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

originally posted by: Kurokage
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....

So what if it's two years ago. Did it change anything?

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 just shows the close connections of this organisation with the Government and the State.

It's best if you stop the OFCOM apologetics.

What anti-vaccine are you talking about??
AZ has been banned...
.

a reply to: Kurokage

Several attempts and you can't even find anything to support the assertions OFCOM is independent. Just using their website and their assertions that you have been parroting.

a reply to: Muldar

It just shows the close connections of this organisation with the Government and the State.

Thats just your incorrect opinion, and doesn't show that at all.
If you'd taken the time to look you'd have also found out the the Chair isn't a permanent position and changes frequently.
You really do love calling other members apologist don't you? Does it help with your bias and denail?

You still have to try and make an of topic comment about vaccines don't you?
Your denial is very strong isn't it...

a reply to: Muldar

Several attempts and you can't even find anything to support the assertions OFCOM is independent. Just using their website and their assertions that you have been parroting.

Several attempts at trying to dirty the truth and you can't can you??
Just because you choose to ignore how organisations work in the real world doesn't mean you have to bring your incorrect argument into this thread too.....

a reply to: Kreeate

I'm not trying to dismiss anything. I outright and categorically dismissed the whole issue.
Let me clarify... Russel Brand has no impact in or on my life. I couldn't care less what he did in his personal and own time.

It seems that you are basing your opinions on your complete failure to look at anything outside of the sphere of your own self-interest. Clearly, you don't think deeply about anything that doesn't 'impact your life', and so it begs the question - why on EARTH are you spending time on ATS? Surely you've noticed that here on ATS we tend to discuss meaningful ideas & issues that affect the greater realm of humanity, rather than petty issues that are so irrelevant that they only affect you in your own little bubble.

The censorship industrial complex has everything to do with keeping the truth of depop from becoming known.

Covid. Vaccines. Transexual castration. Ukraine. Taiwan.Trump. Biden. What isn't direct depop is a distraction from the truth of depop.

My devil's advocate says: If the depop truth does become mainstream, the counteracting revolt will send the lights out for everyone and we all lose anyways; so the truth must not become the knowledge of the masses for the sake of all modern humanity.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Kreeate

I'm not trying to dismiss anything. I outright and categorically dismissed the whole issue.
Let me clarify... Russel Brand has no impact in or on my life. I couldn't care less what he did in his personal and own time.

It seems that you are basing your opinions on your complete failure to look at anything outside of the sphere of your own self-interest. Clearly, you don't think deeply about anything that doesn't 'impact your life', and so it begs the question - why on EARTH are you spending time on ATS? Surely you've noticed that here on ATS we tend to discuss meaningful ideas & issues that affect the greater realm of humanity, rather than petty issues that are so irrelevant that they only affect you in your own little bubble.

sadly much of the west lives in a narcissistic bubble that's been so inflated that when it pops which it will they'll fail to cope, its the ultimate interpretation of the worst American export that everyone has to be hyper individualistic for life to have meaning, yet even the most individualist American is still community driven.

originally posted by: GenerationGap
The censorship industrial complex has everything to do with keeping the truth of depop from becoming known.

Covid. Vaccines. Transexual castration. Ukraine. Taiwan.Trump. Biden. What isn't direct depop is a distraction from the truth of depop.

My devil's advocate says: If the depop truth does become mainstream, the counteracting revolt will send the lights out for everyone and we all lose anyways; so the truth must not become the knowledge of the masses for the sake of all modern humanity.

the west lurches from liberalism sand closes in on actual fascism as liberalism did in the early 1920s as a process this will drive us towards the pivot point needed to move on from this insanity, the question is how that will happen.

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: GenerationGap
The censorship industrial complex has everything to do with keeping the truth of depop from becoming known.

Covid. Vaccines. Transexual castration. Ukraine. Taiwan.Trump. Biden. What isn't direct depop is a distraction from the truth of depop.

My devil's advocate says: If the depop truth does become mainstream, the counteracting revolt will send the lights out for everyone and we all lose anyways; so the truth must not become the knowledge of the masses for the sake of all modern humanity.

the west lurches from liberalism sand closes in on actual fascism as liberalism did in the early 1920s as a process this will drive us towards the pivot point needed to move on from this insanity, the question is how that will happen.

Agreed.

The snap back always happens like a stretched rubber band no longer under tension. Very predictable, and easily controllable with the state of modern propaganda and politburo lists.

a reply to: GenerationGap

The thing is we mirror 1924 as a dying globalist version of liberalism tied to an imploding empire, for the British empire that was visible from the chanack crisis onwards for the us empire it was obamas red lines in Syria.. both form the point where the closest vassal states say no more letting London/Washington make the decisions.. for the British empire 1924 was the birth of the commonwealth as an attempt to save the empire the us looks to be up to the same things., 1924 was also where the the dominant political party for previous 100 years died, liberal then conservatives now..

you know it's bad if Johnson feels he has a chance to lead the UK again as it look like the cons make be looking at another leadership contest in time for the 2024 elections..

a reply to: nickyw

I hope Johnson wins the leadership.

Will mean an even bigger wipeout at the next General Election for the Tories.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

is that the same Wipeout Johnson was assured to have in 2019, the cons have been trying to throw the election since Cameron, May trashed her lead as she obviously want to be opposition since they lost the brexit vote and knew they wouldn't deliver.

what I will say is nothing in this has been predictable, just as the intersectional nature of the western ideology will make a win that much harder for Starmer and labour..

the blackshirts marching outside the conservative conference with their red flags will make a win even harder as looks go its a poor one..

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

It just shows the close connections of this organisation with the Government and the State.

Thats just your incorrect opinion, and doesn't show that at all.
If you'd taken the time to look you'd have also found out the the Chair isn't a permanent position and changes frequently.
You really do love calling other members apologist don't you? Does it help with your bias and denail?

You still have to try and make an of topic comment about vaccines don't you?
Your denial is very strong isn't it...

If someone apologises on behalf of OFCOM then they are OFCOM apologists.

Other members here who are compatriots of yours have said OFCOM is not independent and they have backed up their claim. You only parroted official lines without any evidence.

And

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.

Why anyone will believe a random internet user like you who engages in parroting official lines and not the lawyer who has written the article that I have linked earlier or the members who have backed up their claims with rational arguments and not with parroting official lines.

It looks like the lawyer and the other members have refuted your assertions.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

Several attempts and you can't even find anything to support the assertions OFCOM is independent. Just using their website and their assertions that you have been parroting.

Several attempts at trying to dirty the truth and you can't can you??
Just because you choose to ignore how organisations work in the real world doesn't mean you have to bring your incorrect argument into this thread too.....

Meaningless talk.

a reply to: Muldar

Link?

a reply to: Muldar

If you had even looked then you'd have seen that the Chair of Ofcom isn't a permanent position and gets reappointed every few years, but that doesn't form to your conformation bias does it...

a reply to: Kurokage

Every four years.

a reply to: Muldar

Link?

When was this?

Lord Grade was appointed Chair, in 2022.

a reply to: Muldar

"It looks like the lawyer and the other members have refuted your assertions."

You mean the other random internet users?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

Link?

When was this?

Lord Grade was appointed Chair, in 2022.

I mentioned that earlier but they refused to acknowlege that the story was outdated (2019) and incorrect.