Russell Brand.

need to signal with emojis these days, they were invented for a reason.

Maybe extradition to the USA for Brand - would he be more popular there, & we are short on prison space, too.
 
jpaul said:
need to signal with emojis these days, they were invented for a reason.

Maybe extradition to the USA for Brand - would he be more popular there, & we are short on prison space, too.
Click to expand...

Even with the rape centre evidence and texts there is no chance he gets convicted. There is just too much reasonable doubt. Maybe a civil case could get a liability claim given the lower threshold.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Even with the rape centre evidence and texts there is no chance he gets convicted. There is just too much reasonable doubt. Maybe a civil case could get a liability claim given the lower threshold.
Click to expand...
An actor in the US just got sentenced for rape from 20 years ago, if the evidence is there charges can be brought. Out of interest the rape center stuff, did they show the evidence or was it they've seen the evidence?
 
GIBURROWS said:
If the government hadn't got involved I would have said this was bound to happen at some point with Brand whether it's true or not but with the government going after his social media before a trial is just so weird.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the only logical reason I could see for pre-emptively closing down his social media platforms and income would be if the government knew there were more concrete allegations and evidence to be made public.
 
Last edited:
silvagti said:
Yeah, the only logical reason I could see for pre-emptively closing down his social media platforms and income would be if the government knew there were more concrete allegations and evidence to be made public.
Click to expand...
Seems more like the committee has been indoctrinated by the combined cults of cancel culture and #metoo.
 
GIBURROWS said:
If the government hadn't got involved I would have said this was bound to happen at some point with Brand whether it's true or not but with the government going after his social media before a trial is just so weird.
Click to expand...

silvagti said:
Yeah, the only logical reason I could see for pre-emptively closing down his social media platforms and income would be if the government knew there were more concrete allegations and evidence to be made public.
Click to expand...

Government isn't the right word unless you are loose in how you define government.

The CM&S Committee is made up of MPs from multiple parties and reports to the House of Commons not the government, one of its jobs is to monitor the government.

Their major power is that they can demand people answer their questions but that's it.

So when the chair sends a letter saying what are you doing about "this" that's literally the limit of their power. They can't follow it up and actually tell you what to do.
 
Hotwired said:
So when the chair sends a letter saying what are you doing about "this" that's literally the limit of their power. They can't follow it up and actually tell you what to do.
Click to expand...

Of course, but they shouldn't be sticking their parliamentary nose in to this argument in the way they have, especially in their official capacity.

Just because they cannot enforce that companies do anything, other than answer certain questions, doesn't mean they have not overreached in this case nor does it take away the fact of what they are inferring by the manner and content that their letter contains.
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
The CM&S Committee is made up of MPs from multiple parties and reports to the House of Commons not the government, one of its jobs is to monitor the government.

Their major power is that they can demand people answer their questions but that's it.

So when the chair sends a letter saying what are you doing about "this" that's literally the limit of their power. They can't follow it up and actually tell you what to do.
Click to expand...

I take your point but the problem is private companies generally won’t view a government/Parliamentary committee question as simply asking.

They’ll take it as them being instructed by UK parliament to carry out their request or risk legal repercussions. If you read the letter it’s basically a thinly veiled thread suggesting that if they don’t take the actions “suggested” (demonetise brand and actively take steps to filter/monitor his and similar content) the matter will be taken further and they could find themselves under investigation .

Barring one or two literally every tech company who received this letter followed their advice exactly so they obviously read it that way. Rumble, who didn’t, share price has crashed. presumably on the basis that they’ve risked uk/foreign government sanctions and penalties against them globally for showing they may not follow a sovereign states parliamentary “recommendations“.
 
Last edited:
The text message exchange between the woman who claims he raped her and his response is quite telling imo, of course it needs to be verified as genuine.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
I’m tired of the media thinking they are the jury. More **** in the DM, none of it illegal, other than the drug use, but we all knew who Brand was. No wonder more and more of our youth are gravitating toward the likes of Tate.
Click to expand...

In recent months I've lost count of the number of BBC articles along the lines of "documents have been seen by the BBC", as if reporters need to cast their expert eye and then give a thumbs up or down. That's also assuming the documents exist in the first place.
 
tyke_ said:
The text message exchange between the woman who claims he raped her and his response is quite telling imo, of course it needs to be verified as genuine.
Click to expand...

How's it telling? All he does is apologise for some unspecified occurrence. Considering she also claimed that he was trying to push her in to having a threesome, is it not possible that he was apologising for that?
 
Chojin said:
In recent months I've lost count of the number of BBC articles along the lines of "documents have been seen by the BBC", as if reporters need to cast their expert eye and then give a thumbs up or down. That's also assuming the documents exist in the first place.
Click to expand...
But aren't the BBC part of the new truth news network or something?!?
 
Dis86 said:
How's it telling? All he does is apologise for some unspecified occurrence. Considering she also claimed that he was trying to push her in to having a threesome, is it not possible that he was apologising for that?
Click to expand...
This is true. But it could be from her saying "no" to having sex with him and then him forcing it, which she claims. Even if it was referring to a threesome, she could have been forced into that too, which is still rape. Plus with her going to a rape crisis centre afterwards. I'm not saying it's conclusive proof, but it's my opinion that something untoward happened. Of course this should all be put before a judge and jury before punishing him, which to some extent hasn't happened.
 
tyke_ said:
This is true. But it could be from her saying "no" to having sex with him and then him forcing it, which she claims. Even if it was referring to a threesome, she could have been forced into that too, which is still rape. Plus with her going to a rape crisis centre afterwards. I'm not saying it's conclusive proof, but it's my opinion that something untoward happened. Of course this should all be put before a judge and jury before punishing him, which to some extent hasn't happened.
Click to expand...

It could be all of those things. Or none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom