The British government writing to tech firms demanding they financially punish and cancel Russell Brand before he’s been through due legal process over the allegations against him is a very disturbing Orwellian development. pic.twitter.com/6hWPDOF8V3
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 21, 2023
२१ सप्टेंबर, २०२३
"The British government writing to tech firms demanding they financially punish and cancel Russell Brand...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
Is there a more-dire status than "Orwellian"? We're redlining our rhetoric here and I feel a strong need for a bigger, uglier word to describe a bigger, uglier (and only too real) phenomenon.
I think a culture of shamelessness helps to set up garbage tyrannical moves like this. So maybe in that sense Brand contributed to the current toxic wasteland. A future Shakespeare might do justice to the tragic arc. But meanwhile we're stuck living it.
1st the punishment
then the trial
then, after the acquittal.. The forgetting of the Whole Thing
finally: "Where do I go, to restore my reputation?" Answer: NO WHERE
Brand was progressive, a liberal in a moderate world, and NOW he's a liability and opportunity.
Now I got to send Brand some bread.
The British government was lost long ago.
Has he even been charged??? This morning I read that he hadn’t.
Go to Youtube or Rumble.com. Find Russell Brand's account. Set your computer to play his videos. Give him upvotes and share his videos unless and until he is convicted of a crime.
Do they send similar letters to the employers of every other accused (but not yet tried) sexual crime defendant? How about accused child abusers? Murderers? Didn’t think so. So now we know their true motivation. Tell me again why we’re wrong about the Deep State.
It absolutely is a disturbing development and it needs to be pointed out as a violation of due process every time it occurs. It would be great if such officials were sanctioned for this abuse when caught and investigated. In the meantime, I’ll take calling out the behavior and identifying those that sign their name to it.
A disturbing development? Wake the fuck up, Piers!
Well, it appears that Rumble has told Dame Caroline to F*ck Off, F*ck straight off!
Good for them.
"then, after the acquittal.. The forgetting of the Whole Thing"
Mistakes were made.
Time to move on.
Let's end the blame games.
Although the move by the British Government is totalitarian and disgusting, I don't give much credit to Piers Morgan when it comes to due process and individual liberty.
Not long ago Piers was openly demonizing the "unvaccinated". Promoting their downgrade in hospital triage. He believed and pushed the 100% safe and effective lie. Just like Howard Stern.
Piers and Howard Stern have a lot in common. More than being judges on "X-Factor" or "My Country has Talent". It's an eye-roll that Piers is trying to defend due process. He wasn't a fan of due process for the unvaccinated. Total hypocrite.
Rumble replied and told them to get stuffed.
Piers Morgan nails it.
Yes.
The Brits will arrest a kid with autism for saying the wrong pro-noun or make the life-threatening mistake of assuming someone might be a lesbian. (coming soon to leftist authoritarian you will obey the speech crimes - 'Merica)
Autistic teen arrested after saying police officer looked like a “lesbian”
The Authoritarian left make me want to vomit.
It's an eye-roll that Piers is trying to defend due process. He wasn't a fan of due process for the unvaccinated. Total hypocrite.
I'll take wakefulness over wokeness wherever I can find it. You never know what is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Thank God the Left isn't in charge of Parliment. We have the Tories in.
Oh wait.
I've noticed that almost all the outcry over this comes from people like Piers Morgan who have one foot in the USA, or americans. The Brits either support it, or don't care.
They aren't fans of free speech. Of course, it could be fear, since in the UK you can have a Bobby at your doorstep "asking questions" if you say the wrong thing. In the USA, its the FBI, or the ADL. But at least its not the local police.
The only way to stop this is to amend the civil rights bill to say you cant discriminate based on political views. Or that pass a law saying social media can only cancel you for WHAT YOU SAY ON THE PLATFORM and not WHO YOU ARE. And further, what can lead to a "Ban" is written in clear, and understandable words in the service agreement.
Of course, this will never pass because no one has bribed Mitch McConnell or McCarthy to pass it. We'll have to wait for the "Big Donors" to care - which will be never.
Disgusting.
The Brits need a constitution quickly. What's the point of resisting and defeating Hitler, when the fascists win in the end? Yes, yes... any scholar will tell me in condescending tones the British have a constitution, it's just not a single document and much of it is unwritten tradition and precedent. Well, judging by what I see, it's worthless. The British constitution is like a suit of medieval armor on a modern battlefield -- the illusion of protection. There's nothing to restrain a government other than conscience. Not very reassuring with people like Dame Caroline running loose.
They have my permission to adopt ours and become citizens rather than subjects. Ours seldom works as intended because being a Democrat isn't technically criminal, but in terms of protection afforded to the citizen, it's more like an Abrams tank than a plumed helmet and a pointed stick.
There is no right to free speech in the United Kingdom. There are people sitting in jail because of something they posted on Facebook.
The only way to stop this is to amend the civil rights bill to say you cant discriminate based on political views. Or that pass a law saying social media can only cancel you for WHAT YOU SAY ON THE PLATFORM and not WHO YOU ARE. And further, what can lead to a "Ban" is written in clear, and understandable words in the service agreement.
So your solution to government over-regulation is more government regulation?
Frankly, over the last few days with this whole Russell Brand thing, I am totally confused. If a wedding cake maker wants to refuse service because he is against gay marriage, you are all for him being allowed to discriminate. However, if a large company decides to discriminate against you because you are an asshole, that is a violation of the asshole's first amendment rights.
Please explain.
Reading Brand's Bio, it seems he used to be the darling of the Left, and has now become a heretic due to some conservative comments.
Also, like the old Rock'and Roller, whats his face, who satirized fascism by dressing up as a nazi on stage, Brand seems to have made Zionist enemies by being 95 percent pro-Israel, insteadof 100 percent. I'm wondering if that's why the Tories are going after him. Or whether, its just they saw a chance to get back at a leftie.
I'm having trouble reaching a balanced view on Russel Brand. Not so much on the BBC's actions here. The BBC sucks and not in the positive, life affirming way that one of Brand's barely legal girlfriends does. The BBC should have long ago been cancelled by right minded people for the way they participated in Jimmy Saville's crimes.
Other than fighting for their survival and freedom in WWII, when have the Brits ever been about freedom and liberty? How much due process did they grant the subjects in all their colonies?
British rock-n-roll kicks ass. And a lot of English literature is great. I'm a Margaret Thatcher fan, but we allowed them to violate the Monroe Doctrine over the Falkland Islands?
Their food sucks. They Royal Family is ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me at all that the British Government is going after Russell Brand. They will do to their own what they did to the Irish, India and the rest. Sadly, the Irish and Canadians seem to be following their lead.
My favorite Brit of all time is...Austin Powers.
I agree with Piers Morgan.
There, I said it. Imagine the place we're in these days where I would agree with that guy.
It's another low dishonest decade I fear, and who knows where we're headed. Most of the people I know and love either agree with the banning impulse for Brand (and Trump, for that matter) or don't care. People who bring these things up as an Orwellian problem are to be avoided as unpleasant and a bit crazy.
I'm an old guy who is surrounded by teachers (active and retired, usually multi-generational), artists, musicians, and their children. They are not ready in the least for what is coming.
I think of the progressive councilperson in Minneapolis who was carjacked and pistol whipped in front of her children. Reality is sudden.
2024 is going to be a doozy. It's going to break a lot of people, kind of like 2020 did. It didn't have to be this way, but this looks like what we're slated for.
Tech fascists at work. The governments just can't help harassing the people.
Here is where Orwell got it wrong. He depicts the downtrodden citizens, the proles, of Oceania, oppressed by the brute force of big brother’s government. Instead, we are living in a world where oppressive measures are imposed with the enthusiastic support of the population.
There’s nothing like a Dame, or so I’ve heard.
I notice Caroline Dinenage displays the letters DBE after her name. We colonials should know that stands for Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. Raise the subject of the British Empire with any faculty member at Oberlin College or Wellesley and be prepared for an obnoxiously loud condemnation of that institution followed by a frothing tirade against any person or entity to the right of Ernesto Guevara. When they've recovered with what passes for self-control in academia these days they will denounce Russell Brand, demand his head on a platter, and praise Dame Caroline for making the first cut.
