Russell Brand

[Eddie]

10 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Interesting that, despite hand-wringing about "trial by media" - no one has actually picked any holes in the extensive reporting that has been uncovered by Channel 4 and The Times

A very concerning aspect of the story to me is the amount of proof they have uncovered that money and power was being wielded by RB in order to cover up his behaviour for so long. If he was so innocent - why did he have to do that?

 

We could have done with a bit of 'wokeness' 15-20 years ago. Brand was/is a 'boundary-pusher' - his colleagues and anyone who put up with his outrageous tripe are culpable.

[PistoldPete]

19 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Interesting that, despite hand-wringing about "trial by media" - no one has actually picked any holes in the extensive reporting that has been uncovered by Channel 4 and The Times

A very concerning aspect of the story to me is the amount of proof they have uncovered that money and power was being wielded by RB in order to cover up his behaviour for so long. If he was so innocent - why did he have to do that?

 

Indeed. People need to check out what Katherine Ryan said to Louis Theroux ( yes that man again) . Fair play to her she was calling out years ago but even she was scared to name him. 

[Gaspode]

There was report on the news last night that the young girl (16 at the time) reportedly overheard Brand and his friends/advisers discussing how they could hide the fact that she was only 16 - bit tricky when she was being collected from school in the chauffeur-driven car that the BBC provided to Brand (!!) and taken back to his house  for sex....

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

Was he a twonk in how he acted? No.

Sorry I meant 'yes'. D'oh!

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, Gaspode said:

There was report on the news last night that the young girl (16 at the time) reportedly overheard Brand and his friends/advisers discussing how they could hide the fact that she was only 16 - bit tricky when she was being collected from school in the chauffeur-driven car that the BBC provided to Brand (!!) and taken back to his house  for sex....

Yet again the BBC who we fund are "seen" to be culpable, It's like painting the Forth Bridge...it's never ending, The BBC is/was the 18th Centaury Hellfire Club 😡 

[Ram-Alf]

2 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Interesting that, despite hand-wringing about "trial by media" - no one has actually picked any holes in the extensive reporting that has been uncovered by Channel 4 and The Times

A very concerning aspect of the story to me is the amount of proof they have uncovered that money and power was being wielded by RB in order to cover up his behaviour for so long. If he was so innocent - why did he have to do that?

 

The old adage Stive is...there's no smoke without fire, We're being drip fed information, And sooner of later the Courts will be banning all allegations of impropriety as It will almost be impossible for RB to get a fare trial...and this will be a huge error, My concern is the BBC and the arses who ran/run it pampered to all of his alleged whims...The establishment is still here...Prince Andrew and the Politics that went with him got him a get out of Jail free card...well a £12million pound one...it stinks I tell Ya 😡 

[sage]

31 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

Yet again the BBC who we fund are "seen" to be culpable, It's like painting the Forth Bridge...it's never ending, The BBC is/was the 18th Centaury Hellfire Club 😡 

I see the BBC amongst the many organisations who employed him are the ones being pointed at. How surprising. 

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, sage said:

I see the BBC amongst the many organisations who employed him are the ones being pointed at. How surprising. 

Maybe because it's funded by the public, I only hope the Royal Charter ends in 2027 👍

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60027436

[sage]

2 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

Maybe because it's funded by the public, I only hope the Royal Charter ends in 2027 👍

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60027436

Maybe because Rupert Murdoch and his many organisations have whipped up hysteria against a rival broadcaster, so he can further dominate with his agenda. Just a thought.  

[ramit]

12 hours ago, The Last Post said:

The noose is tightening 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66851698

YouTube have decided that Brand is guilty, that's interesting, and if he later is found not guilty in a court of law will he be in a position to sue YouTube for removing him from their platform?

I find it amazing that so many are voicing support for trial by media and social media, using the excuse that the police and court system is broken.  What are they asking for, that we do away with police and the courts, or that they should be bypassed in cases of sexual assault and rape?  That it is difficult to get a conviction for lack of physical evidence needs addressing obviously and there should be the focus one would think.

Edited September 19, 2023 by ramit
typo

[Jubbs]

19 minutes ago, ramit said:

YouTube have decided that Brand is guilty, that's interesting, and if he later is found not guilty in a court of law will he be in a position to sue YouTube for removing him from their platform?

No they haven't, they have decided to demonetize his channel for the foreseeable, that's very common. YouTube has a duty to their advertisers and if the content ad-friendly, they remove ad revenue. This happens all the time with popular YouTubers. 

[Mucker1884]

37 minutes ago, ramit said:

YouTube have decided that Brand is guilty, that's interesting, and if he later is found not guilty in a court of law will he be in a position to sue YouTube for removing him from their platform?

 

Not sure that's right.
Your link appears to be an updated version of the earlier link posted by @The Last Post, which itself has now been updated to match yours.  It originally had a quote from a You Tube spokesperson, and referenced him (Brand) breaking their code of conduct (Or words to that effect) aimed at those who make money from the platform. 
He hasn't been removed from You Tube.  He has had his revenue streams suspended (Due to the aforementioned breaking of their code of conduct).
I can only assume he agreed to their code of conduct when signing up to air his videos in order to make money from them?  🤷‍♂️

I hasten to add, I have no idea what the code of conduct references specifically, and/or which section(s) they claim he has broken.
Due to the updated BBC link, neither can I quote and/or link to the You Tube Spokesperson's precise statement.  Sorry!  

... But there was definitely no mention (From the spokesperson) of any sexual allegations and/or any official party line from You Tube, regarding thoughts of guilt or any other opinion.

 

 

 

... edit...

Merely for investigative purposes, and for the first time ever, I've just done a quick search for Russel Brand on you tube, and his channel/videos pop up instantly, so it does indeed appear that he hasn't been removed from the platform. 

