Until Proven Guilty? Clearly not.
YouTube has suspended Russell Brand’s channels from making money from adverts for “violating” its “creator responsibility policy”.
The video platform said it was taking action “to protect” its users.
Meanwhile, the BBC said it had removed some programmes featuring the comedian and actor from its streaming services.
It comes after he was accused of rape and sexual assaults between 2006 and 2013. He denies the claims, saying his relationships were “always consensual”.
The word here is ‘accused‘ not proven beyond reasonable doubt. What we are seeing played out is the usual presumption of guilt. No evidence has been placed before a court for a jury to examine, no due process has taken place. All we have are accusations and that is enough, it seems, to take away someone’s livelihood and presume that they are guilty.
If he is guilty, then sure, bang him up. But we don’t know if he is guilty. I certainly don’t. Because there has not been any verifiable evidence placed before a court – and allegations are not evidence of guilt. They are just allegations. Anyone can make them and as has happened in the past, false ones have been made and fallen apart under cross examination.
It seems that YouTube and the BBC aren’t too bothered about the due process of law, evidence or the presumption of innocence. A witch hunt and trial by media is enough for them.
Scum, the lot of them.
If we need no evidence then we should defund the BBC as a preventative measure – because in the past they have employed accused people despite warnings which were later substantiated.
Fair’s fair.
Tim Davie, the BBC director general, said some of his content was ‘completely unacceptable’.
So why was it not removed before? Why only after he is accused of crimes?
Thing that puzzles me is how all the subsequent accusers come out of the woodwork to join the chorus.If he attacked you in 2003, why did you not accuse him then? Was he not wealthy enough ?
I was not aware that Youtube’s “creator responsibility policy”, included the responsibility to not get accused of a crime
Russel Brand was someone I didn’t like because of his politics and his narcissistic behavior’s.
He still has the same politics and is still the same narcissist but now he includes attacks against the left’s lunacy. Not that he is moving to the right but old left is now right. He always has been a smooth talker and his YT channel has had some interesting content worth listening to lately.
I’m totally against historic abuse witch-hunts. We could all be wrapped up in one soon as part of your cancellation for thought crime. So I am now in the strange situation of saying that he is innocent until proven guilty and it is about time these cancellers got some pushback. Scum that they are.
It appears to me that any man that has had any sexual contact with s female, anytime within the last 40 years, is open to accusations of rape/abuse.
Also, wtf is mental abuse? I’m sure any man that has lived with a woman for longer than a month is able to verify that the incessant nagging, moaning, sense of entitlement, ingratitude and general cuntishness is more than enough to qualify as abuse. Refusing to buy her another pair of shoes and restricting her access to the family credit card is not abuse, it’s common sense.