Now, if someone displays a Confederate flag, these same people will encourage any degree of violence and oppression against him in revenge for the African slave trade. So why isn't Caroline Dinenage damned as a genocidal opium pusher?
Austin Powers
Classic.
I want my baby back... baby back ribs. Get in my stomach.
Fat Bastard. Progressive.
Blogger Quaestor said...
Yes, yes... any scholar will tell me in condescending tones the British have a constitution, it's just not a single document and much of it is unwritten tradition and precedent.
When people say the want a "living" US constitution, think of this. Britain claims to have a constitution but it is not written and is basically whatever a court says it is today.
Ours, stands like a rock and fortress. Battered, beaten and eroded but still there. Only 17 changes, probably fewer than 1000 words since ratification.
In Britain where all military and govt swears to uphold a king with absolute (even in 2023) powers, albeit seldom exercised. We swear oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution from ALL enemies froeign and domestic.
Our constitution is our greatest strength and what sets us apart from the rest of the world.
God help us protect and preserve it. It's in pretty good shape for the shape it's in.
John Henry
Rotwang's Cabana Boy writes, "Please explain"
No, you explain. A content search on this site reveals you were the only one to even mention the First Amendment. Now, I'm the second.
The MP seems to have made a good argument for burning roman polanksi's movies. Or Philip Roth's books.
Freder @ 11:04. I don't think your poser is very well-posed. I see a swarm of questions --dirty little urchins-- begging themselves. Maybe it would help if you studied the First Amendment for a few minutes? Something about speech compelled by the state: that's the gay wedding cake case. And on the (not so) other hand "a large company decides to discriminate against you" BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS DOCUMENTED AS HAVING TAKEN A DIRECT AND OBVIOUS INTEREST in getting that company to discriminate against you: that's the Russell Brand case.
Please try to keep up.
Gee, Seems like only yesterday that Inga, and perhaps some others, were pointing out that Google is a private business and can do what it likes in this regard.
Assuming there is not contract between Google and Brand to the contrary, express or implied in terms of service, I fully agree. I am the last one to call for prohibiting Google or their advertisers from discriminating on political views.
BUT
Now we see, out in the open, with not even a fig leaf, that this is not Google making the decision, is it? It is government. Google may have been proactive, cancelling Brand before the govt told them to. Makes no difference whether they did it because they feared the govt would make a request or because the govt actually made the request.
So Inga, what say you now? Was this a Google decision (I agree they have the right to make it) or was it a decision by King Chuck's government? Which I do not agree with.
(Not the British or English government, King Chuck's govt)
Don't be evil. Don't use Google. Duck Duck Go works every bit as well for search. Rumble is every bit as good, if without the amount of content, as YouTube. Comodo (and other browsers) are identical to Chrome but without spyware. There are other alternatives to every google product.
https://www.techspot.com/news/80729-complete-list-alternatives-all-google-products.html
John Henry
The last few decades, with the ubiquity of cameras and surveillance in almost all major cities, has made Orwell seem very prescient, indeed...
I'm a Margaret Thatcher fan, but we allowed them to violate the Monroe Doctrine over the Falkland Islands?
Only if you agree with Argentina's perspective on the conflict. From the U.K.'s perspective Argentina invaded sovereign, long-held UK territory. The people who live in the Falklands are quite happy to be part of the UK.
Actually, many of us were upset that Reagan didn't provide more support to the UK during that conflict.
They will do to their own what they did to the Irish, India and the rest.
The UK was far more responsible than any other country in its treatment of its colonies and left their colonies far more capable of running things themselves once they left.
Compare and contrast the state of former British colonies to other former colonies anywhere in the world.
Frankly, over the last few days with this whole Russell Brand thing, I am totally confused. If a wedding cake maker wants to refuse service because he is against gay marriage, you are all for him being allowed to discriminate. However, if a large company decides to discriminate against you because you are an asshole, that is a violation of the asshole's first amendment rights.
You're either ignorant or lying. The issue isn't whether a private company can fire Brand. Depending on the contract involved, they can. The issue is the UK government demanding that private companies punish Brand because he's been accused of being an asshole.
Isn’t there a famous Royal that spent Island time w/underaged girls?
