I watched the whole thing. Why has no-one, including the comedian with information on numerous comedians and celebrities who have done "criminal acts" and Channel 4 with Brand's alleged "criminality", gone to the police? Surely we want to get any "criminal" who is a threat and a danger off the street, given their day in court and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, put in prison - right? Instead, Channel 4 at the end of the programme just invited people to contact them if they had any allegation on any celebrity or comedian.
Worse still, there were other agendas being suggested. Beside the usual "listen and believe" we would expect, there were also suggestions that anyone under 22 should be considered a "child" and for age-gap relationships to be banned because they consider them exploitative. No doubt to lobby for any future anti-misogyny law that is coming to the UK, Scotland first.
One of the contributors, the former controller of BBC One, stated that when it comes to safeguarding, the broadcaster is jointly responsible. Who did Brand predominately work for? Channel 4. So either Channel 4 is doing a smear job against Brand and have destroyed their reputation or Channel 4 has repeatedly failed in its duty of safeguarding vulnerable women. Which is it, Channel 4?
I'm am watching the suggestion from Better Bachelor that AI was used to generate the voice of Nadia for The Sunday Times, who collaborated with Channel 4. Joker's rationale seems reasonable. Though it is likely that the excuse will be that they used a generator to "protect the anonymity of the victim". But then, why not disclose it? Everything here looks shady.
The tactics being used here mirror those used in East Germany by the Stasi against dissenters and critics of the state. It is likely that media corporations like Channel 4 have files on everyone with improprieties ready to be aired when necessary. But only for those who happen to be against the mainstream and establishment narrative. Brand will be the first, he will most certainly not be the last.
Brand will have Channel 4 in checkmate. And Channel 4 doesn't realise. And Channel 4 thinks they're already winning. In reality, this is probably Channel 4's Jimmy Savile moment that harmed the reputation of the BBC.
Channel 4 is a statutory corporation. What that means is that the Government owns it but like the BBC, it has editorial independence from the Government. It isn't funded by the licence fee like the BBC but by advertising and sponsorships like the other commercial broadcasters. It is the forth largest reaching UK broadcaster behind the BBC, ITV and Sky according to BARB. For people in the US and a few other countries, we don't name our traditional terrestrial channels based on the frequency they broadcast on, we name them based on prominence - BBC One and Two first before ITV (legally known as Channel 3), Channel 4 and Channel 5.
It has the same left wing bent as the majority of other broadcasters and is probably one of the most left leaning broadcasters. It is a general entertainment channel predominately showing American sitcoms, daytime programming for women, The Simpsons, Hollyoaks - a young adult soap, news as per their broadcast licence and prime time general entertainment and documentary programming as well as films (they have their own film production company that also has a channel on terrestrial television) and sport, predominately football/soccer.
They recently aired an Hollyoaks special episode on incels, smearing them as radicalised extremists. They just announced that the soap is moving online. They have also non-platformed the Conservative Party from a climate change debate on their news programme.
In terms of financial health, their revenue was £1.14bn for 2022. However, they have recently axed a number of shows as they may now be struggling financially. It may be in part because they've invested in a number of sporting rights.
So if I'm understanding correctly, a huge portion of the UK domestic broadcast TV market is dominated by Crown corporations between the BBC and Channel 4?
And with it mentioned that Brand was distantly a Channel 4 employee/presenter, what kind of programming did he run?
The BBC is a corporation whose existence is granted by a Royal Charter, funded by the licence fee and Channel 4 is a statutory owned corporation, funded by commercials and sponsorship. ITV and Channel 5 are purely commercial companies but they as well as the BBC and Channel 4 are classed as public service broadcasters. Back in the analogue terrestrial days, there was only space for four, later five, channels to broadcast and so bandwidth was scarce and running a television channel was deemed a privilege that carried obligations. Such as having to broadcast a minimum number of news bulletins, kids programming, documentaries and other obligations. Back then we did not have the woke and bias issues we do now.
We even had Teletext services (for those who don't know what Teletext is, it is a news and information service broadcast over the air free of charge in unused parts of the TV picture data) and they also carried public service broadcasting obligations, including for Channel 4.
They still have those obligations today in return for holding the first five electronic programme guide positions on all platforms.
Brand was primarily on Big Brother's Eforum and its rebrand, Big Brother's Big Forum, The Russell Brand Show, Russell Brand's Ponderland as well as the odd comedy stand-up show, one-off shows plus guest appearances on other shows. He's also been on BBC Radio 2, talkSPORT, FX, MTV and BBC Four.
