Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Rumble Responds to Orwellian Letter from UK Parliament Regarding Russell Brand (THE SAAD TRUTH_1597)" video.

True, it has been known for some time "it's a rich persons club and we aren't in it" (G Carlin). The word you are looking for is demonized and the media have done a lot of that in the past; we found that women can be horrible too in the Depp case; but after Salmond was targeted (10 not guilty; one not proven) I don't think Channel 4 should be allowed to simply investigate themselves (It seem they think they either are the law or above it). Instructions from the UK parliament; glad to see Rumble straightened them out; "innocent until proven guilty" we can't allow politicians to tamper with that!
1
I agree and since these court matters take ages we can reconvene in about six months; this concerted rush to pronounce guilt does look rather suspicious; I've been looking for an excuse to move from YouTube anyway since they went "ad crazy". Solid response from "Rumble" I respect that.
1
I don't believe this is the point in question, but on the matter you raised under UK law a 16 year old is not considered a child and what happens between consenting adults is none of your business and whether you like, or dislike, the individual is irrelevant. The main point is an important legal concept "innocent until proven guilty" this seems to have been ignored by one politician and some quarters of the media and that isn't acceptable in an ordered society. There is also some suspicion that this is the latest name in another concerted media smear campaign; for a number of reasons: they've done this before; victims of crime should go to the police first (not the media) and the "Me Too" movement has been and gone but despite pleas for victims to come forward the (4) accusers did not until now. It's the timing of the accusations; Channel 4 (state funded broadcaster) and "The Times" (a Murdoch publication) acting together and this presumption of guilt (from the cancel culture). That looks suspicious to me, the Channel 4 mini-documentary was highly manipulative and while this sort of thing fills up newspaper columns, the media have previously, in effect, wasted a lot of the courts time and ruined people's lives at little cost to themselves. I don't think the issues of predatory behavior or child grooming feature on Brand's platform or in the comments (I assume you don't go there); he is mainly concerned with political corruption; questioning the decisions of those in authority and the media (home and abroad), so it has been expected that he and others may face attempts to close them down. That's not to say I believe him to be guilty or innocent; but if it's true the 16-year old arrived in a BBC limousine then the media should be included in investigations and Channel 4 should not be allowed to simply investigate themselves. While there is a different morality these days; those who presume guilt and this politician should be treated with the contempt they deserve, I'd say.
1
@michaelscott466 Again, a 16 year old is not a child under UK law; Brand had no problem finding women (likes them two at a time); if she was delivered to him by BBC limousine then there's something distinctly odd going on. Do you think she was just visiting to get his autograph? Both adults; both over the age of consent, they could legally get married. If it wasn't consensual, that's a matter for the police and the courts; not "trial by media" (ever!). If they are not breaking the law it's none of your business.
1
@michaelscott466 I thought I already did answer your question; but I'm happy to clarify my answer. Under the law of England & Wales, when this alleged incident occurred, the age of consent is sixteen, which means they are considered to be an adult in the eyes of the law. (So when you call the individual in question a child, you are wrong and it also looks, to me, like a thin attempt to manipulate the conversation). As an adult it is legal, with a few exceptions, (such as teachers and those with authority over them) to engage in sexual intercourse (although I'm not recommending it). Between consenting adults it is entirely their business when it comes to sex, unless it breaks other laws, such as sex in public "offending public decency". So it's none of your business, or mine, what consenting adults do. Again, under the laws of England and Wales, parents do not have "rights" regarding children, they only have "responsibilities" and after a child reaches adulthood, the "statue of blaming parents" runs out and they must face the responsibility of their own actions. Now the law in England & Wales changed earlier this year (but not in my country) and the age was raised to eighteen. This does not entitle anybody to act retrospectively; the law at the time stands. In the matter of non-consensual sex that breaks the law (then and now) and is an accusation that has now been made. This is a matter for the police and courts, not the media, to act on and decide. Currently there are no police charges (that's not to say there won't be); while those who presume guilt and act on that breach a fundamental point of law (and may themselves have broken the law). "Innocent until proven guilt" or in other words the accused doesn't have to prove innocence, guilt must be proven (and that requires evidence). If you are referring specifically to me; I find the concerted "rush to pronounce guilt" by the media to be the most disturbing feature of this. It is my responsibility to equip a child with a moral code and the ability to act independently. I have no doubt that sixteen year old girls are often highly manipulative and possibly even sexually active, that I'm not always told the truth. While the teaching of sex education in schools at a young age is double-edged (imo) almost an open invitation. So just between you and me: I'm not entirely convinced by story by Channel 4 and "The Times". One looks like an enabler and the other has done this sort of thing before and got it wrong. Therefore I believe it is correct to include and subject both to a rigorous inquiry. Until charges are presented this is a "nothing-burger" as the kids say... I hope that answers your question. The media is trying to undermine the legal system of England and Wales by their actions thus far.
1