FabSwingers.com forum: Should the media run the trial?

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The media is a double edged sword. They are disgusting in their disregard of both truth and decency just to get a story. Positively they can be the vehicle for bringing lies and injustice to light.

I agree with you that justice should stay in the courts (though that’s not always right either) but it definitely should not be in the hands of the media

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the Johnny depp case was a bit different because he’d already been found guilty in the uk before the USA case.

They film anything in America so it’s not surprising that court cases get broadcast.

Trial by media tho? Bad thing imo, they’re not the justice system and shouldn’t be acting like they are

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *UGGYBEAR2015Man
over a year ago

BRIDPORT

They say there is a massive backlog in the court system, the answer is simple, give all the case details to the media, get them to publish them and then people can ring in and vote X Factor style, innocent or guilty.

Could save the authorities millions and we all know what excellent judges the British public make.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

At some point we have to have a difficult conversation as a society

Do we want to continue this trend of trial by social media because sometimes victims are afraid to go to the police

Or should these things be kept private until the answer is found in a fair trial

If you want option one, you’ll have to accept the fact that allegations could be weaponised against anyone and their life ruined by a disgruntled partner

If you want option 2 you have to accept that victims will potentially be hurt by this and might not come forward

No answer is the right answer, it’s just what you would prefer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *romleyM41Man
over a year ago

orpington / surrounding

"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

I don’t think the media should have the ability to publish anyone’s name before the person has even been charged let alone tried for the alleged crime. Whatever happens the allegations stick and that can have pretty catastrophic consequences for the person accused. If they are found innocent, they are still tarnished. Not just talking about “famous” people, but anyone being accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial and anonymity until the result is read

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

"The media is a double edged sword. They are disgusting in their disregard of both truth and decency just to get a story. Positively they can be the vehicle for bringing lies and injustice to light.

I agree with you that justice should stay in the courts (though that’s not always right either) but it definitely should not be in the hands of the media

"
I agree with you that the media is that and yes, it should be in the court too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

"At some point we have to have a difficult conversation as a society

Do we want to continue this trend of trial by social media because sometimes victims are afraid to go to the police

Or should these things be kept private until the answer is found in a fair trial

If you want option one, you’ll have to accept the fact that allegations could be weaponised against anyone and their life ruined by a disgruntled partner

If you want option 2 you have to accept that victims will potentially be hurt by this and might not come forward

No answer is the right answer, it’s just what you would prefer."

I would go with option 2, as to me option 2 looks like a choice, I can report this to the police, or I cannot for various reasons.

Option 1 looks like no choice at all for the accused, but again choice for the accuser, as the accuser has a choice of going to the police were a procedure is followed, or going to the press who's procedure is a little different.

but as you say there is no right answer, so needs debate.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ah. This explains why Boris’s racist past wasn’t front page news throughout the last election.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’m kidding by the way.

Or am I.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

[Removed by poster at 21/09/23 09:32:36]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *randMrsLPCouple
over a year ago

london

Not talking about the current sepcualtions. The media has brought to our attention many items that we would not be aware of.

A big item was the covid vaccin and its effectiveness where company shared incorrect data on their presenatation and the media then ivestigated it and the co had to declare they had not provided the full facts re effectivens of a certain dosage which led to them clearing that up

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *addad99Man
over a year ago

Rotherham /newquay

I agree media should keep out of it other than investigating and giving these evidence to the proper authority what really boils my piss is naming the person but the accuser isn't both should be given the same fine if found guilty name them not just because it's a celebrity.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

[Removed by poster at 21/09/23 09:57:43]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't like trial by media, different if we have all the facts but we don't and it's not a fair trial by any means.

Just think of the case of Caroline Flack, we don't know if she was actually guilty or not but the media had their trial and look what happened there.

Danish x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

"I think the Johnny depp case was a bit different because he’d already been found guilty in the uk before the USA case.

They film anything in America so it’s not surprising that court cases get broadcast.

Trial by media tho? Bad thing imo, they’re not the justice system and shouldn’t be acting like they are "
Yes, not by the media and you are right there his case was a bit different as well.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

Media loves the storm it creates, it thrives on it.

Investigative journalism is great, to a point. The individual journalists may care about victims and a cause, but don't be fooled to think that the media as a whole care of anything by how they can keep you focused on them and the things they say. Stiring up whatever they can in ways to have you hungry for more "news". It's a business, not a service.

Celebrity culture mixed with serious issues like this are a gold mine for them. Trial by public opinion is like a junkie hit for them. They love it, the reaction they want.

Trial by public opinion and media is essentially just a form of vigilantism. If justice can't be served by the law, it at least gets served someway I guess. Problem is people can and do lie, so CoPO is just as untrustworthy as some court cases handing out deserving justice.

Both SA and lies about it can and do destroy lives. Most people are too far in to their own opinion that it doesn't matter, their mind is made up. That opinion doesn't change regardless of an outcome from an official police investigation and trial in court. Media's involvement just strengthens this view.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

"Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting."

Couldn't agree more even though I have made a comment, I still agree.

Hopefully i'll remember for the future.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

Indeed BUT there are too many of "us" and some people are too invested in the cause so it will keep popping back up. Then people on both sides see something they don't agree with and have to say something. Thus the wheel spins and the cycle continues.

Neither side is innocent of provking a response and debate. Some even purposely do it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Neither side is innocent of provking a response and debate. Some even purposely do it. "

Yep. I'm not suggesting it can be stopped,its been going on since time immemorial. Only now we have the internet what was previously talked about in the pubs and living rooms among ordinary people is broadcast world wide for everyone to see and comment on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Our legal system has been allowed to become less fit for purpose. Even after many women fall away from the police, regarding r/pe reporting, the horrific police systems we've had, the conversation rate is dismal.

And that's after the CPS have screened cases out.

. There are many reasons why people distrust the system. There's not trial by media of course. But there's much work still to do to get society and the legal system to be fit for purpose.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

Nope but maybe the outcome if convicted rather than the press adding their own opinion

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The media haven’t posted the request by the uk government to (r)umble that they follow YouTube’s line and withdraw the monetisation, it came direct from the culture secretary, regardless of what he’s done guilty or innocent, this is exactly what RB has been spouting on about, gradually freedom is taken away inch by inch, before you know it you can’t say or do anything, it’s already an unfair trial and while I don’t hold much hope for RB as his behaviour is questionable on many counts, just because he has been irresponsible he still is entitled to his rights which is a fair hearing

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *d4fun73Man
over a year ago

Shipley

You want to read the article about tik tok on the bbc!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Ann Boleyn and Richard the Third had a pretty good hatchet job done on them by the media of the day

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Indeed this is my stance too Op.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orny-DJMan
over a year ago

Leigh-on-Sea

"I think the Johnny depp case was a bit different because he’d already been found guilty in the uk before the USA case.

Not quite true. He wasn't on trial. It was a libel case that he had brought against the Sun newspaper. A civil case - where the threshold is much lower - based on balance of probability.

It also later came to light that the Judge in the case had a connection to somebody at the newspaper - which should have been made known at the time and should have excluded her from presiding over it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anderer111Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icolerobbieCouple
over a year ago

walsall

The media has a role to report news. They are not judge and jury.

Fair trials are prejudiced by their reporting sometimes.

Previously, the media in this country hasn’t done it self any favours. They have a holier than thou attitudes but they themselves behave terribly.

Some examples:

News of the world phone hacking.

The sun - Liverpool fans.

BBC Cliff Richard.

That is just a tiny snippet of their behaviour.

Anyone who has seen the reported story of an incident but was actually present when something happened will know just how far off the mark they can be.

So for me, it’s the judiciary to try people based on actual evidence. It might not be perfect, but it’s a country mile and then some ahead of the alternative.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *esYesOMGYes!Man
over a year ago

M20

The feeding frenzy over a technically innocent man is ugly and unjust.

What a shitty aspect of our society.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

Are Cliff Richard,Paul Gambaccinni,Dave Lee Travis,Harvey Proctor,Kevin Spacey etc still tarnished? Alleged victims make allegations not newspapers.If allegations aren't published other victims stay silent,those victims or rather their evidence can be the difference between a predator being caught or being allowed to go on abusing.The media don't run trials or have a say in the outcome of a trial.If they did Spacey would have been found guilty.Its an insult to the intelligence of a jury that they can't tell the difference between evidence and hearsay/unsubstantiated claim,not to mention careful direction by a judge.If a juror in deliberation brings up material they have been instructed to disregard they are reported to the court.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"The feeding frenzy over a technically innocent man is ugly and unjust.

What a shitty aspect of our society."

Its not just him people are being ugly and unjust about.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

"The media haven’t posted the request by the uk government to (r)umble that they follow YouTube’s line and withdraw the monetisation, it came direct from the culture secretary, regardless of what he’s done guilty or innocent, this is exactly what RB has been spouting on about, gradually freedom is taken away inch by inch, before you know it you can’t say or do anything, it’s already an unfair trial and while I don’t hold much hope for RB as his behaviour is questionable on many counts, just because he has been irresponsible he still is entitled to his rights which is a fair hearing "

I didn't know that, if that is true and I have no reason to doubt it is, then RB was correct well not RB but his YouTube followers.

They warned him, I read the comments over time again and again.

that either big phama, or this government would be out to get him.

I think the irony of this situation is that they have taken his own admissions and weaponised them against him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Has Russell Brand been prevented from broadcasting on YouTube? If so o haven't heard. His right to speak freely hasn't been removed. His ability to monetise that on some platforms has.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *pen2UMan
over a year ago

Telford

You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nightsoftheCoffeeTableCouple
over a year ago

Leeds

Absolutely this, if the people didn't react and become judge & jury then these "trials by media" actually "trials by public" wouldn't continue.

Mrs

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Has Russell Brand been prevented from broadcasting on YouTube? If so o haven't heard. His right to speak freely hasn't been removed. His ability to monetise that on some platforms has. "

YouTube have decided to remove his ability to profiting from his videos while still profiting from them itself

Seems hypocritical to me

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel "

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

It's not what you know but what you can prove in court.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The main problem we have is the media report SOME fact. They never tell us the whole story.

BTW, did they report fact when they were talking about Farage and his bank account?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think the Johnny depp case was a bit different because he’d already been found guilty in the uk before the USA case.

They film anything in America so it’s not surprising that court cases get broadcast.

Trial by media tho? Bad thing imo, they’re not the justice system and shouldn’t be acting like they are "

Agreed...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"Has Russell Brand been prevented from broadcasting on YouTube? If so o haven't heard. His right to speak freely hasn't been removed. His ability to monetise that on some platforms has.

YouTube have decided to remove his ability to profiting from his videos while still profiting from them itself

Seems hypocritical to me "

I thought if he didn't profit neither did they

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK."

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

"The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact."

There is more to it than that

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Has Russell Brand been prevented from broadcasting on YouTube? If so o haven't heard. His right to speak freely hasn't been removed. His ability to monetise that on some platforms has.

YouTube have decided to remove his ability to profiting from his videos while still profiting from them itself

Seems hypocritical to me

I thought if he didn't profit neither did they "

They still profit from people visiting the site

I’d be much more happier if they took all the revenue from those clicks and sent it to a charity that helps victims

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The main problem we have is the media report SOME fact. They never tell us the whole story.

BTW, did they report fact when they were talking about Farage and his bank account?"

The Farage situation was bias within some,not all,elements of print and broadcast media,which was predictable.The usual suspects,the Broken Biscuit Corporation and the Grauniad(Guardian- the Beano for the pretentious fake intellectual)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So far they have only reported fact, not delivered or presumed guilt."

I agree that legal professionals will most likely have poured over what has been published/ broadcast so far… but that is very limited.

Ultimately, it is a judge or court that defines what is factual. Facts are established by following the evidence. In the case of the media reporting, will they have had access to RB’s side of the story? Most likely not, so it becomes one sided. And opinions are not facts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty.

You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The main problem we have is the media report SOME fact. They never tell us the whole story.

BTW, did they report fact when they were talking about Farage and his bank account?

I agree. I just disagree that media only present facts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact.

There is more to it than that "

No there isn't.Print/broadcast something that isn't true(against a person) = Libel

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icolerobbieCouple
over a year ago

walsall

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact."

Then the whole media is continuously libellous.

There’s much more to it that that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"So far they have only reported fact, not delivered or presumed guilt.

I agree that legal professionals will most likely have poured over what has been published/ broadcast so far… but that is very limited.

Is it an opinion that four women have made allegations about Brand?It is those allegations that are the foundation of the story.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact.

There is more to it than that

No there isn't.Print/broadcast something that isn't true(against a person) = Libel"

Well since it’s only allegations that haven’t been proven true, I’d guess they have committed libel

But that’s not how the libel laws work. It’s not as simple as that

“ Libel in the UK refers to a form of defamation, which is the communication of false statements about someone that harm their reputation. Libel specifically pertains to written or published defamatory statements, including those made in newspapers, books, online content, or other written forms. To establish a libel claim in the UK, a plaintiff typically needs to prove that the statement is false, damaging to their reputation, and that it was published to a third party. Additionally, there is generally a requirement that the publisher acted negligently or with actual malice. UK libel laws have been the subject of significant reform, and they place a strong emphasis on protecting freedom of expression while also safeguarding individuals' reputations.”

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty.

You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'."

He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact.

Then the whole media is continuously libellous.

There’s much more to it that that."

It's getting silly now...

The times wrote "four women have alleged"

That is factually correct. It doesn't mean those allegations are true.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty.

You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'.

He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun. "

He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

Indeed this is my stance too Op.

"
Hi becs, that is good I also agree with that, sometimes it is good to comment on how wrong they are too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact.

Then the whole media is continuously libellous.

There’s much more to it that that.

It's getting silly now...

The times wrote "four women have alleged"

That is factually correct. It doesn't mean those allegations are true. "

Ah that makes sense, thought they meant fact as in they know for a fact he’s done it

Cheers for cheering it up

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact.

Then the whole media is continuously libellous.

