That’s pretty much what Rumble have told Dame Caroline Dineage.
A spokesperson said: ‘We received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament. While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble’s platform.
‘Just yesterday YouTube announced that based solely on these media accusations it was barring Mr Brand from monetising his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet – meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.
‘We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on a platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence or any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don’t agree with the behaviour of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalise them for actions that have nothing to do with out platform.
‘Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company’s values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament’s demands.’
That is what having a spine and integrity looks like. It’s a rare commodity these days. Well done, Rumble. Keep it up.
GB News has responded similarly. The stupid woman accused them of not following impartiality guidelines. Er, they ain’t the BBC (and when the BBC is impartial, maybe go after other broadcasters, eh? – Ed) and given that the programme being discussed involved two presenters taking differing views during an open discussion – so what Dineage is complaining about is that they did not shut down the presenter who was defending Brand, so what they wanted was partiality. The sort of partiality approved of by Dineage. Well, they told her to fuck off as well. And good for them. It really is about time these nasty little censorious fuckwits were put back in their box and while we are at it, how about closing down media culture and sport as it’s a pox on our culture.
I dislike Russell Brand and make a point of avoiding any of his output, but the idea that he should be silenced for what are as yet unproven allegations I find even more abhorrent.
Once again the “Process is the Punishment” is being played out.None of those who are calling for this is fit for public office.
I don’t think that the presumption of innocence is being emphasised enough in discussions about this matter. To me it’s less about Brand, and his guilt or lack of it, but more about the fact that your opinions could be censored and shut down just by someone inventing a historical sex allegation. This could happen to anybody and you have to be very stupid not to see the implications of this, yes I’m looking at you Dineage.
To paraphrase Emily Howard – ” But she is a Dame. ” That will be 300 guineas please. Plus expenses.
And how do you pronounce “Dineage”?
I like to think that it is a West coaster’s plea to stay young.
Din-e-age.
It’s ‘Dinenage’. Pronounced ‘Dine-age’ to be sure. Caroline Julia Dinenage, Baroness Lancaster of Kimbolton, DBE is the daughter of television presenter Fred Dinenage.
Second generation media aristocracy perhaps? Could explain tings.
Serious question but didn’t we used to believe innocent until proved guilty?
It is a serious question so I will give a serious answer. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a principle of the criminal law. It does not apply to civil matters. You Tube was fully entitled to demonetise Brand just as Rumble was fully entitled not to do so. Should the principle be extended into the civil arena? That is problematic and I will give an example to explain why.
Imagine you run a shop in a village and one of the residents is believed by most of the other residents to be a sexual predator or criminal. You decide you don’t want to serve him any more. The question is whether you really want a law that says that against your wishes you must serve him. That would in effect be a new anti discrimination law taking away a freedom.
I have written this ignoring the fact that neither You Tube nor Rumble is based in the UK.
I will leave it at that except to say that I think the Dinenage letter was disgraceful.
I see your point… but the issue that separates criminal law from social ostracism is that the due process of criminal law provides a means for the accused to successfully (sometimes) defend themselves.
In an ideal world the presumption of innocence would be a principle that the vast majority clearly understood. That way those who sought to sanction people on the grounds of hearsay would be called out for it. That we have an MP who fails to understand this most basic principle of natural justice is a disgrace.
As David Norman says, the presumption of innocence is bound up with the criminal law. Now , say if Mr B were employed in a girl’s school, would the head-teacher be a zealous bully for suspending him, or negligent for prioritising Mr B’s rights by letting him work as usual ?
You are straying into situational ethics here. That scenario has a safeguarding element to it, so due diligence would involve suspension pending an investigation. That doesn’t apply with the Brand thing. That’s just piss poor ethics.
Youtube most certainly do not get to do what they want when they are in business that is being told to break contracts and censor people behind the scenes unjustly including when those orders come from the state then there’s our rights not to be wrongfully censored depending on the country.
I was responding more to the comments which seem to be focusing on general factors rather than the actual RB circumstances. I agree with you in that, like freedom of speech , presumption of innocence should apply even to bastards that I dislike.
After watching the GB News video I find the accusation of failing to be impartial to be quite bizarre. They had an adversarial discussion which aired both sides of an argument, by definition impartial. Her definition of impartial is apparently one that excludes the side of the argument that she disagrees with. I mean, does she ever listen to herself?
I know. The woman is either thick or disingenuous.
How many other letters were sent out under the imprimatur of the committee? How many organisations caved?