Dispatches channel 4 expose **Read Opening Post before posting**

I have seen some people having a go at Russel Brand and defending Hunter Biden with "innocent until proven guilty" on the same forum.

I'm not saying opinions on either aren't allowed, I've just seen "innocent until proven guilty" applied to a person they perceive to be in their side and not applied to another person also in hot water.

You've completely ignored that in favor of the stream of consciousness you chose to post.

If he is being cancelled by the very public who are responsible for his fame and wealth, then there is not much he can do about it. The conspiracy theory / alt right cranks he has been courting on social media are probably responsible for only a tiny amount of his wealth and income i.e. they don't attend his gigs or watch his shows or whatever.

The Times claims some more women have come forward. Including the woman on Sunday, and those in the original media investigation, the total is now 9 I believe.

Rookie numbers for Einstein/Epstein.

Getting sacked?

The whole point of shows like that is to have fake confrontations/manufactured outrage and then for posters on here and twitter to share it.

It's worked.

Einstein

Was Albert a flagrant cocksmith?

According to me?

The way you're wording that makes it look like I personally name checked Jimmy Savile and Fred West. I didn't. You drew a comparison all by yourself.

Jimmy Savile should have been dealt with while alive, but he was incredibly well connected and it is widely accepted that those connections stopped him ever being outed, it was common knowledge that he was a scumbag but nothing was done about it.

Fred West commited suicide in his holding cell before he could be convicted. His wife Rose was convicted however.

Russel Brand is a wally and has undoubtedly brought all of this upon himself, but comparing him to Savile and West is just lazy.

And you continue with your conspiracy gobbledegook about Brand, Russia and kompromat and then compare not believing your nonsense to believing in a flat earth. The absolute hubris.

Journalists put Weinstein in jail, the media gave a voice to victims, when no one else would listen. The New York Times did to Weinstein, what Channel 4 and the Sunday Times did to Brand, and the same thing is happen, victims find strength in numbers, and then come forward,and suddenly the flood gates open, it's a vital first step in exposing powerful celebrities, to name and shame them in the media first, so all this talk of '' they should have gone to the police'' is silly, we all know they'd have no voice in that setting.

"Then they came for the cunts,

And they had me bang to rights".

I would see them suspended rather than financially punished before a verdict for the simple reason that hurting someone financially is obviously incredibly serious and I don't believe we should have a situation where an accusation can lead to that, or worse, before anything even gets to court. No matter what way you look at it - that is that institution or company declaring that person guilty.

The YouTube action to me is more serious to the defendant than a suspension in the hypothetical case mentioned because it's so public and a penalty has been given before any verdict based on evidence in a court of law. That could help sway a juror.

I think everyone, no matter what people think of them, should get a fair process and if they're found guilty then so be it. I don't think social media companies should be able to make such an intervention like that.

It's all well and good when it's someone you dislike or a political opponent but what goes around comes around and I don't think these decisions are a good precedent for the future.

I read up on some of Brand's ideas on Wikipedia and I'd be somewhat in agreement with him, especially regarding his previous views on British politics' though opposed to his voting is pointless stance. However, I can't have any faith in someone saying we need a revolution but you have to buy my book to find out how to do so.

If he were truly into it, he'd offer that information for free.

But his politics is neither here nor there in this case; he's being accused of sexual assault. He's the one who brought in the conspiracy theory and made it about politics and people getting bogged down in that are, conveniently, losing sight of the real story.

Not remotely the same type of offence and you know it.

But hey anything to try to deflect from the serious allegations made against Brand from credible sources.

Brand can vindicate his reputation in court which has suffered massive damage to his 'good name'. And win huge damages. The odds in a UK trial are stacked in his favour. He is not short of money to initially fund it.

As far as Im concerned in the absence of him doing so it is reasonable to come to a personal conclusion that the allegations are essentially true.

I havent heard a single convincing answer to counter this.

in the case of the Huw Edwards and Schofield cases they were taken off the air by the Tv companies to protect their brand, I dont see what Youtube are doing wrong in doing the same. Is Brand still on Rumble and Twitter? Those companies are less likely to ban him I feel.

I dont think Jurys take into consideration youtube bans when decided on the guilt on someone.

Snooker Loopy's conspiracy theory is at the more plausible end of the conspiracy theory spectrum imo.

The FSB and other intelligence agencies do compromise people when they can.

Regarding the suspension of business with Brand and "innocent until proven guilty"

The allegations against Brand aren't some speculative or frivolous claim from one questionable source, or Hollywood rumour. A multi-year investigation by separate media outlets have discovered claims of a very serious nature against Brand. These reporting outlets wouldn't be putting their necks on the line if they didn't have substantial evidence behind (in the UK they stand to be sued to kingdom come if these allegations turn out to be false). There's now also a MET police allegation, and it appears several more women have come forward since.

That context is important:

If, for example, this was a teacher in a school that any of us were sending our kids to, and a multi-year media investigation showed serious allegations of sexual assault against that teacher, with other alleged victims coming forward. Each one of us would demand that teacher be suspended pending investigation or legal conclusion. This is what's happening to Brand on a broad level currently. Businesses/organisations will suspend ties with Brand pending a proper legal outcome, they will absolutely not take any risks and potential reputational damage to continue working with one individual who could turn out to be a potential Weinstein (or worse)