• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

The Online Safety Bill has been signed off by the Houses of Parliament and will become law soon.

the bill will make the UK the safest place in the world to be online by placing new duties on social media companies – honouring our manifesto commitment.

the bolstered bill has been strengthened through debate, with firmer protections for children, more control for adults and clarity for social platforms.
Click to expand...

I feel "safer" already.
 
Puppycow said:
Yeah, there are real reasons why victims of rape and sexual assault are often reluctant to report these crimes to police.

They may feel like they need to be a “perfect victim” or else they may end up being the one “on trial”. The police also tend to be a male-dominated profession.

Someone like Brand doesn’t lurk in dark alleys hoping to to ambush his victims. Most rapes don’t happen that way. His victims therefore are likely to be women who know him or approached him of their own accord. So it’s harder to go to the police when you feel like you’re not a “perfect victim” because you’re going to have to answer difficult questions like why did you go home with him in the first place? I wouldn’t do that if I were in your shoes. And then the victim has to justify every decision they made leading up to being raped or assaulted.
Click to expand...
The police must have changed since 2001'ish then, as I was actively sought out by the police at that time regarding a 'pedophile' (the bbc and such reported it as a pedophile ring but it wasn't really, the victims were post puberty) ring in the early 80's and they went out of their way to make me feel as comfortable as possible.
As the case progressed they paid for hotel expenses to drive me around pointing out various houses. In the video interviews they were really respectful and when it went to crown court they chauffered me there and back and paid for meals and at no time did the police ever question my integrity.
The only time my evidence was ever questioned was at the court case, but that's what defending lawyers are paid for. They all went to prison anyway, well apart from one with a dodgy heart that was dying.
 
Yeah but you're a man, not like those sluts asking for it. What were you wearing when this assault happened btw?
 
Trausti said:
The UK Parliment isn't government? Well, this American just learned something new.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse, but just in case you're not, a parliamentary committee isn't the government.
 
Manger Douse said:
Yeah but you're a man, not like those sluts asking for it. What were you wearing when this assault happened btw?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't know if I would have been treated differently if I was female, good point.
The video interviews were done by two female officers in a safe house though, I suspect whether I was male or female it would have still been female officers for the video interviews, but it's all anecdotal.
It wasn't an assault, it was a ring.
 
Trausti said:
The UK Parliment isn't government? Well, this American just learned something new.
Click to expand...

Darat is just prevaricating - Caroline Dinenage has been a Tory MP since 2010 (and was a Minister for much of that period), she is most definitely government (and senior at that).
 
IsThisTheLife said:
Darat is just prevaricating - Caroline Dinenage has been a Tory MP since 2010 (and was a Minister for much of that period), she is most definitely government (and senior at that).
Click to expand...

No, he isn't just prevaricating. You're attempting to conflate a single MP with "the government" in this post, and Trausti was incorrectly conflating a parliamentary committee with "the government", seemingly in error, which Darat corrected.
 
p0lka said:
Hmm, I don't know if I would have been treated differently if I was female, good point.
The video interviews were done by two female officers in a safe house though, I suspect whether I was male or female it would have still been female officers for the video interviews, but it's all anecdotal.
It wasn't an assault, it was a ring.
Click to expand...

The police actively sought you for a statement in a safe house for a crime they already believe had happened, rather than you reporting a sexual assault to them in a police station. Your situation seems so vastly different to an adverage rape case I really don't understand why you've attempted to defend the police by bringing it up at all
 
IsThisTheLife said:
Darat is just prevaricating - Caroline Dinenage has been a Tory MP since 2010 (and was a Minister for much of that period), she is most definitely government (and senior at that).
Click to expand...

No, she's not in the government.

She's the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This committee provides for parliamentary oversight of what the (government) Department of Culture, Media and Sport does.

Select committees of this nature are often highly critical of things the government does.
 
It's likely that Dineage was assigned (put up to) the task of shot-gunning all the media platforms because she's at exactly the needed level of seniority - had she still been a Minister someone else would have been used.

Whatever, the UK gov. is clearly, pre-emptively toeing the water ahead of full-blown use of the powers its about to give itself to "crackdown on social media platforms".
 
Is it clear? I don't think it is.

I'm not stating that you're absolutely wrong, I just don't think that this letter from a single committee is evidence of the widespread "crackdown" you believe it to be.

Again, you've made very specific claims, you rather need to back them up with something more than...well other claims.

I don't agree with the committee requesting Rumble demonetise him despite the allegations. I don't think this kind of intrusion is a good thing outside of specifically dangerous content (things encouraging murder, or public health disinformation for example that could and likely would kill people). I wouldn't have objected if Rumble had taken his income stream away of course, as it would be their choice and I'd shed no tears for Brand.
 
IsThisTheLife said:
It's likely that Dineage was assigned (put up to) the task of shot-gunning all the media platforms because she's at exactly the needed level of seniority - had she still been a Minister someone else would have been used.

Whatever, the UK gov. is clearly, pre-emptively toeing the water ahead of full-blown use of the powers its about to give itself to "crackdown on social media platforms".
Click to expand...

You should really stop talking about things you don't understand.

Of course she was selected because she's not a minister. It would be a bit stupid for a select committee responsible for oversight of the government to be run by somebody in the government.

The chairs of all select committees are voted in by a vote of all MPs. The government has no say in who the MPs vote for.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Is it clear? I don't think it is.

I'm not stating that you're absolutely wrong, I just don't think that this letter from a single committee is evidence of the widespread "crackdown" you believe it to be.

Again, you've made very specific claims, you rather need to back them up with something more than...well other claims.

I don't agree with the committee requesting Rumble demonetise him despite the allegations. I don't think this kind of intrusion is a good thing outside of specifically dangerous content (things encouraging murder, or public health disinformation for example that could and likely would kill people). I wouldn't have objected if Rumble had taken his income stream away of course, as it would be their choice and I'd shed no tears for Brand.
Click to expand...

Had the bill been entirely about protecting children I'd be less sceptical, however it explicitly outlines the use of the new powers invested to prevent "hate speech" and "the spread of misinformation" - which they get to arbitrarily define.

You'd have to be naive in the extreme to feel sanguine about this.
 
jeremyp said:
You should really stop talking about things you don't understand.

Of course she was selected because she's not a minister. It would be a bit stupid for a select committee responsible for oversight of the government to be run by somebody in the government.

The chairs of all select committees are voted in by a vote of all MPs. The government has no say in who the MPs vote for.
Click to expand...

She just happens to have had (to quote her Wiki entry) "ministerial responsibility for the Online Safety Bill".

Yeh, nah, nothing to see here.
 
i would like nothing better than foreign governments going after these comedian podcasters
 
Re. Tortious interference;

it's odd that, as a parliamentary back-bencher, and having personally signed the letters sent out to Rumble et al, Dineage would seem to have left herself open to a fairly clear-cut tort action by Brand. What am I missing here?
 
IsThisTheLife said:
Re. Tortious interference;

it's odd that, as a parliamentary back-bencher, and having personally signed the letters sent out to Rumble et al, Dineage would seem to have left herself open to a fairly clear-cut tort action by Brand. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Clear cut? They ask if he gets money from producing content and whether they intend following youtube in stopping payments. They do not ask them to stop paying him. I think you are missing a clear cut instruction or threat which forces a breach of contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom