YouTube demonetizes Russell Brand citing his harmful ‘off-platform behavior'

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: quintessentone

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said

Until the UK raises the legal age of consent then you have to understand that this isn’t a Brand problem, it’s a legislation issue.
From our corner of the world she was too young, but the UK doesn’t seem to think so with their lacking consent laws. As a whole the country agrees on it and Brand grew up there. Right or wrong in our eyes would look different there.

So yes she was a 16 year old school girl where the country see resides in says it is okay to have consenting sexual relations with.
So if they’re really concerned all of the UK should be demonetized from YouTube.

When did Brand go after this school girl? He is now 48 years old? Epsteinish.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

Joe Biden may have sexually abused a smaller child than that, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt either, or is that (D)ifferent?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

Joe Biden may have sexually abused a smaller child than that, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt either, or is that (D)ifferent?

Brand also groomed and guided her on how to hide what she was doing from her parents.

Just as a side note......

Fathers take note,,,,,

a reply to: quintessentone

morally an issue for some but not illegal otherwise i'm sure plenty of pop bands would be in deep trouble

a reply to: quintessentone

When he was 31. The then 16 year old would now be 33.
It still doesn’t matter according to UK law. Again he grew up there and it is their law. Who is to really blame?

I am kinda surprised Russell made it as far as he did on Youtube. A lot of accounts have been demonetized and banned for crossing that government narrative.

As for all these allegations, I don't know what really happened. As for Russell being subject to a wrap up smear campaign is one possibility with his profile and discourse.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: quintessentone

Could I get a 16 year old school girl to lie about such?
With the right motivation I 100% could.
Without proof anyone can say anything and it still amounts to nothing.
Why women think they are special and their word should have more value than that of a man is beyond me.

Stop the female victim role as an argument for anything. The proof is in the pudding, not the pudding brain of a 16 year old...

Nuff said?

She doesnt neeed to lie about anything, its all there in his own memoirs where he refers to the 16 year old as "The Child"

Exactly, so in Brand's mine she was a 'child' so not only Epsteinish but pedo too. Considering she was a virgin and had absolutely no experience with sex or men, yeah, that would be a naive child (legal or not).

a reply to: quintessentone

Ladies and gentlemen Margret Thatcher!

The daily doubleDouble

duplicate

duplicate

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: quintessentone

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said

Until the UK raises the legal age of consent then you have to understand that this isn’t a Brand problem, it’s a legislation issue.
From our corner of the world she was too young, but the UK doesn’t seem to think so with their lacking consent laws. As a whole the country agrees on it and Brand grew up there. Right or wrong in our eyes would look different there.

So yes she was a 16 year old school girl where the country see resides in says it is okay to have consenting sexual relations with.
So if they’re really concerned all of the UK should be demonetized from YouTube.

When did Brand go after this school girl? He is now 48 years old? Epsteinish.

2 different cultures, most have their first sexual relationship at 15, most are clubbing by 16, many from 14, mine started at 15.. its deeply unwise but not illegal otherwise many celebrities and musicians would be in the sh*t.

a reply to: network dude

Two different countries, two different laws.

Bidens doings are probably covered up by US security services and suicides.

Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre is a good case to note.

She was 17 when she went with Prince Andrew. Not illegal by UK laws. If it was, he would of been prosecuted.

Not sure about the USA though, but probably dealt with by the financial settlement.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: quintessentone

Ladies and gentlemen Margret Thatcher!

well she was big mates with jimmy Saville and some of the worst paedos ever to grace the houses of parliament

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
It looks like YouTube censored him in 2022 for his Covid remarks, then he went to Rumble. Obviously YouTube allowed him back and considers his off-program behaviour as violating their policy. Although I must say their policy is vague and does not really explain in detail who Brand has harmed. Is this just another case of guilty until proven innocent?

On second thought, just the fact that a 16 year old school girl came forward should be enough to not give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

They effectively saying he is guilty and they ve received severe criticisms because of their statement.

Again, 16 year old school girl...enough said.

Man; that's the biggest logical fallacy I've ever heard.

We'll give you respect and the human right to the presumption of innocence, unless the liar is underage.

What? Do you know how easy it is to influence a child to say something that isn't true? It's basically the easiest thing in the world to do. If I was the system, and I wanted to take down someone like brand; I'd offer money to some families if their daughter would say he touched her inappropriately.

It's like, not even hard to believe. It's actually much easier to believe this, than Russel Brand is touching kids. This is a guy with a pretty stellar record of being honest. He used a lot of drugs, he had sex with a lot of women, he never hid that; but he's very smart and cleaned his life up; and never lied about any of it. In fact, he actually uses himself as an example.

0% of me believes these allegations. And I don't believe the presumption of innocence should ever be suspended, because people are liars.

Where is the line for you? You have rights up until... what? Ask yourself, because that's dangerous. If people know where your line is; then you just told everyone how to manipulate you. I can turn you against anybody just by knowing where you think rights should be suspended.

For you; it's underage girls making accusations. So, what if someone said your significant other touched a youngling? Would that change how you feel, if you KNEW it was false?

Because false accusations can happen to anybody; especially people with money, because there is financial motive. People suck; and they will extract from you to enrich themselves, or to silence dissenting points of view.

And that's exactly what's happening here. This is absolutely an attack on brand from the establishment. Drag em through the mud, ruin their reputation. If that doesn't work; levy a charge to try to land them in jail, if that doesn't work.... overdose him.

Pretty easy to see what's going on here.

But you know; if it happened to you; all of a sudden your views on false accusations would change. This is pathological and wrong. Justice is honest; and if you're not involved in the dispute, you have no idea who did what or what's real, so ruin a persons life just because you've been programmed to support blindly children, even if the children are lying?

Now how is that justice? That's an instrument of control.

a reply to: MCurns

i think andies breached that particular states statutory rape laws..

well she was big mates with jimmy Saville and some of the worst paedos ever to grace the houses of parliament

More accusations? I believe this is referred to as doubling down?

a reply to: AlienBorg

YouTube is a privat company they can pretty much do whatever they like.

a reply to: SRPrime

Brand's pedo behaviour shows?

Alice recalled Brand asking her to confirm she was at least 16, the age of consent in the UK, while on their first date. She told the investigation that he said: 'I don't give a f*** if you're 12 . . . I need to know where I stand legally.'

www.dailymail.co.uk...