There’s much more to it that that.

It's getting silly now...

The times wrote "four women have alleged"

That is factually correct. It doesn't mean those allegations are true.

Ah that makes sense, thought they meant fact as in they know for a fact he’s done it

Cheers for cheering it up

That's my take on it. I may be wrong though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media...

Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence.

The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact

The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel

Libel is reporting something that isn't fact.

There is more to it than that

No there isn't.Print/broadcast something that isn't true(against a person) = Libel

Well since it’s only allegations that haven’t been proven true, I’d guess they have committed libel

But that’s not how the libel laws work. It’s not as simple as that

The press haven't made the allegations four alleged victims have,the press reporting that is not libel because the press have passed no judgement on the validity of the allegations.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty.

You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'.

He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun.

He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled. "

He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty.

You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'.

He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun.

He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled.

He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case. "

I'm confused

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty.

You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'.

He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun.

He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled.

He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case. "

Why are you arguing?

What he said was factually correct. Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

You accused him of lying about it, maybe you should just swallow this one and apologise.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In the UK civil court system, the terms "guilty" and "not guilty" are typically associated with criminal cases, not civil cases. In a civil case, the parties involved are generally referred to as the "claimant" (the person bringing the lawsuit) and the "defendant" (the person being sued). Instead of "guilty" or "not guilty," the outcomes in civil cases are typically described as a judgment for the claimant or a judgment for the defendant.

While technically right that you can’t be guilty in a civil case, it’s extremely pedantic and immature to bicker over semantics rather than the point itself. We all know what is meant by guilty or not guilty regarding a civil case even if those terms aren’t used officially

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asterR and slut mayaMan
over a year ago

Bradford

I believe its wrong and shouldnt be broadcast or really commented about until the person been arrested gone to trail and found guilty or innocent .but that's not the world we life in and we are all guilty into buying into the media and commenting as our

Lovely forum moderator has said .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The media are doing what they do every day. Publishing allegations, facts and opinions. How is that putting someone on trial?

Caroline Dineage (Minister for Digital and Culture) has vastly overstepped her role by writing to Rumble about Brand. Utterly wrong thing to do to someone who is not even charged with a crime.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty.

You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'.

He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun.

He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled.

He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case.

Why are you arguing?

What he said was factually correct. Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

You accused him of lying about it, maybe you should just swallow this one and apologise. "

Nope

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By * and R cple4Couple
over a year ago

swansea

"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case.

That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty.

You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'.

He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun.

He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled.

He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case.

Why are you arguing?

What he said was factually correct. Depp had not been found guilty in the UK.

You accused him of lying about it, maybe you should just swallow this one and apologise. "
Didn’t you know some people are always right ! Even when their wrong

….Some people just get caught up in all the drama they are emotionally invested due to past experiences which taints their thought process.

Even when people are found not guilty their guilty anyway ..Trial by social media is wrong but sadly it’s the norm now …

He will never get a fair trial anyway that’s even if it goes to trial as let’s be honest I’m not sure how they could ever prove anything their was drugs alcohol orgies women throwing themselves at him constantly ..

I don’t think any trial should ever be put on tv it just don’t sit right with me ..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *TG3Man
over a year ago

Dorchester

"The media is a double edged sword. They are disgusting in their disregard of both truth and decency just to get a story. Positively they can be the vehicle for bringing lies and injustice to light.

I agree with you that justice should stay in the courts (though that’s not always right either) but it definitely should not be in the hands of the media

"
yes i agree

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

Think you're slightly conflating two things. I can't see how we expect newspapers not to report things like this. It's a big story. I don't think any of us want to live in a world where the freedom of the press is constrained, but that means they have leeway, even if we don't always like what they write (or choose not to cover, to Steve's point).

If a criminal trial follows any media stories, it's for the judge and jury to decide on the facts presented, irrespective of what they've seen or heard in the media. I personally don't think that's impossible.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He can still get a fair trial. Evidence is presented and judged, and only the evidence presented can be judged, not a person’s profile. Any past sexual history beyond what is presented is not applicable.

In all cases like this, it hangs on wether consent was given and maintained for the duration of any sexual activity.

Of course the thorny issues around abuse of power and privilege, not to mention if those involved were in a position where consent could be given. It’s why these things are best trialled in court rather than the media.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

In all cases like this, it hangs on wether consent was given and maintained for the duration of any sexual activity.

The trial would be fair. The problem is and will always be, people. After a trail and a verdict of guilty/not guilty there will be those that can't accept the outcome and will continue to champion their original stance with lots of excuses and "reasons". Both sides!

If Brand got a guilty verdict, his supporters would continue on with the "out to get him" chant.

