Russell Brand.

Social media companies are expected to hand over information if ordered to by a court.

*This fishing and intimidation exercise is disgraceful. Brand hasn't been criminally charged, or investigated. Yet the government is acting like he's been found guilty.

I could kind of understand it if he was a convicted criminal. I think there is already a law that stops people making money by promoting their previous crimes.

*I noticed in each of the letters they are personalised in their threatening tone. They aren't just asking for information, they pick on a sensitive area of that company and say (paraphrasing) "I hope you get that sorted out".
 
ci_newman said:
Huw wasn't doing anything illegal but he was having an extra-marital affair with a man (maybe not physical affair, but definitely emotional affair - explicit photos went both ways). He's off the air at the moment to work on his mental health (he was admitted to a mental health hospital after news of the affair broke), I hope he will be back on air when he's recovered.

The villain in that story however is the mans family who went to the newspapers telling lies about underage grooming and the Sun for not doing their due diligence - I hope Huw sues the **** out of them in future.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Sun knew they didn't have a story which is why they didn't name him. Their hope was someone else would come forward and give them a story they could name him in. This was typical tabloid crap. Unless there is alleged criminality actually backed by the alleged victim(s) or the person is someone who tells the public to behave one way but then behaves another, then these stories are none of our damned business.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Oxycontin happened because politicians relaxed laws and doctors were paid to prescribe it. It’s not some mad conspiracy. This is why you need governments to regulate these industries, yet they get elected by the public with a promise to deregulate, to cut red tape, to cut environmental protections. Then people complain when the rivers are full of ****. Like I said you get what you vote for.
Click to expand...

I want the government to take steps to prevent businesses polluting and abusing their monopoly positions.

I don’t want them taking steps to actively silence individuals who point out this corruption and abuse by said companies and the government themselves!

I’d also like government to actually wait until someone is convicted before actively taking steps to remove their ability to provide for themselves and their family by hounding them out of a job purely on the basis of circumstantial anonymous allegations.

Who can you vote for that will actually do this because the usual suspects all look like they’d behave the exact same way, or worse, if they were in power.
 
Last edited:
silvagti said:
I want the government to take steps to prevent businesses polluting and abusing their monopoly positions.

I don’t want them taking steps to actively silence individuals who point out this corruption and abuse by said companies and the government themselves!

I’d also like government to actually wait until someone is convicted before actively taking steps to close down their ability to look after themselves and their family by hounding them out of a job purely on the basis of circumstantial anonymous allegations.

Who can you vote for that will actually do this because the usual suspects all look like they’d behave the exact same way, or worse, if they were in power.
Click to expand...

Sounds a little dramatic TBH.
 
Obviously Russell likely has enough money In the bank to ride out the storm. I assume at least though perhaps not?

Most people in his position wouldn’t last long enough to keep up with the mortgage and bills/food if they were faced with the same situation though.

Again, all this based purely on anonymous unproven circumstantial accusations alone. without any sign of a charge,never mind a conviction.

Why exactly is there government involvement here?
 
Last edited:
silvagti said:
Obviously Russell likely has enough money In the bank to ride out the storm. I assume at least though perhaps not?

Most people in his position wouldn’t last long enough to keep up with the mortgage and bills/food if they were faced with the same situation though.

Again, all this based purely on anonymous unproven circumstantial accusations alone. without any sign of a charge,never mind a conviction.

Why exactly is there government involvement here?
Click to expand...

Which minister is going after Brand?
 
silvagti said:
Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the House of Commons media committee

www.bbc.co.uk

Rumble rejects MP's 'disturbing' letter over Russell Brand income

The video site rejects a "disturbing" letter from a UK Parliamentary committee about his fees.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

That’s not a government minister going after brand.

This isn’t happening.

taking steps to close down their ability to look after themselves and their family by hounding them out of a job purely on the basis of circumstantial anonymous allegations
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
So a typical sudimmu post them, make a claim and be completely unable to back it up. Thought so
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy is hilarious.
Dont ask for silly things then, you nor your buddies on the other side would ever go back and verify anything either, so why are you trying to use this against me when you wont do the same thing?
 
Last edited:
sidimmu said:
The hypocrisy is hilarious.
Dont ask for silly things then, you nor your buddies on the other side would ever go back and verify anything either, so why are you trying to use this against me when you wont do the same thing?
Click to expand...
Sounds like you work for Channel 4 and the Times :p
 
jigger said:
That’s not a government minister (Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the House of Commons media committee) going after brand.

This isn’t happening.
Click to expand...

I haven’t looked into the structure of the committee but presumably government/ MPs are the people who will have appointed her to that role? I’d assume she answers to them ultimately?
 
Last edited:
silvagti said:
I haven’t looked into the structure of the committee but presumably government/ MPs are the people who will have appointed her to that role? I’d assume she answers to them ultimately?
Click to expand...

A very complicated topic TBH.
Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the House of Commons media committee, wrote to Rumble to say she was "concerned" that he could profit from his content.
Click to expand...

I don’t see this as an attack on a struggling or victimised person. It’s concern for potential profiteering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom