Rumble could be banned in the UK under new online safety laws

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Muldar

Proof that Ofcom is accountable to the UK Parliament?

That's not an assertion but fact of the matter ""asmodeus"".

The accountability of Ofcom to the UK Parliament is outlined in the Communications Act 2003.

They are obligated by duty to report to parliament, have appointment board members, and are accountable to the Secretary of State.

But because they're accountable in theory to parliament does it make them independent?! Or impartial, fair and unbiased?! What they obliged to do isn't evidence of their independence and or impartiality.

a reply to: Muldar

no one thinks they are actually independent just as none one thinks the bbc or nhs is, they are all little fiefdoms with their own kings and have been captured by one brand of activists or other.

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: Muldar

no one thinks they are actually independent just as none one thinks the bbc or nhs is, they are all little fiefdoms with their own kings and have been captured by one brand of activists or other.

Well... don't tell me!

There is a number of members who tried to convince me (unsuccessfully of course) that Ofcom is independent because they say they are in their website and they gave parroted the official line and assertion.

More of a circular argument but nevertheless a failed one.

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: Muldar

no one thinks they are actually independent just as none one thinks the bbc or nhs is, they are all little fiefdoms with their own kings and have been captured by one brand of activists or other.

If prole in the UK thing this isn't an independent organisation then their arguments are completely disingenuous.

Ofcom as I understand is a regulator and platforms like Rumble will depend on the regulator and regulations. So free speech is under attack. The UK isn't doing well on this subject and on the subject of rights given the latest attempts by the government to demonetize Russell Brand.

a reply to: Muldar

But because they're accountable in theory to parliament does it make them independent?! Or impartial, fair and unbiased?!

Fair and unbiased compared to what asmodeus?

And it's not in theory, but a fact which is outlined in the Communications Act 2003.

Ofcom and her board members answer to the Secretary of State currently that's Suella Braverman.

What they obliged to do isn't evidence of their independence and or impartiality.

Well if you can come up with a better solution, we are all ears.

a reply to: Muldar

like all similar orgs in the uk they interpret the laws as they please, and when called into question they investigate themselves.. they are neither neutral or impartial.

its been an issue in the uk for decades, and one of the reasons Brexit got over the line to get parliament to refocus on actual issues not be ordered around by unelected quangos..

the direction of travel will end up creating a need for an extremely authoritarian gov to eradicate the quangos.. feather in all the other issues and it'll be the dissolution of the monasteries all over again but its there own doing..

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: Muldar

like all similar orgs in the uk they interpret the laws as they please, and when called into question they investigate themselves.. they are neither neutral or impartial.

its been an issue in the uk for decades, and one of the reasons Brexit got over the line to get parliament to refocus on actual issues not be ordered around by unelected quangos..

the direction of travel will end up creating a need for an extremely authoritarian gov to eradicate the quangos.. feather in all the other issues and it'll be the dissolution of the monasteries all over again but its there own doing..

Imagine the case where you allowed self-regulation?!

What is the name of the system given where institutions and government are having one law for them and different laws for everyone else and when they get self regulated...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Muldar

But because they're accountable in theory to parliament does it make them independent?! Or impartial, fair and unbiased?!

Fair and unbiased compared to what asmodeus?

And it's not in theory, but a fact which is outlined in the Communications Act 2003.

Ofcom and her board members answer to the Secretary of State currently that's Suella Braverman.

What they obliged to do isn't evidence of their independence and or impartiality.

Well if you can come up with a better solution, we are all ears.

Still that's not any evidence as it was claimed earlier that Ofcom is impartial and independent.

It's not up to me to provide solutions but when it is claimed this Ofcom is independent because they say they are in their website or because they are accountable to the UK Parliament, I think I need more than assertions and faith.

Like nickyw said

no one thinks they are actually independent just as none one thinks the bbc or nhs is, they are all little fiefdoms with their own kings and have been captured by one brand of activists or other

a reply to: Muldar

while i am no socialist there are those thinkers and speakers i really do like, one is Tony Benn..

this one can be summed up as its questionable if we (uk/us) have democracy but what is true is the battle for democracy is constant.. we can all see it all around us with quangos. ngos, corporates aligning to remove rights and socially engineer the world to suit them..

so the battle for democracy is bigger than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

when I see women coming together to discuss their rights being removed by various quangos, ngos and corporations i think of it as a modern version of the Putney debates, and a discussion of what world we the people want to live in not the world the ngos, quangos think we should accept.



the fallacy of Brexit is it was about the sovereignty of the state when in reality it was about personal sovereignty in the vein of Hobbes leviathan, that is man and state being in balance which its not..

a reply to: nickyw

Tony Benn died in 2014, and what has Brexit got to do with this thread?

a reply to: Muldar

Still that's not any evidence as it was claimed earlier that Ofcom is impartial and independent.

I'm not quite sure how many times it can be explained to you who it is Ofcom answers to.

Again it's is outlined in the Communications Act of 2003 asmodeus.

It's not up to me to provide solutions but when it is claimed this Ofcom is independent because they say they are in their website or because they are accountable to the UK Parliament, I think I need more than assertions and faith.

But it is up to Ofcom and her board members to implement regulations, and to make judgments who are then obligated by duty to report to parliament.

a reply to: andy06shake

Hey - I am regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

None of which are elected.

Wonder if As....I mean Alien...err.. I mean Muldar or whatever is going to rail against that Regulator?

Not that I would criticise the SRA. Lovely people, the SRA.

The Online Safety bill, the new bills restricting and criminalising protest including mandatory stop and search. Yes, the right to freedom of expression, free thought and association is in danger of complete abnegation under this highly ineffective and authoritarian govt.

We used to have 'watchdogs' who oversaw operations of all industry that had once belonged to the British people and were sold off under Tory privatisation ideology. The watchdogs functioned better than regulators. They would pay attention to issues raised, assess and audit and in the interests of fairness, always triangulate data and information before coming to any conclusion or decision.

The watchdogs were set up to ensure 'value for money' and demonstrate how Tory ideological theory was correct and a better 'return' than state run infrastructure.

I've had professional dealings with OFCOM who also had a role in investigating the airwaves being used for criminal purposes. OFCOM are a prosecuting authority. Despite this, OFCOM can be totally controlled by govt and by military and therefore, has little clout.

Other concerns occur - with so much legislation to control and manipulate business, how many businesses will be so adversely affected to the point they cease trading? What impact of this on the economy as a whole? If govt regulation can prevent a foreign registered business operating in the UK, what action might those businesses take in retaliation? What of shareholder interests in those companies? How does this impact free market economics? If, like Rumble, more businesses refuse to put aside their own stated values and adhere to govt dictat that contravene those values, how sharp do we really think govt teeth will be in enforcing their self perceived global authority?

a reply to: teapot

Any source for any of that?

originally posted by: teapot
The Online Safety bill, the new bills restricting and criminalising protest including mandatory stop and search. Yes, the right to freedom of expression, free thought and association is in danger of complete abnegation under this highly ineffective and authoritarian govt.

We used to have 'watchdogs' who oversaw operations of all industry that had once belonged to the British people and were sold off under Tory privatisation ideology. The watchdogs functioned better than regulators. They would pay attention to issues raised, assess and audit and in the interests of fairness, always triangulate data and information before coming to any conclusion or decision.

The watchdogs were set up to ensure 'value for money' and demonstrate how Tory ideological theory was correct and a better 'return' than state run infrastructure.

I've had professional dealings with OFCOM who also had a role in investigating the airwaves being used for criminal purposes. OFCOM are a prosecuting authority. Despite this, OFCOM can be totally controlled by govt and by military and therefore, has little clout.

Other concerns occur - with so much legislation to control and manipulate business, how many businesses will be so adversely affected to the point they cease trading? What impact of this on the economy as a whole? If govt regulation can prevent a foreign registered business operating in the UK, what action might those businesses take in retaliation? What of shareholder interests in those companies? How does this impact free market economics? If, like Rumble, more businesses refuse to put aside their own stated values and adhere to govt dictat that contravene those values, how sharp do we really think govt teeth will be in enforcing their self perceived global authority?

It seems Ofcom isn't as independent as some (not all) members want to portray it. But on the other hand for those of us not from the UK it's still not a good deal to accept official lines based on assertions by Ofcom.

If you have noticed earlier the claim was that Ofcom is independent because they say they are on their website (circular argument) and a few members were parroting the official line based on the Ofcom assertions of independence. Then it was added that Ofcom is accountable to the parliament but still nothing that can show this organisation is truly independent.

Question: How Ofcom can be totally controlled by the military?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: andy06shake

Hey - I am regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

None of which are elected.

Wonder if As....I mean Alien...err.. I mean Muldar or whatever is going to rail against that Regulator?

Not that I would criticise the SRA. Lovely people, the SRA.

Perhaps you need to see what nickyw and teapot said about Ofcom as they're both from the UK.

You are in direct contradiction with them.

My position is different as I have no evidence to trust Ofcom they're independent just because they're saying they are and as other members have parroted here.

a reply to: Muldar

Question: How Ofcom can be totally controlled by the military?

Airwaves. If any broadcast interferes with or causes any communication issues with any govt or other statutory agency, MOD have authority to order OFCOM to do/not do whatever is required.

a reply to: alldaylong

The man links fortune.com in response to a conversation about misinformation!

The mainstream media and the government itself are by far the biggest spreaders of misinformation because it's they who rely on mis and disinformation to remain in power and to control the narrative - when a government or corporation decries a source as misinformation , we just see a endorsement as a truthful source!

And I'm from the UK, born in Oxford, white and libertarian not liberal.

a reply to: Soapusmaximus

Two other members from the UK said that OFCOM isn't independent. Do you share the same views?

To me there is no evidence they are other than what they claim they are on their website and some members here who are parroting the official lines based on their online assertions of being independent.

It does seem though the left is trying hard to argue OFCOM is independent. But they have been unsuccessful in convincing the audience.

originally posted by: Muldar
It does seem though the left is trying hard to argue OFCOM is independent. But they have been unsuccessful in convincing the audience.

Not a L-R issue. Authoritarianism as we are currently seeing in the UK, is a TOP DOWN issue. Applicable everywhere.