 

Edit v.2:
Sorry, got distracted at work, and by the time I finished this post, @Jubbs had already responded!  🍻

Edited September 19, 2023 by Mucker1884

[Ram-Alf]

38 minutes ago, sage said:

Maybe because Rupert Murdoch and his many organisations have whipped up hysteria against a rival broadcaster, so he can further dominate with his agenda. Just a thought.  

Just another thought, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall all employed by the BBC If I could squeeze Peter Adamson in I would(of Coronation fame)there's more who we don't know of yet, Who'll be hiding behind the sofa.

I know more like Murdoch than I do the BBC, The media are there for their own agenda, If you believe what you read then carry on believing, I read and make an informed opinion, When it gets to our courts that's when it's payback time.

 

 

.

 

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Jubbs said:

No they haven't, they have decided to demonetize his channel for the foreseeable, that's very common. YouTube has a duty to their advertisers and if the content ad-friendly, they remove ad revenue. This happens all the time with popular YouTubers. 

It certainly appears that they have.

"Earlier on Tuesday, a YouTube spokesperson said:" "If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action."

"The video platform said it was taking action "to protect" its users."

Not protect it's advertisers, it's users, and protect them from what exactly?

[Ram-Alf]

46 minutes ago, ramit said:

YouTube have decided that Brand is guilty, that's interesting, and if he later is found not guilty in a court of law will he be in a position to sue YouTube for removing him from their platform?

I find it amazing that so many are voicing support for trial by media and social media, using the excuse that the police and court system is broken.  What are they asking for, that we do away with police and the courts, or that they should be bypassed in cases of sexual assault and rape?  That it is difficult to get a conviction for lack of physical evidence needs addressing obviously and there should be the focus one would think.

All being tared by the same brush, Those who have withdrawn there services have done it because of £ $ €s, They don't want to be associated with RB for reasons only known to them...yet we know why.

And the BBC have fallen into line

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66849965

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

Not sure that's right.
Your link appears to be an updated version of the earlier link posted by @The Last Post, which itself has now been updated to match yours.  It originally had a quote from a You Tube spokesperson, and referenced him (Brand) breaking their code of conduct (Or words to that effect) aimed at those who make money from the platform. 
He hasn't been removed from You Tube.  He has had his revenue streams suspended (Due to the aforementioned breaking of their code of conduct).
I can only assume he agreed to their code of conduct when signing up to air his videos in order to make money from them?  🤷‍♂️

I hasten to add, I have no idea what the code of conduct references specifically, and/or which section(s) they claim he has broken.
Due to the updated BBC link, neither can I quote and/or link to the You Tube Spokesperson's precise statement.  Sorry!  

... But there was definitely no mention (From the spokesperson) of any sexual allegations and/or any official party line from You Tube, regarding thoughts of guilt or any other opinion.

 

 

 

... edit...

Merely for investigative purposes, and for the first time ever, I've just done a quick search for Russel Brand on you tube, and his channel/videos pop up instantly, so it does indeed appear that he hasn't been removed from the platform. 

 

Edit v.2:
Sorry, got distracted at work, and by the time I finished this post, @Jubbs had already responded!  🍻

Thanks Mucker, I stand corrected on the removed from the platform bit

[Jubbs]

8 minutes ago, ramit said:

Not protect it's advertisers, it's users, and protect them from what exactly?

Advertisers of children's toys won't want their products advertised on cold case murder documentaries, would they? 

His videos are still on YouTube, it's just the ads have been removed so he won't make money on them. He can still post to his followers about how the "matrix" is attacking him or something.

[Mucker1884]

6 minutes ago, ramit said:

It certainly appears that they have.

"Earlier on Tuesday, a YouTube spokesperson said:" "If a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action."

"The video platform said it was taking action "to protect" its users."

Not protect it's advertisers, it's users, and protect them from what exactly?

But said action is to take away his You Tube revenue potential, (Ass per the agreed terms of the code of conduct, one assumes?) not remove him and/or his videos from You Tube.

I'm a tad loathe to do this, but if you click on the link below, I believe this is what is known as "The Russel Brand You Tube Channel".  It appears all videos therein are playable.

https://www.youtube.com/user/russellbrand/videos

 

  

[Mucker1884]

3 minutes ago, ramit said:

Thanks Mucker, I stand corrected on the removed from the platform bit

No worries

 

... and ignore my previous post!  🤣

 

🍻

[Alph]

Tbh YouTube doing this is truly not newsworthy. 

They shutdown stuff all the time while they investigate, they hit people with copyright strikes and then remove them, they suspend people etc etc. 

Isn't it messed up that there can be all these accusations around, all this common knowledge and everyone just wants to keep away from it. 

Katherine Ryan said it was well known. She spoke to others about it. She outed him on a show. Yet it was edited out and hushed

Tarantino said all the stars and friends of Weinstein saying they didn't see or experience any uncomfortable situations are total liars. He believed they might not know how far it went. But everyone knew the way he spoke to and behaved around women. It was a running joke that he was a bit of a fiend. 

I get the argument that there's a vulnerability that as a man, especially a man who is... openly friendly... that one accusation from a colleague can destroy you. Especially if you're not famous. 

But that seems an issue we can't really discuss and resolve while people are working for decades in the media and are protected. 

I suppose we should wait to see the outcome. But it's interesting that people like Katherine Ryan with a lot to lose and nothing to gain would be so vocal.

Well done to whoever was behind this Roast Battle show for editing it out and washing their hands of it. I know that's exactly what i would want if my daughter was working in the backstages of a TV network and was assaulted by somebody "important." Don't flag it. Edit it out and move on because the person can finish your career. 

How f****** backwards?!? THEY finish YOUR career