RT International

[CantGetIn]

Useless sleepy feet dragging outfit, it's been completely let off the hook by yesterday's actions by everyone else.

They were doing the job properly. Doing things properly takes time.

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster continuously fails to call a war, a war.

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster continuously spreads lies about some made up genocide against Russian people in Ukraine.

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster claims Ukraine needs to be “de-nazified”.

Laws and regulation are not defined by feeling. The government has stated it would not order RT to be banned but instead wait for the proper procedure to be followed.

Mr Johnson said: “We have a principle in this country that we don’t allow politicians to ban this or that media organisation.

“And that’s the way we do it.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/russi...84955.html

If you wish to support regulators such as Ofcom making decisions purely on anger, that is your choice but be aware it can have unintended consequence if a precedent is set. For the past five or so years we have watched organisation after organisation make decisions based purely on feeling. It seldom ends well. It Is better to do things properly even if it takes longer.

[Markymark]

If you wish to support regulators such as Ofcom making decisions purely on anger, that is your choice but be aware it can have unintended consequnce if a precedent is set.

The EU, an organisation not exactly renowned for making knee-jerk snappy decisions, came to a conclusion regarding RT much faster.

[CantGetIn]

If you wish to support regulators such as Ofcom making decisions purely on anger, that is your choice but be aware it can have unintended consequnce if a precedent is set.

The EU, an organisation not exactly renowned for making knee-jerk snappy decisions, came to a conclusion regarding RT much faster.

I am not going to turn it into that debate. As much as you may try. Let's agree to disagree on this matter.

[Adsales101]

They were doing the job properly. Doing things properly takes time.

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster continuously fails to call a war, a war.

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster continuously spreads lies about some made up genocide against Russian people in Ukraine.

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster claims Ukraine needs to be “de-nazified”.

Laws and regulation are not defined by feeling. The government has stated it would not order RT to be banned but instead wait for the proper procedure to be followed.

Mr Johnson said: “We have a principle in this country that we don’t allow politicians to ban this or that media organisation.

“And that’s the way we do it.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/russi...84955.html

If you wish to support regulators such as Ofcom making decisions purely on anger, that is your choice but be aware it can have unintended consequence if a precedent is set. For the past five or so years we have watched organisation after organisation make decisions based purely on feeling. It seldom ends well. It Is better to do things properly even if it takes longer.

Laws and regulations don’t define the time Ofcom should take to investigate. If the breaches are clear it can act with urgency. In fact is entitled and expected to do so.

[Brekkie]

It's difficult to think countries and institutions deserve the benefit of the law being followed to the letter when they are so flagrantly breeching international law.

[CantGetIn]

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster continuously fails to call a war, a war.

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster continuously spreads lies about some made up genocide against Russian people in Ukraine.

It doesn’t take time to identify that a broadcaster claims Ukraine needs to be “de-nazified”.

Laws and regulation are not defined by feeling. The government has stated it would not order RT to be banned but instead wait for the proper procedure to be followed.

Mr Johnson said: “We have a principle in this country that we don’t allow politicians to ban this or that media organisation.

“And that’s the way we do it.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/russi...84955.html

If you wish to support regulators such as Ofcom making decisions purely on anger, that is your choice but be aware it can have unintended consequence if a precedent is set. For the past five or so years we have watched organisation after organisation make decisions based purely on feeling. It seldom ends well. It Is better to do things properly even if it takes longer.

Laws and regulations don’t define the time Ofcom should take to investigate. If the breaches are clear it can act with urgency. In fact is entitled and expected to do so.

Unless you have investigated such things before I don't think anyone is in a position to make such a statement. Expected by whom, the GOV has made it clear it would wait for Ofcom.

To the post above from Brekkie, the whole purpose of law is that it doesn't matter. You can't just decide to ignore it. That is what Putin does. The law is the law in the UK.

[Adsales101]

Laws and regulation are not defined by feeling. The government has stated it would not order RT to be banned but instead wait for the proper procedure to be followed.



If you wish to support regulators such as Ofcom making decisions purely on anger, that is your choice but be aware it can have unintended consequence if a precedent is set. For the past five or so years we have watched organisation after organisation make decisions based purely on feeling. It seldom ends well. It Is better to do things properly even if it takes longer.

Laws and regulations don’t define the time Ofcom should take to investigate. If the breaches are clear it can act with urgency. In fact is entitled and expected to do so.

Unless you have investigated such things before I don't think anyone is in a position to make such a statement. Expected by whom, the GOV has made it clear it would wait for Ofcom.

To the post above from Brekkie, the whole purpose of law is that it doesn't matter. You can't just decide to ignore it. That is what Putin does. The law is the law in the UK.

I have just explained to you what the law and the relevant regulations provide for. That is that. I don’t understand why you’re trying to argue.