Hypocrisy has a face.
X, rumble, gab are the new free speech movement platforms. Support them.
Here's a quote from the censorious Miss Disengage:
Dinenage said the security agencies had ways of unveiling an anonymous user’s identity if digital hate speech becomes unlawful, adding that the Government was “taking steps through the online harms regulatory framework”.
Recognising that anonymity was sometimes necessary, such as in whistleblowing cases, journalism, and reports of domestic violence, she said: “Our starting point… is that companies must take action against harmful anonymous abuse online”.
Last month the Government outlined “new expectations on companies to keep their users safe online” with digital businesses given “robust rules”, with the Law Commission due to report on the criminal law in this area in the coming months.
@ Owen
����
This ain't isolated or random, it's the systematic targeting of prominent people once they stray off the ideological plantation, perhaps explaining Stern's new-found wokeness as well.
The Washington Post tried the exact same to Dave Portnoy, contacting his sponsors with derogatory outreach letters for comment while putatively compiling a hit piece on him.
But Portnoy videoed his phone call with the WaPo writer. Worth the watch!
https://instapundit.com/606935/
The letter is from a Parliamentary Committee, NOT the Government.
It's a place for showboaters and MPs without power.
Exactly, farmgirl!!!
Exactly, farmgirl!!!
"However, if a large company decides to discriminate against you because you are an asshole, that is a violation of the asshole's first amendment rights.
Please explain."
The person is a Cali resident and the Large Company is PG&E.
All they do to me for sharing a lot of Russel Brand's opinions is to make sure almost nobody sees my tweets.
Field Marshall Freder: "Frankly, over the last few days with this whole Russell Brand thing, I am totally confused. If a wedding cake maker wants to refuse service because he is against gay marriage, you are all for him being allowed to discriminate. However, if a large company decides to discriminate against you because you are an asshole, that is a violation of the asshole's first amendment rights."
One has to work very hard to so purposefully mischaracterize and hide fundamental facts in framing a discussion.
Not only are they demonetizing Russel Brand, but people who discuss Russel Brand on their own channels have those shows demonetized, to keep his side from getting out, presumably. So that the only way people can hear about this story is through regime vetted sources.
English speaking people worldwide must be protected from exposure to ideas that their governments don't like, that could cause them to change their vote, for example.
Read something about The King in Parliament, John Henry, and get back to us. Under their system, executive and legislature are not separate, and in any contest between Parliament and monarch, Parliament holds most of the cards, and the purse-strings.
As for the Falklands Islands, the Monroe Doctrine means only what the USG of the moment wants it to mean, and the Brits had fought there in 1914 without upsetting us.
Whatever else you can say about the Brits, they spanked the Argentine junta (full of generals and admirals who had mostly distinguished themselves by torturing college kids) in fine style.
"Quien es mas macho?" indeed.
You're either ignorant or lying. The issue isn't whether a private company can fire Brand. Depending on the contract involved, they can. The issue is the UK government demanding that private companies punish Brand because he's been accused of being an asshole.
Well the ignorant do lie a lot as well, being gullible and slavish.
Blogger gahrie said...
The UK was far more responsible than any other country in its treatment of its colonies and left their colonies far more capable of running things themselves once they left.
I think you mean "once they got kicked out" via war, or civil disobedience leaving many innocent people...dead.
That's like comparing the smell of dog shit to pig shit. Pig shit is worse, but they are both...shit. The British turned the people of India into indentured servants. Ghandi called their imperialism "the greatest crime against humanity". The Irish and many others felt same.
As far as the Falkland Islands go...Thatcher was protecting the British wool supply? Funny. One of the things they did to screw the people of India was destroy local clothing trade. Kind of like Walmart.
It was a great moment for mankind when the sun set on the British Empire. Unfortunately America hasn't done any better...
Gusty Winds said...
Other than fighting for their survival and freedom in WWII, when have the Brits ever been about freedom and liberty? How much due process did they grant the subjects in all their colonies?
British rock-n-roll kicks ass. And a lot of English literature is great. I'm a Margaret Thatcher fan, but we allowed them to violate the Monroe Doctrine over the Falkland Islands?
****************
https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/monroe-doctrine#monroe-doctrine-in-practice-us-foreign-policy
"At the time Monroe delivered his message to Congress, the United States was still a relatively minor player on the world stage. It clearly did not have the military or naval power to back up its assertion of unilateral control over the Western Hemisphere, and Monroe’s bold policy statement was largely ignored outside U.S. borders.
In 1833, the United States did not invoke the Monroe Doctrine to oppose British occupation of the Falkland Islands; it also declined to act when Britain and France imposed a naval blockade against Argentina in 1845."
May Dame Caroline take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
And let it be noted that the fascist bitch is a Conservative.
I think you mean "once they got kicked out" via war, or civil disobedience leaving many innocent people...dead.
Actually I didn't. There's a reason why the majority of former British colonies are still part of the British Commonwealth and 15 still have the British king as their monarch.
The only former British colonies not to join the British commonwealth were Burma and a bunch of Muslim countries.
People forget their history. The Monroe Doctrine applied only to new European colonial ventures. The Falkland Islands under British rule is nothing like new – and it's a bit late to get upset at the Brits over something that happened (their reoccupying the then-unoccupied islands) during the early 1800's, nearly two centuries ago.
English/British kings (and queens, even Elizabeth I) have never possessed absolute power.
Winston Churchill (yes, the Winston Churchill) in his intriguing, 4-volume History of the English-Speaking Peoples gives us a picture of Elizabeth's successor, James I (James VI of Scotland – the [Elizabeth-executed] Mary Queen of Scots' son) as he made his initial progress from his palace in native Scotland to foreign London, to reign there as king: [quoting…]
James was proclaimed King James I of England without opposition, and in April 1603 began a leisurely journey from Holyrood [Edinburgh] to London. He was a stranger and an alien, and his qualifications for governing England were yet to be tested. “So ignorant,” says Trevelyan, was James “of England and her laws that at Newark he ordered a cut-purse caught in the act to be hanged without a trial at a word from his royal mouth.” The execution did not take place.
[/unQuote]
Moreover, our exemplar here, King James (proponent of the “divine right of kings”) grew more and more out of step with (the still-English, not British) Parliament as his reign went on. In his history, elsewhere Churchill observes: [quoting…]
“The House of Commons,” he [James] once told the Spanish Ambassador, “is a body without a head. The Members give their opinions in a disorderly manner. At their meetings nothing is heard but cries, shouts, and confusion. I am surprised that my ancestors should ever have permitted such an institution to have come into existence. I am a stranger, and found it here when I arrived, so that I am obliged to put up with what I cannot get rid of.”
[/unQuote]
____
(Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Volume 2: The New World, 1956, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, 1962; pp. 147 & 156)
Dame Caroline's letter may be Orwellian but she's not a member of the UK government. She's an MP, equivalent to a member of the US Congress. There will be a UK General Election soon and I guess that she's raising her profile.
Besides if the UK government had wanted to put pressure on Rumble they'd have been more discreet and more effective. Tax audit anyone?
Michael McNeill
I suspect that I am as familiar as any American with the British system of govt.
You are wrong about the King not having absolute power. They have it on paper. You are right about them exercising little or no power. Britain is dependent upon the better nature of their kings and queens and it has worked reasonably well so far.
But as Heinlein said "Never rely on another man's better nature. He may not have one"
So for a couple of examples:
The Prime minister is not England's PM, s/he is the King's PM. Traditionally they (and the rest of the cabinet ie; the government) are selected by the party holding the most seats in parliament. The name is sent to the king in the expectation that he will accept them. But if he doesn't? There is nothing that Parliament can do to force him to accept their choice. Or to appoint a PM at all.
If the king doesn't accept the recommendation, there would be a so-called "constitutional crisis" and I don't think anyone knows for sure what might happen. So the king is never sent an unacceptable nominee and never has to not accept them.
