what is your opinion on russell brand

@Activitykittens


I am not sure what "lock step" means but it's the commercial organisations and the broadcasters who are dropping him, not the government.

If any legal investigation leads to Russell Brand being charged and tried, the investigation would be the Police, the trial by a Court of Law; not social-media, the Press, broadcasters or government. Just as with anyone else accused of any serious offence.

Those employing him - You-Tube and the broadcasters - may rightly to hold their own investigations but on a purely employment-disciplinary grounds relating to their own companies. If they find sufficient prosecutorial or defence evidence, the onus is on them to hand that to the Police, and be prepared to send witnesses for any ensuing Court trial. (Trial witnesses, that is, to be examined by the prosecuting and defence barristers; not merely spectators or reporters.)

Those of us with no personal or professional connection to Brand, cannot and should not speculate, let alone judge, him; because we do not know the truth of the allegations and his denials.

.
("De-monetise"... who on Earth invents these horrible terms?)

@ArishMell I agree. I wish we lived in that world.

@Activitykittens Thank you.

That is worrying, although it is right that the Culture, Media & Sports Committee does take a close interest in the matter. It needs be careful not to go too far and suggest judging either Mr. Brand or the companies.

The last paragraph is neutral though. It does not name any contributors to Rumble but makes an important and fair point that should apply to all such companies.

@ArishMell a member of the Government should be the first to understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial. These are anonymous allegations, no worse than those directed at Biden, and a member of the British Government is seeking to strong arm a third party into removing Russell's online platform, which is how he makes his living (as well as his employees). They can do this to any one of us. This should be terrifying.

@Activitykittens The MP concerned has no power to tell the social-media company or any other of Brand's employers how to deal with him; and would know that.

Terrifying? No. It might be for Brand himself of course!

It for You-Tube to drop him if they see fit, and it would seem they did that almost as soon as the first allegations appeared.

@ArishMell If you think this behaviour is OK, there is nothing left for us to talk about

@Activitykittens I most certainly do not think the control you fear would be acceptable, but I don't think it all likely.

@ArishMell he no longer has the ability to earn an income on YouTube - which does not employ him btw - based on unproven accusations and a member of Parliament is leaning on other social media platforms to remove him and his content. The control I 'fear' is already here

@Activitykittens That is You-Tube's decision, not the Government's.

We do not know if Russell Brand is guilty or not, but these days the social-media, TV companies and advertising have enormous powers to make or break people earning them money; and are not afraid to do so but can be afraid to ask questions first.

Nor are a social-media company's owners likely to take much notice of what them is a foreign government; but they will take notice of the risk of scurrilous campaigns against their "stars" by users that may frighten the advertisers away.

I find the big social-media owners and their advertising-agency clients far more "terrifying" than my country's government; and even if Russell Brand subsequently proves he is in fact innocent, I think the allegations against him, and the commercial reactions, will have done far more harm to him than any letter from a committee of MPs.

If he is guilty of any of the allegations, he will have destroyed his own livelihood anyway; but it would be a Court of Law, not the companies, not the Government, to prove his guilt. Not for him to prove his innocence, as he would need do in France and various other European countries.

That letter may have over-stepped the mark - I am not a legal or Parliamentary expert - but the few huge corporations who have taken over the Internet do sometimes need reminding they are not infallible.

Am I afraid to use You-Tube now? No of course not, though I avoid it due to its ruining the videos by plastering them with idiotic advertisements.

Am I afraid to use Facebook/ Meta or Twitter / X? Yes, and I refuse to use them, but because I mis-trust them, not Parliament.

@ArishMell they are snuggly aligned with the government, that's the problem

Russell was not de-plaformed because YouTube was worried about losing advertising revenue, they are still making money from ads on his content

As for the French they have a different approach towards gathering evidence but still believe in innocent until proven guilty

French Constitution
DECLARATION OF HUMAN AND CIVIC RIGHTS OF 26 AUGUST 1789

Article 9

As every man is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any undue harshness that is not required to secure his person must be severely curbed by Law.
Rome Statute
Article 66 Presumption of innocence
1. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law.

2. The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused.

3. In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

@Activitykittens Many people believe that about the Government and commerce being in cahoots, but I do not do so at all. If anything business keeps moaning about ever more bureaucracy and taxes, which are hardly a sign of being entwined.

I suspect the real pressure on You Tube was from the advertisers wanting the money but trying to distance themselves from a celebrity who has not been proven as charged.

The French constitution may say that but like a lot of European countries they tend to go by the "Napoleonic Code", which places the onus on the defence rather than prosecution, having no jury trials; and in some circumstances assuming a crime before establishing cause of some serious event.

@Activitykittens Do you seriously think that actors were used simply to play to the emotions of the audience?

Sexual abuse crime is an incredibly difficult area of criminal law, both to report and meet the required evidential threshold. In all probability a criminal charge against RB will not stick. However, we live in a more enlightened and compassionate era in which the misogynistic views and abuses of power promoted by this man in the 2000s and 2010s are now agreed to have been clearly wrong. This is in the light of prominent convictions against other popular entertainers, such as Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.

While such allegations are investigated, it is not appropriate for RB to have access to platforms from which he can seek to manipulate public opinion or intimidate the witnesses.

@SunshineGirl glad to see you have made up your mind. The use of actors in the way they were used was tacky and manipulative. They could have had the statements read out in a nuetral manner. The fact that the accusers weren't even prepared to make verbal statements with their anonymity maintained, is telling. The shows creators were playing for a particular audience, gullible and quick to make emotional leaps to dogmatic certainties.

You, no matter how power hungry you are or how ignorant of the foundations of our society don't get to decide it is inappropriate for someone to have a platform.

By your view he has no right to defend himself in the very arena in which he has been attacked.

@Activitykittens I first began to form a view on the man in 2008 when he made a "prank call" on his radio show to Andrew Sachs, another but far more talented comedian, pretending that he had had sexual intercourse with Sachs' young granddaughter. He claimed in his own autobiography to be a "sex addict" and referred himself for psychological counselling in order to save his own career. These should have been clear red flags, but the prevailing ethos of the day was uncritical sycophancy towards a successful man who was a cash cow to others. He has shown nothing but contempt for anyone who disagrees with his world view and for women in general.

One of four women at the heart of the current controversy did actually appear in person on the documentary (partly because she lives in a different legal jurusdiction and will not be party to any future criminal proceedings in the UK).

@SunshineGirl yeah the Sachs thing was a low and irresponsible act and doesn't reflect well on him

However the most distributing thing to me about the Sachs episode is her grandfather refusing to talk to her after discovering she was in a consensual sexual relationship with Brand as a 23 year old woman

This isn't the 1900s

And for what it is worth she herself thinks the allegations should be taken with a pinch of salt 🤷