content (not because of the accusations of being a bit rapey?)
0
1
Because it’s lies. It’s irrelevant whether or not I like it.
0
1
Nice try on the gaslight though.
1
0
He was accused of rape, grooming and sexual assault not "being a bit rapey".
1
0
I haven't watched even a second of this content so I can't comment on that.
But so far as I'm aware it's all legal - I wouldn't want legal content to be shut down because of someone's (probably very subjective) view of it.
0
1
I can understand the principle that nobody should be subjected to any detriment based on allegations before they have been convicted of a crime, but surely even those firmly wedded to that principle must accept that there is a point at which the evidence against someone is so damning that it is obvious that they are guilty of the crime, and therefore detriments are justified.
Let's just say there was a video available of Brand which exists and which actually shows him drugging and then raping an unconscious person, clearly demonstrating a criminal offence. Should he still at that point be able to monetise his content, pending the ensuing criminal trial? I don't think so.
So in my view it's about how damning the evidence is. On the text message exchange alone, he's admitted a sexual assault if not rape. On that basis, my bovvered bag is empty that he's losing some internet income from being a conspiracy nutjob. Not least because I think there's a decent chance he's specifically morphed into a conspiracy nutjob to gain an army of followers to play down these allegations, which he must have known were coming given MeToo.
0
0
Pinko, if you were accused of these actions, but not yet charged, would you be suspended from your job without pay?
0
0
This isn't suspension from a job. It's a content platform being asked about demonetisation of content, which they have declined to do.
3
2
“there is a point at which the evidence against someone is so damning that it is obvious that they are guilty of the crime, and therefore detriments are justified”
Yes indeed. The point at which a jury has considered that evidence and concluded that it amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
0
0
If I was accused of these actions with this evidence and the same amount of press attention, I have no doubt I would have been fired, with notice, rather than suspended.
But as Chimp says, Brand isn't in an employment relationship (deliberately, his own tax benefit) with any of the people who engage his services and content, so the comparison is ridiculous.
0
0
Nah. It's obvious a crime has been committed well before a jury or beak convicts in many cases, based on undisputed evidence. Of course, that's the legal test for a criminal conviction, but the test for celebrity cancellation is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy lower than that. Christ, some celebs have been cancelled for stating actual facts with no whiff of a crime at all.
Of all the cancellations, based on the evidence this one bothers me not one jot.
0
1
laz - on that basis are you happy to show your kids old episodes of jim'll fix it because he was never found guilty in a court of law?
3
1
Whilst my bovvered bag is somewhat empty here on the basis that Brand is a dick and the evidence is pretty bad - You With The Face - are you actually a lawyer?
I agree private persons and orgs can start to make their own judgements about the guy based on available evidence, but I dont think that should affect legal matters until the legal system has judged the evidence.
So here - it is really up to Rumble, whoever they are, whether they wish to continue their relationship with Brand and/or terminate any contracs. If need be these processes can be litigated. But its really no business of the govt at all.
Separately I am bit concerned about these media trials and cancellations without any due process. Not sure this is a good development at all.
0
1
The wiser canary has it.
0
0
Woman says Russell Brand exposed himself to her then laughed about it on Radio 2 show https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66882644
He’ll be charged now
0
0
People were encouraging his behaviour. That doesn’t mean he’s not guilty of assault or rape but people could have called him out then surely?
0
0
Bertha, he wont be charged as it wasn't a rape, so as it was so long ago the statute of limitations has kicked in, for both criminal and civil claims.
0
1
Weird isn't it. Like celebrity culture is febrile and tenuous and we haven't learned any lessons since Savile or Weinstein.
Geldof called him out but mainly because Brand was sticking it to his young drug addicted daughter. A few others hinted in their comedy sets.
0
1
to positively make efforts to show one’s kids Jim’ll Fix It would be weird, but I can’t say it would bother me if my kids saw an episode,
0
2
Wouldn’t it be better to play spot the pedlo now? Obvs you’d have to watch that sort of telly
0
0
When did I say it should affect legal matters. I said I wasn’t bothered about private organisations not contracting with him any more. That’s not a legal matter.
0
0
I didn’t advocate for the Government to have got involved BTW.
0
0
There seem to be many potential sexual offences alleges that would have no limitation period at all.
0
2
This recently disclosed (but mentioned in clear on the radio at the time) incident happened in LA in 2008. I am not aware the UK has a criminal limitation statute for serious felonies.
0
0
There’s a new act over there thar disapplies limitation, not sure which offences it covers
0
0
St John there is no limitation period for indecent exposure. The only limitation periods are for offences triable only in the Magistrates. So he could be prosecuted for a 2008 flashing.
0
1
Ah sorry missed the LA bit. My bad. Thought it was at the BBC
0
1
You with the Face.- yes tbf I dont think I read your posts properly. Think we are probably in agreement just coming at it from different angles.
0
0
Russell Brand: Woman accuses comedian of sexual assault on film set https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67318813
Join the discussion