- This topic has 84 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I don’t like Brand. I never found him in the slightest bit amusing. I never liked him boasting about his sleazy life or thought his lifestyle was in any way admirable.
However, I dislike trial by the media and social media even more. Especially when it is organisations like the BBC and Channel 4 that were very happy to profit from Brand when he was obviously a sleazy creep but now act all shocked and tell us he is a sleazy creep.
Despite my dislike for him, Brand has not been charged with anything. I don’t think he should be cancelled and ruined on the basis of allegations alone. Well done to Rumble for telling the ridiculous Caroline Dinenage to get lost.
If it does ever come to trial, the allegations will clearly have to be taken very seriously but Brand is still entitled to a fair trial. Given all the acres of press coverage, that could be an issue.
On the issue of conviction rates, too often those sort of trials become “She said, he said”, especially after skilled defence barristers have done their work. It is not surprising juries reach the view it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt and are reluctant to convict. Benjamin Mendy and Ryan Giggs are two recent examples.
Has he been ‘cancelled’? As far as I know, no platform has banned him, Youtube has only stopped his revenue as I understand it. He’s free to keep making videos to his millions of subscribers and anyone else with an Internet connection who wishes to view them.
I am sure he’s got plenty of money in the bank and not all platforms have stopped paying him.
I’ve little idea about the content of his videos (I’ve heard some of it is conspiracy theory stuff, the BBC says ‘spirituality, anti-establishment politics and, recently, UFOs’) but I’m sure if he passionately believes in what he’s coming out with, the loss of some income won’t matter, it couldn’t possibly be all about the money 😉
Some of the stuff that the BBC in particular aired at the time beggars belief to be honest, at least some of it wasn’t live so there was ample opportunity to stop it. The Sachs thing was awful but there were some other examples aired in the documentary that were disgusting (not illegal) and it’s not that long ago, I don’t think the ‘different times’ excuse particularly washes. Have these broadcasters learned a thing? I do wonder sometimes.
As stated, I don’t follow current affairs any more, but am I right in saying Brand isn’t in contention to be offered the post of next head coach of Spain’s national ladies football team?
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"A brand new remake of St Trinian’s without Russell is the order of the day
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
The original St Trinians remains the best.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Like many other media favourites, Brand’s excesses have been ignored and indulged for many years.
I’ve never liked him, but am mindful he has not been convicted of any crimes so far. YouTube’s approach where they have stopped his revenue, but are still happy to get traffic to their site from his videos, feels rather weaselly to me.
I totally understand why his accusers may not have gone via formal channels to begin with; Richard and Tonge have made good points on this already.
But I’m also not a fan of trial by media. Unless he is formally convicted, I don’t think his ability to make money and express his views should be curtailed.
And as for the BBC and ITV etc., they must have more staff conducting inquiries than making programmes by now.
“It’s taken time to come out because for once someone is doing proper journalism and investigating, gathering evidence etc. If any of this can be proven to be false then Brand’s lawyers will have a field day.”
I haven’t seen the documentary Richard, but even so I never take anything for granted when it
is clearly taken from one side and it’s in their interest to be as shocking as possible. I’m
not saying the allegations aren’t true, but the press/TV when they have their teeth into something
“juicy” do their best to sell the program. I’m not keen on the guy and it seems not many are, but
that’s irrelevant, being a prick doesn’t make him guilty and although you say he doesn’t need the
money, I doubt he does, again that’s not the point. Companies are making decisions on allegations.
The allegations may turn out to be true but jury by the press I’m not in favour of. I’ve seen many
a press story on serious incidents and I’ve known they were well off the mark, or greatly exaggerated.None of this means he’s not guilty as (not) charged and perhaps more. If this were Iran he’d probably
have his hands cut off by now, I rather think we are better than that. Legal process is the only way
for this man to be dealt with.“Youtube has only stopped his revenue as I understand it. He’s free to keep making videos to his millions of subscribers.”
But why should YouTube stop his revenue? He has not been charged with any offence.
Brand appears to have turned his back on his previous employers, so his YouTube channel seems to be his main source of income. He has other income streams such as Rumble – but everyone knows YouTube reaches far more people.
No matter what we think of him, he is entitled to make a living. It is sinister of YouTube to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Even more sinister was Dinenage attempting to put pressure on Rumble to do the same. Aside from being a clear abuse of her powers, it serves to add to the belief of Brand’s supporters that he is being targeted by a political Establishment which wants to silence him.
It is irrelevant that he probably has plenty of money in the bank. I would have thought he has a legal case for saying he is being denied the right to make a living, which I assume is a right enshrined in Human Rights legislation.
Agree with CAS.
I don’t like Brand and he doesn’t need the money.
But that isn’t the point.
I find it disturbing to find myself in a society which seemingly convicts and punishes individuals based on allegations.
It is for the process of law to determine guilt and, if so, appropriate punishment.
The police, crown prosecution service and the courts have their shortcomings, but trial (and seemingly punishment) by media takes society on a very dangerous path.
It is completely wrong for YouTube to take this action – innocent until proven guilty.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Nobody has a divine right to make money from Youtube videos, it’s their platform and they are, probably, acting within their own terms of use that everyone signs up to. If they aren’t then I am sure action can be taken. If he needs money, there is plenty of work out there for innocent free men.
Similarly he would have a case for loss of earnings if he takes The Times and C4 to court for defamation and wins. Does he want the allegations tested in court? We will see. It’s up to them to prove they are right beyond reasonable doubt, not him to prove they are wrong. If it was me, my lawyers would be going over every word of every article and every second of that documentary with a fine tooth comb. If those outlets are wrong, this will be very, very expensive for them.
There is a however very strong argument that tech companies (and the media) have too much power and that sometimes they abuse this. Sound familiar? There are many cases of people (proven ones) in the public eye who are quite happy to abuse their imbalance of power over the general public.
I’d also agree with the earlier comment about rape conviction being difficult due to the ‘he said she said’ nature of allegations. That’s another massive imbalance of power that needs fixing. The vast, vast majority of rapists get off scot free leaving their victims to suffer for a lifetime and the perpetrators damn well know this.
“That’s another massive imbalance of power that needs fixing.”
What would the “fix” be? Some feminists have called for rape trials to be without juries. But that opens up the possibility of serious miscarriages of justice.
The jury system is not perfect but it is better than anything else. It would be a serious mistake to discard it.
As for YouTube, I would take it seriously if they stopped every scumbag from making money. But it doesn’t.
People getting away with rape is also a serious miscarriage of justice, obviously the way to fix that is not to replace that with another serious miscarriage of justice and jail innocent people but I’m not advocating that.
I’ve no idea what the fix is, finer legal brains than mine need to deal with that. That’s what the years of training and high salaries are for.
Whenever the trans argument rears its ugly head, the point is made, quite rightly, that women need protecting. Well they also need to be protected from rapists and with a slightly over 1% charge rate, the law as it is does not do that. It’s almost a statistical impossibility that circa 99% of them are making false accusations.
False accusations from which people must also be protected of course. Which brings us back to the accused here, should the media be allowed to name anyone merely accused of a crime at all? That discussion should probably be had too and it’s not black and white.
Remember Cliff Richard whom was arrested then publicly named by the police over child abuse allegations turning his life into a nightmare circus.
The more I know the less I understand.
One thing is for sure – CAS has succeeded in creating a debate.
It’s the most I’ve disagreed with Richard here in years, possibly ever.
Not a situation that makes me confident of my ground, tbh, as Richard is arguably the most reasonable person on here (photo finish with Marlingford)!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"As I have no doubt said before Ian, nothing more boring than if we all agree on everything.
We all have our own position on everything and I certainly wouldn’t describe myself as some sort of moral bellweather but thanks for your kind words all the same.
I tend to look at things as they are rather than as they ought to be and the fact is that Youtube is probably doing nothing wrong here, as things stand. Is that right? That’s why I made the point about tech companies having too much power.
Respectful debate is vital for a healthy democracy and I remain open to having my mind changed.
“Yes, disgraceful conduct by the BBC”.
Not for the first time. It also falsely accused Lord McAlpine of the same offence it tried to pin on Cliff Richard. The “apology” to both men was grudging, at best. It is fair to ask why the supposedly unbiased BBC was so desperate to pin the offence on them.
The same BBC which had a known deviant in the shape of Jimmy Savile as one of its highest paid light entertainment stars for years. Even after his death, journalists on “Newsnight” who wanted to tell the truth had their story suppressed by the BBC, which then broadcasted a tribute to the late Savile a few weeks later at Christmas. The journalists had to take their story to ITV to get it broadcast.
Worth remembering the next time the BBC gets high and mighty or wheels out the ludicrous Marianna Spring to lecture us about what we should believe.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.