|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 27, 2023 13:12:30 GMT
Here are the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the letter:
However, we are also looking at his use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches. While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.
We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.
I’ve simplified them to help you understand:
Par three states the committee’s concerns.
Par four asks about Brand’s ability to get income from the videos on Rumble, and if Rumble intends to act like other organisations and suspend Brand’s to earn money from videos on the platform.
Par five asks what Rumble is doing to prevent content creators from harming victims of what might eventually be judged illegal behaviour.
Nowhere do those paragraphs imply or suggest what Rumble should do. Nor do they threaten arrest or any other action against Rumble…
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2023 13:26:23 GMT
Nowhere do those paragraphs imply or suggest what Rumble should do. Nor do they threaten arrest or any other action against Rumble… It implies it strongly It outlines what YouTube has done and gives the reasons for doing so. It also employs the contrast meaning of 'while' to discount a likely objection to doing the same thing. The implication is so plain, i would doubt the honesty of someone who claimed not to be able to see it. Similarly - if the government writes to shopkeeper inquiring as to whether Jews are banned from their shop. The letter mentions that other shopkeepers have already banned Jews and goes on to talk about the accusations against Jews and the damage that may be done to victims by their presence it's pretty clear what the implication is |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 27, 2023 13:33:17 GMT
Nowhere do those paragraphs imply or suggest what Rumble should do. Nor do they threaten arrest or any other action against Rumble… It implies it strongly It outlines what YouTube has done and gives the reasons for doing so. It also employs the contrast meaning of 'while' to discount a likely objection to doing the same thing. The implication is so plain, i would doubt the honesty of someone who claimed not to be able to see it. Similarly - if the government writes to shopkeeper inquiring as to whether Jews are banned from their shop. The letter mentions that other shopkeepers have already banned Jews and goes on to talk about the accusations against Jews and the damage that may be done to victims by their presence it's pretty clear what the implication is Apologies, but while your mind imagines arrest and implied suggestions, and you infer what you do, I don’t see there’s much we can intelligently discuss… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2023 13:38:12 GMT
It implies it strongly It outlines what YouTube has done and gives the reasons for doing so. It also employs the contrast meaning of 'while' to discount a likely objection to doing the same thing. The implication is so plain, i would doubt the honesty of someone who claimed not to be able to see it. Similarly - if the government writes to shopkeeper inquiring as to whether Jews are banned from their shop. The letter mentions that other shopkeepers have already banned Jews and goes on to talk about the accusations against Jews and the damage that may be done to victims by their presence it's pretty clear what the implication is Apologies, but while your mind imagines arrest and implied suggestions, and you infer what you do, I don’t see there’s much we can intelligently discuss… As you appear to be engaging in dishonesty, I find it reassuring we disagree on more than one topic |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 27, 2023 16:50:03 GMT
Apologies, but while your mind imagines arrest and implied suggestions, and you infer what you do, I don’t see there’s much we can intelligently discuss… As you appear to be engaging in dishonesty, I find it reassuring we disagree on more than one topic Dishonesty? I don’t recall actually lying threats of arrest — or anything similar… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2023 16:56:53 GMT
As you appear to be engaging in dishonesty, I find it reassuring we disagree on more than one topic Dishonesty? I don’t recall actually lying threats of arrest — or anything similar… That wasn't a lie. It was a mistake. What you are doing is lying. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 27, 2023 17:05:39 GMT
Dishonesty? I don’t recall actually lying threats of arrest — or anything similar… That wasn't a lie. It was a mistake. What you are doing is lying. The threat of arrest only became a mistake after what you posted was called out because you couldn’t even show where you first got the info from. You were lying. Admit it, you find it difficult to sift what you want to be, from actual fact. That’s why I can’t take any of your opinions seriously… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2023 17:20:50 GMT
That wasn't a lie. It was a mistake. What you are doing is lying. The threat of arrest only became a mistake after what you posted was called out because you couldn’t even show where you first got the info from. You were lying.… I didn't think it was worth showing where the false information came from after I retracted. A post I shouldn't have made. I was challenged after the post sat there all night. Considering i retracted, I thought your response to it was a bit odd at the time. There is a difference between saying something you think is likely true, and outright lying. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 27, 2023 17:21:56 GMT
The threat of arrest only became a mistake after what you posted was called out because you couldn’t even show where you first got the info from. You were lying.… I didn't think it was worth showing where the false information came from after I retracted. A post I shouldn't have made. I was challenged after the post sat there all night. Considering i retracted, I thought your response to it was a bit odd at the time. There is a difference between saying something you think is likely true, and outright lying. If you weren’t lying, show the source of your mistake… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 27, 2023 17:28:46 GMT
I didn't think it was worth showing where the false information came from after I retracted. A post I shouldn't have made. I was challenged after the post sat there all night. Considering i retracted, I thought your response to it was a bit odd at the time. There is a difference between saying something you think is likely true, and outright lying. If you weren’t lying, show the source of your mistake… |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 27, 2023 17:36:49 GMT
Convenient, and dated when..?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Sept 27, 2023 17:46:14 GMT
I get the impression this is more about a witch hunt to get him demonetised … than concern for the victims.
… all being engineered b4 any trial has taken place to establish guilt or innocence.
If released on bail … surely the accused is entitled to keep working and get an income for work done … in order to buy the best defence lawyer they can afford? …
… surely the MEDIA should be muzzled and fined heavily now if this is going to trial … nobody should have the right to bully a defendant into bankruptcy on pure allegation alone?
… love or hate Brand … everyone deserves a fair trial … if British Courts and the Establishment can’t provide that for dissidents like Assange or Brand … and MEDIA witch hunting becomes the norm …. maybe it’s more important for the British Justice System, NEWSPAPER OWNERS and POLITICAL Leaders to be in the Dock today … rather than Russell Brand?…
… his trial can be tackled later … this is a more URGENT issue …. flushing out this CORRUPTION within our Legal System.
if the victims can’t be bothered to complain for decades about their ‘assaults’ … another decade or two delay won’t matter.🤔
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 27, 2023 18:02:37 GMT
I suggest flushing out delays within the legal system is more urgent. Also, more victim-accessible sex-crime reporting procedures are years overdue…
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Sept 27, 2023 18:48:19 GMT
I suggest flushing out delays within the legal system is more urgent. Also, more victim-accessible sex-crime reporting procedures are years overdue ***… How would you go about flushing out delays? … as lawyers and solicitors tend to engineer delays to greatly increase revenue for their Practices.🤔 1) By making cases have stricter timelines and fixed fee categories?? 2) Costs ceiling caps … to push things faster? … Guessing some important cases would need time/costs extensions applied … *** Didn’t they reform sex-crime reporting and implement more humane treatment of victims in police stations? … better trained officers etc? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2023 19:13:06 GMT
|
|
