Law russell brand allegations

[AWilder]

Not many on headlines that name was quickly dropped still nothing on that list...

Not to mention the names of those that were released in the news how many were they arrested for such similar allegations?

you're not making any sense bud. What does Epstein have to do with Russel Brand? did Brand visit his island?

 

[Jack V Savage]

How is it possible to not think that?

You can easily pick out what era something was from by the music, fashion, kinds of jokes etc. Popular culture is popular culture because it's pushed heavily in the mainstream to make it popular. It's shifted a bit now that people can upload things themselves and occasionally something will get popular organically, but there's still heavy backing for distribution of some things over others. In the case of music, it used to be all about getting "signed", and bands would conform to whatever is being pushed at the time to get attention of the handful of major labels. They even had a formula for the power chord songs to start, then they'd have their "power ballad", and all with the same outfits, hair styles, makeup etc.

https://www.science.org/content/article/whale-pop-songs-spread-across-ocean

Given that it's impossible for cultural tastes to change over time without manipulation by shadowy elites, I wonder who is behind that?

Also: https://www.etymonline.com/word/culture

 

[AWilder]

https://www.science.org/content/article/whale-pop-songs-spread-across-ocean

Given that it's impossible for cultural tastes to change over time without manipulation by shadowy elites, I wonder who is behind that?

Also: https://www.etymonline.com/word/culture

Protocols of the Elders of Cetacea

 

[Hog-train]

Those are great questions for Trump, the Trump DOJ, Trump's labor secretary (who let Epstein off light the first time) and his corrupt buddy Bill Barr who *checks notes* ALL had ties to Epstein. You're missing the whole point tho. Numbnuts was suggesting there is no coverage of epstein and that somehow that means there is too much coverage of Brand. That's stupid. There's clearly tons of articles on Epstein from all sources. Getting mad that NO ONE has been able to tell the story you WANT to hear is not an indication that journalism has failed. Good journalists don't make shit up and run with completely unverified reports and the people in Epstein's orbit were mostly very wealthy and famous people who aren't going to take any libel.

I work for a media company that deals with people that go on national TV and cables news. Also with product placement on these news channels. I see national US TV all day. There are aspects to this story that definitely did not get the level of scrutiny it deserved.

Trump, Clinton, whoever - IDGAF their political affiliation. The initial allegations happened in 2006. Bill Clinton I think first made a statement on it in 2019. Why wasn't he directly asked then?

There are many more people that went to the island and very probably took part in this. Yet we don't know who they are and there's no great search to find out. So obviously journalism failed.

 

[AWilder]

I work for a media company that deals with people that go on national TV and cables news. Also with product placement on these news channels. I see national US TV all day. There are aspects to this story that definitely did not get the level of scrutiny it deserved.

Trump, Clinton, whoever - IDGAF their political affiliation. The initial allegations happened in 2006. Bill Clinton I think first made a statement on it in 2019. Why wasn't he directly asked then?

There are many more people that went to the island and very probably took part in this. Yet we don't know who they are and there's no great search to find out. So obviously journalism failed.

Journalism, real journalism, never promised to tell you the story you want to hear. I agree there's a ton of shady shit about epstein. But calling journalism a failure for not telling you the story you want to hear isn't an indictment of journalism...

 

[AWilder]

And this ridiculous thread that journalists are being unfair to Brand because... you don't like how the Epstein story played out (?) really doesn't make any sense. That's just some idiotic shit made up by @GoldenWolf87 to deflect for some reason.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Journalism, real journalism, never promised to tell you the story you want to hear. I agree there's a ton of shady shit about epstein. But calling journalism a failure for not telling you the story you want to hear isn't an indictment of journalism...

Journalists have to be very careful. They might strongly suspect something but they can't say it until they have a certain amount of hard facts, which is one reason you often see other papers follow after some organization reports something (it's safer to say "X is reporting that Y" than "Y").

 

[Hog-train]

Journalism, real journalism, never promised to tell you the story you want to hear. I agree there's a ton of shady shit about epstein. But calling journalism a failure for not telling you the story you want to hear isn't an indictment of journalism...

Well that's just an opinion isn't it.

Real journalism to me strives to get the bottom of every story and uncover all wrongdoing no matter what. If you don't even question some powerful people that were possibly involved, then you failed IMO.

 

[Hog-train]

Let's stop derailing with Epstein shit.

Lawyer talking about this case.

 

[AWilder]

Well that's just an opinion isn't it.

Real journalism to me strives to get the bottom of every story and uncover all wrongdoing no matter what. If you don't even question some powerful people that were possibly involved, then you failed IMO.

you really don't think journalists tried?

 

[avenue94]

Yes because mainstream publications are never wrong or have an agenda.

They can be, but the balance of what we know heavily favors the allegations being credible.

How the hell would I know the intricacies of UK defamation law? I'm not a UK lawyer and neither are you. I do know the UK tabloids are worse than even the US.

Because understanding the defamation laws UK media has to work around is key to understanding how confident the Times is for this story and that they're willing to bet millions of pounds on it. If you don't' understand UK defamation laws, you aren't informed enough to comment on UK media intelligently .

They can simply post the exact screenshot that was sent to them. There is no identifying information so that's a moot point. But even if there was, you can simply black that out.

In this case, multiple parts of the text is obviously different than other parts. It's blocks of text stitched together. And very sloppily I might add. There was even a missing timestamp.

You'd have to then crop identifying info, certain logos, etc. It's not practical. Again, publications don't usually publish actual text message screenshots. They look like shit. If these messages are out of context or fabricated, why hasn't Russel said so or sued?

Yea and they were wrong. Your claim that a UK publication wouldn't air an untrue story due to a fear of lawsuit is completely false. The UK publications air BS stories all the time.

What BS stories did this specific reporters publish, or the Times itself recently?

 

[White Whale]

The allegations are over 20 years old there need to be solid evidence.

Russell Brand is a celebrity that used to drink and do drugs so he has likely done some shady things

 

[Hog-train]

Because understanding the defamation laws UK media has to work around is key to understanding how confident the Times is for this story and that they're willing to bet millions of pounds on it. If you don't' understand UK defamation laws, you aren't informed enough to comment on UK media intelligently .

And you do understand UK defamation law? Do tell.

You're claiming the UK media never deceive because of UK defamation law? So they always are completely truthful? I guess they're the only country on the planet where media is completely objective and truthful with zero agenda. That is really not believable.

You'd have to then crop identifying info, certain logos, etc. It's not practical. Again, publications don't usually publish actual text message screenshots. They look like shit. If these messages are out of context or fabricated, why hasn't Russel said so or sued?

BS. I have seen plenty of stories where they show direct screenshots of text exchanges plenty of times.

What BS stories did this specific reporters publish, or the Times itself recently?

Channel 4 was the station which had Kathy Newman try to gaslight and railroad Jordan Peterson. Youtube Jordan Peterson Kathy Newman interview.

Another example would be Amber Heard story.

 

[Vampire life]

I can’t believe they are crushing like this with no proof, no evidence, no police report or charges filed
The accusers are anonymous???

how does this happen?

 

[Vampire life]

And you do understand UK defamation law? Do tell.

You're claiming the UK media never deceive because of UK defamation law? So they always are completely truthful? I guess they're the only country on the planet where media is completely objective and truthful with zero agenda. That is really not believable.



BS. I have seen plenty of stories where they show direct screenshots of text exchanges plenty of times.



Channel 4 was the station which had Kathy Newman try to gaslight and railroad Jordan Peterson. Youtube Jordan Peterson Kathy Newman interview.

Another example would be Amber Heard story.

British media is trash
Daily mail, the Sun and other rags that people actually read and take seriously
They make cnn and Fox look like rookies

 

[avenue94]

And you do understand UK defamation law? Do tell.

You're claiming the UK media never deceive because of UK defamation law? So they always are completely truthful? I guess they're the only country on the planet where media is completely objective and truthful with zero agenda. That is really not believable.

I've explained previously in this thread, go find the post if you're interested. Defamation laws in the UK put the burden of evidence on the alleged defaming party, not the claimant. They also don't use the actual malice standard like in the US.

Nowhere did I ever say UK media outlets have never run afoul of defamation law.

BS. I have seen plenty of stories where they show direct screenshots of text exchanges plenty of times.

It's not very common. I suspect you are confusing graphics for actual screenshots...like in the case here. If you use screenshots, it tends to be from a government source that's already redacted.

Channel 4 was the station which had Kathy Newman try to gaslight and railroad Jordan Peterson. Youtube Jordan Peterson Kathy Newman interview.

Another example would be Amber Heard story.

What did the Times publish that was false about the Heard story? Channel 4 didn't do the investigative work on this one, at least certainly not the bulk. It was the Times. Again, the reporters are listed on the article. What have they done in the past that brings their credibility into doubt?

 

[Sinister]

If I hear "they're silencing me because they dont want YOU to know the real truth" from one more alleged rapist...

 

[Hog-train]

you really don't think journalists tried?

No not really. Not to the fullest.

There should have been a lot more scrutiny on how the hell Epstein even managed to allegedly kill himself. I'm telling you - that shit is impossible.

 

[avenue94]

I can’t believe they are crushing like this with no proof, no evidence, no police report or charges filed
The accusers are anonymous???

how does this happen?

It's standard media practice in the West to not name potential victims alleging sexual assault. It has been for decades. The better question, if you think Brand is being railroaded, is why hasn't he sued or denied the veracity of the text messages or medical records from a rape clinic?

 

[avenue94]

No not really. Not to the fullest.

There should have been a lot more scrutiny on how the hell Epstein even managed to allegedly kill himself. I'm telling you - that shit is impossible.

What else should journalists have done? Do you not think they tried to find every source they could and FOIA ever single document they could? That kind of a story is a career maker, but you think journalists aren't taking the chance lol