2 ms·

> 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 f

> 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?