|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 24, 2023 13:06:07 GMT
I will try to explain: a parliamentary select committee, with legitimate oversight of social media, requests in an official letter addressed to an activity in that field, specific relevant information. The Home Secretary, also with a legitimate oversight of crime and the police, announces in sympathetic terms on Twitter/X a review of armed policing, the timing of which coincides with the arrest of an armed officer, who has beed charged with murder and is to stand trial. Both the chair of the select committee and the Home Secretary have legitimate concerns over events that are within their areas of interest. But only the Home Secretary has used social media to publicly express a view… Using the word legitimate twice in a row doesn't the change the fact that the use of power / influence here is illegitimate (likely illegal). If the stated powers of this committee explicitly allows its members to peruse the customer lists of private businesses and ask them to target certain citizens, then the committee needs to be abolished or reformed - because it has powers that are in contradiction to basic human rights The select committee is not concerned with butchers’ or bakers’ or candlestick makers’ or their customers, unless there’s the possibility they’re misbehaving in one of the sectors the committee is concerned with. Then they can legitimately (yes, legitimately) make relevant inquiries. Why not put your concerns to your MP, or directly to the committee, if you feel so strongly…? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 24, 2023 13:13:41 GMT
Using the word legitimate twice in a row doesn't the change the fact that the use of power / influence here is illegitimate (likely illegal). If the stated powers of this committee explicitly allows its members to peruse the customer lists of private businesses and ask them to target certain citizens, then the committee needs to be abolished or reformed - because it has powers that are in contradiction to basic human rights The select committee is not concerned with butchers’ or bakers’ or candlestick makers’ or their customers, unless there’s the possibility they’re misbehaving in one of the sectors the committee is concerned with. Then they can legitimately (yes, legitimately) make relevant inquiries. It wouldn't matter if is specific or general, the problem is the over-reaching discretion. If you really feel the Mr Smith shouldn't be sold candles, you should have to attempt draft such gibberish into a law to that effect and suffer the consequent embarrassment and electoral failure. You shouldn't, at your own discretion, get to reach down from your throne to stamp on people arbitrarily. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Sept 24, 2023 17:45:22 GMT
A legitimate enquiry might be along the lines of asking a social media company for a list of videos posted by mister Brand.
I fail to see what demobilising a free and as of yet, innocent member of society has to do with this, other than some very obvious strong arm tactics.
In any case +1 to Rumble for telling the committee chair to go fuck herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 25, 2023 12:30:32 GMT
Brand’s videos appear to be in the public domain. Any advertising they contain is also visible. So requesting that basic data would be a waste of time. But what’s being investigated is the attitudes and culture within broadcast and social media companies.
“Smoke and Fire” appear to be playing their part in this current story. That’s likely what’s guiding advertisers who are deciding to withdraw their ad spending because of possible customer reaction.
My opinion is that a legitimate inquiry is now more likely than if the results of Times, Sunday Times and Channel 4 hadn’t released the findings of their investigations into a story they had obviously been alerted to and for which there was evidence to be sought…
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 25, 2023 12:42:55 GMT
Brand’s videos appear to be in the public domain. Any advertising they contain is also visible. So requesting that basic data would be a waste of time. But what’s being investigated is the attitudes and culture within broadcast and social media companies. The attitudes to what? Allegations? |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 25, 2023 12:49:31 GMT
Brand’s videos appear to be in the public domain. Any advertising they contain is also visible. So requesting that basic data would be a waste of time. But what’s being investigated is the attitudes and culture within broadcast and social media companies. The attitudes to what? Allegations? Did you read the letter and inquiry that’s being referred to — or do you require links to be repeated ad nauseam…? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 25, 2023 13:07:54 GMT
The attitudes to what? Allegations? Did you read the letter and inquiry that’s being referred to — or do you require links to be repeated ad nauseam…? I feel this episode is demented government over-reach. I think this would be amply illustrated by you finishing your thoughts, rather than me. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2023 19:59:00 GMT
Brand’s videos appear to be in the public domain. Any advertising they contain is also visible. So requesting that basic data would be a waste of time. But what’s being investigated is the attitudes and culture within broadcast and social media companies. “Smoke and Fire” appear to be playing their part in this current story. That’s likely what’s guiding advertisers who are deciding to withdraw their ad spending because of possible customer reaction. My opinion is that a legitimate inquiry is now more likely than if the results of Times, Sunday Times and Channel 4 hadn’t released the findings of their investigations into a story they had obviously been alerted to and for which there was evidence to be sought… Brand has not changed his attitude in near enough 20 years, what is telling is that recently he has become a bit of climate heretic with George Monbiot condemning him outright. Brand even hosted Bjorn Lomberg in a climate debate. What does one do with heretics? Denounce them and it is strange that he is now facing in 2023 sex offence accusations from the mid noughties. If one was cynical and a conspiracy theorist one would say he was protected whilst on message but has become fair game for straying. Is it any wonder Conspiracies abound. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Sept 26, 2023 6:00:58 GMT
Interesting to note the alleged rape was 20 years ago … and the flashing incident was 15 years ago …. Are these women unable to lodge their complaints at the time of the incidents?? …. before Brand’s career became a thorn in the side of the Authorities? He was never a classy performer … but … Interesting to note CH4 and the BBC - who think they are a cut above with their lowbrow tv content …. like to pre-judge guilt and innocence on rumour and allegation before any trial has even been announced … and a verdict has been reached. Quite shocking behaviour by these organisations … in light of the cover-up over Jimmy Saville et al. This from an article by Chortle: www.chortle.co.uk/news/2023/09/18/54170/russell_brand’s_live_shows_shelvedGigs dropped amid sexual assault allegationsRussell Brand’s final dates in his current stand-up tour have been shelved following the accusations of rape and sexual abuse levelled at him.
