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.