And,........silence,....(ahhhhhh)

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

I so wish I had the open mindedness displayed here. I was taught that I was supposed to not judge a book by the cover. Good job I'm not one of those morons you go on about though.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

The head of the committee who wrote to Rumble and others is one of the MPs behind the 'Online Harms' bill, which most definitely targets social media companies.

Shortly after Rumble replied defending freedom of speech several advertisters have pulled their ads from their platform.

Coincidence? Or a reflection of concerns over ESG scores and shareholders like Vanguard/BlackRock.

Companies that ignore power tend to fall foul of it....Musk for example is being investigated by Biden administration..Of all the companies out there how surprising it's Musk.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

So did I, so thanks for posting it.

I am no fan of Piers Morgan as I find his style irritating but I thought his appraisal of the Brand situation to be spot on. It would take too long to critique the individual contributions of his 3 guests. They all had some good and bad points but each came from different positions.

Where I think Morgan is wrong is in his criticism of the way Brand is now being treated on social media. Social media exists. It has many bad consequences, alongside the good. The Brand genie is out of the bottle and no amount of theoretical moralising will put it back in.

I knew nothing about the way Brand had behaved in the past before I watched Dispatches. Some of the allegations are of criminal behaviour but more are on video and audio records showing behaviour which might be legal but which is surely unacceptable in any kind of responsible society. Why it has taken this long to be highlighted is a valid question but that it is being is not.

That agents, advertisers and subscribers may now choose to distance themselves is perfectly understandable. I would not want to be tainted by any association, no matter how unrelated, with someone with Brand’s history.

So whilst Morgan is clearly correct in saying Brand deserves for these accusations to be tested by due process and not in the court of public opinion it is unrealistic to expect that to happen.

The circle won’t be closed unless and until prosecutions result in convictions, which won’t necessarily happen given the elapsed time and the necessity to establish proof beyond any reasonable doubt. That though doesn’t mean his reputation won’t suffer. Nor does it deserve not to suffer. This wasn’t simply promiscuous behaviour. Legal or not it was unacceptable behaviour.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

My father always said “Never judge a book by its cover.” And that’s why he lost his job as chairman of the National Book Cover Awards Committee.

(Stewart Lee)

Not if it reaches court and charges of criminal behaviour have been alleged. He would get a fair trial.

In the court of public opinion, based on the irrefutable evidence of the appalling attitudes and behaviour being brought to a wider audience because of the Horizon programme, there is no presumption of innocence. It cannot be denied. How it is regarded is an individual matter but I am unsurprised at the general reaction. Aren't you too?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.