Russell Brand

[ramit]

7 hours ago, Jubbs said:

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.

Matters not.  His ads have been removed because YouTube has decided his guilt.

[Jubbs]

10 minutes ago, ramit said:

Matters not.  His ads have been removed because YouTube has decided his guilt.

Am I not getting through to you? Is it that difficult to understand?

[Archied]

1 hour 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.  

For me that’s the problem for/ with the bbc,,they are rivals , I can cut through / put up with obvious bias as long as long as I get to see both sides of issues being aired , I want to see what I don’t agree with alongside what I do and believe it or not it often changes my view or at the very least gives me some kind of understanding of the opposite view ,,

I just don’t get that with the beeb 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Ram-Alf]

15 minutes ago, Alpha said:

 

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

"Whistle blowers" how many have had their lives ruined for a job they loved yet the "powers that be" hold all the cards, It was reported that one of the alleged females was going to "out RB" years ago but got a letter from his agent saying strong action will be taken from our legal people...I understand why people keep their mouths shut.

When that legal letter lands you're initially shocked, Then fright takes a hold, Then silence becomes the norm, I've fought authority all my adult life, From the Courts, The Police, The Managers I've worked for, I've lost jobs along the way and been fecked over in the Courts and by the Police as they "don't like it up em"😁...But I sleep well at night knowing some have had to accept some pain 😉

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Jubbs said:

Am I not getting through to you? Is it that difficult to understand?

Your logic is faulty, as it has been throughout this thread IMO.

Edited September 19, 2023 by ramit
typo

[YorkshireRam]

14 minutes ago, ramit said:

Your logic is faulty, as it has been throughout this thread IMO.

This is fairly ironic given that Youtube as a service provider can act entirely at their own discretion. It's explicitly in their terms and conditions they can remove any content, at any time, for any reason. That's for removal, demonetisation is the step below that, so entirely above board. However this won't be done because they think he's guilty, they simply won't want to be associated with funding someone currently embroiled in a sex offence scandal... They'll act in the best interest of brand representation and it has nothing to do with 'guilt' or legal culpability, just optics.

So I'd just be a little careful criticising the logic of others when your own isn't watertight. 

[Ram-Alf]

It's like a house of cards

Channel 4 removes Brand shows from streaming service

Channel 4 has confirmed it took down shows featuring Russell Brand from its on-demand streaming service over the weekend.

A spokesperson said: “We have taken down content featuring Russell Brand from our streaming service while we look into this matter. This includes the Celebrity Bake Off episode.”

Celebrity Bake Off...PMSL 🙄 

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, Alpha said:

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. 

And this 

 

[Ram-Alf]

12 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

And this 

 

"Cigar Muncher"...🤣

[sage]

The Sun named him 'Shagger of the Year' in 2006, 07, 08. That hasn't aged well. 

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, ramit said:

Matters not.  His ads have been removed because YouTube has decided his guilt.

[ramit]

9 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

This is fairly ironic given that Youtube as a service provider can act entirely at their own discretion. It's explicitly in their terms and conditions they can remove any content, at any time, for any reason. That's for removal, demonetisation is the step below that, so entirely above board. However this won't be done because they think he's guilty, they simply won't want to be associated with funding someone currently embroiled in a sex offence scandal... They'll act in the best interest of brand representation and it has nothing to do with 'guilt' or legal culpability, just optics.

So I'd just be a little careful criticising the logic of others when your own isn't watertight. 

I am simply quoting what a YouTube spokesperson gave as a reason for the removal of ads.

Is it behavior to be accused of something?  No it isn't, so what behavior are they talking about then?  How has he broken their rules?

Yes of course they can do as they please as a private company, but their explanations to this affair call to attention his behavior.

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

[cstand]

On 17/09/2023 at 20:15, Stive Pesley said:

I have a family member who works in comedy promotions in London and this is absolutely NOT news to anyone in the business

 

Wow I never knew the most irritating person ever to be on TV was a comedian.

I thought he was some random bloke off big brother or some other awful reality TV show. 

[YorkshireRam]

24 minutes ago, ramit said:

I am simply quoting what a YouTube spokesperson gave as a reason for the removal of ads.

Is it behavior to be accused of something?  No it isn't, so what behavior are they talking about then?  How has he broken their rules?

Yes of course they can do as they please as a private company, but their explanations to this affair call to attention his behavior.

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

No you're not though. ''His ads have been removed because YouTube has decided his guilt'' is not the same as ''a creator's off-platform behaviour harms our... ecosystem''. Guilt has legal connotations. They likely just don't want to be seen to be giving money to someone in the midst of a very high profile case such as this, totally aside from verdict, and that's fine.

Edited September 19, 2023 by YorkshireRam
Misquote

[Mick Brolly]

7 hours ago, Jubbs said:

Why do I? 

As @AndyinLiverpool says. The system is weighed so heavily against the victim. If you don't immediately/next morning get a kit or go to the police, you pretty much have a near zero chance. 

So you're saying these people accusing RB have little chance of a conviction then 😡

[sage]

36 minutes ago, Mick Brolly said:

So you're saying these people accusing RB have little chance of a conviction then 😡

without a witness or confession, then yes little prospect. However, the media storm could go either way in terms of chances of conviction.  

[Ram-Alf]

58 minutes ago, Mick Brolly said:

So you're saying these people accusing RB have little chance of a conviction then 😡

If the Police are investigating then they will interview the female/females involved/complained, Others are coming forward, If they too complain or are interviewed and there's enough material to proceed then RB will be asked if he doesn't mind being interviewed or arrested and charged and most likely with his defence council and choose his words very carefully if at all as RB is a very intelligent orator, His ability to want to speak could be a blessing for the police, But council will advise...no comment I guess.

The police will have to compile a file and send it to the CPS if they think there's enough evidence then a charge/charges would most likely move forward, This will take some time and while it is...more stories will come out unless there's a gagging order on the press.

Only issue is...trying to find 12 juror's who know nothing about RB and his peccadillos  

[i-Ram]

10 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

If the Police are investigating then they will interview the female/females involved/complained, Others are coming forward, If they too complain or are interviewed and there's enough material to proceed then RB will be asked if he doesn't mind being interviewed or arrested and charged and most likely with his defence council and choose his words very carefully if at all as RB is a very intelligent orator, His ability to want to speak could be a blessing for the police, But council will advise...no comment I guess.

The police will have to compile a file and send it to the CPS if they think there's enough evidence then a charge/charges would most likely move forward, This will take some time and while it is...more stories will come out unless there's a gagging order on the press.

Only issue is...trying to find 12 juror's who know nothing about RB and his peccadillos  

I have no idea who he is, or what he has done. Now, when can I send him down?

[Ram-Alf]

14 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I have no idea who he is, or what he has done. Now, when can I send him down?

Right...now which one are you...I'm going for Lee J Cobb juror 3 😁

[Eddie]

4 hours ago, i-Ram said:

I have no idea who he is, or what he has done. Now, when can I send him down?

You need to wait until the 'Tomayto tomarto' dispute on here has been resolved one way or the other.