Russell Brand

[HeHasRisen]

The issue is clearly relevant, you have a national government committee writing to media outlets asking them to censor a man (name as per thread title) who, as of the time of this post, hasn't been found guilty or admitted to a single thing. 

 

It's utterly disgusting. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[Al Bundy]

2 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

How ?  Have they been abusing schoolgirls too ?

Anyone  discussing Rumble instead of  Brand  ( the topic of the thread )

Of course it is.  I like to see the blame put where it belongs.

 

What on earth are you blabbering on about?

 

Rumble is relevant to this thread because it's in the news that they have refused the request by the government to pull Brand off their platform.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Al Bundy

[Guest]

1 hour ago, HeHasRisen said:

The issue is clearly relevant, you have a national government committee writing to media outlets asking them to censor a man (name as per thread title) who, as of the time of this post, hasn't been found guilty or admitted to a single thing. 

 

It's utterly disgusting. 

Correct but,  as you have said,  they are  "asking" and if you ask somebody to do something,  they can say no.

The argument is still about Brand and not Rumble and would be better if it was sorted quickly before it envelopes every branch of the media in "are  they misogynists"  rows.

 

[Al Bundy]

4 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Correct but,  as you have said,  they are  "asking" and if you ask somebody to do something,  they can say no.

The argument is still about Brand and not Rumble and would be better if it was sorted quickly before it envelopes every branch of the media in "are  they misogynists"  rows.

 

Anyone?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

What on earth are you blabbering on about?

 

Rumble is relevant to this thread because it's in the news that they have refused the request by the government to pull Brand off their platform.

That's fine in my opinion,  so they should no longer be relevant unless you want to take that further with the government.

I still suspect that the idea is to divert the thread away from Brand.

As long as we know whether we are debating Brand ( on the Brand thread ),  or Rumble ( on the Brand thread ).

 

[Al Bundy]

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

That's fine in my opinion,  so they should no longer be relevant unless you want to take that further with the government.

I still suspect that the idea is to divert the thread away from Brand.

As long as we know whether we are debating Brand ( on the Brand thread ),  or Rumble ( on the Brand thread ).

 

I think Rumble in the jungle was less painful than this.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy said:

I think Rumble in the jungle was less painful than this.

It probably was in view of the fact that Rumble was asked to do something and said no.  I expected that would be the end of it.

The thread is concerning Brand     and     did he do what is alleged  or didn't he       -       whatever Rumble do or don't do,  does not make the slightest bit of difference to that.

Some slow comprehension tonight.

[cressida]

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

I think Rumble in the jungle was less painful than this.

Rumble is everywhere!!!!

[HeHasRisen]

25 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Correct but,  as you have said,  they are  "asking" and if you ask somebody to do something,  they can say no

They shouldn't even be getting involved tbf. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said:

They shouldn't even be getting involved tbf. 

TBH I don't know what they are involved in or why.  My interest is only whether Brand is being blamed fairly or unfairly.

Makes the argument a little less complicated.