4 ms·

> But don't nuke anyone before the court says "guilty." Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a

> But don't nuke anyone before the court says "guilty." Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law. However, there is quite reasonable circumstantial evidence that he's guilty - five or six serious allegations from independent women, which multiple news organisations have assessed and found credible. There's also been a fresh look at his behaviour with activities which I don't believe have been contested - like having an affair with a 16-year old when he was 30. He doesn't need to be found guilty for advertisers to decide that kind of odious behaviour is something that they don't want to be associated with. What's the alternative? Legally force YouTube to give him a platform and lose revenue?

tamimio 3y ago
> Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law. I don’t get this part, so assuming he found guilty, and now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work because he found guilty on something, you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there, or not accessing YT if it was used as a platform for those allegations, remember, law is flawed too and full loopholes and not perfect, and there are so many cases of false court outcomes.
- chimprich 3y ago
  > now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! I don't believe any country guarantees a right to be given work. > He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work Yes, he's a public figure, but so what? No one is denying him a right to seek work, but equally organisations are free to decline to work with him. Why should Brand have a right to millions of pounds of revenue from a Youtube channel? I don't. > you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there You think if multiple credible witnesses accused a doctor of sexual abuse he should be free to carry on medical practice as long as he does it at a different hospital?

tamimio 3y ago

> Well - up to a point. I certainly don't think we should lock up Mr. Brand unless he's found guilty in a court of law. I don’t get this part, so assuming he found guilty, and now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work because he found guilty on something, you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there, or not accessing YT if it was used as a platform for those allegations, remember, law is flawed too and full loopholes and not perfect, and there are so many cases of false court outcomes.

chimprich 3y ago
> now we deny him work, the basic human rights?! I don't believe any country guarantees a right to be given work. > He is a public figure, he lives on being public, deny him that is like denying a doctor or an engineer the right to work Yes, he's a public figure, but so what? No one is denying him a right to seek work, but equally organisations are free to decline to work with him. Why should Brand have a right to millions of pounds of revenue from a Youtube channel? I don't. > you might only deny him working on an X hospital if the incident happened there You think if multiple credible witnesses accused a doctor of sexual abuse he should be free to carry on medical practice as long as he does it at a different hospital?