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

a reply to: Muldar

Of course, they are accountable.

All organisations are accountable to somebody.

How could it be any other way?

Where are these miraculous bodies of control you imagine that are independent and free of pressures from the government which would equate to being above the law? LoL

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

Why do you think anyone should take your word and not the word of nickyw and teapot who seem to know things better without making circular arguments or trying to apologise for OFCOM

a reply to: Muldar

Thats what called an "opinion", nickyw is entitled to that.

None of which changes the ""fact"" that OFCOM answers to Parliament and the Secretary of State.

Which once again is outlined in the Communications Act 2003.

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

Look 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

She maybe a complete online stranger but that's also true for you.

And you don't seem to have any evidence to show OFCOM is independent, just you want us to believe your assertions based on their assertions.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Muldar

Thats what called an "opinion", nickyw is entitled to that.

None of which changes the ""fact"" that OFCOM answers to Parliament and the Secretary of State.

Which once again is outlined in the Communications Act 2003.

Yes, they answer to the parliament. But that doesn't make them independent.

Any nickyw and teapot are entitled to their views just everyone else. But on the other hand there are no arguments to support the claims made OFCOM is independent. Only parroting of the official narratives.

a reply to: Muldar
It's clearly obvious you don't want to understand how Standards, quality systems and legal systems work to help an organisation like Ofcom remain impartial.
Like I said if you want to only believe what a stranger on-line has to say without evidence then your confirmation bias and denial limits your world view.

a reply to: Muldar

Yes, they answer to the parliament. But that doesn't make them independent.

So who does your FCC answer to? LoL

And independent of what?

Do you really expect OFCOM in the UK to be above the government and law of the land?

Again everybody answers to someone and OFCOM answers to the Secretary of State.

Any nickyw and teapot are entitled to their views just everyone else.

Where has anyone suggested Nickyw and Teapot are not entitled to their views?

Nowhere i can see.

Big difference between views and facts through and the fact is the Communications Act 2003 outlines how and where OFCOM draw there powers.

Simple as that really and fact you will simply have to deal with because your own FCC is not that much different.

But on the other hand there are no arguments to support the claims made OFCOM is independent. Only parroting of the official narratives.

It's just pages and people repeating themselves now about things you obviously don't understand or refuse to comprehend.

Anyhoo stuff to do, you have yourself a nice day.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Muldar

Yes, they answer to the parliament. But that doesn't make them independent.

So who does your FCC answer to? LoL

And independent of what?

Do you really expect OFCOM in the UK to be above the government and law of the land?

Again everybody answers to someone and OFCOM answers to the Secretary of State.

Any nickyw and teapot are entitled to their views just everyone else.

Where has anyone suggested Nickyw and Teapot are not entitled to their views?

Nowhere i can see.

Big difference between views and facts through and the fact is the Communications Act 2003 outlines how and where OFCOM draw there powers.

Simple as that really and fact you will simply have to deal with because your own FCC is not that much different.

But on the other hand there are no arguments to support the claims made OFCOM is independent. Only parroting of the official narratives.

It's just pages and people repeating themselves now about things you obviously don't understand or refuse to comprehend.

Anyhoo stuff to do, you have yourself a nice day.

It's not a fact they're independent.
This is an assertion made by another member long time ago.

nickyw and teapot express their views and so does everyone else. They know better compared to what I know because they're from the UK

What I can't accept is when assertions are discussed as if they're facts. And reference is made to the website of the organisation as if this is evidence of independence from the government.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar
It's clearly obvious you don't want to understand how Standards, quality systems and legal systems work to help an organisation like Ofcom remain impartial.
Like I said if you want to only believe what a stranger on-line has to say without evidence then your confirmation bias and denial limits your world view.

Two strangers online, nickyw and teapot say OFCOM isn't independent. Their views of course and they explain why.

In contrast you're trying to parrot official lines. You don't even give your opinion on this matter.

So you believe OFCOM is impartial?
Can you show us why??

Ofcom was established under the guise of protecting children.

What really happened:

- They allowed adults to stand naked in front of children

- They banned adults from hearing information regarding the dangers of vaccines

Want to use the word "independent" to define what Ofcom is doing? I suppose you can make-up any word you want. Maybe it's independent of the public's wishes.

But it doesn't change the fact this organization's broad powers are not decided by vote like normal laws. They are now doing things that the public did not intend.

