|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 21, 2023 20:14:48 GMT
I don't like the man, I don't trust the man, I personally think his behaviour stinks.
HOWEVER:
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
That is the cornerstone of our legal system and the principle must be defended even if we do not like the accused.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 21, 2023 20:38:55 GMT
If this was like you say, a "polite inquiry" into the evidence of his crimes, perhaps somewhere in the letter, she would have asked for such information and whether Rumble has any videos or evidence of such crimes? It seems that she was far more interested in getting him canceled and demonetized. Instead, she asks whether Russel is being paid for his content and if he is, whether Rumble is going to demonetize him, which is entirely irrelevant to any investigation regarding the criminal allegations surrounding Russel Brand - who as of yet, protests his innocence and has not been charged. I've no skin in this game, other than I believe people should be innocent until proven guilty, this goes for Philip Schofield as much as it does for Russell Brand. People should not be subject to a trial by Media, and the government should not be abusing its power to promote cancel culture, which this clearly is an attempt at. I said it was a polite letter of inquiry. Neither the letter nor I referred to evidence of crimes.
As I see it, the areas addressed by the letter are:
• the culture in broadcast and production companies, now and in the past, • money Brand might make from content on Rumble dealing with the allegations against him,
• whether Rumble is suspending Brand's ability to earn money on the platform, and • what Rumble is doing to ensure [content] creators are not able to use the platform to the detriment of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.
I do not see the letter wandering into any area that is not already being addressed by other broadcasters, production companies and social media platforms.
It appears to be Rumble that is adding fuel to whatever fire there is by making this letter public. Perhaps, like you, it is reading far more into this than actually exists...
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 21, 2023 22:14:55 GMT
I'm at a loss as to why she thinks what Rumble does regarding the matter is any business of the government's. I can't see how she has any legitimate interest in an official capacity i.e. any good reason to write the letter.
Totally inappropriate use of her office. She should resign.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 22, 2023 5:30:02 GMT
Agreed, it's for the courts, not government to punish any wrong doing, IF convicted.
Intervention by the media, and by politicians makes it harder to get a fair trial.
Let's have a bit of perspective for a moment.
If he was a Bangladeshi Imam facing trial, we would not know his name, we would only know that someone was facing trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 22, 2023 9:13:34 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2023 10:44:08 GMT
I'm at a loss as to why she thinks what Rumble does regarding the matter is any business of the government's. I can't see how she has any legitimate interest in an official capacity i.e. any good reason to write the letter. Totally inappropriate use of her office. She should resign. However, the action does support the tinfoil hat brigade's opinion that Brand has been singled out for his views. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 22, 2023 11:00:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 22, 2023 11:22:29 GMT
If there is a government committee whose job it is to target citizens accused of crimes, then that committee should be dissolved. Its remit is illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 22, 2023 11:25:04 GMT
In 2008 he boasted to colleagues of showing his penis to a bird 25 minutes before the show.
She has now come forward and given a statement complaining against him.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 22, 2023 11:29:52 GMT
So is your view that the news media should not be allowed to report allegations of criminality, or name anyone accused of anything that may or may not be ultimately judged to be a crime, or report the comments or actions of anyone associated with the alleged criminality…? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 22, 2023 11:36:20 GMT
My view is that the man should face trial first.
All evidence should be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service and that if convicted, then the media can tell us all what he got up to.
All this, it doesn't look good, but how is he going to get a fair trial?
I don't like the man at all, and if you were to ask me if I thought he was a rapist, well you can guess my answer.
But it's not for me to judge him, but a proper court of law with a jury and everything not a court of faceless keyboard warriors on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Sept 22, 2023 12:01:08 GMT
Mr Brand can have a trial any time he wishes. All he has to do is sue his accusers for libel.
(Didn't go too well for another high profile fop, back in 1895,but the precedent's there..)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2023 12:10:05 GMT
In 2008 he boasted to colleagues of showing his penis to a bird 25 minutes before the show. She has now come forward and given a statement complaining against him. 15 years! |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 22, 2023 12:12:33 GMT
Mr Brand can have a trial any time he wishes. All he has to do is sue his accusers for libel. (Didn't go too well for another high profile fop, back in 1895,but the precedent's there..) Whether he should be considered not guilty of rape and whether his accusers can be found guilty of libel, are distinct issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 22, 2023 13:13:58 GMT
It's for the courts.
|
|
