YouTube jumped too soon and no UK Parliament are wading in!

[MetaverseMavis]

No matter what my personal thoughts are about RB, I feel very uncomfortable with this trial by the media. YouTube has taken it too far by deciding he has violated their T&Cs and removed his channel. Now UK Parliament want his Rumble channel down.

Why is Parliament getting involved today? what are they scared of, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but this is absurd.

I seem to remember the media accusing Cliff Richard - turns out he was innocent.

He’s been on tik tok comparing himself to Jesus apparently.

@pinksunglasses I think you're confused.

The Committee's letters don't have anything to do with the criminal justice system. They don't have any bearing on any criminal case.

The Committee is writing to C4 and the BBC about their internal investigations into management processes. It's appropriate for the C4 and BBC to carry out management investigations, and it's appropriate for Parliament to be interested in those, because C4 and the BBC are publicly owned. Nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

Ditto the letter to TikTok. The Committee are asking about TikTok's monetisation policies, and asking about its procedures to protect victims. DCMS regulates the media in the UK, the Committee scrutinises DCMS, and these are questions about how the media is operating. Again, these are management issues, not criminal justice issues.

And nobody is being blocked from anything.

Does that help explain things?

If someone goes into a pub and causes trouble, they get kicked out. If they come back another day and cause trouble again, they'll get kicked out and barred. It's a private business and they can choose to serve or not serve an individual at their discretion (discrimination laws notwithstanding).

Brand is causing trouble for YouTube and they're reacting in the same way.

😁 No, not confused but thank you all the same.

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe they are simply asking or ‘expressing a concern’ knowing that a letter with a House of Commons stamp will often have ensure those concerns are taken quite seriously. My opinion is that the letters are heavy with subtext and I’ll be interested to see how it proceeds.

I also find it interesting that the same committee sent a letter to The Sun with regards to the Huw Edwards reporting and the tone was actually quite scolding:

‘Given the concerns that have been reported about inaccuracies, changing narratives and lack of engagement with some of the parties involved in the case of Mr Edwards, we would also be interested to understand what was done to verify this specific story and what, if any, reviews or discussions are ongoing about The Sun’s procedures and reporting in this case and any wider lessons to be learned.’

They are essentially wading into different cases with little consistency and I really believe that all government committees, individual MPs and cabinet members should be both mindful of their positions and upholding the justice system. All of their interventions would be valid if he had actually been charged with anything - that is the key thing here.

This is the letter Caroline Dinenage sent to Rumble. It is not a simple enquiry about it's policies.

The letter specifically asks if Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Brands ability to generate income on the platform. The letter says that they are concerned about his ability to generate income from content he created and in that sentence they do not specify the nature of the content they are concerned about.

Asking what Rumble are doing to protect the welfare of victims assumes guilt. We are all free to speculate about that on the basis of the evidence presented in newspapers but it's disingenuous to claim that the same speculation from an elected representative is merely a "management issue" and therefore appropriate.

Absolutely. It's completely inappropriate and quite worrying that the government would overstep in this way.

You want the CJS to protect rapists even more than it already does???

Why don't you just go ahead and say you think rape shouldn't be punished or prevented at all.

Now you are being silly. It would be you going round the town telling everyone that neighbour Mr Jones stole it and he needs to lose his job immediately as he's a criminal despite no police charges or even a police interview. Gosh...🙄

Is that really what you think the poster means or is it a mechanism by which you think you can shame people into silence?

The media is not the criminal justice system and for an MP to try to prevent someone earning on the basis of what's presented in the media is unreasonable when Brand has not been charged with anything yet.