Russell Brand.

TheOracle said:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Click to expand...
Didnt know you were under investigation also, what for?
 
Last edited:
mattx4 said:
He could sue the accuser's for libel and damages as he has done previously
Click to expand...
Yes he could. That legal case would cost him a lot of money and I suspect his accusers may not be able to afford the level of damages caused to him. So that's not probably going to be a solution and (if he is innocent) he's still out of pocket a lot.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Can we please just get one thing straight. The chair of the culture committee IS NOT the executive government.

The role of the committee is to scrutinise government policy and the wider practices of those who operate in the sector which the relevant department oversees. They are made up of MPs from all parties in the House of Commons.

It has no executive powers. It can request information, call in whitenesses (inc ministers and civil servants) and most of the time whitenesses are not compelled to attend or respond (people generally do because it’s within their wider interest to cooperate). They write reports with recommendations. That’s it.

It’s up to the government minister to consider any recommendations and it’s well within their right to not accept them and this happens regularly.

Some committees are very influential and for the most part they do good work but they don’t have power to make laws or pass judgements or make decisions. They are only an influencing body.
Click to expand...

It can also question the work of a currently innocent man who hasn't been even charged of any wrong doing.

If you are not disturbed by that God help you.
 
Hades said:
OK, so your reply to "who would compensate him for lost revenue" after agreeing a (so far) innocent man is demonetised, is simply "it's all been said".
Click to expand...

Plenty of innocent people get demonetised for things they have said or actions they have taken without going through courts. There's no human right to earn a living off social media

There's also people that have been found guilty of crimes and still earn a living on social media it's at the social medias companies discretion on who they want on their platform
 
@jigger so in a world where Brand could potentially make a bit of extra cash off what are currently unproven allegations you think it's fine to stop him from earning from all social media even unrelated to the allegations yes? Bear in mind any legal council will tell you to not say a word regarding ongoing potential criminal acts.

How do you reconcile the fact that the like of r kelly - currently in jail for being a nonce- is still monetised on YouTube, or cardi b whose admitted to carrying criminal acts previously is also still monetised?
 
jigger said:
Silly questions, silly answers.
Click to expand...
As I've said before, this is the livelihood of a person not (currently) guilty of anything (agree that may change though). You are supporting a position where a mans livelihood is at stake. For that reason it is not a silly question.

Yet all you can think of doing is to swerve and deflect away from answering a genuine and serious question. As you won't try to answer it I have to assume you don't have a well thought out answer at all.
 
mattx4 said:
Plenty of innocent people get demonetised for things they have said or actions they have taken without going through courts. There's no human right to earn a living off social media
Click to expand...
No-one has suggested there is a human right to earn a living off of social mnedia. If there were then there would be far tighter control over demonetisation. But until a person is found guilty of a crime, then preventing them earning money due only to accusations (which may or may not be true) is morally wrong. There have been far too many false accusations to blindly assume an accusation means guilt.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
@jigger so in a world where Brand could potentially make a bit of extra cash off what are currently unproven allegations you think it's fine to stop him from earning from all social media even unrelated to the allegations yes? Bear in mind any legal council will tell you to not say a word regarding ongoing potential criminal acts.

How do you reconcile the fact that the like of r kelly - currently in jail for being a nonce- is still monetised on YouTube, or cardi b whose admitted to carrying criminal acts previously is also still monetised?
Click to expand...

None of those people have spoken about corruption in Ukraine so Jigger doesn't care. These people are very simple, it isn't any more complicated than that, they're not thinking deeply about the ramifications and over reach of government or anything like that. It's simply "I am against person X, therefore I support attacks on him".
 
Thekwango said:
No not really. As I said I can’t abide the man. But I’m honest enough to admit he is rather famous. You’re clearly not being honest.
Click to expand...

You may watch Brand do whatever he does. To me he’s just some random celebrity.

The I seen of him he was arguing with some UKIP types and had some rather communist views.
 
jigger said:
You may watch Brand do whatever he does. To me he’s just some random celebrity.

The I seen of him he was arguing with some UKIP types and had some rather communist views.
Click to expand...
couldn't tell you the last time i watched Brand 'do whatever he does' so not sure what you mean by that but at least you acknowledge he's a celebrity and therefore pretty famous even if you've no actual interest in him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom