Russell Brand - In Plain Sight?

Seems like a pedantic distinction but this isn't the government, it's an MP in their capacity as chair of a select committee.

I think I agree with your take in the second para though. It's just an politician politicking.

 

Yep. For all that Brand might well be/likely is guilty of at least some of the accusations, that doesn't mean he should lose the ability to make a living. If it's related to potential criminal charges then absolutely, but otherwise it's a line we don't want to cross.

Brand is rich enough that he doesn't need to worry about losing his income, but imagine a society where the average person lost their income the moment they were accused of something. Most people don't have the financial resources to survive.

I will say that Rumble's response is unnecessarily charged though. The whole "woke mob cancel culture" knee jerk rallying cry is getting awfully old.

 

Such as? There is nothing in that programme (aside from the alleged sexual assaults) that wasn’t in the public domain. All the clips used from his stand up, radio shows and TV appearances were and are in the public domain, all the misogynistic and sexual jokes were out there. He’s openly admitted to being a sex addict multiple times verbally and in his books, and he’s told us all multiple times he’s had sex with over a 1000 woman.

How did you and Dame Dineage miss all that until now?

 

Lots of people do lose their income when they are accused of something. You can’t provide healthcare or act as a legal professional (other professions are available) if your regulator decides the allegations are so serious that you could present a risk to the public. And that’s just professionals. Lots of other arenas you’d be sent packing.

 

I didn’t, but I expect for others it’s a matter of critical mass and changing tolerance.

You haven’t answered the point about Savile. If allegations had been made public in a similar way, would you have been happy for him to be going now then, now then, goodness gracious at the Nation up until they got to court?

 

Doesn't mean everyone should, though. I get that are some cases where you can't avoid it (e.g. a child carer who is accused of being an active paedophile) but that should be the exception, not the norm. It's not driven by a desire to financially penalise the accused, but out of necessity to protect a potential victim. That's an important distinction to draw.

EDIT: and I would add that in the majority of cases, people should be suspended with pay where there is deemed to be a risk, not financially cut adrift.

 

Non-offensive? Have you seen this guys YouTube output? It’s designed to be offensive and inciting.

Poundland Alex Jones nonsense about vaccine conspiracies, Tucker Carlson pushing, Putin apologising, Ukraine bashing, Trump stroking crackpot bullsh*t. I’m sure if I watched one of his intellect reducing videos, he’d be selling some sort of snake oil in them.

But he has every right to say it - as you put so well, YouTube has every right to remove his monetisation - although considering it looks like he did a video a few weeks ago accusing YouTube of misinformation (I assume for a laugh), perhaps they were looking for a good reason. He’s not their employee, he hasn’t been sacked, his privilege to use their platform and get part of the advertising revenue that his actions and opinions threaten have been removed.

Just like Rumble can continue paying him, that’s their business model after all.

And quite honestly, the way it’s being portrayed that he’s a danger to the ‘system’ or whatever, his view counts beyond a few guest videos are pretty poor. I question the figures thrown around about how much earns from the channel. He’s nowhere near his peers, a million miles off huge gamer/streamer channels and I hope MrBeast doesn’t become a danger to the system. The guy could take over the world.

But people like Jones, Brand and Carlson and their ‘truth as a business’ are dangerous - not because they are so close to the truth but because they actively choose to be a million miles from it simply to line their own pockets.

 

I really don’t get the Saville comparison, it doesn’t work at all as an analogy. As far as I’m aware, while he was alive no allegations were made against him? Everything came out afterwards to such a significant degree, we’re all pretty comfortable with the fact he was guilty of some very serious sexual offences.

If all the retrospective evidence came out while he was alive, then I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with him having any direct contact with children, and I’m sure the BBC would’ve suspended him from TV.

The comparison would more be something along the lines of, if he had a separate business selling Tupperware and the government tried to shut it down, would I be comfortable with it?

 

Being offensive to you because you don’t agree with it, is very different to being offensive. As far as I’m aware his current content doesn’t degrade woman, and isn’t sexist, which would make it relevant to the allegations.

 

Agreed, and for me the answer is no, I would not be comfortable with it.

For me it's the same kind of logic as with the death penalty: we know some people will be incorrectly accused/not guilty, so we need to avoid causing avoidable permanent harm as much as possible.

 

Why has Rumble got different responsibilities to the BBC?

The Tupperware argument is daft. In all instances, Brand is broadcasting and it is the media that has facilitated him.

 

First they came for the misogynists and whacko conspiracy nuts, politely suggesting that very wealthy companies have a good old think about who they platform. But I did not speak up.

 

I’m guessing that the BBC would suspend him (almost certainly on full pay) as would’ve been their right.

Rumble are an entirely different company with different aims and different views, they’ve made it clear why they won’t demonetise him, so if you want I know why they’re different to the BBC read their statement.

Any sort of suspension around allegations of a crime are more often than not protective measures, like I said about not letting Saville have contact with children.

Brand records his YouTube/rumble content from his garden shed in Henley, what has that got to do with the allegations at hand?

 

You don’t think his views are offensive? How about Alex Jones? Tucker Carlson? Donald Trump? They all vilified wrongly too?

They all fish in the same waters. All ‘alt-truth’ gunslingers who peddle dangerous conspiracy theories and profit from them. There’s no evidence for the vast majority of their nonsense and Brand is just the same. It’s not a case of agreeing or disagreeing. It’s whether you consider a lie dangerous and its context offensive.

I doubt he believes any of what he says. He’s smartly created a right wing persona, which completely deviates from his left wing past - and like all the others - Trump, Wootton, Jones, Carlson etc, is trying to activate followers of that nonsense as a protective shield around him.

I have no doubt it was the straw that broke the camel’s back with a lot of the companies that have chosen (using their right to free speech) not to work with him.

Live by the sword, die by it.

 

I'm not convinced it does. Combating gender discrimination is part of the government's duty. Misogyny is unpleasant but it does not seem to me to amount to discrimination in the way that the statute defines it.

 

I’ve never watched any of his videos, but from what I understand there are actually some very useful ones in there, like shining a light on the American healthcare system, the pharma industry, fast food etc. I thought they were mainly click bait headlines (like all YouTube videos, just like our own cycling GK) but he asks some serious questions in them.

It sounds like you’ve watched a lot of them though, so you’ll be much better placed to judge than me.

 

It’s not intended to be simply protective of people. It would also be about standards of public broadcasting.

You haven’t answered why Rumble get to be different, simply that they are.

They’ve chosen a hill to die on and I suspect their prissy response will be one they will regret in due course. They could have acknowledged the issue, acknowledged the potential risk in broadcasting about specific allegations, how they would have dealt with that, reiterated their position calmly, but offered to keep under review and cooperate with the committee.

 

Why are ITV different to the BBC, or aren’t they? Why is a Film different to a song?

There are million reasons why rumble are different to the BBC, let’s start with the obvious, one is publicly funded and one isn’t. Do you really want me to go on?

The world has changed, there are now a 1000 different ways you can consume media about all sorts of different topics, they are all very, very different.

 

Ok, let’s try rephrasing this in the hope of an answer. As a point of principle, why should Rumble have different responsibilities in this instance? It’s one of the key issues about social media.

 

Are you saying the Committee is not subject to the PSED?

 

I’ve watched one - his denial video - and that told me a lot of what I need to know. As you said, click bait headlines - ‘UFOs confirmed’, ‘Biden LIED about 9/11?’, ‘The FBI have been HARVESTING your DNA??’, ‘CIA killed JFK CONFIRMED??’

It’s very clear what it’s going to be. Poundland Alex Jones. Maybe there’s some interesting stuff wrapped up in there, I don’t know. But if Alex Jones walked up to me on the street and started telling me the truth, how would I know?

You make a comparison between him and Ben Foster and it’s a very good point. We call Foster a child because of his videos/video titles and they are just videos of harmless morons talking about football aimed at children or man-babies.

That’s the same base Brand is aiming at with his style of presentation. But unlike ‘our Ben’ who’s just a weird man-baby himself, Brand very much knows what he is doing.

 

Why would one insurer insure your house or car but another wouldn’t? They both do the same thing, they’re both the same type of company?

Rumble don’t have a responsibility to do anything other than abide by the law, and protect their business interests as best they see fit.

 

I didn't see this in a court transcript and he hasn't been found guilty by a jury and sentenced by a judge yet?

Look, like him or loathe him (I don't have an opinion either way on him), he needs to have his day in court.

If he's done what's alleged then he deserves everything he gets!!!

 

The Committee is subject to the PSED. As such it has a duty to have regard to the need to foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

I suppose it depends whether you consider this letter to be within the bounds of 'fostering good relations' given that expressing misogynistic views is not, in my view, unlawful discrimination.

 

C’mon, do you really think this issue is out of scope?

 

Thanks. I’m going to put you down as a ‘don’t know.’

 

I think it's borderline in that (as I understand it) the content is not in itself problematic. The problem seems to lie with the speaker, not the speech.

 

I don’t know the difference between Rumble and the BBC?

You haven’t half dragged this debate down a very bizarre rabbit hole.

 

Is politics quiet at the moment?

 

I wonder why YouTube paid for her to go to Glastonbury?

 

Not sure it's that much of a mystery.

 

And yet she hosts drinks for GB News as well - https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...line-dinenage-hosted-drinks-event-for-gb-news.

It’s almost like she doesn’t know what she believes.

 

This certainly doesn't do much to boost Brand's protestations of innocence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66882644

 

In no way would I defend Brand, who is repulsive, but by writing to the social media platforms to ask them to cut off his income stream from his videos Dinenage seems to have skipped the trial and gone straight to punishment, which makes me feel very uncomfortable

 

I dunno about you but I’ve been posting on here for years and never received a penny. Can only assume one of those pesky MPs got to the moderators. It’s the only explanation.