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

a reply to: Daughter2

"Would the creation of Ofcom been voted into law if the public knew beforehand, they would
allow adults naked in front of children ...."

It wasn't voted into law by the public.

That's not how Government works.

As for naked adults etc, this has been explained to you several times.

a reply to: Daughter2

"To misrepresent the last 10 pages".

Fixed for you.

a reply to: Muldar

www.bbc.co.uk...


Well, here's some evidence of independence for you.

"The BBC has been told to make its complaints process simpler and more transparent because "people just don't have sufficient confidence in it".

OFCOM not afraid to criticise the BBC.

Kind of supports that it is, indeed, independent?

No?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Is it ofcom that decides if an image is acceptable for the side of a bus?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Is it ofcom that decides if an image is acceptable for the side of a bus?

No.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Daughter2


You've done this bit.

No it's hasn't been done.

This is the premise of the arguments made by some members who claim Ofcom is independent.

Using and parroting official lines.
But that's no evidence.

Clearly their arguments can't hold

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

www.bbc.co.uk...


We'll, here's some evidence of independence for you.

"The BBC has been told to make its complaints process simpler and more transparent because "people just don't have sufficient confidence in it".

OFCOM not afraid to criticise the BBC.

Kind of supports that it is, indeed, independent?

No?

It's like complaining to the Police about the Police.

So, No!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

By the looks of things that would be the responsibility of the "Advertising Standards Authority" (ASA) here in the UK.

If you have an issue, concern or complaint that is.

www.asa.org.uk...

a reply to: alldaylong

Official lines
Parroting
And Ofcom apologetics.

You have to admit that you can't show OFCOM Bid independent as there is nothing to show.

You have been making circular arguments just like a few other members.

a reply to: Muldar

How's that?

Complaints were made to OFCOM about the BBC. OFCOM upheld them and acted upon them and made the BBC accountable.

Kinda demonstrates independence?

No?

Logical fallacy there, mate.

You wanted evidence?

You got it.

originally posted by: Muldar
a reply to: alldaylong

Official lines
Parroting
And Ofcom apologetics.

You have to admit that you can't show OFCOM Bid independent as there is nothing to show.

You have been making circular arguments just like a few other members.

I will make it simple for you.

OFCOM state they are independent. You claim there is no proof of that. Therefore by your own admission you are saying they are lying.

As clear as day.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Muldar
a reply to: alldaylong

Official lines
Parroting
And Ofcom apologetics.

You have to admit that you can't show OFCOM Bid independent as there is nothing to show.

You have been making circular arguments just like a few other members.

I will make it simple for you.

OFCOM state they are independent. You claim there is no proof of that. Therefore by your own admission you are saying they are lying.

As clear as day.

OFCOM state they are independent. You claim there is no proof of that. Therefore by your own admission you are saying they are lying.

No.

Try again please.

Burden of proof is on them and on those who claim OFCOM are independent. Isn't about lying...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Is it ofcom that decides if an image is acceptable for the side of a bus?

No. That's advertising. Not broadcasting.

That would be within the remit of the ASA.

Not OFCOM.

Obviously?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

How's that?

Complaints were made to OFCOM about the BBC. OFCOM upheld them and acted upon them and made the BBC accountable.

Kinda demonstrates independence?

No?

Logical fallacy there, mate.

You wanted evidence?

You got it.

No, you can't prove that with one case (whatever this case is)
Just like as you can't state they are independent because they say they are.

a reply to: Muldar

I just discharged that burden.

Deal with it.

a reply to: Muldar

No.

At long last we got there.

You say OFCOM are not lying, therefore you now admit that they are telling the truth when they state they are in fact independent.

HURRAH.

a reply to: Muldar

Move those goalposts.

Quelle surprise.

Evidence, mate.

I gave you some

So let's see what we have altogether

OFCOM apologetics
YouTube apologetics
BBC apologetics
and... vaccine apologetics

Still not a single piece of evidence OFCOM is independent.

a reply to: Muldar

Still not a single piece of evidence OFCOM is independent.

We have evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Muldar

No.

At long last we got there.

You say OFCOM are not lying, therefore you now admit that they are telling the truth when they state they are in fact independent.

HURRAH.

I haven't made any claim about OFCOM lying or saying the truth. That's a strawman argument you have created and you're attacking it.

I will certainly take a picture of your conclusion above to use it in other discussions.

You should understand where the burden of proof is when OFCOM or some members claim the organisation is independent. You need to have evidence and not just parroting official lines.