Russell Brand.

[Fubsy]

Deleted post

What happened to you when you were accused, before you were able to prove otherwise?

What would have been the acceptable actions taken against you if you were unable to prove your innocence?

The guys you've noted above had no defence in the end (apart from Andrew, wtf you got him in there for, nothing was proven, it was all hushed away - scummy behaviour no doubt, and now we'll never know, but that was her choice as far as I know). No one is apologising for their actions. All you are doing is making a scene and throwing the word incel around like a cheap *****.

Edit: the word for a rubber appendage is banned?!

 

[kitkat9933]

You can't expect the private company to have to keep a financial relationship with someone accused of these things. In the same way you couldn't expect a sponsor to keep a relationship with someone under these circumstances. I'll be amazed if he ever seeing the inside of a court room so I expect once it blows over they'll remonetise his account.

Why? Emphasis on the word accuse. If I accuses you of something, should you lose your job straight away?

There’s one thing not putting him on stage or the air etc but removing existing monetisation till proven guilty is wrong.

 

[dlockers]

I think much like a Communist state we're sending someone to the metaphorical Gulag for crimes that are actually their political views. The BBC and Channel 4 aren't private companies, they are both funded by the state.

Ah metaphorical. As in, not real?

 

[Fubsy]

I know it's all getting a bit heated, so we should all take a moment to reflect that sometimes there are ridiculous accusations, a big pile on and then the adjudicating body find in favour of the accused party. Things tend to go pretty quiet after that although there are always some who just won't accept the adjudication regardless, there is no helping them.

'No proof' bank accounts being closed over views, says watchdog

The City watchdog's findings follow a row over threats to close Nigel Farage's bank account.

www.bbc.co.uk

Taking off topic hopefully not too much, but I was a big defender on that one and glad to find that it's not happening. The thought what it was or could be, was what I was beefing with at the time.

Anyway, pick that back up in SC at some point.

 

[C Kent]

Much like the bakery you guys presumably love, it's for private businesses to do what they want. That's all that has happened. Do you want to live in a communist state or something?

Thats' not answering the question is it, unless you believe potentially ruining someone's life on, as of yet, unfounded accusations is perfectly ok?

 

[Hotwired]

What actions should be taken on the back of rumours and unfounded accusations? Death? Castration? What?

Last I heard the state has not punished Brand.

Companies that make money with him are cutting ties and distancing themselves because the money won't be good enough if he's guilty and they were seen to support him.

 

[Fubsy]

I think much like a Communist state we're sending someone to the metaphorical Gulag for crimes that are actually their political views. The BBC and Channel 4 aren't private companies, they are both funded by the state.

I'm with the others on this, what actual evidence is there that this is about his views or content?

 

[dlockers]

Thats' not answering the question is it, unless you believe potentially ruining someone's life on, as of yet, unfounded accusations is perfectly ok?

We don't live in a communist state. Private companies can make or break their own rules to a large extent. What are you advocating? A central punishment authority? Maybe a social score?

 

[C Kent]

We don't live in a communist state. Private companies can make or break their own rules to a large extent. What are you advocating? A central punishment authority? Maybe a social score?

That crimes that have massive potential to ruin someones life purely based on an accusation should be anonymous until they are found guilty of said crime.

 

[Fubsy]

We don't live in a communist state. Private companies can make or break their own rules to a large extent. What are you advocating? A central punishment authority? Maybe a social score?

How would we feel if supermarkets refused to take his money in exchange for food? I mean, if enough pressure was applied to say, Tesco, because he shopped there, do you think they too would also bow and 'cut-ties' with a customer.

I'm slippery sloping here, but I think this is the sentiment you'll find when you take the 'private companies can do business with who they please' thing to extremes. Too much Black Mirror can do that to a person.

 

[Dis86]

That crimes that have massive potential to ruin someones life purely based on an accusation should be anonymous until they are found guilty of said crime.

I'd agree unless there's a reasonable risk that someone else could come to harm.
In this instance however that doesn't look to be the case as these accusations are all historical.