If Brand got a not guilty verdict, you will have some continue to shout that doesn't mean he didn't do those things. They won't accept maybe these women lied. The system let them down etc etc

In the case of him being not guilty (regardless of truth or not) that stigma sticks and there will be those that will continue to treat him as if he were guilty. If he did it, I have no sympathy for him or anything that comes his way. But if he didn't, it is still an accusation that sticks around in the minds of some people and I sympathise greatly for that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct?

If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely.

Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time.

when one is not aware then any story will do.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct?

when one is not aware then any story will do."

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asterR and slut mayaMan
over a year ago

Bradford

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. "

I'm not up with news how are the government invoiled in this case .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. "

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The letter sent to rumble

Chris Pavlovski

Chief Executive Officer

Rumble

By email

20 September 2023

Dear Chris,

I am writing concerning the serious allegations regarding Russell Brand, in the context of his being a content provider on Rumble with more than 1.4 million followers.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today.

However, we are also looking at his use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches. While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.

We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.

We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

Canthe Drage

Dame Caroline Dinenage DBE MP

Chair, Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Rumble responds

While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, r*pe, 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 monetizing 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 our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our 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.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government."

Apologies. Chair of select committee, not Govt.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

Personally, I think that the press should be banned from making criminal allegations, they should give all "evidence" to the police. There is no way that a fair trial is remotely possible after this media lynching.

Cal

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Apologies. Chair of select committee, not Govt. "

Your point stands though (I was actually referring to the poster you were replying to).

I don't think she should have written - let the companies reach their own decisions - as I agree it gives ammunition to those who believe it's "The establishment vs Freedom Fighter Brand".

But obviously important for people not to suggest the government is doing anything when it's not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ersiantugMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

Private businesses 'demonetising' famous people living through scandals before a trial is nothing new!

Nor is such heavy media attention to public scandals.

I find that how far people get upset by the media usually depends on where they stand on the issue!

(I didn't see many right-wing people get too upset over Jeremy Corbyn being labelled as antisemitic for example - which happened before any Starmerite trials.)

I think that people today can have such a dangerous lack of knowledge of the past, or they often have a re-branded knowledge if you like. I think the sheer extent of that ignorance - despite all the info we can access today - actually *is* quite a new thing. Misinformation is now a truly a global thing.

I was reading about Doctor Doolittle in work (a 1980's Daily Mail Classics Edition censured with their knowledge!). Societies have adapted to be 'politically correct' since the dawn of society itself! For good or bad we've been carefully 'adapting' classic children's fiction since the war for example, but we talk about that kind of thing as if it's started today. Shakespeare was censored for half of his posthumous life.

What's happening to Brand is nothing new. There was no 'free' past - people simply have more freedoms now than they have ever had before.

Regarding Russel Brand, in fairness to the press he has been openly misogynistic for years (just cleverly and charismatically covering himself like they all do) - now this is happened they are trying to redress the fact that they didn't really call him up on much before it seems to me.

That might be a bit naff, but it's hardly 'wrong' - or some kind of modern-day PC crime.

RE the trial, wait and see.

Yes it's wrong to describe him in any way as legally 'guilty' obviously, but he can potentially sue influential players for damages if it's shown in court they got it wrong, so I doubt that too many people are tripping up that badly over this.

An issue for the media can at times be to not actually 'spoil' the trail, which afaik is mainly when a public jury is involved.

Meanwhile Russel Brand will be loving all the attention her gets, it also seems to me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Apologies. Chair of select committee, not Govt.

Your point stands though (I was actually referring to the poster you were replying to).

I don't think she should have written - let the companies reach their own decisions - as I agree it gives ammunition to those who believe it's "The establishment vs Freedom Fighter Brand".

But obviously important for people not to suggest the government is doing anything when it's not."

Fully agree, I'm usually the first one to point something like that out. Momentary lapse in concentration. Hopefully it's clear now that it wasn't the Govt who got involved.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ersiantugMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

Cal

I don't agree with any of that, or any same thoughts expressed throughout this thread.

1) I'm not fan of modern media, but we *need* it to publish people's opinions, including that of other people's alleged guilt! We cannot leave everything to 'the officials'. We have to have a free press, we just need to keep it in check.

2) The media do take things to the police and it's a crime not to (though maybe they could be held to account more when they don't imo.)

3) It *is* still possible to have a fair trial! It's happened countless times in the past, and it's what the whole legal cavalcade is designed to deal with. It's quite rare when trials are truly scuppered.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asterR and slut mayaMan
over a year ago

Bradford

"Rumble responds

Thanks for that brillent update .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icolerobbieCouple
over a year ago

walsall

I don’t know about the government, but it looks like Caroline Dinenagw is fuelling the RB cancel believers.

She wrote the letter on a House of Commons letterhead.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mf123Man
over a year ago

with one foot out the door

I find it funny that the copper who was charged with murder had there name kept out of the press yet other peoples names can be dragged thru the mud on the strength of an allegation let alone a charge funny old world

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

"Rumble responds

Rumbles response is a sweet f$uk you.

And it is Rumble saying 'The UK Parliament's demands', The culture media is a department of government, or Parliament if you wish.

This doesn't feed into conspiracy, as it was foretold long, long long time ago by his followers who were concerned, as other you tubers have been demonetised, and even there platforms removed.

I know this as I watched some of his videos, and read the comments not all were favourable.

RB is through now, they have shut his mouth, took away his income and his future, if he didn't have a family I would be concerned for his wellbeing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

Cal

I don't agree with any of that, or any same thoughts expressed throughout this thread.

2) The media do take things to the police and it's a crime not to (though maybe they could be held to account more when they don't imo.)

pt"

Not at the expense of justice! The job of the press is to report the "News", by reporting "unproven" accusations, they could actually prevent any sort of conviction and "if" he is innocent, they have ruined his life & career.

There have been far to many occasions where the press have made sensational claims that turned out to be totally untrue, printed names and pictures of innocent people who have gone on to be victimised, assaulted & even take their own lives... all because the "press" got it wrong.

Surely we are all entitled to "innocent until proven guilty"? Regardless of how famous we are, or how unpleasant a person we are... it's a basic human right.

Cal

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government."

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? "

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

The tipping point for me is whether or not a store is being published in the public interest rather than pure gossip.

This one clearly passed the threshold, and I am fine with the findings being published

If it wasn’t for journalism like this, bill Cosby would never have been brought to justice, for example, and Watergate case would never have seen the light of day.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

It's disgusting and ruins chance of a fair trial.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

Cal

I don't agree with any of that, or any same thoughts expressed throughout this thread.

2) The media do take things to the police and it's a crime not to (though maybe they could be held to account more when they don't imo.)

pt"

All agreed.

And yes, press do take their findings to police. Some posters seem to suggest that that is all they should do, do the investigative work, hand over their findings and publish nothing. But press aren’t some sort of free investigative service, investigative work has to be financially viable.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

It's disgusting and ruins chance of a fair trial. "

No it doesn’t, as the Spacey case proves.

Sad that you have so little faith in the court system

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

To answer the original question, no, the media should not run the trial. But they should absolutely be allowed to shine a light on criminal behaviour.

The press has a vital role in challenging power, authority, the legal system etc. For those who say that everything should be left to the legal process, the press have also been instrumental in highlighting many miscarriages of justice … should they have sat back and done nothing in those cases too?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *Cocksucker84Man
over a year ago

newcastle

It's funny though, isn't it? Because the RB fans are trying to argue that the reason he's being targetted is because he was using his youtube page to expose what he saw was illegal practices being carried out by the government and the mainstream media... the very one he himself made a lot of money from being part of. So he was using a 'media' platform to report on issues and to apparently expose corruption.

However, when it flips and he's accused of these crimes, they're now saying the media has no business getting involved in or reporting on illegal things because it could taint court proceedings. So which of the two is it? They shouldn't report on things that are illegal or they should? Because it cannot be both.

And just to clarify, government corruption, and the historical sex crimes of entertainers are both in the public interest. We shouldn't dismiss one just because we might like what someone says.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"I agree media should keep out of it other than investigating and giving these evidence to the proper authority what really boils my piss is naming the person but the accuser isn't both should be given the same fine if found guilty name them not just because it's a celebrity."

So you are saying that investigative journalists should not be allowed to publish their findings.

That would kill investigative journalism overnight, which would be disastrous.

Daniel kinahan has never been found guilty of a crime. Your proposal would mean that he and his family were still able to operate without hindrance. Thanks to the press, that is not the case.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"It's funny though, isn't it? Because the RB fans are trying to argue that the reason he's being targetted is because he was using his youtube page to expose what he saw was illegal practices being carried out by the government and the mainstream media... the very one he himself made a lot of money from being part of. So he was using a 'media' platform to report on issues and to apparently expose corruption.

And just to clarify, government corruption, and the historical sex crimes of entertainers are both in the public interest. We shouldn't dismiss one just because we might like what someone says. "

Agreed. I also find it hugely self-serving that Brand has recast himself as someone who decries the “MSM”, having built his fame and fortune there. Now that he no longer wants to use those broadcasters and has built different lucrative outlets for himself, he pretends he wasn’t part of the MSM himself.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt. "

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. "

I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case".

but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too.

What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome?

In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court.

There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty

The tipping point for me is whether or not a store is being published in the public interest rather than pure gossip.

This one clearly passed the threshold, and I am fine with the findings being published

If it wasn’t for journalism like this, bill Cosby would never have been brought to justice, for example, and Watergate case would never have seen the light of day. "

I see BC as the flip side, he has been accused by a load of women since 1965, yes 1965 most stating the same MO, he usually tried to drug these women, before SA.

So it took 50 plus years to convict him, he served 3 years and his conviction was overturned.

This surprised me even though I am a fan, I still thought what the hell.

The supreme court turned down his request to look into his case which says a lot to me.

BC followed the narrative of Hollywood made people a lot of money and was friends with powerful people.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ou only live onceMan
over a year ago

London

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in.

No. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the government. They have not said anything about RB.

The Culture, Media and Sport committee scrutinises the work of the above government department. It's made up of MPs, but is not the government, and is not actually responsible for anything. The Chair has written to social media companies, wrongly in my view, but she's entitled to, especially if she felt the media organisations involved had not acted properly or to understand what they were doing. But the government has not done or said anything.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in.

Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

During my research on RB I came across different view, I do not think I can post the link as there is advertising, but I went to YouTube and searched 'here's what really going on with Russell brand'

it is a commentator explaining were RB fits in with a certain culture, from their view.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lym4realCouple
over a year ago

plymouth

With the likes of Brand and co the old saying "Live by the sword....." he was more than happy to make his millions using the "Media" he now apparently despises but still uses and the amusing thing is ? or is it the irony ? of his stance and others like him without some kind of mass media the powerful/rich/leaders will have no one to try to hold them to account and expose the corruption ?? and so the very thing they reckon is happening will happen ? and just look at the countries where press freedom is under attack or severely limited ( Russia/Saudi Arabia/Brazil/Poland etc etc ) and so him and his fan base whinging about ......i suggest they bugger off and go and live in some of these countries ..xxx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in.

Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations. "

The reporter of this story has been interviewed by C4, it is a years worth of investigation taken over 4 years, the reporter was also required to undertake other stories such as the pandemic, please watch the C4 news on catch up to see what I saw.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

" With the likes of Brand and co the old saying "Live by the sword....." he was more than happy to make his millions using the "Media" he now apparently despises but still uses and the amusing thing is ? or is it the irony ? of his stance and others like him without some kind of mass media the powerful/rich/leaders will have no one to try to hold them to account and expose the corruption ?? and so the very thing they reckon is happening will happen ? and just look at the countries where press freedom is under attack or severely limited ( Russia/Saudi Arabia/Brazil/Poland etc etc ) and so him and his fan base whinging about ......i suggest they bugger off and go and live in some of these countries ..xxx

There is another saying "you have to be in it to win or know it"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

[Removed by poster at 22/09/23 11:57:53]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in.

Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations.

Yeah, a 4 year investigation, like I said. Not full time, perfectly natural that reporters work on multiple stories, but conducted over a 4 year period. Thanks

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too."

He may not even be charged with anything.

If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in.

Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations.

Yeah, a 4 year investigation, like I said. Not full time, perfectly natural that reporters work on multiple stories, but conducted over a 4 year period. Thanks "

To argue the point I made you will need to watch the actual interview with the reporter, and not throw a sound bite without the actual context, also "if you can't say nothing nice...." in other words no need to be rube I haven't been to you.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

A sole judge won't be pressured unless they are generally corrupt to begin with. Social media and mainstream media won't influence their decision.

Jury is a different matter, it depends on who is actually picked. Are they biased and fair to beginnwith, some people are. There are people that take it seriously, some will go with whatever just to get it over with. Media will influence some of them however, it just depends.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Our legal system may not be without flaws, but it is a whole lot better than you suggest, and well beyond media influence.

But let’s be clear, so far no charges have been brought on RB, just accusations. The threshold for charges is high, as these type of cases are difficult to prosecute with a low conviction rate.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

Our legal system may not be without flaws, but it is a whole lot better than you suggest, and well beyond media influence.

But let’s be clear, so far no charges have been brought on RB, just accusations. The threshold for charges is high, as these type of cases are difficult to prosecute with a low conviction rate."

Its not judges people worry about being influenced. Its jury members.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

He may not even be charged with anything.

If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. "
I also think that he wont be charged with anything either and yes, the alegations are very hard to prove, if anything actually happened at all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

One last thing, The Online Harm Bill has been passed this week, and is awaiting Royal Ascension, so will be law next week or soon in the future.

Just in case RB has had you looking another way or waived you attention from politics.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in.

Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations.

Yeah, a 4 year investigation, like I said. Not full time, perfectly natural that reporters work on multiple stories, but conducted over a 4 year period. Thanks

I wasn’t rude. In fact, I was very polite.

But we are agreed, a detailed investigation took place over a 4 year period.

Thanks

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

A sole judge won't be pressured unless they are generally corrupt to begin with. Social media and mainstream media won't influence their decision.

