There's something really very wrong with you, Liam.

I've thought that from the start, but stuff like this absolutely confirms it without a doubt.

1 hour ago, Jessie Where said:

There's something really very wrong with you, Liam.

I've thought that from the start, but stuff like this absolutely confirms it without a doubt.

Well I only posted this thread because I saw a TikTok lawyer saying people wouldn’t be refunded. But after that if you know you’re going to arrest someone yet allow them to create a whole world tour first and everybody to spend money and organise and get venues/security then it’d be stupid to wipe all that away when there is a real likelihood of a non custodial sentence. Seems like basic logic. This 5 mill bail is a very sensible move rather than just having a hearing when it’s too late to salvage the tour. I really don’t know what the hostility is for but this shenanigans is over I guess. So let’s leave it there.

The venue’s incredibly poor and deeply unfortunate owners will have to close it down because they will lose so much of the business. Do you think they can just reschedule a different artist to his spot instead?! That’s not how concerts work, ladies!

It’s by far the worst thing that’s happened to them and Rihanna. Why does no one think of venue owners, the artists and the money they charge people? The only thing UK law system can charge is for crimes you didn’t commit! So inconsiderate and selfish given this was like in 2023, and the bottle attacked him first!!1

Thoughts and prayers to Christopher Brown, the venue owners who will lose their business forever and people who are willing to spend 200+ quid for a concert of an ab*ser in this incredibly tough time. :(

Edited May 22May 22 by pavi

23 hours ago, Liam Sota said:

Common sense has prevailed. While I’m not a fan ruining a tour seemed incomprehensible to me anyway

BBC News

Chris Brown: US singer freed on bail by London court

The US singer is accused of assault at a nightclub in central London in 2023.

Common sense would have been to give him a criminal record and then ban him from the UK making him refund all those who bought tickets out of his own pocket.

2 minutes ago, Spiceboy said:

Common sense would have been to give him a criminal record and then ban him from the UK making him refund all those who bought tickets out of his own pocket.

Overall if they expedited the case that would have been fine too. So if he was found or pled guilty then a judge sentenced him to 3 years that could have happened. But you can’t cancel all that when he might not be guilty of anything.

On 17/05/2025 at 22:17, Liam Sota said:

The date for the next hearing is June 13 two days before his first UK show. They should decide a lot earlier where this is going.

I mean if it were a singer who was singing at a pub or a waiter who was serving at a wedding or in a restaurant, who had committed a crime and been arrested would you be saying they should work around the person's commitments? Not a chance, why should it be any different for a famous singer?

2 hours ago, Liam Sota said:

Overall if they expedited the case that would have been fine too. So if he was found or pled guilty then a judge sentenced him to 3 years that could have happened. But you can’t cancel all that when he might not be guilty of anything.

Why book a tour in the first place if you know of the crime you committed three years ago? It's naïve to think you can hide forever.

10 minutes ago, Hassaan said:

Why book a tour in the first place if you know of the crime you committed three years ago? It's naïve to think you can hide forever.

Well he had no idea. They never communicated it to him or his team. So they assumed it was an issue that never materialised into anything. I’m sure this guy gets into tons of issues like that he’s impulsive and violent. They privately built a case and only charged him once he landed in the UK. Remember he applied for a VISA and it got approved without anyone bringing up this incident. So I get why they done it that way if they thought he wouldn’t bother coming if they charged him when he wasn’t in the country but if you’re going to let him organise a world tour then charge him you should either fast track the case or bail him so he can carry it out. They did. So all is well.

On 22/05/2025 at 13:46, Liam Sota said:

Overall if they expedited the case that would have been fine too. So if he was found or pled guilty then a judge sentenced him to 3 years that could have happened. But you can’t cancel all that when he might not be guilty of anything.

And what about the people involved in a trial that gets delayed for the convenience of Chris Brown? A rape victim, for example. Or someone whose life is being put on hold after being charged with a crime they didn't commit.

On 21/05/2025 at 18:25, Liam Sota said:

Well I only posted this thread because I saw a TikTok lawyer saying people wouldn’t be refunded. But after that if you know you’re going to arrest someone yet allow them to create a whole world tour first and everybody to spend money and organise and get venues/security then it’d be stupid to wipe all that away when there is a real likelihood of a non custodial sentence. Seems like basic logic. This 5 mill bail is a very sensible move rather than just having a hearing when it’s too late to salvage the tour. I really don’t know what the hostility is for but this shenanigans is over I guess. So let’s leave it there.

You do realise that the people who knew who would be charged are not the same people who booked the tour, right?

Promoters especially and venues are often lead by the temptation of big sales and don't do their due diligence on the legal aspect behind an individual (Exactly the same thing happened with Ronnie Radkey about a year ago). It's no business of the authorities what he arranges. They're not there to advise him on his personal plans, only to hold him account for his actions when he is available to detain, if need be.

Frankly, if a venue is going to risk booking an artist who has a potential legal case hanging over their heads, it;s a risk thay take and they should be aware of it before doing so.

Additionally, if a punter decides to buy a ticket for someone under that cloud, then sure you can argue that the promoter or venue is to blame but it's all there in the terms and conditions to cover them, although I do understand most people will buy tickets in good faith, even if that is naive with an individual like Brown.

Maybe Brown and his manager should have thought about all of this before he decided to start arranging a tour.

I