Russell Brand.

CREATIVE!11 said:
This....

A MASSIVE overreach by the government for sure....
Click to expand...
fvkZWy1.png


... The government didn't do anything!
 
C Kent said:
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?
Click to expand...

IIRC the article said they had seen the evidence.

Of course convictions do happen but the odds are massively in the defendants favour as the prosecution has to convince the jury he did it beyond any reasonable doubt. That is rightly a high threshold to meet.
 
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...
The BBC have pretty much always given some information about the sources.

For them to say "we have seen documents" is them confirming that they have at first hand seen the documents, and are not relying on being told they exist or what is on them. It's standard for good journalism to give some indication of how reliable the information is, for example they will also state things like "multiple unconfirmed sources" for something that is/has obviously happened but they've not got official or more reliable sources for*.
Given Brand's lawyers the BBC is likely to be very certain that the documents exist, not to mention it really hurts their reputation if one of their reporters is found to be doing a Hannity - there used to be a joke in the broadcasting industry about the difference between the BBC and Sky news back when Sky were trying to always be the first to break a story IIRC Sky was referred to as "Never wrong for long" because they'd rush a news flash out (and correct later if needed) whilst the BBC would require confirmation and might end up putting the report out 15-30 minutes later.


*From memory the BBC requires a varying level of "confirmation" for stories based on if the source is known to them and how reliable. A BBC reporter having seen documentation confirming something is considered "high reliability", as is a BBC reporter seeing an event first hand, or being confirmed by an "official" source such as the police, or if say one of the primary news agencies has covered it "Reuters is reporting..." or "Coming through from Reuters".
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
IIRC the article said they had seen the evidence.

Of course convictions do happen but the odds are massively in the defendants favour as the prosecution has to convince the jury he did it beyond any reasonable doubt. That is rightly a high threshold to meet.
Click to expand...
Yup "beyond reasonable doubt" is much higher than "on the balance of probability", in a criminal court the defendant always has the benefit of the doubt from the system and the level of proof is extremely high so even a very good case can fail due to just one or two jurors not being certain.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
IIRC the article said they had seen the evidence.
Click to expand...
Bit 'weird' in itself no? If they are so certain a rape occurred then showing the evidence (although redacted to remove names) would have been a given i would have thought?
Colonel_Klinck said:
Of course convictions do happen but the odds are massively in the defendants favour as the prosecution has to convince the jury he did it beyond any reasonable doubt. That is rightly a high threshold to meet.
Click to expand...
My point was more to do with the 4 individuals havent even gone to the police at any point during the past 15 odd years. And they haven't since the story was broke by c4/times so the police can't even begin to investigate if any crimes have been committed.
 
C Kent said:
Bit 'weird' in itself no? If they are so certain a rape occurred then showing the evidence (although redacted to remove names) would have been a given i would have thought?
Click to expand...
Its private medical data. If the person concerned doesn't want to go through the ordeal of trying to get a prosecution then maybe they don't want it out there. Maybe they fear if its shown their identity might leak somehow.
C Kent said:
My point was more to do with the 4 individuals havent even gone to the police at any point during the past 15 odd years. And they haven't since the story was broke by c4/times so the police can't even begin to investigate if any crimes have been committed.
Click to expand...

Many don't and for at least 1 (the 16 year old) I'm not sure any criminal offence even happened. I've not read up on the others, it was the 16 year old that I read up on.
 
Werewolf said:
Given Brand's lawyers the BBC is likely to be very certain that the documents exist, not to mention it really hurts their reputation if one of their reporters is found to be doing a Hannity - there used to be a joke in the broadcasting industry about the difference between the BBC and Sky news back when Sky were trying to always be the first to break a story IIRC Sky was referred to as "Never wrong for long" because they'd rush a news flash out (and correct later if needed) whilst the BBC would require confirmation and might end up putting the report out 15-30 minutes later.
Click to expand...

Blackbelt Barrister covered this a few days ago, essentially - the news companies will almost certainly have received some sort of information that they've looked into, and deemed it credible. That doesn't mean that it may lead to charges, or that the allegations are true - just that there's a credible news story.

It's also likely that one of the reasons Youtube has demonetised him, is that the news companies may have passed this information onto google.

 
SpellowHouse said:
I think he is undoubtedly an extremely pushy guy. I suppose the real question is, did she say NO at any point.
Much as though I have every sympathy with a woman that gets his attention, all women must learn the art of saying NO. They almost need training in how to say no with people like Brand.
Men often make the first advance, so women must be capable of telling them to get lost. The crime comes in when she has, and he ignored it. We will see....
Click to expand...
I think your sentiment is correct even though you've done your best to use words to suggest otherwise.
 
It's also fairly likely they deem it credible because they know exactly who he is having worked with him and plenty of others with morally dubious lives because entertainment is filled with lots of 'open secrets' that they all buddy around each other like flies to ****.

Brand flew off and so the protective sphere of all that **** that nobody want's to notice or clean up no longer applied.
 
Werewolf said:
The BBC have pretty much always given some information about the sources.

For them to say "we have seen documents" is them confirming that they have at first hand seen the documents, and are not relying on being told they exist or what is on them. It's standard for good journalism to give some indication of how reliable the information is, for example they will also state things like "multiple unconfirmed sources" for something that is/has obviously happened but they've not got official or more reliable sources for*.
Given Brand's lawyers the BBC is likely to be very certain that the documents exist, not to mention it really hurts their reputation if one of their reporters is found to be doing a Hannity - there used to be a joke in the broadcasting industry about the difference between the BBC and Sky news back when Sky were trying to always be the first to break a story IIRC Sky was referred to as "Never wrong for long" because they'd rush a news flash out (and correct later if needed) whilst the BBC would require confirmation and might end up putting the report out 15-30 minutes later.


*From memory the BBC requires a varying level of "confirmation" for stories based on if the source is known to them and how reliable. A BBC reporter having seen documentation confirming something is considered "high reliability", as is a BBC reporter seeing an event first hand, or being confirmed by an "official" source such as the police, or if say one of the primary news agencies has covered it "Reuters is reporting..." or "Coming through from Reuters".
Click to expand...

The BBC admits we cannot always pretty much trust their sources.

www.bbc.co.uk

Martin Bashir: Inquiry criticises BBC over 'deceitful' Diana interview

Martin Bashir's 1995 interview was obtained using fake documents and then not properly investigated, an inquiry finds.
www.bbc.co.uk

They also nicely list all the times they do get it wrong

www.bbc.co.uk

Corrections and Clarifications

The BBC's responses to editorial, technical and corporate issues.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
silvagti said:
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“.
Click to expand...

I have the opinion that if the investors of Rumble reacted badly it's because the CEO of the company displayed a bad combination of lacking information/preparation/misreading/reacting badly when prodded by an official group.

Here's the reply from TikTok and note the extreme lack of being rattled as they read off the answers they have definitely prepared for long ago: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41533/documents/204487/default/

Meanwhile Rumbles CEO comes out hot saying he rejects the "demands" for demonetisation and banning which were not in the letter...

You can compare how different companies responded here and Rumble has the least composed reply: https://committees.parliament.uk/co...port-committee/publications/3/correspondence/

Even GB News played it better.
 
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia said:
I think your sentiment is correct even though you've done your best to use words to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

I suppose you are right. I remain confused by people like Brand. He is publicly known to be extremely pushy, so it confounds me that any woman would be alone with him, but that, of course, doesn't exonerate him in any way. You can't be guilty just because you underestimated what a **** he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom