Devil's Advocate - How Are We To Interpret The Possibility Of The Demise of Rumble In The UK?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The UK does not have "totalitarian leaders".

We have a multi party system with free and fair elections.

As in, a multi party democracy.

Not that I particularly like our current Govt, but I am free to say that.

Doesn't look well for your democracy I am afraid. A deranged establishment going after Brand and then going after Rumble because they haven't demonetized or banned him yet.

Do you think he will get more or less followers from now on?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The UK does not have "totalitarian leaders".

We have a multi party system with free and fair elections.

As in, a multi party democracy.

Not that I particularly like our current Govt, but I am free to say that.

Not that I particularly like our current Govt, but I am free to say that.

If you had millions of followers or your word had some weight because it was influencing a number of voters then you wouldn't be that free to say what you say when having zero followers.

a reply to: Muldar

Really don't care about how many fools choose to follow him.

Back on my actual point, we don't have "totalitarian leaders".

Any further comment on my point about the IPCC being independent or why you said I have suggested YouTube is independent?

Why did you sneak that lie in?

a reply to: Muldar

Well, David Icke, for one, is still free to say all that, so, you fail.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar


Back on my actual point, we don't have "totalitarian leaders".

Actually, that is only your opinion. Other people in the UK say otherwise.

The past year and actions of the British government has been a case study in how British totalitarianism, if it comes to that, will have a particularly polite and inconspicuous feel to it: those initially reasonable-sounding entreaties to stay at home to protect a hallowed institution of the state—the NHS—to then wear masks for what seems like either a placebo effect to assuage the anxiety of some citizens or a more malign effort to erode our dignity, self-esteem and individualism.

Just like Orwell said

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

2021?

So. Do we or do we not have a multi party democracy?

Best look up what "totalitarianism" means, rather than extremist rhetoric?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

2021?

So. Do we or do we not have a multi party democracy?

Best look up what "totalitarianism" means, rather than extremist rhetoric?

The extremist rhetoric of your current "leaning" totalitarian UK government leaders? We all saw that during the lockdowns and fear mongering. You aren't alone in having totalitarian leaders. We have them here too! They really love having the power of life and death over people. And like the UK government currently, having the power to say who can be or should be "demonitized" for going against their "totalitarian edicts".

This could become a real problem in the future for you. Good luck with it, you will need it.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I really think you need to look up and understand what "totalitarianism" actually means?

At least our Govt is not facing shutdown?

Good luck, you will need it.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

Really don't care about how many fools choose to follow him.

Back on my actual point, we don't have "totalitarian leaders".

Any further comment on my point about the IPCC being independent or why you said I have suggested YouTube is independent?

Why did you sneak that lie in?

Have you really shown IPCC is independent?!

novaramedia.com...

Why Are We Still Pretending This Police Watchdog Is Independent?
Of more than 23,000 complaints made about policing between 2020-2021, only 18 resulted in further action.

by Larry Lock
21 November 2022

Earlier this year, the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) published its own findings on the new police complaints system, concluding that a truly fair and open oversight body is still yet to be tabled. The HASC report found that the complaints system the IOPC is responsible for is still characterised by chronic delays and obstruction, echoing the findings of the Macpherson report over two decades ago. There is still no time limit on how long an investigation can take, and so investigations into police misconduct can become a long and often gruelling process.

The old mantra “justice delayed is justice denied” is particularly true for the families of victims of police misconduct or brutality. Forcing them to wait for complicated and opaque investigations to conclude is cruel, and the IOPC’s stonewalling interferes with the natural grieving process, adding to existing trauma.

It doesn't really support the idea the IPCC is independent. Good article by the way.


So you think people who choose to follow Brand are fools in contrast to those who choose to follow a political party or a soccer team?

Do you see what you're writing down?!

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

2021?

So. Do we or do we not have a multi party democracy?

Best look up what "totalitarianism" means, rather than extremist rhetoric?

The extremist rhetoric of your current "leaning" totalitarian UK government leaders? We all saw that during the lockdowns and fear mongering. You aren't alone in having totalitarian leaders. We have them here too! They really love having the power of life and death over people. And like the UK government currently, having the power to say who can be or should be "demonitized" for going against their "totalitarian edicts".

This could become a real problem in the future for you. Good luck with it, you will need it.

They don't want to admit it.
They live in a fantasy.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

Well, David Icke, for one, is still free to say all that, so, you fail.

I think you should take a look to what you said about some Government organisations being independent and see who really fails to provide even the slightest piece of evidence.

From government apologetics to OFCOM apologetics to IPCC apologetics.

a reply to: Muldar

From your source:

"Larry Lock is a civil liberties lawyer in training".



Me?

Actually qualified for decades.

But, my direct experience of the IPCC counts for nothing?

So. Why did you lie about me having supposedly claimed that YouTube was independent?

."so you think people who choose to follow Brand are fools in contrast to those who choose to follow a political party or a soccer team?"

Another example of you falsely putting words in another posters mouth.

a reply to: Muldar

You forgot "vaccine apologetics"?

Like your previous oft repeated mantra"?

a reply to: Muldar

www.policeconduct.gov.uk...

18?

Depends how far you shift your goalposts?

a reply to: Muldar

You might want to read my posts rather than constantly misrepresenting what I actually said and lying about stuff?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

You might want to read my posts rather than constantly misrepresenting what I actually said and lying about stuff?

You might want to read this rather than engaging in IPCC apologetics and OFCOM support

Why Are We Still Pretending This Police Watchdog Is Independent?
Of more than 23,000 complaints made about policing between 2020-2021, only 18 resulted in further action.

by Larry Lock
21 November 2022

Earlier this year, the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) published its own findings on the new police complaints system, concluding that a truly fair and open oversight body is still yet to be tabled. The HASC report found that the complaints system the IOPC is responsible for is still characterised by chronic delays and obstruction, echoing the findings of the Macpherson report over two decades ago. There is still no time limit on how long an investigation can take, and so investigations into police misconduct can become a long and often gruelling process.

The old mantra “justice delayed is justice denied” is particularly true for the families of victims of police misconduct or brutality. Forcing them to wait for complicated and opaque investigations to conclude is cruel, and the IOPC’s stonewalling interferes with the natural grieving process, adding to existing trauma.

You tried to dismiss it by arguing the guy who wrote the article is a civil liberties lawyer...

And so what? And you are an IPCC and OFCOM apologist.

Some of your compatriots on a numbers of threads have verified that nothing in your country is independent. From the BBC to the IPCC to OFCOM, etc.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

You forgot "vaccine apologetics"?

Like your previous oft repeated mantra"?

If you want to engage vaccine apologetics is up to you. It won't change the fact that the AZ vaccine has been banned in the majority of countries it was used. That vaccine has come from the UK by the way. Also abandoned there...

If you want to apologize for the IPCC you're not doing a good job.

Likewise when you try to apologise for the Government and OFCOM in relation to Brand and Rumble.

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

You forgot "vaccine apologetics"?

Like your previous oft repeated mantra"?

If you want to engage vaccine apologetics is up to you. It won't change the fact that the AZ vaccine has been banned in the majority of countries it was used. That vaccine has come from the UK by the way. Also abandoned there...

If you want to apologize for the IPCC you're not doing a good job.

Likewise when you try to apologise for the Government and OFCOM in relation to Brand and Rumble.

Well considering there's still 3 vaccines avalible?

www.yalemedicine.org...

But this isn't a thread about covid is it? It's about Rumble, not that seems to matter to you??

I still see this as social media companies being held accountable for videos they allow on their site, and just like I said earlier, people are quick to accuse the MSM of supplying false information or propaganda and need to held accountable, then why shouldn't social media be in the same boat?

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

You forgot "vaccine apologetics"?

Like your previous oft repeated mantra"?

If you want to engage vaccine apologetics is up to you. It won't change the fact that the AZ vaccine has been banned in the majority of countries it was used. That vaccine has come from the UK by the way. Also abandoned there...

If you want to apologize for the IPCC you're not doing a good job.

Likewise when you try to apologise for the Government and OFCOM in relation to Brand and Rumble.

Well considering there's still 3 vaccines avalible?

www.yalemedicine.org...

But this isn't a thread about covid is it? It's about Rumble, not that seems to matter to you??

I still see this as social media companies being held accountable for videos they allow on their site, and just like I said earlier, people are quick to accuse the MSM of supplying false information or propaganda and need to held accountable, then why shouldn't social media be in the same boat?

The Astrazeneca vaccine has been banned in most countries. I wonder why... This marvelous achievement of 'science' is gone...

But you're right the thread is about Rumble. The UK Government has gone against Brand and against Rumble that refused to ban or demonetize Brand. That's surely something of a great concern of all sane people in the UK who see their Government interfere in People's lives and demand their sponsors or employers or the platforms who hold their views to ban them or demonetize them.

Here comes OFCOM, the arbiter of truth and morality, that will draw up new guidance on what is acceptable and what is not. Together with Government and OFCOM apologists who have argued OFCOM is independent because they say they are in their website. (a bit of a circular argument but no worries...)

Let's see what happened in OFCOM

www.publicmediaalliance.org...

Serious concerns over Ofcom Chair recruitment process

We write to voice our extreme concern at the opaque, ongoing process to appoint a new Chair of Ofcom. A role for which the advertisement asserts that, “candidates must demonstrate very high levels of personal integrity, and the ability to command respect and trust”.

The UK media industry is a critical sector for the future of the country. It is therefore imperative that the next Chair of Ofcom understands the complexities of and current challenges to, that industry. The UK’s media regulator has rarely faced such critical threats – from powerful and largely unregulated social media to the proliferation of mis- and disinformation; from critical issues of digital security and online safety to the threats to public service media and its rules on impartiality.

Ofcom is the regulator for the media that underpins our democracy. That democracy is dependent on the independence of the media and its ability to hold power to account.

Ofcom is the regulator for the media that underpins our democracy. That democracy is dependent on the independence of the media and its ability to hold power to account. Ofcom has a duty under the Communications Act to secure the maximum benefit from the media space for citizens-consumers, industry, and the wider economy. It is essential, therefore, that the Chair must have the full confidence of both Parliament and the public. This process must be, and be seen to be, truly independent.

Unfortunately, we are not satisfied that these expectations are being met. After an unsuccessful attempt to appoint a Chair in the first round, which ended in May, over the last few months we have witnessed a governmental process which seemed to be an attempt to ensure that its favoured candidate, Paul Dacre, the ex-editor of The Daily Mail, was appointed; regardless of him being deemed ‘unappointable’ by the original panel. Despite Mr Dacre ruling himself out of the job last week, we still have grave concerns over the process.

Since May, a new panel has been convened and we are concerned about the conflicts of interest, particularly with regard to the regulation of the BBC. Last week we learned that one member of this new three-person appointments panel [the original panel had four members], and the Senior Independent Panel Member, Michael Prescott, is a senior executive at a firm with close ties to the Conservatives, which also lobbies on behalf of Sky and Facebook. Meanwhile a second panellist, Michael Simmonds, is a former Conservative adviser, and married to a Conservative MP. This raises serious questions about the suitability of these individuals to be panellists. Thepanel’s credibility is further marred by panel members’ associations with Sir Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street adviser, robust critic of the BBC, and now a member of its Board. These connections surely create a serious conflict of interest when considering that the panel will be appointing the Chair of the body which regulates the BBC, an independent and publicly accountable media organisation.

It doesn't look good at all.

a reply to: Muldar

You still couldn't help yourself could you? You still had to have your little say and be the mouth piece of the anti-vaccine crowd in a thread with nothing to do with it???

As for your story about Ofcom, maybe check the date first....

24 November 2021

So you've had to dig and dig to try and fight dirt and that's the best you could find? A two year old story?
If you'd bother reading any of the links provided you would've seen....

Lord Grade of Yarmouth
Chair

Michael Grade has had a long career in broadcasting, encompassing London Weekend Television, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. He has chaired the BBC, ITV and Pinewood/Shepperton Film Studios. He is co-founder of the GradeLinnit company, which produces for the theatre.

You were correct, It doesn't look good for you at all....