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

a reply to: Kurokage

"Naked Attraction (Channel 4 show by the same people) is avalible in America now!!"

Heads will explode!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

The burden of proof in defamation cases is switched to the alleged defamer.

I don't think you understand this.

I said our defamation laws need reform.

They do.

Me?!

This is a disingenuous statement.

I am the one who asked you how is it possible that you want to shift the burden of proof?! And on social hat basis? Remember I gave you s good example.

The burden of proof is always ok those who make the claims and this time the claims are made by those who defame others.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

Stop lying.

I gave you my own opinion on the independence of the IPCC based on my own direct experience.

Your opinion, yes that's fine. But the argument by another lawyer from the UK is much stronger I am afraid and they have written extensively.

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.[/b,]

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.

novaramedia.com...

And I don't think many of your compatriots believe the IPCC is independent just as OFCOM

edit on 4-10-2023 by Muldar because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Daughter2

From your comments about British TV and now this about Football it's clear you don't understand Britain's way of donig things.

There are many people who can put up with government messing with their lives but for some, messing with Football for more than a few weeks would cause uproar. It would be like scenes straight out of Mad Max and The Purge combined. Just not going to happen.

The person who doesn't understand what's happening seems to be you.

You forgot that your assertions which were nothing more than parroting official lines were easily refuted but other members here and the lawyer on the link I gave earlier.

For some strange reason you can't even give your personal opinion and you seem to be parroting official lines which by no means constitute evidence or a valid argument.

What do you expect OFCOM to say? That they're not independent?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Still find it very troubling how it is possible that a lawyer (you said you have years of expertise) will want to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. And to be clear the accuser is the one who tries to defame someone else and the accused is the one who defends themselves and make a libel and defamation claim.

It's just astonishing that lawyers or even anyone in the legal system or in the Police will try to shift the burden of proof. It doesn't happen though at any level as far as I know.

Society hasn't lost it yet despite the massive erosion of its values and principles.

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Daughter2

There are many people who can put up with government messing with their lives but for some, messing with Football for more than a few weeks would cause uproar. It would be like scenes straight out of Mad Max and The Purge combined. Just not going to happen.

And when football is taken away (after another nice little letter from Caroline) how are people going to complain?

*They can lock people in their homes
*They can prevent any dissent on the internet

So how is the uproar/purge going to happen?

Football will be gone or water down to something void of emotions.

And you won't be even able to complain about it.
But it's all worth it because Ofcom will make sure your children can view naked adults.

originally posted by: Daughter2
It's important to remember Rumble will just be the start.
The noose will be tightened slowly and they will come for one group at a time.

The "end" will be something like the demise of football (or as we call it soccer) matches.


Too much congregating, spreading germs, too much potential for private conversations about "harmful" topics.

Absolutely agree!

Despite the attempts to downplay the issue (which is very serious) by those who have been apologising on behalf of the Government and OFCOM.

a reply to: teapot

The demise of Rumble, or any other business not registered in, the UK could be interpreted as govt overreach and the path to totalitarianism

Any reasonable person can easily see what's going on and will agree with this statement. Apart from very few who engage in Governemnt and OFCOM apologetics.

Totalitarianism is the aim unfortunately.
But it will fail.

a reply to: Muldar

And I don't think many of your compatriots believe the IPCC is independent just as OFCOM

By many do you mean 3?

a reply to: Muldar

Well, if you don't get it now you never will.

You got it backwards and it's "Claimant" and "Defendant".

a reply to: Muldar

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

So he's not a lawyer. I am.

"And I don't think many of your compatriots believe the IPCC is independent just as OFCOM".

Think away.

By the way, Civil Liberties lawyers tend to be quite left wing.

Novara Media is a left wing site.

So your now parroting left wing ideology?

Ha!Ha!

a reply to: Muldar

Do you have anything to add that doesn't involve parroting left wing opinion pieces?

ATTENTION...please read before posting further....

BE AWARE THAT IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND/OR IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO HAVE POSTS REMOVED. OR YOU MAY BE TEMPORARILY POST BANNED!
AND, PLEASE REMEMBER THERE IS NO MORE MUD PIT....MUD NOT ALLOWED.

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are encouraged.

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.




Be the Change You Wish to See. Redux.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

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

So he's not a lawyer. I am.

"And I don't think many of your compatriots believe the IPCC is independent just as OFCOM".

Think away.

By the way, Civil Liberties lawyers tend to be quite left wing.

Novara Media is a left wing site.

So your now parroting left wing ideology?

Ha!Ha!

And so what?
He still seems to know much more and be able to make cogent arguments.

Advocating for the shift in the burden of proof in cases of libel and defamation is just outrageous.

Or your guilty until proven innocent stance and support for the Government to censor or ban Rumble.

There is plenty of doubt on whether your claims are true. I mean the ones where you said you are a lawyer.

a reply to: Muldar

www.pinsentmasons.com...

"The legal presumption, which works in favour of the claimant, is that a defamatory statement is false. It is therefore for the defendant to prove that the statement is true."

a reply to: Muldar

"Or your guilty until proven innocent stance and support for the Government to censor or ban Rumble.

There is plenty of doubt on whether your claims are true. I mean the ones where you said you are a lawyer."

Not true. Putting more words in my mouth?

Nice ad hom.

a reply to: Muldar

Carpy is a lawyer, I assure you.

Your constant and seemingly never ending determination to disbelieve anything he and others have said on this subject despite repeatedly showing you irrefutable evidence certainly questions your motivations here.

It has been shown that in such circumstances in UK jurisprudence the burden of proof lies with the defendant and not the claimant.

In addition Carpy and various others have also stated quite clearly on several occasions that they disagree with this and believe it should be changed.

So what exactly is your problem here?

Seems to me you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at the moment.