 

[imtoooldforthis]

I'm with the others on this, what actual evidence is there that this is about his views or content?

absolutely none whatsoever yet they say it with the same conviction as someone saying for certain that brands is a rapey, a little ironic given they require bullet proof evidence for one claim but not the other.

 

[dlockers]

That crimes that have massive potential to ruin someones life purely based on an accusation should be anonymous until they are found guilty of said crime.

Obfuscating issues is rarely the answer. It's why open source is much more secure than closed source.

How would we feel if supermarkets refused to take his money in exchange for food? I mean, if enough pressure was applied to say, Tesco, because he shopped there, do you think they too would also bow and 'cut-ties' with a customer.

I'm slippery sloping here, but I think this is the sentiment you'll find when you take the 'private companies can do business with who they please' thing to extremes. Too much Black Mirror can do that to a person.

You're right it is slippery slope. So far I haven't seen some mythical supermarket banning underworld. Presumably he'd shop elsewhere, just like how current convicted awful humans can feed and home themselves.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

That crimes that have massive potential to ruin someones life purely based on an accusation should be anonymous until they are found guilty of said crime.

Its an interesting one since some rely on patterns of behaviour.

If there was no publicity you could have say a single accusation tried and without overburdening proof its dimissed.
Later another, which goes the same way etc etc

How many people coming out to accuse someone of something would sway your opinion?
1? 5? 10? 25? 50? 100!?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Why? Emphasis on the word accuse. If I accuses you of something, should you lose your job straight away?

There’s one thing not putting him on stage or the air etc but removing existing monetisation till proven guilty is wrong.

Because Google's advertisers won't want their products next to his content atm. If there is no advertising then there is no money. Are you saying advertisers should be forced to have their products on his show?

 

[CapitalOne]

How would we feel if supermarkets refused to take his money in exchange for food? I mean, if enough pressure was applied to say, Tesco, because he shopped there, do you think they too would also bow and 'cut-ties' with a customer.

I'm slippery sloping here, but I think this is the sentiment you'll find when you take the 'private companies can do business with who they please' thing to extremes. Too much Black Mirror can do that to a person.

That would only happen with a good reason. He could get barred via a court order for example, or a cashier might shut the line just as he got there but you aren't going to see a corporate entity take personal offence to an individual and go all passive-aggressive on them.

Either way, he could always go to Tesco in disguise.

 

[jigger]

I think much like a Communist state we're sending someone to the metaphorical Gulag for crimes that are actually their political views. The BBC and Channel 4 aren't private companies, they are both funded by the state.

Lol, you have a very strange view of the world for a guy that understands women so well.

Honestly, have a think about what you say.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

What actions should be taken on the back of rumours and unfounded accusations? Death? Castration? What?

Only the state can put someone to death or castrate them. Innocent until proven guilty is in regards to the state, the state can't take away your liberty or fine you unless you are found guilty in a court of law. The public can and always will make there own judgements based on what they hear. Its always been this way, it will always be this way.

 

[Roar87]

I'm with the others on this, what actual evidence is there that this is about his views or content?

It's just what I believe given the arbitrary decision to launch a full investigative report into him after all these years, I think the media have been very coordinated and the story has been given a pretty unprecedented level of attention. Remember the reporters went looking for victims, not the other way round. I think the motivation there is based on the type of content he's putting on Youtube and the desire to make him persona non grata. It's a pretty common attack vector that we've seen used a lot in recent years.

 

[dlockers]

It's just what I believe given the arbitrary decision to launch a full investigative report into him after all these years, I think the media have been very coordinated and the story has been given a pretty unprecedented level of attention. Remember the reporters went looking for victims, not the other way round. I think the motivation there is based on the type of content he's putting on Youtube and the desire to make him persona non grata. It's a pretty common attack vector that we've seen used a lot in recent years.

He's been person non Grata for ages, that's why he's after the easily led mouth breathers.

Journalism has been instrumental at exposing truth since the dawn of time, that's why dictatorships bring it under their control as priority 1.