It's a loophole to get around the legislative process and should be stopped.

a reply to: Muldar

Im not parroting anything, I've shown you how practices, standards and rules of practice help maintain imartiality. You're just choosing to ignore it for your own reality.

You seemed focused purely on online opinion (funny really, as you claim it's this that has hung Brand??)and refuse the see actual evidence of how an organisation has rules to follow, a quality system and codes of practice to follow.
You seem to what it both ways, If I post my opinion, you claim it means nothing as it's just my opinion but then when I posted evidence you claim I'm parroting?

a reply to: Daughter2

- They allowed adults to stand naked in front of children

Well, they were young adults, you claimed they weren't even teenagers when postring about it in the first place.

- They banned adults from hearing information regarding the dangers of vaccines

They didn't ban anyone that showed evidence to back up there claims.

a reply to: Kurokage

Let's take their pro-vaccine stance.

How do we know their policies aren't put into place because of their personal or professional contacts with large pharmaceutical companies?

For example, what would stop a board member, married to a politician who receives substantial donations for Pfizer from voting to stop information showing vaccines are harmful?

Here is another example, let's say the board members vote to allow full access to child porn . Tell me what would stop them?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

Im not parroting anything, I've shown you how practices, standards and rules of practice help maintain imartiality. You're just choosing to ignore it for your own reality.

You seemed focused purely on online opinion (funny really, as you claim it's this that has hung Brand??)and refuse the see actual evidence of how an organisation has rules to follow, a quality system and codes of practice to follow.
You seem to what it both ways, If I post my opinion, you claim it means nothing as it's just my opinion but then when I posted evidence you claim I'm parroting?

So you now say you have given evidence and you have shown they're independent.

Are you sure you're not parroting official lines when you link their website?! And then use it as evidence they're independent and impartial.

This is what you said

It's clearly obvious you don't want to understand how Standards, quality systems and legal systems work to help an organisation like Ofcom remain impartial

So you believe they're impartial and you admitted based on what?? The standards they suppose to follow?? Do you know how absurd this sounds?!

Where is the evidence that I refuse to see?

No, if you post your opinion then that will be your opinion. But you don't even post it. You just parroting official narratives.

Do you really want us to believe OFCOM is independent and impartial based on official narratives.

It's like claiming the 'Independent Police Complaint Commission' is independent because they say they are and because they use the word independent to describe their service.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Daughter2

- They allowed adults to stand naked in front of children

Well, they were young adults, you claimed they weren't even teenagers when postring about it in the first place.

- They banned adults from hearing information regarding the dangers of vaccines

They didn't ban anyone that showed evidence to back up there claims.

No, they were children - under 16. And ofcome thought it was GOOD for children to have adults stand naked in front of them!

And Ofcom thought THEY should decide what evidence is enough and not the public. They could have forced disclosure of evidence and let the public decide but they wanted to judge it for the public.

a reply to: Muldar

I linked to codes of practice and standards they must follow. Thats how companies work Asmodeous3. Like I said previously...
You're a security guard and have to follow standards and quality system, do you not?
Thats how business works.

a reply to: Daughter2

Actually you claimed they weren't even teenagers that appeared in the show.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

I linked to codes of practice and standards they must follow. Thats how companies work Asmodeous3. Like I said previously...
You're a security guard and have to follow standards and quality system, do you not?
Thats how business works.

So you believe they're impartial and you admitted it based on what?? The standards they suppose to follow?? Do you know how absurd this sounds?!

if you post your opinion then that will be your opinion but you don't even post it. You just parroting official narratives.

Do you really want us to believe OFCOM is independent and impartial based on official narratives.

Remember what I said above.

It's like claiming the 'Independent Police Complaint Commission' is independent because they say they are and because they use the word independent to describe their service

The codes and standards of practise are not evidence they are independent and impartial.

This is what you said

it's clearly obvious you don't want to understand how Standards, quality systems and legal systems work to help an organisation like Ofcom remain impartial

No proof yet and no evidence they are impartial and independent

a reply to: Kurokage

I was just using definitions from a previous thread. Posters thought 16 was a child.

I assumed they would also define under 16 as a child?

Or is it different standards depending on who you like?

Ofcom is free to define a child for one person and use another definition for people they like.

This is why there should be specific rules and laws - voted on by the public or elected officials.

a reply to: Kurokage

Two strangers online, nickyw and teapot, say OFCOM isn't independent. It's their views and they explain it quite well.

You don't even say what you think and you are parroting official narratives. There is no substance in official narratives and no evidence of the claims made they're independent.