6 weeks after Elizabeth's death, with only 50 days in office Liz Truss was replaced by Rishak Sunak. Coincidence? Was Truss doing such a horrible job? Who would be able to tell with less than 2 months in office? Or did the new king decide that Truss was his mother's PM and he wanted his own? We may know in 100 years or so but King Chuck could not be seen replacing the PM for this reason even if he did. So all handled very discreetly. (Or maybe the public story is true)
The king must assent (approve) to all laws before they can take affect. He always does. Partly because parliament will never send him a law he is adamantly opposed to. But what happens if he says "Naah. I don't like this law. I do not assent" Nobody has any power to force him to.
And so on.
In the older times that someone mentioned, James etc, there were a lot of Dukes etc who had their own private armies. Now? Not only are there no private armies, there is virtually no private weaponry. Even the police are not very well armed.
So if King Chuck gets a wild hair up his ass and decides to use HIS army to do something? Who could stop him? Parliament? They can't even meet without his permission. We are back to relying on the better nature of the army to say no. They may not have a better nature. I suspect it would depend on what King Chuck wanted to do. The army, like everyone else who gets a paycheck from the British govt, has sworn an oath to "King Charles". Not to Britain, not to the constitution (as in the US) and not to the king as an entity. To Chuck, personally.
Someone mentioned funding: The tax collectors have sworn an oath to Chuck as well. So they would probably keep on collecting and putting the money into the Treasury, whose chancellor has sworn a personal oath. How would the funding be stopped? Everyone resigns?
So I stand by my statement that the British king/queen has absolute power. They may or may not be able to use it. If they tried, they might or might not get slapped down by someone. (who?).
But they have absolute power that would have made Stalin blush.
John Henry
Well it's not like it's BOOK banning.
/sarc
You keep using the term 'absolute' monarch. I don't think it means what you think it means.
An absolute monarch is the seat of sovereignty and source of all authority. Brit monarchs haven't been such for centuries, if they ever were.
Narr,
I do know what an "absolute monarch" is and stand by everything I've said. Especially the part that I've repeated at least 3-4 times today that he does not, and may not be able to, actually exercise those powers. Most recently at 10:05 They may or may not be able to use it. If they tried, they might or might not get slapped down by someone. (who?).
But he has, in theory at least, all of the powers I've mentioned and many more.
I've read much of Churchill and other histories of England. I've read Bagehot on the English Constitution. In the 9th grade, in public school, I spent a year taking English history class (Required by the state) I've been having this conversation from time to time for 50 years or more. So far, while many people such as yourself and others in this thread, tell me I don't know what I am talking about, nobody has ever explained to me why they think s/he does not have these powers.
Only that he can't realistically use them. At least not publicly. I thought I had been quite clear I agree with that. I don't know how to be any clearer. I've also said that it could create major problems if s/he tried to.
But the only thing preventing King Chuck from exercising these powers is his better nature. I've spent most of the past 74 years growing up with him and he is constantly demonstrating what an asshole he is. Enough of an asshole to try to use these powers? Perhaps not.
Or perhaps he is. It is up to him.
Not my problem anyway. I'm an American. I think there is an article in the Constitution that requires me to mock British royalty and nobility and I try to carry out my responsibilities. I don't really care what the Brits do. (As long as we don't have to bail them out yet again)
John Henry
The only answer I can give is that the unwritten constitution doesn't allow the monarch to exercise absolute power.
That's the Brits for you. (I share your disdain for KC3 FWIW, and lately my innate Anglophilia has been tested.)
What state required a year of English history? I don't doubt you, it just seems outrageously unnecessary for 9th grade in the US.
Virginia. McClean high school in Fairfax County.
My recollection is that it was a state requirement.
It's been 60 years so I don't guarantee it was not a county requirement.
It was definitely required for graduation. We also, in other years took a year of us history a year of Virginia state history and a year of civics/govt. All 3 required for a diploma.
Don't forget that Virginia long considered itself almost more English than the English. This was probably a carryover from that
John Henry
Virginia. McClean high school in Fairfax County.
My recollection is that it was a state requirement.
It's been 60 years so I don't guarantee it was not a county requirement.
It was definitely required for graduation. We also, in other years took a year of us history a year of Virginia state history and a year of civics/govt. All 3 required for a diploma.
Don't forget that Virginia long considered itself almost more English than the English. This was probably a carryover from that
John Henry
Virginia. Of course.
We had US and Tennessee history, and civics.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा