Russell Brand

[CanOfRedBull]

You think I’m wacko.  OK let’s release your 35 reviews to Channel 4 and The Times.  Let’s see what the women you work with,  live near and know you think of your 35 reviews and your love for anal sex? 

Will they say ‘good on you, if it makes you happy’ or will they ‘what a disgusting person you are, how dare you treat these women like that’

[bigden40]

He makes money from his public soap box, through companies that have a responsibility to protect the public. He does not have any tools, except himself 

Protecting the public = demonetisation of someone who has been neither charged nor convicted of any crime? 

Personally that’s not the standard I’d want applied in a fair, democratic society. It’s not as though a set of accusations changes the extent to which his content meets, or does not meet the platform's terms of service.

[JontyR]

Actually not. No women have pushed charges against any celebrity.

The “double standard” being suggested is about who the media pursue and why. 

Personally I think two things can be true at the same e.g. it can be a media hit job and the allegations can be true.

OK, my words may have been a little imprecise, for "push charges" read instead "make allegations."

I think that there is a weird misconception as to how these things work. There isn't a big table of journos and a big list of celebs and they choose which ones to go for.

Journos hear things, they follow leads, they get somewhere, they get an editiorial steer and they work on it. That's if they aren't freelance in which case they get so far and then try and sell the story at some point

The decision made will often be purely commercial. Bigger Celebs will sell more papers (and magazines and movies), be that good news or scandal. Certain sections of the press may have political motivations (the Mirror would be more likely to deal with a story about a Tory - The Mail will stick the boot into Angela Rayner), but to consider Brand or Tate to be a threat....nah. They have minor cultural relevance. Banksy, for example, is more subversive and has a wider reach.

[DastardlyDick]

Go tell your employer you are a member of this forum and see how well it plays out 

For once, you have a valid point there!

[Private Parts]

This forum has 122,000 members which is more than the usual numbers of a BBC or Sky news poll,  so it is a good representation of men. 

Men are under attack, they have been for years.  The feminist movement talk about ‘toxic masculinity’ and try to take down the likes of Andrew Tate and try to push men to be more feminine and support the feminist movement.   PP,  you hide in this forum because if you were open you would be under attack for your views and your sexual expectations.

UK Population +\~ 7million. 122k memberships as a % of 50% of population of 🇬🇧

0.4% HOW IS THAT REPRESENTATIVE?

Wake up at the back

[JontyR]

You think I’m wacko.  OK let’s release your 35 reviews to Channel 4 and The Times.  Let’s see what the women you work with,  live near and know you think of your 35 reviews and your love for anal sex? 

Will they say ‘good on you, if it makes you happy’ or will they ‘what a disgusting person you are, how dare you treat these women like that’

But that's not men being under attack for years, cancelling Tate or trying to make me more feminine is it? That's what's wacko.

[DastardlyDick]

Thing that gets me about all these celebrity exposes is the sheer amount of time it takes to come out - in Brand's case it's 20 years! Do these journos just pick a celebrity at random and go through their past or is it something else?
Note, I'm not defending Brand, or any other celebrity sex offender, if they've done the crime, they should do the time, after due  legal process of course.

[Private Parts]

Can of something. Do you feel persecuted by women?
Don’t sometimes they can be pussycats

[lillythesavage]

You think I’m wacko.  OK let’s release your 35 reviews to Channel 4 and The Times.  Let’s see what the women you work with,  live near and know you think of your 35 reviews and your love for anal sex? 

Will they say ‘good on you, if it makes you happy’ or will they ‘what a disgusting person you are, how dare you treat these women like that’

Women can have a love of anal sex too , and it is a mutually agreed meeting that involves two, or more, adults doing things freely, one hopes, and has gone on forever, not something that will ever happen, the Times can read this forum, so not really a good analogy .

[PumpDump]

For once, you have a valid point there!

Here's something else.
 
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=364236.0

Would anybody in the non-punting world not think we are a group of completely fucked up individuals being members of a forum which allows and promotes this activity?

Imagine this author of the review was a person in public life. How long do you think their career would last if this review was publicly linked to them? Even without any evidence they wrote it, it could be game over for them just based on one sided media reporting. Nobody would ever look at the context of the review, ask the author for their side. Their income streams would all be cut off and they would most likely never work in public life again.

My point is this trial by media has to stop. Nobody should have their career and personal life ruined based on allegations. Only a guilty verdict in a court of law where all evidence has been heard should have this impact.

[bigden40]

OK, my words may have been a little imprecise, for "push charges" read instead "make allegations."

I think that there is a weird misconception as to how these things work. There isn't a big table of journos and a big list of celebs and they choose which ones to go for.

Journos hear things, they follow leads, they get somewhere, they get an editiorial steer and they work on it. That's if they aren't freelance in which case they get so far and then try and sell the story at some point

The decision made will often be purely commercial. Bigger Celebs will sell more papers (and magazines and movies), be that good news or scandal. Certain sections of the press may have political motivations (the Mirror would be more likely to deal with a story about a Tory - The Mail will stick the boot into Angela Rayner), but to consider Brand or Tate to be a threat....nah. They have minor cultural relevance. Banksy, for example, is more subversive and has a wider reach.

What we might think journalism to be barely exists any more.

Traditional media are businesses with corporate interests.  There is a great deal of click bait, and additionally you would have to be very naive or foolish to not realise that the media now pursue narratives rather than following facts and allowing the, to shape a story. Legacy media chooses what stories to pursue and which ones not to pursue.

It’s absolutely clear that the “wrong views” are censored by legacy media and by big tech.  It's also true that many anti-establishment figures have faced hit jobs like this, and not always with sexual allegations e.g. RFK Jr (anti-vaxxer), Joe Rogan (racism), JK Rowling (terf), Elon Musk (anti-semitism), etc. 

Now, as I said in a previous post, just because someone “anti-establishment” is on the receiving end of a hit job it doesn’t mean that the allegations aren’t true. But in each of the cases above they are/were concerted efforts to shut people up.

[CanOfRedBull]

Women can have a love of anal sex too , and it is a mutually agreed meeting that involves two, or more, adults doing things freely, one hopes, and has gone on forever, not something that will ever happen, the Times can read this forum, so not really a good analogy .

Russell Brand’s view will be it was ‘a mutually agreed meeting that involved two adults doing things freely’. 

The Times can read this forum but we call hide behind anonymity,  we are not been outed unlike Russell who has not had a chance of a right to reply.   

[JontyR]

Russell Brand’s view will be it was ‘a mutually agreed meeting that involved two adults doing things freely’. 

The Times can read this forum but we call hide behind anonymity,  we are not been outed unlike Russell who has not had a chance of a right to reply.

Yes he has. He replied before the programme itself! He was approached, his comments that he made, not to them but in response to them, were included in the programme.

Anything he says now will be reported extensively.

Whether he is wise or not to do so is a whole different kettle of fish

[bigden40]

Thing that gets me about all these celebrity exposes is the sheer amount of time it takes to come out - in Brand's case it's 20 years! Do these journos just pick a celebrity at random and go through their past or is it something else?
Note, I'm not defending Brand, or any other celebrity sex offender, if they've done the crime, they should do the time, after due  legal process of course.

This is one of the problems I have with this.

Brand is clearly a different man than he was 20 years ago at the height of his celebrity and his addictions.  He was pretty transparent at the time, his persona was loveable rogue and prodigious shagger, all in the public eye.  Bat the time he was lauded for his impish charm, he was the darling of many channel 4 shows, even when behaving appallingly e.g. the Andrew Sachs incident.  He was also a real lefty, storming bank offices and demanding to interview executives during the financial crisis, etc.

He’s obviously in a far different place now, he’s reformed his life for the better, resolved his addictions and settled down with family.  So why go after him now?  The material was there 20 years ago, it was there at the height of #metoo, why didn’t they go after him then?

None of this absolves him if the allegations are true.  But I do have a high level of scepticism due to timing AND some issues I have with the reporting itself.

[PumpDump]

This is one of the problems I have with this.

Brand is clearly a different man than he was 20 years ago at the height of his celebrity and his addictions.  He was pretty transparent at the time, his persona was loveable rogue and prodigious shagger, all in the public eye.  Bat the time he was lauded for his impish charm, he was the darling of many channel 4 shows, even when behaving appallingly e.g. the Andrew Sachs incident.  He was also a real lefty, storming bank offices and demanding to interview executives during the financial crisis, etc.

He’s obviously in a far different place now, he’s reformed his life for the better, resolved his addictions and settled down with family.  So why go after him now?  The material was there 20 years ago, it was there at the height of #metoo, why didn’t they go after him then?

None of this absolves him if the allegations are true.  But I do have a high level of scepticism due to timing AND some issues I have with the reporting itself.

Anybody with half a brain knows why they are going after him.

[lillythesavage]

Protecting the public = demonetisation of someone who has been neither charged nor convicted of any crime? 

Personally that’s not the standard I’d want applied in a fair, democratic society. It’s not as though a set of accusations changes the extent to which his content meets, or does not meet the platform's terms of service.

The only reason Brand has any standing, and a following, is on the internet, busted flush when it comes to TV/ radio, maybe with good reason.

I am all for free speech, and the right to protest, not that either are listened too, or do any good these days, but someone who has had serious allegations made against them, with evidence given, involving basically a child, should not be given the opportunity to earn from it.

Is it just me, but I really do not get this idolisation and following people on the internet? Comes across as brainwashed, sad, people missing something from their lives  .

Though got big loving for an Aussie not comfortable in front of the camera at the moment  , I am sure it will pass  .

[PumpDump]

I am all for free speech, and the right to protest, not that either are listened too, or do any good these days, but someone who has had serious allegations made against them, with evidence given, involving basically a child, should not be given the opportunity to earn from it.

If a 16 year old comes marching in to your boss and says you had sex with them, are you happy to be fired and have all ability to earn money taken away?

What if some of the escorts you left negative reviews for, decide that any activities between you and them were non consensual, and they make an allegation against you? Are you happy for your income streams to be cut?

[bigden40]

The only reason Brand has any standing, and a following, is on the internet, busted flush when it comes to TV/ radio, maybe with good reason.

I am all for free speech, and the right to protest, not that either are listened too, or do any good these days, but someone who has had serious allegations made against them, with evidence given, involving basically a child, should not be given the opportunity to earn from it.

Is it just me, but I really do not get this idolisation and following people on the internet? Comes across as brainwashed, sad, people missing something from their lives  .

Though got big loving for an Aussie not comfortable in front of the camera at the moment  , I am sure it will pass  .

I am not one for idolatry either, I’m not a fan of celebrity culture, and I think Brand is a bit of an arsehole. 

But that’s not really the point.

You're arguing for cancellation based on accusation. I would argue that's untenable standard.  We’ve seen too many accusations  crumble under scrutiny. You say we've seen evidence - nah we’ve seen an edited narrative presented by documentary filmmakers in a way that tells the story they want to tell.  That’s not good evidence.  Evidential standards are not met until presented under oath, in a court of law, subject to cross examination and after allowing the accused the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence in rebuttal. We are nowhere near there.

And yes, a 30 year old man dating a 16 year old is creepy as fuck, and if it was my daughter he’d be on the receiving end of some pretty rough “frontier justice”. But ultimately a consensual relationship with a woman over the age of consent is not a crime.

[lillythesavage]

I am not one for idolatry either, I’m not a fan of celebrity culture, and I think Brand is a bit of an arsehole. 

But that’s not really the point.

You're arguing for cancellation based on accusation. I would argue that's untenable standard.  We’ve seen too many accusations  crumble under scrutiny. You say we've seen evidence - nah we’ve seen an edited narrative presented by documentary filmmakers in a way that tells the story they want to tell.  That’s not good evidence.  Evidential standards are not met until presented under oath, in a court of law, subject to cross examination and after allowing the accused the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence in rebuttal. We are nowhere near there.

