58 ms·

Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermi

Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system itself. It's a thumb on the scale. These people believe in nothing.

KaiserPro 3y ago
> Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defence is not how the uk courts work(ed) thats what legal aid is for. granted in practice now its not the case, but for any crown court there is still legal aid for most cases.
- bensecure 3y ago
  "thats what legal aid is for" - public defenders are famously underpaid and overworked in most environs. If you rely on them for your defense it will be very poor.
- AYBABTME 3y ago
  That's a ridiculous fallback to the actual problem: preemptively cutting someone's livelihood ahead of a battle. An alternative: let's send the defendant to public housing before they head to court. They'll still have a roof over their head!
  - georgespencer 3y ago
    Almost as ridiculous as trying to argue that anyone in this situation is "preemptively cutting someone's livelihood ahead of a battle". If you read the letter and believe that the government is requesting, or that X and Rumble are agreeing to, the de-monetisation of Brand's content, then we should address a reading comprehension challenge. If you can see that this -- "preemptively cutting someone's livelihood" -- is definitely not happening, then I would encourage you to more precisely convey what you mean, because this attempt almost perfectly expresses the opposite of reality.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Did you just say legal aid with a straight face?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
georgespencer 3y ago
> cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system If that were happening you'd be right! But the good news is, since apparently you haven't read or understood the link you're commenting on, neither X, nor the politicians in question, is doing that. Or put another way: the premise you lead with is false. Try again.
- motohagiography 3y ago
  All I see in this is a "your wrong!" argument. What is the counterpoint?
  - georgespencer 3y ago
    That the situation you describe, in which "those people" (Rumble, X, DCMS), either demonetized or solicited the demonetizing of Russell Brand's content. That did not happen, as the original link sets out very clearly.
    - motohagiography 3y ago
      For clarity: > Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian. In addition to the article linked within the article that details the letter Dame Dinenage sent to other platforms asking whether they would demonetize him, with the implication it was the governments strong preference. Consider whether your comments improve the discourse or undermine it.
      - georgespencer 3y ago
        Just lol @ thinking that this statement: > Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system itself. It's a thumb on the scale. These people believe in nothing. Is supported by this citation: > Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian. You said: > cutting them off from their ability to make money What happened: > expressing apprehensions Consider whether your comments reflect reality or undermine it ;)

KaiserPro 3y ago

> Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defence is not how the uk courts work(ed) thats what legal aid is for. granted in practice now its not the case, but for any crown court there is still legal aid for most cases.

bensecure 3y ago
"thats what legal aid is for" - public defenders are famously underpaid and overworked in most environs. If you rely on them for your defense it will be very poor.
AYBABTME 3y ago
That's a ridiculous fallback to the actual problem: preemptively cutting someone's livelihood ahead of a battle. An alternative: let's send the defendant to public housing before they head to court. They'll still have a roof over their head!
- georgespencer 3y ago
  Almost as ridiculous as trying to argue that anyone in this situation is "preemptively cutting someone's livelihood ahead of a battle". If you read the letter and believe that the government is requesting, or that X and Rumble are agreeing to, the de-monetisation of Brand's content, then we should address a reading comprehension challenge. If you can see that this -- "preemptively cutting someone's livelihood" -- is definitely not happening, then I would encourage you to more precisely convey what you mean, because this attempt almost perfectly expresses the opposite of reality.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
Did you just say legal aid with a straight face?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

georgespencer 3y ago

> cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system If that were happening you'd be right! But the good news is, since apparently you haven't read or understood the link you're commenting on, neither X, nor the politicians in question, is doing that. Or put another way: the premise you lead with is false. Try again.

motohagiography 3y ago
All I see in this is a "your wrong!" argument. What is the counterpoint?
- georgespencer 3y ago
  That the situation you describe, in which "those people" (Rumble, X, DCMS), either demonetized or solicited the demonetizing of Russell Brand's content. That did not happen, as the original link sets out very clearly.
  - motohagiography 3y ago
    For clarity: > Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian. In addition to the article linked within the article that details the letter Dame Dinenage sent to other platforms asking whether they would demonetize him, with the implication it was the governments strong preference. Consider whether your comments improve the discourse or undermine it.
    - georgespencer 3y ago
      Just lol @ thinking that this statement: > Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defense undermines the integrity of the legal system itself. It's a thumb on the scale. These people believe in nothing. Is supported by this citation: > Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian. You said: > cutting them off from their ability to make money What happened: > expressing apprehensions Consider whether your comments reflect reality or undermine it ;)