Russell Brand.

[jigger]

You don't have to make "witty" remarks to cover your lack of knowledge of a topic, you can just admit you don't know or understand @jigger.

But it's a shame to see that some, especially on an IT orientated forum, are quite happy to guzzle down the government's load on the OSB, that basically comprises of "ohmagawd, think of the children" whilst pushing mass surveillance, when the reality is, OSB would have pretty detrimental effect on IT and the day-to-day services we use, especially if some of those that have been vocal do decide to leave our shores (or remove some of their services/products).

Any way, enough of derailing the thread, back to Brand and his escapades...

Nods head.

 

[Ayahuasca]

But I have, few times in fact. It’s just the answer you chaps are looking for.

What I do find concerning, is the numbers of people in this thread seemingly happy for Brand to have sexual relationships with their 16 year old daughters. Clearly brand holds a great deal of influence and power over adult men. In this regard I think a layer of protection is needed.

You're being completely disingenuous and have done so on numerous occasions.

Now you're trying to change the subject to save face.

 

[jigger]

You're being completely disingenuous and have done so on numerous occasions.

Now you're trying to change the subject to save face.

In your opinion. I don’t see an issue with the culture committee and it’s letter. I’m not sure how you find that disingenuous, but fine.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I don’t see an issue with the culture committee and it’s letter.

If it had stayed there I'd agree, but you went on to give further responses and a refusal to answer certain questions that showed a lack of understanding of the wider/related issues surrounding it.

 

[Hades]

What's morally wrong is a 30 year old sleeping with a 16 year old. YouTube is a private company and can do what it likes to protect it's clients brand safety. The same applies to rumble and other sites can make up their own minds based off their terms and policies.

As my mum used to say... "two wrong's don't make a right". They are two different issues. Both can be morally wrong. One doesn't cancel out the other.

 

[robgmun]

No one is coming for you chap.

Unless you have a fair number of followers and say a man can't be a woman. Then you have a dozen officers show up knocking at your door. And this was before the bill comes into force

 

[jigger]

If it had stayed there I'd agree, but you went on to give further responses and a refusal to answer certain questions that showed a lack of understanding of the wider/related issues surrounding it.

This is disingenuousness.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Christ its not hard is it, Brand is now suddenly a talking point and far more likely to see increased monetisation right now based on that.
IF there is more publicity that could increase payments.
I would argue he WAS famous, but in recent times hes far less so, he had already "fallen out of grace" as such in the main media. Hes been running a very good business via youtube (etc) targetting and producing for a certain demographic.

IMO its wrong to "punish" him right now, but equally its a decent call to say he shouldnt right now be benefitting from his increased exposure, whether he is found guilty or not.
Hence IMO the places providing him with income from this monetisation should be asked to calculate and withhold any excess.

Demonetisation is a funny thing, it happens and many channels will tell you they cannot show x since its a trigger for demoentisation etc.

There is probably an age thing in regards Brand and being famous as well. Much older and much younger are less likely to think of him that way.

 

[jigger]

Unless you have a fair number of followers and say a man can't be a woman. Then you have a dozen officers show up knocking at your door. And this was before the bill comes into force

You should start legal proceedings TBH.

 

[robgmun]

You should start legal proceedings TBH.

To be clear it wasn't me, obvs

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

IMO its wrong to "punish" him right now, but equally its a decent call to say he shouldnt right now be benefitting from his increased exposure, whether he is found guilty or not.
Hence IMO the places providing him with income from this monetisation should be asked to calculate and withhold any excess.

But channel 4 (Who released the documentary from what I understand) and everyone else who is talking about it can profit from the increased exposure?

 

[Ayahuasca]

This is disingenuousness.

 

[jigger]

Christ its not hard is it, Brand is now suddenly a talking point and far more likely to see increased monetisation right now based on that.
IF there is more publicity that could increase payments.
I would argue he WAS famous, but in recent times hes far less so, he had already "fallen out of grace" as such in the main media. Hes been running a very good business via youtube (etc) targetting and producing for a certain demographic.

IMO its wrong to "punish" him right now, but equally its a decent call to say he shouldnt right now be benefitting from his increased exposure, whether he is found guilty or not.
Hence IMO the places providing him with income from this monetisation should be asked to calculate and withhold any excess.

Demonetisation is a funny thing, it happens and many channels will tell you they cannot show x since its a trigger for demoentisation etc.

There is probably an age thing in regards Brand and being famous as well. Much older and much younger are less likely to think of him that way.

If people read the T&C when signup to social media platforms they would understand. Most think these platforms as paid soap boxes and become disgruntled when the revenue is pulled.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

But channel 4 (Who released the documentary from what I understand) and everyone else who is talking about it can profit from the increased exposure?

Are they benefitting?

 

[jigger]

To be clear it wasn't me, obvs

People in Russia are very carful about what they say. It’s a very poor comparison TBH. Public access to social platforms is very different in Russia compared to the UK.

 

[Richie]

Can we please just get one thing straight. The chair of the culture committee IS NOT the executive government.

That may be so but she is using her position as a sitting MP and chair of the culture committee to push a punitive agenda.

But I have, few times in fact. It’s just not maybe the answer you chaps are looking for.

What I do find concerning, is the numbers of people in this thread seemingly happy for Brand to have sexual relationships with their 16 year old daughters. Clearly brand holds a great deal of influence and power over adult men. In this regard I think a layer of protection is needed.

Nice... Pivot the discussion away from the questions you find yourself out your depth with and onto about someones relationship with a 16 year old girl... Classic

 

[jigger]

That may be so but she is using her position as a sitting MP and chair of the culture committee to push a punitive agenda.



Nice... Pivot the discussion away from the questions you find yourself out your depth with and onto about someones relationship with a 16 year old girl... Classic

You mean keep answering the same questions until the mob find an answer they can use to further their agenda.

 

[Richie]

Christ its not hard is it, Brand is now suddenly a talking point and far more likely to see increased monetisation right now based on that.
IF there is more publicity that could increase payments.

Even if the cause of this increased publicity wasn't caused by the subject matter potentially "benefiting" from it?

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Are they benefitting?

Are you seriously questioning whether or not people are currently making money talking about the latest hot topic?

Okay then...

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

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.

I think its already been established that this isn't actually the government writing letters but a committee in parliament doing its job. This committee is actually powerless.

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.