Dispatches/Sunday Times investigation: Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

SebastianBlue said:
I think it is a fairly accurate one and not at all controversial.

Notice I didn’t say “consequences for any behaviour”, I said “consequences for bad behaviour”.

I get the sense some may be reading something I didn’t say.
Click to expand...
I feel you are straying dangerously close to demonising any opposing view and perhaps you are reading all opposing views as the same and not just your own interpretation of them.

I have for the most part agreed with what you have had to say. You have convinced me of items I asked for clarification on to make sure I wasn’t misinterpreting you.
But I’m still sceptical of some of the conclusions you jump to no matter how well meaning you may be.

Don’t read opposing views to peoples right and the law as a defence of Brand or any other wrong ‘un, because I haven’t read one post in here defending the prick.
There have been several defending his or any other citizen’s rights and that does not make those making the points sympathetic to him because they have something to hide themselves.

Think about it Seb and think about what you say you hate in here. You’re only a few steps away from calling each other idiots and closing the debate.
 
flook said:
nail on head there



I haven't watched any of his shit but my personal belief is that free speech is sacrosanct up to the point it is damaging to others, or incites actions against others. I don't know if his channel crosses that line or not, but if it doesn't then he (should) have the right to speak him mind



If thats true it's a dubious line, so anyone with a grudge can basically shut down someones income with a baseless accusation



Historical being the key word there, if those historical posts violated their T&C's, why was he not booted previously? Why wait for these accusations to come out?



That may be true, and what they have done may be legal, still wrong though.
Click to expand...


The imaginary cancelling is happening as we speak, they will have him living under a bridge eating cold pot noodles in no time ;)
 
SebastianBlue said:
I really think you are reading something I didn’t actually say.

But I offer my apologies, either way, as it has obviously been taken in a way I did not mean—and I believe you are responding in good faith—and that means it is on me for communicating my thoughts poorly.

Edit: I just saw your revision and I am not sure what you mean by “ignoring the incorrect twisting if that”. I was only repeating exactly what I said.
Click to expand...
Fair play Seb.
 
Bazzmand Show said:
His videos have not even been removed from the service, he's just not getting money from them right now.
Click to expand...

Which is a relatively minor punishment when you consider YT have a history of demonetising channels for incredibly arbitrary reasons - for example they recently demonetised all videos if somebody swears in the opening 15 seconds.

There have been many channels demonetised by YouTube for much much less than Brand has done in the name of protecting advertiser interests (as is their right).
 
Last edited:
mancity2012_eamo said:
I feel you are straying dangerously close to demonising any opposing view and perhaps you are reading all opposing views as the same and not just your own interpretation of them.

I have for the most part agreed with what you have had to say. You have convinced me of items I asked for clarification on to make sure I wasn’t misinterpreting you.
But I’m still sceptical of some of the conclusions you jump to no matter how well meaning you may be.

Don’t read opposing views to peoples right and the law as a defence of Brand or any other wrong ‘un, because I haven’t read one post in here defending the prick.
There have been several defending his or any other citizen’s rights and that does not make those making the points sympathetic to him because they have something to hide themselves.

Think about it Seb and think about what you say you hate in here. You’re only a few steps away from calling each other idiots and closing the debate.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I agree with your overall assessment (as you apparently don’t with mine) but I appreciate your thoughts and I have already apologised for my failure to properly communicate what I meant with my post.

I want to apologise to you and @flook directly for that. I was not meaning to call in to question flook’s character. I had just intended to make a wider point about how many men are responding to the allegations and what, in my experience, is often behind that.

But I will say—though you may not have seen them—there have been posts in here defending Brand. And we aren’t just discussing the reaction on here. At least, I am not just discussing the reaction on here.

As I said to Ducado, for my part this is less a topical debate and more and existential one that goes far beyond just Brand himself.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I am not sure I agree with your overall assessment (as you apparently don’t with mine) but I appreciate your thoughts and I have already apologised for my failure to properly communicate what I meant with my post.

I want to apologise to you and @flook directly for that. I was not meaning to call in to question flook’s character. I had just intended to make a wider point about how many men are responding to the allegations and what, in my experience, is often behind that.

But I will say—though you may not have seen them—there have been posts in here defending Brand. And we aren’t just discussing the reaction on here. At least, I am not just discussing the reaction on here.

As I said to Ducado, for my part this is less a topical debate and more and existential one that goes far beyond just Brand himself.
Click to expand...
I think our reading of posts and then replying to them of them often overlap.
I read Coatigan’s objections to you after I posted my own reply to you and I’ve since read your apology to him and I have no doubt that your intentions are pure but very passionate.

I hope you take my contributions as being every bit as pure although perhaps a lot more dispassionate.
 
Bazzmand Show said:
I thought the right were obsessed with "protecting children" and yet Brand was fucking a 16 year old and sending cabs round to her school to get her?

Claims which he has in no way denied.
Click to expand...
She claims that the BBC sent cars around to the school for her as well, this is the same BBC who have now decided to remove his content from their own iPlayer.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
Which is a relatively minor punishment when you consider YT have a history of demonitizing channels for incredibly arbitrary reasons - for example they recently demonitised all videos if somebody swears in the opening 15 seconds.

There have been many channels demonitised by YouTube for much much less than Brand has done in the name of protecting advertiser interests (as is their right).
Click to expand...

Other things that can get your YouTube channel demonetised:

- incidental copyrighted music being in the background

Google don’t give a fuck about dangerous content being on their platforms. Demonetisation is just a little tap on the wrist aimed to make it look like they’re actually doing something when in reality they’re not.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I am not sure I agree with your overall assessment (as you apparently don’t with mine) but I appreciate your thoughts and I have already apologised for my failure to properly communicate what I meant with my post.

I want to apologise to you and @flook directly for that. I was not meaning to call in to question flook’s character. I had just intended to make a wider point about how many men are responding to the allegations and what, in my experience, is often behind that.

But I will say—though you may not have seen them—there have been posts in here defending Brand. And we aren’t just discussing the reaction on here. At least, I am not just discussing the reaction on here.

As I said to Ducado, for my part this is less a topical debate and more and existential one that goes far beyond just Brand himself.
Click to expand...

I think @domalino probably made the point you were trying to make since, with less implicative wording. And I think I mostly get what you might have wanted to mean.
 
Centurions said:
She claims that the BBC sent cars around to the school for her as well, this is the same BBC who have now decided to remove his content from their own iPlayer.
Click to expand...

The BBC isn’t just one person or department, to be fair. They’ve only just started their investigations, we’ve no idea yet who enabled him or what they knew.
 
Think one concern is the "cancelling" is mostly hype and achieves close to fuck all, and we know it likely backfires by "enabling" the alternative "narrative" / revenue stream.
 
Summerbuzz said:
Think one concern is the "cancelling" is mostly hype and achieves close to fuck all, and we know it likely backfires by "enabling" the alternative "narrative" / revenue stream.
Click to expand...
No one has ever really been “cancelled”. Some have lost their following after either being exposed as a wrongun or after having done something monumentally stupid.

And sometimes the backlash to the stupid things people have done is OTT and I think each one of us have called that out at some point.

But, generally, the vast majority of famous people that go around complaining about being cancelled are doing so on podcasts, tv shows, major blogs, media interviews, and YouTube videos.

Most of those that have been “cancelled” have an infinitely bigger platform than you and I will ever have.

If their definition of being “cancelled” is having a smaller massive platform, then almost every human that has ever lived was “cancelled” at birth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top