You seek to have a very poor view of the jury system. In practice, it works pretty well. It’s not just a bunch of twits who have read stuff online and made up their minds before hearing the evidence in court.

Also. He hasn’t been charged with anything.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

He may not even be charged with anything.

If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. I also think that he wont be charged with anything either and yes, the alegations are very hard to prove, if anything actually happened at all."

Agreed. And r we may see a civil case, like with trump / Carroll

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

when one is not aware then any story will do.

The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him.

The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government.

Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved?

She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee.

That was my bad for saying Govt.

Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in.

Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations.

Yeah, a 4 year investigation, like I said. Not full time, perfectly natural that reporters work on multiple stories, but conducted over a 4 year period. Thanks

I wasn’t rude. In fact, I was very polite.

But we are agreed, a detailed investigation took place over a 4 year period.

Thanks "

watch the interview on c4 catch up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ersiantugMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

He may not even be charged with anything.

If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. I also think that he wont be charged with anything either and yes, the alegations are very hard to prove, if anything actually happened at all.

Agreed. And r we may see a civil case, like with trump / Carroll

If that's the verdict that's the verdict, but it will certainly be fair.

To the OP (of this post too), I've actually been screwed by the justice system, but I was totally small fry and my case was indeed pre-decided (if i had the money...)

The greater the light, the greater the intensity though, aand the higher the professionalism and scrutiny etc involved.

One thing is forever true too... People in the dock are always complaining of preconceived justice and conspiratorial factors. They often actually want and need the media to convey this too.

So pressure can work both ways!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ittlebirdWoman
over a year ago

The Big Smoke

No.

Will they though? Probably

This is why I don’t watch the news. At all

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ersiantugMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

"No.

Will they though? Probably

This is why I don’t watch the news. At all

You must get it from somewhere though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ittlebirdWoman
over a year ago

The Big Smoke

"No.

Will they though? Probably

This is why I don’t watch the news. At all

You must get it from somewhere though"

Oh here and there… you know. I have my sources

FFS

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aitonelMan
over a year ago

Travelling

A sole judge won't be pressured unless they are generally corrupt to begin with. Social media and mainstream media won't influence their decision.

Also. He hasn’t been charged with anything. "

Oh I don't seek, I have a poor view. But not of the jury system but people in general.

Some people do and will go with anything if it gets a verdict over with quickly. People can be and are manipulated and influenced by lots of things, consciously or subconsciously.

I didn't say he has been charged. It's hypothetical.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No.

Will they though? Probably

This is why I don’t watch the news. At all "

What about reading it, though? I rarely watch the news, I find it much easier to stay detached reading it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

"Kevin Spacey won't get a fair trial,the media have branded him guilty" Kevin Spacey-Not Guilty,jury decision not judges direction or trial collapse.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *immyinreadingMan
over a year ago

henley on thames

A sole judge won't be pressured unless they are generally corrupt to begin with. Social media and mainstream media won't influence their decision.

Also. He hasn’t been charged with anything.

Oh I don't seek, I have a poor view. But not of the jury system but people in general.

Some people do and will go with anything if it gets a verdict over with quickly. People can be and are manipulated and influenced by lots of things, consciously or subconsciously.

I didn't say he has been charged. It's hypothetical. "

My view of the jury system is quite different. If anything, I feel that people are found not guilty more often than they should, rather than lazy juries having made up their minds and not bothering to listen to evidence like you suggest. The burden of proof is very high.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Kevin Spacey won't get a fair trial,the media have branded him guilty" Kevin Spacey-Not Guilty,jury decision not judges direction or trial collapse."

But do people believe he's innocent? Will he be allowed to continue his acting career as it was before the allegations?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

He may not even be charged with anything.

If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. I also think that he wont be charged with anything either and yes, the alegations are very hard to prove, if anything actually happened at all.

Agreed. And r we may see a civil case, like with trump / Carroll "
Yes, we may see that, usually these kind of allegations comes up when they are height at their fame as well.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *itonthesideWoman
over a year ago

Glasgow

Cal

I don't agree with any of that, or any same thoughts expressed throughout this thread.

2) The media do take things to the police and it's a crime not to (though maybe they could be held to account more when they don't imo.)

Surely we are all entitled to "innocent until proven guilty"? Regardless of how famous we are, or how unpleasant a person we are... it's a basic human right.

Cal"

The media have not reported him as guilty , they have reported him as accused.

If the reader assumes guilt then that is where we have a breakdown of innocent til proven guilty

None of this is a new concept either. Even without social media or the main stream media a rumour can go round a local area and people will naturally form an opinion on it. The only difference is the scale of that now.

And at what point do we say live by the sword die by the sword. If you make your living in the media of course they are going to continue to take an interest in you. Whereas if it was me or you we wouldn’t merit 2 column inches.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread