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

originally posted by: Saloon

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 referred to as doubling down?

also known as a FACT. who do you think arranged his Knighthood? who was always on tely with the bloke shaking his hand for raising more money for charity?

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

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

A private company that always openly judges public affairs.

originally posted by: quintessentone


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.

I read about the 16 year old and thought it would be very irresponsible to be sending a BBC car to the school to pick her up as she stated! I would think any person driving for the BBC or if Brand had asked for the car to pick her would have said 'no' but then I think back to Saville and what he got away with for years... working for the BBC!

Anything is possible but again... why wait till Brand is saying all this stuff on his channels?? Is what Brand saying 'the truth'?? And other people just want him out of the way??

I don't know... there's certainly a lot of women coming forward with stories to tell..

a reply to: nickyw

If it did, oh man, i wish he was hauled up the flagpole and hung out to dry.

But i get the impression in the US money talks, hence the payment.

If there's enough evidence in the UK you can't 'buy' your way out of trouble. I think iy falls under the 'perverting the course of justice', max sentance is life.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

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

except as americanism go that's not true otherwise countries would not need to write new laws to exert control over them..

they are not east india type corporates that can do as they please we've past that stage in the 1800s

originally posted by: MCurns
a reply to: nickyw

If it did, oh man, i wish he was hauled up the flagpole and hung out to dry.

But i get the impression in the US money talks, hence the payment.

If there's enough evidence in the UK you can't 'buy' your way out of trouble. I think iy falls under the 'perverting the course of justice', max sentance is life.

i agree that it was a very iffy case but it was private rather than criminal.. not sure what would have happened if it was criminal, would it have exposed the whole of the epstein list hence being dealt with the way it was..

a reply to: SprocketUK

+

also known as a FACT. who do you think arranged his Knighthood? who was always on tely with the bloke shaking his hand for raising more money for charity?

All that matters is he hasn't even been charged with anything.

But go ahead string him up. Skin that smoke wagon

originally posted by: WorldxGonexMad

originally posted by: quintessentone


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.

I read about the 16 year old and thought it would be very irresponsible to be sending a BBC car to the school to pick her up as she stated! I would think any person driving for the BBC or if Brand had asked for the car to pick her would have said 'no' but then I think back to Saville and what he got away with for years... working for the BBC!

Anything is possible but again... why wait till Brand is saying all this stuff on his channels?? Is what Brand saying 'the truth'?? And other people just want him out of the way??

I don't know... there's certainly a lot of women coming forward with stories to tell..

it all smells fishy in terms of timing along with the anti free speech censor act, and the demand social media remove all encryption/security/safeguards for britons..

a reply to: nickyw

Same reason a bakery can refuse to backe a cacke for you. Same reason a shopping mall can bar you from accessing.
The few legal boundaries remaining pretty sure YouTube lawyers got them covered.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: SprocketUK

+

also known as a FACT. who do you think arranged his Knighthood? who was always on tely with the bloke shaking his hand for raising more money for charity?

All that matters is he hasn't even been charged with anything.

But go ahead string him up. Skin that smoke wagon

I am way comfortable not trying to stick up for a rapist and potenhtial child abuser.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

They have the right to do so...

Who has dropped Brand so far:

www.vulture.com...

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: SprocketUK

+

also known as a FACT. who do you think arranged his Knighthood? who was always on tely with the bloke shaking his hand for raising more money for charity?

All that matters is he hasn't even been charged with anything.

But go ahead string him up. Skin that smoke wagon

another americanism we've adopted f*ck trials or justice and go straight to the lynching, it feels many hope to leave m,any more Caroline Flacks in their wake.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

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

Not true when they make statements like this

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: TheLieWeLive

They have the right to do so...

By law, so did Russell Brand. It may not be agreed upon, but the UK made it legal.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

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

Not true when they make statements like this

We have suspended monetization on Russell Brand's channel for violating our creator responsibility policy. If a creator's off-platform behavior harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community.

In a few words they decided to demonetize Brand because they believe he is guilty of sexual assault/rape.

YouTube is a private company and a colossus of social media. The statement above wasn't made by a random online user but by them. Surely this could amount to libel and defamation. Brand hasn't even been charged.

Doesn't look to be anything actionable in that clip you posted.

a reply to: AlienBorg

I guess being on trial is enough to imply the harm they talk about...

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: SprocketUK

+

also known as a FACT. who do you think arranged his Knighthood? who was always on tely with the bloke shaking his hand for raising more money for charity?

All that matters is he hasn't even been charged with anything.

But go ahead string him up. Skin that smoke wagon

another americanism we've adopted f*ck trials or justice and go straight to the lynching, it feels many hope to leave m,any more Caroline Flacks in their wake.

From all his past history I'd say where there's a smoke wagon there's fire.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: nickyw

Same reason a bakery can refuse to backe a cacke for you. Same reason a shopping mall can bar you from accessing.
The few legal boundaries remaining pretty sure YouTube lawyers got them covered.

thats an americanism.. no cake shop can refuse to bake me a cake if i pay a deposit as unlike the us as soon as they take a deposit we've entered into a contract for services that have to be delivered, equally a shopping center can not simply refuse access to anyone, these are americanisms that are not true outside the usa.. it why most of the world opts to use english not american contract laws.. your laws are messed up..

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.