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

a reply to: Daughter2

If they are false accusers?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Just if someone accuses them of making a false report. No conviction required.

Would you support a company or person campaigning to take away their ability to earn a living?

No one thinks about this because most people have been brainwashed to believe false reports don't happen or they don't realize how harmful they can be to a person. They are a true threat to society.

a reply to: Daughter2

Boo hoo.

It's you claiming it's a false report.

Without evidence.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I'm not claiming it - it could be - I don't have the evidence.

But many others are claiming it - wrongly IMO because we should wait until both sides can present facts.

So should these women lose their ability to earn an income based on allegations? I'm asking not stating.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
I see a lot of nonsense in this thread. These are the two reasons why they went after Brand:


1.

twitter.com...

2.

twitter.com...

They did it to Tucker and James OKeefe and will go after anyone who challenges their agenda.

More recently the UK parliament sent a letter to Rumble to try to get Brand suspended from their platform as well. Here is the appropriate response for all parties:

/THREAD

New thread has been created and thanks for the information virtu0s0

Here it is

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Rumble has refused to do what YouTube has done.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Why doesn't Brand just find another platform to make his money?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: quintessentone

In terms of the comments of having had relationship with a 16 years old.

It's not the best option and it would be best if adults or at least adults who have significant age difference to avoid relationships with minors. But 16 is the age of consent. So there is nothing illegal and nobody has accused Brand of being a pedophile. Although he shouldn't have had anything to do with a 16 year old when he was 30.

When you're 16 or 17 as a girl you may want to have sexual relationships with older men and that's something which is happening but there are much younger men closer to their age.

This case is not normal. A 30 year old man picks up a young girl in a shopping mall, takes her to dinner (without her parents knowledge), asks her age, finds out she's a virgin and gets very excited, then tells her to not tell her friends, not to let her parents know, sends a limo from BBC to pick her up from school to his house, uses her for three months then she finds him in bed with another woman so she breaks it off, whatever it was to begin with???...this is f##'d up behaviour and don't tell me this girl was not traumatized by it.

I had to laugh at this. It's ok to keep secrets from parents when you want children to transition to the opposite sex. All of your lot want schools to rush kids through whatever they ask for. You all said so in so many posts.
It's the child's right and all that, and we are talking even younger than 16.
But when Russell Brand wooes a 16 year old who is legally allowed to have sex, suddenly she's a child, too young blablabla and he didn't even tell her parents. 😯

Hypocrites. If they can ask for chemical castration at a much younger age, this should be a no brainer, then she certainly can have sex, especially when it IS the age of consent here in the UK.

Honestly, the transitioning agenda of much younger kids is far, far worse. Just like sex with anyone under 16 is far, far worse.

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: quintessentone

In terms of the comments of having had relationship with a 16 years old.

It's not the best option and it would be best if adults or at least adults who have significant age difference to avoid relationships with minors. But 16 is the age of consent. So there is nothing illegal and nobody has accused Brand of being a pedophile. Although he shouldn't have had anything to do with a 16 year old when he was 30.

When you're 16 or 17 as a girl you may want to have sexual relationships with older men and that's something which is happening but there are much younger men closer to their age.

This case is not normal. A 30 year old man picks up a young girl in a shopping mall, takes her to dinner (without her parents knowledge), asks her age, finds out she's a virgin and gets very excited, then tells her to not tell her friends, not to let her parents know, sends a limo from BBC to pick her up from school to his house, uses her for three months then she finds him in bed with another woman so she breaks it off, whatever it was to begin with???...this is f##'d up behaviour and don't tell me this girl was not traumatized by it.

I had to laugh at this. It's ok to keep secrets from parents when you want children to transition to the opposite sex. All of your lot want schools to rush kids through whatever they ask for. You all said so in so many posts.
It's the child's right and all that, and we are talking even younger than 16.
But when Russell Brand wooes a 16 year old who is legally allowed to have sex, suddenly she's a child, too young blablabla and he didn't even tell her parents. 😯

Hypocrites. If they can ask for chemical castration at a much younger age, this should be a no brainer, then she certainly can have sex, especially when it IS the age of consent here in the UK.

Honestly, the transitioning agenda of much younger kids is far, far worse. Just like sex with anyone under 16 is far, far worse.

How do we call this?
Maybe double standards?

I saw Russell on The View before and I could not help but notice the effect he was having on The View panel. He is one man who is happy in his own skin and the women certainly seem to be switched on by his company. Perhaps this is why so many (especially Scottish) guys are taking the moral high ground and condemning him and saying they've never liked him etc. One because he's English and two because they know he's a lady's man.

3

originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I'm not claiming it - it could be - I don't have the evidence.

But many others are claiming it - wrongly IMO because we should wait until both sides can present facts.

So should these women lose their ability to earn an income based on allegations? I'm asking not stating.

No one is brave enough to try to answer it?

ok - here is another question that is not rhetorical, but I honestly do not know.

How does society or even individual companies benefit from not taking down content but not allowing people to earn money? Meaning, why did youtube do that and why did that nasty UK chick (not going to call her a lady) try to get companies to stop paying Brand? How are they going to spin it?

a reply to: Daughter2

It looks like the UK Government could be behind the demonetization of Brand as it seems they have asked Tik Tok and Rumble to join YouTube and demonetize him.

Unbelievable as it seems but they got the best reply by the CEO of Rumble who embarrassed them in a letter that nerds to be taught in schools and universities. I made a thread about it.

YouTube of course doesn't need the British Government to do what they do best but it's possible they have bern asked to demonetize him.
If so then this is a great political scandal and clear interference by the UK Government in matters they have no jurisdiction.

I wonder if Brand will seek the legal route against them.

a reply to: AlienBorg

we know it is, it owns the media outlkets presenting this stuff just as it owned the banks debanking its political opponents.

i wonder who is copying who in weaponising all the elements of government to subjugate is own and hurt them, is it washington or westminster..

either way this is what pure liberalism looks like when it dies... we are 100 years on from the 1924 elections where globalist liberalism and its empire died the last time..

a reply to: Daughter2

westminster has been morphing into the kind of outlook that created the stazi, it was an inevitable path they'd take when liberalism hit the point its again becomes a bankrupt ideology..

liberal icons like Belloc warned the world what would happen last time liberalism morphed into its worst versions from which it evolved into stalinism, hiterism and fascism..

brand is still a trad lefty and a proper champagne socialist like Orwell.. both utterly despised by the faux left as he exposes them as fakes..

a reply to: Hecate666

If they can ask for chemical castration at a much younger age, this should be a no-brainer, then she certainly can have sex, especially when it IS the age of consent here in the UK.

can they without parental consent?

No, they can't!!!
get your facts straight before you start a drama on a wrong assumption.

a reply to: AlienBorg

the funny thing is here you are sticking it up for him, while in the next tread it's all about protecting minors...

we only ever see that, which we're guilty of ourselves...

a reply to: AlienBorg

Whatever you might think of this issue, it's somewhat ironic you'd cite FOX-News to question free market principles and corporate individuality rights. I see what you did there, homie!

So his punishment is demonetization of his channel for the time being. The presumption of being innocent until proven guilty has gone and YouTube is accepting the court of public opinion.

So many big words, so little respect for corporate law and free market endeavours! I would hoist the red flag, and sing a chanty, if you had finished with a call for inter-nationalized commons instead.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

the funny thing is here you are sticking it up for him, while in the next tread it's all about protecting minors...

we only ever see that, which we're guilty of ourselves...

No you got things wrong.

I am sticking to the principle innocent until proven guilty and against every media trial.

Brand hasn't been accused of being a pedophile and as far as I know 16 is the age of consent in the UK. And you missed the last where I am not in favour of relationships between teenage girls and much older adults.

The above has nothing to do with the attempts of the trans ideology and its lobby to indoctrinate as many kids as possible and lead them to the path of 'happiness' through hormones, drugs, and surgeries.

Your argument is completely disingenuous and the fact that you even make the comparisons shows exactly the quality of your posts.

This is about innocent about proven guilty and not whether Brand had a thing with a 16 year old.

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: AlienBorg

Whatever you might think of this issue, it's somewhat ironic you'd cite FOX-News to question free market principles and corporate individuality rights. I see what you did there, homie!

So his punishment is demonetization of his channel for the time being. The presumption of being innocent until proven guilty has gone and YouTube is accepting the court of public opinion.

So many big words, so little respect for corporate law and free market endeavours! I would hoist the red flag, and sing a chanty, if you had finished with a call for inter-nationalized commons instead.

The story is everywhere, that's what came up first when I looked at it.

Regardless of your attempts to make a valid point, you haven't made up.any yet.

Yesterday I remember you said they demonetized Brand because of his anti vax talk but we know this isn't true and it's a desperate attempt to justify the actions by YouTube that are unjustifiable.

Perhaps you may want to take a look at what the CEO of Rumble said when the UK Government approached him to join YouTube and demonetize Brand. So it's a political witchhunt as it seems and regardless of whether Brand is innocent or guilty.

Y'know when there's a big newspaper headline taking up all the pages?
......it's probably something to do with something esle which 'they' want bury?

Guess what....

New Online Safety Bill

It's been passed and just needs the final 'Royal Assent' to make it legal.

Worthy of a new thread, but I got stuff to do.