And yes, a 30 year old man dating a 16 year old is creepy as fuck, and if it was my daughter he’d be on the receiving end of some pretty rough “frontier justice”. But ultimately a consensual relationship with a woman over the age of consent is not a crime.

She has stated, quite clearly, it was not consensual  , one word against another? YES, but they are very serious allegations, by several people, and he uses platforms that pay him a lot of money through advertising, and the advertisers should not be happy with that situation, it goes deeper than just cancelling him, there are other parties involved.

TBH, I thought he had fallen into oblivion until this, but was using the addiction and promiscuous excuse before this was exposed apparently, it is no excuse.

[bigden40]

She has stated, quite clearly, it was not consensual  , one word against another? YES, but they are very serious allegations, by several people, and he uses platforms that pay him a lot of money through advertising, and the advertisers should not be happy with that situation, it goes deeper than just cancelling him, there are other parties involved.

TBH, I thought he had fallen into oblivion until this, but was using the addiction and promiscuous excuse before this was exposed apparently, it is no excuse.

So you are reiterating your position that someone should lose revenue on the basis of an allegation alone?

[yandex]

I know it's unlikely to sway many opinions on here, but watch 'She Said' for (an admittedly Hollywood) a view on why these things take a long time to surface. It's the story of the outing in the press of what was an open secret in the film world, which is that Harvey Weinstein was a sex offender and not to be trusted around women. Now proven in court.

A few people on here saying the court of public opinion isn't the correct way of going about things but the reality is that our current police/court system can't be trusted to deal with this seriously or in a timely way and newspapers have always published stories they think are in the public interest that they can back up. Jimmy Saville would still be a trade secret if it weren't for the persistence of a few reporters.

Attitudes change over generations, they always have and they always will. How we deal with that as adults defines us, move with the times and accept that or rail at the injustice of it all and go on anonymous forums and cry about it.

[daviemac]

So you are reiterating your position that someone should lose revenue on the basis of an allegation alone?

Not an allegation, several allegations.

Why is he quitting his business interests if he has nothing to hide.   

Russell Brand QUITS two of his lucrative businesses in the wake of growing rape and sex assault allegations

[lillythesavage]

If a 16 year old comes marching in to your boss and says you had sex with them, are you happy to be fired and have all ability to earn money taken away?

What if some of the escorts you left negative reviews for, decide that any activities between you and them were non consensual, and they make an allegation against you? Are you happy for your income streams to be cut?

This implies you are happy to fuck 16 years olds  . got a day off and going to TOFFT, I will reply  to this later, I am My own boss 

[PumpDump]

This implies you are happy to fuck 16 years olds  . got a day off and going to TOFFT, I will reply  to this later, I am My own boss 

How do you come to that conclusion you idiot?

You are deliberative avoiding answering the simple question both Bigdeb40 and I have asked you. Do you agree with cutting off the income of a person based on unproved allegations?

[chrishornx]

UK Population +\~ 7million. 122k memberships as a % of 50% of population of 🇬🇧

0.4% HOW IS THAT REPRESENTATIVE?

Wake up at the back

it is a pretty good representation. How big do you think the big pollster outfits like Yougov operate on? They average about 500-1000 for an average opinion poll so 0.4% is pretty representative

[PumpDump]

it is a pretty good representation. How big do you think the big pollster outfits like Yougov operate on? They average about 500-1000 for an average opinion poll so 0.4% is pretty representative

Except UK population is almost 70 million

[lostandfound]

Live by the sword - die by it. Brand made a fortune through the media when it shone brightly for him, and now he is paying the piper.

Comparing him to any of us is a false equivalence IMO; what punter would be mad enough to be in the public eye?

Though it appears Brand may have been a punter, he was an out of control addict, so taken leave of his senses.

[lostandfound]

it is a pretty good representation. How big do you think the big pollster outfits like Yougov operate on? They average about 500-1000 for an average opinion poll so 0.4% is pretty representative

umm ... PP will no doubt respond, but there are ~ 685,000 paranoid schizophrenics in the UK. Would they be a representative sample?

[Private Parts]

Except UK population is almost 70 million

What’s a 10 million between punters?
You are still spouting testes.
 

[RedKettle]

Men are under attack, they have been for years.  The feminist movement talk about ‘toxic masculinity’ and try to take down the likes of Andrew Tate and try to push men to be more feminine and support the feminist movement.   PP,  you hide in this forum because if you were open you would be under attack for your views and your sexual expectations.

I think idiots like you are under attack - that is a stupid statement.  By the way Tate is scum.

[timsussex]

it is a pretty good representation. How big do you think the big pollster outfits like Yougov operate on? They average about 500-1000 for an average opinion poll so 0.4% is pretty representative

0.4% can be representative if its a carefully chosen group Yougov will make sure the 1000 contains 510 women and 490 men and the appropriate % of each age group, income group etc

Random samples are never random and if you preselect from a small group it gets even worse. Take the question should prostitution be made illegal?
 Ask here and its 0%, ask people leaving church on sunday 90% -100% if there wives are there !

Actually scrub that now it will be nearer 400 women, 390 women and then we make up the rest with all the other groups which people now "identify as" !

[PumpDump]

On the topic of toxic masculinity which has been mentioned a few times, here is it's definition from a UK school worksheet

"An expression of manhood which depends on being tough, unemotional, strong physically or financially, and powerful at work, in the home, on the pitch, or in the streets. Strength is everything and emotion is weakness".

Does anybody see a problem with this? Don't you think it is a big problem that children are being taught it is negative to be financially successful, or have a strong body, or do well at sports?

I was bemused when a young girl recently, when I told her I don't cry and I believe men should be strong and resilient in times of hardship, said to me "that's toxic masculinity". When I saw that worksheet I then understood how the young people are being brainwashed and society is radically changing on front of our eyes.

[daviemac]

How do you come to that conclusion you idiot?

You are deliberative avoiding answering the simple question both Bigdeb40 and I have asked you. Do you agree with cutting off the income of a person based on unproved allegations?

If anyone's an idiot it's you, I can't make my mind up if you're just being argumentative or you really don't have any understanding of the situation.

The way you are posting comes across as you think companies should be forced to continue financially supporting  him no matter what it might cost them through the public turning against them.

Comparing any 'celebrity' to jo blogs in the street is pointless, those in the public eye are used by companies to promote their products, they are able to do that because they are in the public eye. However if, for whatever reason, they fall from grace companies need to be seen as doing the right thing so they drop them like a hot potato.

Brand has not been stopped from earning money, those who have sponsored him have decided to no longer do so. If he's short of cash he can do what others do and get a job.

BTW posting one sentence from a school worksheet doesn't show any context, the whole idea might have been condemned.

[PumpDump]

If anyone's an idiot it's you, I can't make my mind up if you're just being argumentative or you really don't have any understanding of the situation.

The way you are posting comes across as you think companies should be forced to continue financially supporting  him no matter what it might cost them through the public turning against them.

Comparing any 'celebrity' to jo blogs in the street is pointless, those in the public eye are used by companies to promote their products, they are able to do that because they are in the public eye. However if, for whatever reason, they fall from grace companies need to be seen as doing the right thing so they drop them like a hot potato.

Brand has not been stopped from earning money, those who have sponsored him have decided to no longer do so. If he's short of cash he can do what others do and get a job.

My position is quite simple, I believe in presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. I don't agree with punishment until guilt is proven. If someone is proven guilty I support punishment. I am surprised you can't grasp this simple concept given how clever you think you are.

[daviemac]

My position is quite simple, I believe in presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. I don't agree with punishment until guilt is proven. If someone is proven guilty I support punishment. I am surprised you can't grasp this simple concept given how clever you think you are.

A word of advice, one more personal insult and you will have a holiday and before you say anything I would say the same to you if you were being as insulting to any member.

He is not being punished.

Simple question for you, do you think companies should be forced to continue to support him, or do you think they should have the free choice of who they pay to represent them

[RedKettle]

"An expression of manhood which depends on being tough, unemotional, strong physically or financially, and powerful at work, in the home, on the pitch, or in the streets. Strength is everything and emotion is weakness".

Does anybody see a problem with this? Don't you think it is a big problem that children are being taught it is negative to be financially successful, or have a strong body, or do well at sports?

Perhaps you need to go back to school for english comprehension lessons - that is not what they are saying.  It is not saying that being for example financially successful is a problem it is saying that if you define being a man as being rich (or strong) that is a problem.  You can be a "good" (whatever that means) man without a successful mega paying job.

[chrishornx]

0.4% can be representative if its a carefully chosen group Yougov will make sure the 1000 contains 510 women and 490 men and the appropriate % of each age group, income group etc

Random samples are never random and if you preselect from a small group it gets even worse. Take the question should prostitution be made illegal?
 Ask here and its 0%, ask people leaving church on sunday 90% -100% if there wives are there !

Actually scrub that now it will be nearer 400 women, 390 women and then we make up the rest with all the other groups which people now "identify as" !

agree with all that

 Red bull simply said 0.4% was a good 'representation of men' and therefore women wouldn't be involved in the example he was quoting. I would imagine membership on here covers a wide range of age groups and income, political views, married/unmarried etc. so fairly representative of men as suggested 

[PumpDump]

A word of advice, one more personal insult and you will have a holiday and before you say anything I would say the same to you if you were being as insulting to any member.

He is not being punished.

Simple question for you, do you think companies should be forced to continue to support him, or do you think they should have the free choice of who they pay to represent them

With all due respect I don't like to debate with you as you always pull out the mod banning stick when you are losing the debate.

In answer to your question I think the companies should grow a pair. They should not be so quick to dump somebody without having all the facts on front of them. Of course they can't be forced to continue supporting brand. But how far will it go? Next Visa will be withdrawing payment services from his website. They have done this before. Perhaps his bank account will be closed. Do you agree if it goes that far? Do you think a man should be deprived of his livelihood based on unproven allegations?

[PumpDump]

Perhaps you need to go back to school for english comprehension lessons - that is not what they are saying.  It is not saying that being for example financially successful is a problem it is saying that if you define being a man as being rich (or strong) that is a problem.  You can be a "good" (whatever that means) man without a successful mega paying job.

That doesn't seem to be what the kids are taking home from the lesson. Not crying is toxic masculinity according to them.

[daviemac]

With all due respect I don't like to debate with you as you always pull out the mod banning stick when you are losing the debate.

No, not true, I have never banned anyone for having a different opinion to me, I have however banned those who continue to insult others, there is no need for it.

It does seen that it is you who can't put a logical argument across without getting personal.

I'll ask you again do you think companies should be forced to continue to support him or do you think they should have a free choice of who represents them.

[PumpDump]

No, not true, I have never banned anyone for having a different opinion to me, I have however banned those who continue to insult others, there is no need for it.

It does seen that it is you who can't put a logical argument across without getting personal.

I'll ask you again do you think companies should be forced to continue to support him or do you think they should have a free choice of who represents them.

I edited my last reply to answer your question.

[finn5555]

He's a twat who isn't at all funny and needs a haircut 

The way he behaved towards women on camera it is no surprise these allegations have materialised.

As for companies dropping him, that is their choice at the end of the day, they are protecting their brand as simple as that 

[daviemac]

In answer to your question I think the companies should grow a pair. They should not be so quick to dump somebody without having all the facts on front of them. Of course they can't be forced to continue supporting brand. But how far will it go? Next Visa will be withdrawing payment services from his website. They have done this before. Perhaps his bank account will be closed. Do you agree if it goes that far? Do you think a man should be deprived of his livelihood based on unproven allegations?

The companies who sponsor him and pay him to promote their products are profit based organisations and they will only continue with that for as long as it suits them. It isn't just Brand who this has happened to, any celebrity be it actors footballers or whatever all suffer the same fate if accusations such as these emerge.

Share prices plummet and they suffer huge financial losses over things like this, they have to look after themselves and their shareholders first.

All these celebrities know the score when they jump on the gravy train, they know they don't have job security and can be dumped at any time.

An ordinary worker can be sacked under certain circumstances if they bring the company into disrepute why should those in the public eye be different.

The choice is a very simple one, either you accept a company's right to chose who represents them or you force them into diong it.

[PumpDump]

The companies who sponsor him and pay him to promote their products are profit based organisations and they will only continue with that for as long as it suits them. It isn't just Brand who this has happened to, any celebrity be it actors footballers or whatever all suffer the same fate if accusations such as these emerge.

Share prices plummet and they suffer huge financial losses over things like this, they have to look after themselves and their shareholders first.

All these celebrities know the score when they jump on the gravy train, they know they don't have job security and can be dumped at any time.

An ordinary worker can be sacked under certain circumstances if they bring the company into disrepute why should those in the public eye be different.

The choice is a very simple one, either you accept a company's right to chose who represents them or you force them into diong it.

Yup, tbh I can't argue with you there. I know how the world works and what you wrote is the reality of the western woke world right now, much as I disagree with it.

[RedKettle]

That doesn't seem to be what the kids are taking home from the lesson. Not crying is toxic masculinity according to them.

Perhaps like you, the kids you are talking to need to pay more attention and think more carefully.  As an adult you also have a responsibility to think and then help them understand rather than trying to score anti woke points.

[RedKettle]

In answer to your question I think the companies should grow a pair. They should not be so quick to dump somebody without having all the facts on front of them. Of course they can't be forced to continue supporting brand. But how far will it go? Next Visa will be withdrawing payment services from his website. They have done this before. Perhaps his bank account will be closed. Do you agree if it goes that far? Do you think a man should be deprived of his livelihood based on unproven allegations?

There are serious allegations with a ton of evidence - the firms would be nuts not to back away.  Clearly he has not yet faced his day in court and there is a presumption legally of innocence.  But commercial firms have to protect their brand.

[kuck]

Apologies for a Spectator link, but they seem to have got this right.

External Link/Members Only

Brand insists his relationships have been ‘always consensual’. But it’s the reaction of the people who have leapt to Brand’s defence that seems to me a bigger story, even, than the allegations against Brand.

Brand’s pre-emptive line of defence – he put a video out on his YouTube channel a few hours before the Channel 4 programme went out – appears similar to the one that Donald Trump routinely advances, that the misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate fell back on when clapped in irons, and that the GB News anchor Dan Wootton used when he too was facing allegations – which he denies – of sexual impropriety.

Brand hinted that these were ‘co-ordinated attacks’ by the ‘mainstream media’

For Trump, his criminal prosecution was a politically motivated witch-hunt by the ‘Deep State’; for Tate, sex-trafficking charges in Romania were ‘the Matrix’ coming to get him; for Wootton, this was all happening ‘because GB News is the biggest threat to the establishment in decades and they’ll stop at nothing to destroy us’; and Brand, wondering whether ‘there was another agenda at play’, hinted that these were ‘co-ordinated attacks’ by the ‘mainstream media’

Every conspiracy minded influencer right now
Hidden Image/Members Only

Probably belongs in the joke thread

[timsussex]

I suppose you could think of it as the ultimate trial by your peers
Companies worry about losing business if they associate with a a 'disgraced' personality; if people vote with their feet - or more specifically their wallets - a company could go down the tubes rapidly

Unfortunately 'the great unwashed' don't have the full story and even if they did their prejudices colour their judgement. Half the population of the USA think Trump is a hero and the other half think he is the Devil incarnate - and that certainly isnt because of a shortage of information.

[chrishornx]

Share prices plummet and they suffer huge financial losses over things like this, they have to look after themselves and their shareholders first.

they will be insured if they have any sense

[finn5555]

they will be insured if they have any sense

So how do you insure your share price losses 🤷‍♂️