Russell Brand.

Roar87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

To be fair, even the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport made exactly the same error. C4 is not funded by the state.
 
Roar87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don’t see any of this as a targeted attack. It’s journalism that’s all.
 
Just wait til some posters Dad gets hauled up for grabbing some boobs in 1973 and they lose their inheritance to legal fees
 
hurfdurf said:
If I punch you in the face in front of everyone breaking your nose, you go to the police, but it takes 2 years to convict me due to court timings, are you telling me that in those 2 years I’m innocent, didn’t actually do it, and you would defend me as innocent and not want anyone to say I did it until the courts ok it?
Click to expand...
That is the British legal system. But this isn't comparable to what is happening in this situation.

If I take your example then it would be like me accusing you of punching me in the face and your work opportunities stop. Are you innocent or guilty in this scenario?

I'm surprised you're taking this position considering you've been a big Tate supporter (he is supporting Brand). It looks a bit hypocrital, especially considering Tate has been charged with officially with crimes.
 
C Kent said:
Thats' not answering the question is it, unless you believe potentially ruining someone's life on, as of yet, unfounded accusations is perfectly ok?
Click to expand...

He's had rape and sexual assault claims in the papers before and been able to brush them off with the help of the MSM lawyers and PR. The problem for him now is he doesn't have access to that and these allegations seem a bit more founded
 
Fubsy said:
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.
Click to expand...

In years gone by the local shop in your village/town may well have refused to take your money because the word was out that you did something even though you hadn't been charged, convicted or even arrested. People will have stopped wanting your services. They would leave the pub if you walked in, the barmen would have said your money isn't any good in there. I saw that stuff happen.

Now I'm not justifying that, but it was how it was. I moved to London from a small Cotswold village because I loved London and it was the early 90s and it was the place to be to rave/party. But I hated the local gossip and everyone knowing everyone else's business. That and it was all so incestuous.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
In years gone by the local shop in your village/town may well have refused to take your money because the word was out that you did something even though you hadn't been charged, convicted or even arrested. People will have stopped wanting your services. They would leave the pub if you walked in, the barmen would have said your money isn't any good in there. I saw that stuff happen.

Now I'm not justifying that, but it was how it was. I moved to London from a small Cotswold village because I loved London and it was the early 90s and it was the place to be to rave/party. But I hated the local gossip and everyone knowing everyone else's business. That and it was all so incestuous.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt it happened in villages/towns. I see it now after moving to a village.

Difference is, as more and more services go fully digital and national/international, maybe AI systems can determine you as 'undesirable' to the business and then you have a national/global shunning. It's sci-fi for the west, but looks like it's heading that way in China.
 
dlockers said:
It's more polite and less ambiguous than calling them all the other words they are :D
Click to expand...
It's like there's no middle ground. If you aren't on my side then **** you mentality.

People bitch and moan about each other way more now than they used to. It's exhausting.
 
Roar87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is often how it works in these cases. The journalist gets a tip and starts digging, they find victims and interview them. That is how Weinstein eventually got caught. Its call investigative journalism.

The rest of that is just rabbit hole conspiracy nonsense. Like the Times is going to create this story to stop him creating content on YT. Do you know how insane that sounds? "They are shutting him down because he's so close to the truth!!" :rolleyes:

Maybe all the years of rumours about him have finally got the right journalist interested. We will have to wait and see what comes of it.
 
Last edited:
BowdonUK said:
That is the British legal system. But this isn't comparable to what is happening in this situation.

If I take your example then it would be like me accusing you of punching me in the face and your work opportunities stop. Are you innocent or guilty in this scenario?

I'm surprised you're taking this position considering you've been a big Tate supporter (he is supporting Brand). It looks a bit hypocrital, especially considering Tate has been charged with officially with crimes.
Click to expand...

If your access to work is based on a public persona or particular image then your actions and personal life should probably align with public opinion pretty closely.
 
Hedge said:
It's like there's no middle ground. If you aren't on my side then **** you mentality.

People bitch and moan about each other way more now than they used to. It's exhausting.
Click to expand...
I totally agree - the thing is, the last time they got called gammons they cried racist. Good old fashioned right wingers are much better than our new gen right wingers. Old school right wingers were rarely incels too.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
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
Click to expand...
Its not a perfect 'solution' by any means, but I think a lot of how crimes are reported etc need to be looked at with the advent of social media, especially historical cases. I do think that once c4 and the times were working on the story the 1st port of call should have been getting the accusers to go to the police and report the crimes. If they refuse/didnt want to maybe some sort of disclaimer stating that?
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
How many people coming out to accuse someone of something would sway your opinion?
1? 5? 10? 25? 50? 100!?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by 'sway your opinion'?
CapitalOne said:
To be fair, even the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport made exactly the same error. C4 is not funded by the state.
Click to expand...
The company thats owns C4 (Channel Four Television Corporation) is state owned though, probably where the confusion has come from.
 
Fubsy said:
I have no doubt it happened in villages/towns. I see it now after moving to a village.

Difference is, as more and more services go fully digital and national/international, maybe AI systems can determine you as 'undesirable' to the business and then you have a national/global shunning. It's sci-fi for the west, but looks like it's heading that way in China.
Click to expand...

I'm just using it as an example of how people work and have always worked. This has happened forever. Tescos aren't going to ban him. Though maybe his local corner shop might.
 
jigger said:
If your access to work is based on a public persona or particular image then your actions and personal life should probably align with public opinion pretty closely.
Click to expand...

Oooof, how the hell do you expect that to happen over a life long career? Or is it used as a threat? "Go along with the thing, or we'll end you"

I'd wager there are some nasty stories about much loved public faces that we never got to hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom