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

originally posted by: Muldar

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.

we are in a space where we have the legacy media bbc, itv, sky etc starting to demand Ofcom shut down any media outlet that messes with as they put it the media equilibrium.. i.e is more popular than legacy media.

to complain about the bbc you have to go through their complaints process first but to initiate an investigation on alternate media you can go direct ofocom highlighting the bias of and how ofcom protects the legacy media.. ofcom like the fca defends the legacy establishment, the fca did the same with the Farage case..

any one pretending it is otherwise probably believes women have winkles and men have vag's, and report those who think differently to the police, and thats the issues the police/these orgs are being used by activists to stifle dissent and create an air of no debate.

we're in an extraordinary space where leading broadcast voices are now demanding new comers are shut down to protect their monopoly as disrupting the narrative to having a dissenting viewpoint is not allowed, but its ok for them to be edgy and promote law breaking as ethical if it aligns with their activism.

the closer we get to the election expect them to pivot to German ideas of also banning political parties not toeing the legacy line, its the extraordinary corner many have talked themselves into as the establishment is losing on every front, green, gender, immigration, economy the majority is pivoting against them..

the legacy media and legacy quangos have become a malign force that few listen to any more.. take ACAS the body overseeing employment rights. they just lost a case against themselves in a clear example of a body interpreting equality laws in line in line with their own bias not in line with the laws..

these bodies bring themselves into disrepute all on their own.

originally posted by: teapot

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.

Although you're right about authoritarianism on this thread it's the left that had parroted the official lines and assertions presented by OCFOM in never ending circular arguments.

originally posted by: Muldar
a reply to: Kurokage

So after pages and pages where is the evidence that Ofcom is independent, unbiased, impartial, and fair?

Linking their website doesn't count as evidence let alone proof they are what they say they are.

It's a circular argument many of you made earlier by saying they are independent because they say they are.

Burden of proof on you and the organisation.

You also claimed they weren't independent so the burden of proof also falls to you to prove your assertion.
I linked to how they show their independence, and how they follow a set of standards and guide lines to show unbiased views concerning how complaints are held up. You've just chosen to ignore that and be in denail about it.
This isn't a circular argument, it's a person in denial about how an organization works.

"Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning." Charles Tremper.

a reply to: Muldar

in terms of the uk the conservatives (cino) are for the most part similar to American RINOs.. they all belong to the uniparty.. it was the cinos who lost Brexit not the EU, hence the biggest supporters of the eu are ex pms like major and May, and party leaders like Hague.

its also worth remembering that the mail is closer to the us democrats than not lord Rothermere and Clintons are very close, these quangos are extensions of the uniparty..

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Muldar
a reply to: Kurokage

So after pages and pages where is the evidence that Ofcom is independent, unbiased, impartial, and fair?

Linking their website doesn't count as evidence let alone proof they are what they say they are.

It's a circular argument many of you made earlier by saying they are independent because they say they are.

Burden of proof on you and the organisation.

You also claimed they weren't independent so the burden of proof also falls to you to prove your assertion.
I linked to how they show their independence, and how they follow a set of standards and guide lines to show unbiased views concerning how complaints are held up. You've just chosen to ignore that and be in denail about it.
This isn't a circular argument, it's a person in denial about how an organization works.

"Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning." Charles Tremper.

We all know that's not true.
I questioned another member, namely bastion, for asserting they're independent. That's not a claim or a hypothesis of being corrupt.

You seriously need to look at the dictionary the definitions of 'claim' and 'hypoyhesis'.

Other than that linking their official page as evidence of being independent is just a failed attempt to convince the audience.

a reply to: Kurokage

Here is what nickyw said a little earlier

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
This is what you said Asmodeous3....


Do you really want us to believe Ofcom is independent, impartial, and fair??

I linked to the standards they must follow to help maintain their impartiality, which you claimed meant nothing without any evidence to back up your assertion.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar
This is what you said Asmodeous3....


Do you really want us to believe Ofcom is independent, impartial, and fair??

That's not a claim or a hypothesis by the way.
But a question.

Unless you don't recognise what a question is.

And it is repeated again and again. Do you really want us to believe that Ofcom is independent, impartial, and fair?? Why?? Because they say in their website?? Or because you try to say so.

And yes, there is no evidence out there to show Ofcom are independent of the government.

a reply to: Kurokage

Here is what teapot said earlier

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.

It seems both nicky and teapot don't accept Ofcom is independent. They're both from the UK. I am not on the other hand.

Teapot days Ofcom can be totally controlled by the government and military.

a reply to: Muldar

That's not a claim or a hypothesis by the way.
But a question.

Unless you don't recognise what a question is.

And it is repeated again and again. Do you really want us to believe that Ofcom is independent, impartial, and fair?? Why?? Because they say in their website?? Or because you try to say so.

That is a claim worded in the way of a question, your claiming that Ofcom isn't independent, impartial, and fair. Obviously English isn't your first language...

Here, I'll dumb it down for you....
Your a security guard. Did you take any training so you meet a set of standards to do your job? Does a Doctor or Surgeon have to follow a set of standards to do their job? Does a train driver get shoved into a train without any traing and told to drive to so and so station? How are they governed?
Do you not understand how society works?

originally posted by: Muldar
a reply to: Kurokage

Here is what teapot said earlier

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.

It seems both nicky and teapot don't accept Ofcom is independent. They're both from the UK. I am not on the other hand.

Teapot days Ofcom can be totally controlled by the government and military.

So you'll happily follow a random strangers on-line opinion as truth but not an organisation governed by the public, a set of standards and laws to follow?

I have an African prince friend with a giant cheque he can't cash, can I tell him to email you for help? All you've got to do is send him a bank transfer and he'll send you a cheque!!!

a reply to: Kurokage

So you'll happily follow a random strangers on-line opinion as truth but not an organisation governed by the public, a set of standards and laws to follow?

And here was me thinking, whoever Muldar is, was against the likes of online trials and opinions.

My guess is if the rhetoric fits the agenda it becomes kosher to some especially when it champions their cause.

Anyhoo, it has been explained multiple times now who Ofcom is accountable to.

That being parliament and the Secretary of State, which is outlined in the Communications Act of 2003.

If the op chooses to disregard or completely ignore the facts of the matter, what more can be said.

a reply to: andy06shake

My guess is if the rhetoric fits the agenda it becomes kosher to some especially when it champions their cause.

Yeah, you're right and they do seem to run a mile when anyone mentions Amodeous3???

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

That's not a claim or a hypothesis by the way.
But a question.

Unless you don't recognise what a question is.

And it is repeated again and again. Do you really want us to believe that Ofcom is independent, impartial, and fair?? Why?? Because they say in their website?? Or because you try to say so.

That is a claim worded in the way of a question, your claiming that Ofcom isn't independent, impartial, and fair. Obviously English isn't your first language...

Here, I'll dumb it down for you....
Your a security guard. Did you take any training so you meet a set of standards to do your job? Does a Doctor or Surgeon have to follow a set of standards to do their job? Does a train driver get shoved into a train without any traing and told to drive to so and so station? How are they governed?
Do you not understand how society works?

.there is no claim there or hypothesis, just a question.

It's only you who thinks it's a claim. Nobody else around here believes this is a claim or a hypothesis.

You need to be able to differentiate between a claim, a hypothesis and a question. You seem not to be able to or pretend not to know the difference.

What security guard are you talking about??

Take a look at what nickyw said about Ofcom

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.

In direct contradiction with what you're trying to say by linking the OFCOM's website...

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Muldar
a reply to: Kurokage

Here is what teapot said earlier

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.

It seems both nicky and teapot don't accept Ofcom is independent. They're both from the UK. I am not on the other hand.

Teapot days Ofcom can be totally controlled by the government and military.

So you'll happily follow a random strangers on-line opinion as truth but not an organisation governed by the public, a set of standards and laws to follow?

I have an African prince friend with a giant cheque he can't cash, can I tell him to email you for help? All you've got to do is send him a bank transfer and he'll send you a cheque!!!

nickyw and teapot have made it clear OFCOM is not independent. They're controlled.

I am not from the UK and can't trust anyone who says they are independent because it is written in their online statements.

Why should anyone trust you who tries to say they're independent by making never ending circular arguments by linking their website as evidence and then say here is the proof.

If you have evidence you are free to provide it. But you seem not to have any.

a reply to: Kurokage

Do you really want us to believe Ofcom is independent, impartial, and fair??

Original question to bastion.


Where is the evidence they are independent??

Do you want me to trust some random stranger online?? (your words when you referred to Nicky and teapot)

a reply to: andy06shake

They are accountable to the parliament.
That doesn't make them independent and free of pressures from the government and the state.

a reply to: Muldar

Of course, they are controlled, by a group of elected board members who ultimately answer to Parliament and the Secretary of State.

Again that's outlined in the Communications Act 2003.

Who is it you imagine controls your FCC, which is the American equivalent of OFCOM?

You really need to understand how these organisations function.

Who would you have implement and create such organisations if not the government?

How would that even work, where would they get power and authority to accomplish anything if not from the government and rule of law of the land?

www.legislation.gov.uk...

a reply to: Muldar

It's only you who thinks it's a claim. Nobody else around here believes this is a claim or a hypothesis.

It's you who doesn't seem to fully understand the English language or what you've claimed? It's also you who wants to believe an unknown stranger online over how society here in the Uk governs its organisations?

If you'd prefer to go along with two random strangers online who made claims without evidence then it clearly shows how gulible you are Asmodeous3.

I see you also chose to ignore my point on standards and laws companies follow.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Muldar

Of course, they are controlled, by a group of elected board members who ultimately answer to Parliament and the Secretary of State.

Again that's outlined in the Communications Act 2003.

Who is it you imagine controls your FCC, which is the American equivalent of OFCOM?

You really need to understand how these organisations function.

Who would you have implement and create such organisations if not the government?

How would that even work, where would they get power and authority to accomplish anything if not from the government and rule of law of the land?

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Take a look at this what 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