The comedian had been due to play the Theatre Royal Windsor tomorrow, Plymouth Pavilions on Friday and Wolverhampton Civic Hall on Saturday September 28.
However the Windsor venue has issued a statement from the promoters of his Bipolarisation show saying: We are postponing these few remaining addiction charity fundraiser shows, we don't like doing it - but we know you'll understand.’
The news comes after a woman came forward to the Metropolitan Police to say the comedian assaulted her in Central London 20 years ago, after allegations were reported by the Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches this weekend.
Brand has vehemently denied the claims, saying that although he was promiscuous at the height of his fame, every encounter was 'absolutely consensual'.
It has not previously been mentioned that Bipolarisation was an ‘addiction charity fundraiser’ – but the original blurb for the show said to was going to be about ‘rule breaking’. However Brand does have a charity, the Stay Free Foundation, which helps people recover from addiction.
It is not clear who the promoters of his Bipolarisation tour are, as no company was mentioned on any promotional material.
The show was billed as: ‘Rules and rule breaking! Democracy and freedom! We reach conclusions from mass confusion by polling the live audience. We want to hear YOUR opinion. After amassing a movement of 25 million people across his digital channels, the Community festival and the live show Stay Free; the cultural and political commentator and award-winning British comedian is back on stage.
The venues in Windsor and Plymouth have confirmed that ticket-holders will be getting refunds. Tickets are currently still on sale for the Wolverhampton gig.
Brand performed the show at the Troubadour Wembley Park theatre on Saturday evening, just after the allegations against him were made public.
He received a standing ovation as he took to the stage, with one woman carrying a banner saying: ‘'We stand by you, Russell. Stay strong, stay free. We love you xx.'
The comic told the audience: ‘I really appreciate your support. I love you. I want to do a fantastic show for you.
'I've got a lot to talk to you about. There are obviously some things I absolutely cannot talk about and I appreciate that you will understand. I love you lot already. I'm going to give you everything I've got.’
Last night Channel 4 axed all programmes featuring Brand from its streaming service. Big Brother’s Big Mouth and the celebrity episode of The Great British Bake Off featuring the comic were pulled.
However, some of his work still appears on the BBC iPlayer: an 2018 episode of QI featuring Brand as a panellist and a Joe Wicks podcast from 2021 on which he guested.
Netflix also still has his 2018 stand-up special Re:Birth on its platform.
Brand posted his denials on his YouTube and X channels, saying he believed he was being hounded for challenging the narratives of the mainstream news media.“It appears clear now The Establishment will defund you and deny you making a living if you speak up against them … Farage, Trump …. now Brand …. Hmmm … Nasty people running the Establishment these days. … Legalities and a fair TRIAL don’t appear to apply now! … very snide and de-classé behaviour. 🙄👎 |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 26, 2023 10:22:31 GMT
Brand described Nigel Farage as a "Pound shop Enoch Powell", he's a far left bully boy. Investigations began into him in 2019, BEFORE COVID. Just because he's said what you want to hear on that respect doesn't mean any of this is to do with that. The man has a past. He boasted of showing his dick to a lady before going on the radio. She has now confirmed that he did indeed do so and this link has a copy of the recording in which the incident was discussed and Brand laughed about it: www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66882644There was also his and Jonathan Ross's abuse of Andrew Sachs: |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 26, 2023 14:55:26 GMT
Nasty people running the Establishment these days. … Legalities and a fair TRIAL don’t appear to apply now! … very snide and de-classé behaviour. 🙄👎
There is currently no trial.
But the Attorney General is acting as there is. She issued a document entitled: Media Advisory Notice: Russell Brand, in which she states:
The Attorney General, the Rt Hon Victoria Prentis KC MP, wishes to amplify the importance of not publishing any material where there is a risk that it could prejudice any potential criminal investigation or prosecutions.
Publishing this material could amount to contempt of court.
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it is contempt to publish material that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or an impediment to active legal proceedings — and so far there don't appear to be any such proceedings. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49Issuing something with "Media Advisory Notice" in its title could be thought to be trying to imply it is issued under the DSMA system which, anyway, has no legal standing.
So, should we infer from this that a government department and a select committee (that's asking for further information) are at odds with each other...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Sept 27, 2023 5:54:13 GMT
Nasty people running the Establishment these days. … Legalities and a fair TRIAL don’t appear to apply now! … very snide and de-classé behaviour. 🙄👎 There is currently no trial. But the Attorney General is acting as there is. She issued a document entitled: Media Advisory Notice: Russell Brand, in which she states: The Attorney General, the Rt Hon Victoria Prentis KC MP, wishes to amplify the importance of not publishing any material where there is a risk that it could prejudice any potential criminal investigation or prosecutions.
Publishing this material could amount to contempt of court.Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it is contempt to publish material that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or an impediment to active legal proceedings — and so far there don't appear to be any such proceedings. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49Issuing something with "Media Advisory Notice" in its title could be thought to be trying to imply it is issued under the DSMA system which, anyway, has no legal standing. So, should we infer from this that a government department and a select committee (that's asking for further information) are at odds with each other...? It wouldn’t be the first time The Establishment tail tried to wag the Dog!😋 So do you think The Establishment are using a series of ‘Legalities’ to muzzle Brand from speaking up and defending himself? …. while they apply ‘thumbscrew’ pressure on these women to just stoke this up a tad? … inadvisedly go to Court? Surely there is no way these well-timed spurious series of archaic ‘exaggerated hurt’ charges will stand up in Court? … they were obviously designed largely to shut down Brand’s tour. People don’t laugh at rape these days … but the Assange allegations left the Public knowing The Deep State Establishment are happy to use honey trap tactics to shut down dissidents …. Tories trying to push a ‘flashing charge’ through a Western Court these days isn’t going to look good wasting tax-payers money … but Sunak’s wasteful behaviour recently shows they don’t care about that any more. If women are going to claim they are ‘seriously damaged’ and offended by nudity(God’s Creation) … after the Swinging Sixties … then they will create a World where no man will risk going near them in 2023 … and procreation will be through a test-tube in future! I understand that is the goal of ultra-Left Feminism these days … but who put this dried up old Dame in charge? … on a crusade against bad Brand-ing. I know foreign Religions and Deep State are attempting to wrestle control of our Legal System and apply a historic draconian Racist/Fascist morality across the board the Inquisition was renowned for …. to muzzle and shut down Freedoms in our Society … and attack any person speaking out against their Totalitarianism … …but The Establishment surely doesn’t think registering a complaint on an alleged rape 20 years late … and a brief flashing charge 15 years late is going to look good in Court? … jeez … the Scottish Courts are still scraping the egg off their faces over the “Nazi saluting pug fiasco” under that Krankie Sturgeon! Where in the real world is this new fiasco going to win the Crown Prosecution Service any friends? … more likely lose these women their reputations and possibly substantial costs in damages to Brand for loss of earnings if he counter sues. … hmmm … me thinks our Legal System is being dragged thru the mire and undermined and ridiculed by the MSM + Religious bullies at the helm these days. … and foreigners to boot … dressed up as British … but having no clue about British values on Freedom. …. Oh well … if it brings on the The People’s Revolution …. best we start sharpening our pitch forks and guillotines … because we’ve just about had enough of this minority of anti-democratic WOKE tossers in Whitehall and our Media trying to muzzle Free Speech…. Maybe it’s time to push them all thru Traitor’s Gate … and apply the Anne Boleyn remedy?🤔😃 … because I’m pretty sure they are not going to resign over their incompetences and Police State behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 27, 2023 9:20:59 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...
I should have thought that the implication was obvious, even to you. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 27, 2023 11:55:01 GMT
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...
I should have thought that the implication was obvious, even to you. So perhaps you might help me by highlighting the implication in the letter… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2023 12:31:59 GMT
The letter makes the implication that Rumble should join YouTube etc in demonistising / banning Russel Brand.
It is made in the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraph
The letter itself is substantially about Brand and his behavior.
The implication is so patent, i would be cornered into assuming that someone attempting to deny it were being dishonest.
|
|