I watched the whole thing. Why has no-one, including the comedian with information on numerous comedians and celebrities who have done "criminal acts" and Channel 4 with Brand's alleged "criminality", gone to the police? Surely we want to get any "criminal" who is a threat and a danger off the street, given their day in court and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, put in prison - right? Instead, Channel 4 at the end of the programme just invited people to contact them if they had any allegation on any celebrity or comedian.
Worse still, there were other agendas being suggested. Beside the usual "listen and believe" we would expect, there were also suggestions that anyone under 22 should be considered a "child" and for age-gap relationships to be banned because they consider them exploitative. No doubt to lobby for any future anti-misogyny law that is coming to the UK, Scotland first.
One of the contributors, the former controller of BBC One, stated that when it comes to safeguarding, the broadcaster is jointly responsible. Who did Brand predominately work for? Channel 4. So either Channel 4 is doing a smear job against Brand and have destroyed their reputation or Channel 4 has repeatedly failed in its duty of safeguarding vulnerable women. Which is it, Channel 4?
I'm am watching the suggestion from Better Bachelor that AI was used to generate the voice of Nadia for The Sunday Times, who collaborated with Channel 4. Joker's rationale seems reasonable. Though it is likely that the excuse will be that they used a generator to "protect the anonymity of the victim". But then, why not disclose it? Everything here looks shady.
The tactics being used here mirror those used in East Germany by the Stasi against dissenters and critics of the state. It is likely that media corporations like Channel 4 have files on everyone with improprieties ready to be aired when necessary. But only for those who happen to be against the mainstream and establishment narrative. Brand will be the first, he will most certainly not be the last.
Brand will have Channel 4 in checkmate. And Channel 4 doesn't realise. And Channel 4 thinks they're already winning. In reality, this is probably Channel 4's Jimmy Savile moment that harmed the reputation of the BBC.
Could someone give a quick summary about who Channel 4 is for those outside the UK?
Ownership, editorial bent, size/reach, type of programming, similar scandals, financial health, affiliations, etc.
Channel 4 is a statutory corporation. What that means is that the Government owns it but like the BBC, it has editorial independence from the Government. It isn't funded by the licence fee like the BBC but by advertising and sponsorships like the other commercial broadcasters. It is the forth largest reaching UK broadcaster behind the BBC, ITV and Sky according to BARB. For people in the US and a few other countries, we don't name our traditional terrestrial channels based on the frequency they broadcast on, we name them based on prominence - BBC One and Two first before ITV (legally known as Channel 3), Channel 4 and Channel 5.
It has the same left wing bent as the majority of other broadcasters and is probably one of the most left leaning broadcasters. It is a general entertainment channel predominately showing American sitcoms, daytime programming for women, The Simpsons, Hollyoaks - a young adult soap, news as per their broadcast licence and prime time general entertainment and documentary programming as well as films (they have their own film production company that also has a channel on terrestrial television) and sport, predominately football/soccer.
They recently aired an Hollyoaks special episode on incels, smearing them as radicalised extremists. They just announced that the soap is moving online. They have also non-platformed the Conservative Party from a climate change debate on their news programme.
In terms of financial health, their revenue was £1.14bn for 2022. However, they have recently axed a number of shows as they may now be struggling financially. It may be in part because they've invested in a number of sporting rights.
Thanks. Great summary.
Interesting naming convention.
So if I'm understanding correctly, a huge portion of the UK domestic broadcast TV market is dominated by Crown corporations between the BBC and Channel 4?
And with it mentioned that Brand was distantly a Channel 4 employee/presenter, what kind of programming did he run?
The BBC is a corporation whose existence is granted by a Royal Charter, funded by the licence fee and Channel 4 is a statutory owned corporation, funded by commercials and sponsorship. ITV and Channel 5 are purely commercial companies but they as well as the BBC and Channel 4 are classed as public service broadcasters. Back in the analogue terrestrial days, there was only space for four, later five, channels to broadcast and so bandwidth was scarce and running a television channel was deemed a privilege that carried obligations. Such as having to broadcast a minimum number of news bulletins, kids programming, documentaries and other obligations. Back then we did not have the woke and bias issues we do now.
We even had Teletext services (for those who don't know what Teletext is, it is a news and information service broadcast over the air free of charge in unused parts of the TV picture data) and they also carried public service broadcasting obligations, including for Channel 4.
They still have those obligations today in return for holding the first five electronic programme guide positions on all platforms.
Brand was primarily on Big Brother's Eforum and its rebrand, Big Brother's Big Forum, The Russell Brand Show, Russell Brand's Ponderland as well as the odd comedy stand-up show, one-off shows plus guest appearances on other shows. He's also been on BBC Radio 2, talkSPORT, FX, MTV and BBC Four.