Ofcom is always slow and that is not something that is required by law.

As for the government, there is nothing in law that would have prohibited the government from implementing a ban, separately from anything Ofcom would or would not do. Many MPs demanded exactly that, including some ministers. It was a political decision to refer to Ofcom as the party currently in government does not want to upset those of its voters who misunderstand freedom of speech.

[CantGetIn]

Laws and regulations don’t define the time Ofcom should take to investigate. If the breaches are clear it can act with urgency. In fact is entitled and expected to do so.

Unless you have investigated such things before I don't think anyone is in a position to make such a statement. Expected by whom, the GOV has made it clear it would wait for Ofcom.

To the post above from Brekkie, the whole purpose of law is that it doesn't matter. You can't just decide to ignore it. That is what Putin does. The law is the law in the UK.

I have just explained to you what the law and the relevant regulations provide for. That is that. I don’t understand why you’re trying to argue.

Ofcom is always slow and that is not something that is required by law.

As for the government, there is nothing in law that would have prohibited the government from implementing a ban, separately from anything Ofcom would or would not do. Many MPs demanded exactly that, including some ministers. It was a political decision to refer to Ofcom as the party currently in government does not want to upset those of its voters who misunderstand freedom of speech.

I won't understand what your argument is either. All I am saying is that Ofcom should investigate properly and we should not just ignore regulations or the law just because people feel strongly about something.

You are stating Ofcom should act faster and suggest this is deliberate without seeming to understand the implications of a ban would have. I.e the UK will lose influence in Russia when British media have to presumably leave. I am not sure what rabbit hole you are going down with the last line, but no thanks. I think we have covered the conversation enough and we are not going to agree.

[Adsales101]

Unless you have investigated such things before I don't think anyone is in a position to make such a statement. Expected by whom, the GOV has made it clear it would wait for Ofcom.

To the post above from Brekkie, the whole purpose of law is that it doesn't matter. You can't just decide to ignore it. That is what Putin does. The law is the law in the UK.

I have just explained to you what the law and the relevant regulations provide for. That is that. I don’t understand why you’re trying to argue.

Ofcom is always slow and that is not something that is required by law.

As for the government, there is nothing in law that would have prohibited the government from implementing a ban, separately from anything Ofcom would or would not do. Many MPs demanded exactly that, including some ministers. It was a political decision to refer to Ofcom as the party currently in government does not want to upset those of its voters who misunderstand freedom of speech.

I won't understand what your argument is either. All I am saying is that Ofcom should investigate properly and we should not just ignore regulations or the law just because people feel strongly about something.

You are stating Ofcom should act faster and suggest this is deliberate without seeming to understand the implications of a ban would have. I.e the UK will lose influence in Russia when British media have to presumably leave. I am not sure what rabbit hole you are going down with the last line, but no thanks. I think we have covered the conversation enough and we are not going to agree.

I didn’t say it was deliberate. I said Ofcom is slow, always. Just like all other public bodies with the “Of” prefix.

The argument about losing influence in Russia is moot. BBC World and other BBC services are not carried by the large majority of providers and any online video and audio content has been severely restricted by the government.

[RR]

The only time I can recall OFCOM cancelling a licence in similar circumstances was CGTN - a Chinese station - a year ago.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/lat...on-network

[bakamann]

The only time I can recall OFCOM cancelling a licence in similar circumstances was CGTN - a Chinese station - a year ago.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/lat...on-network

From what I understand on the CGTN's license decision, I think it was because they used Star China Media Ltd. (owner of STAR-branded channels in China) license to broadcast the channel, instead of CGTN applying for their own.

[scottishtv]

I know they only came off air yesterday, but given it looks unlikely to come back - does anyone know what might happen with the slots now available on Freeview? Would it have to go to a news service, or could other channels bid for the places?

Perhaps this is all so unprecedented it'll take a while to work through all the legalities and appropriate bureaucratic processes?

[i.h]

OFCOM have added another 12 investigations to their initial 15 which should ensure it doesn't return.

https://www.twitter.com/Ofcom/status/149...5634969604

Useless sleepy feet dragging outfit, it's been completely let off the hook by yesterday's actions by everyone else.

They were doing the job properly. Doing things properly takes time.

I disagree, but not for the same reasons already discussed.

Why did it take until the start of the conflict & a prompting from the relevant gov minister for Ofcom to go "oh yeah" and manage to find 15 possible violations on the same day. If that's the case, then surely the rules have been broken for a much longer time - and why hasn't Ofcom found, investigated and acted already.

Possible questions over their entire regulatory strategy here, not just for RT but for all channels

[Brekkie]

The issue with OFCOM is generally it relies on viewers reporting, and generally viewers of these channels will be people who agree with them. We've seen the same with GB News - in the early days people were keeping an eye on it and flagging several instances per day where they deemed their to be an OFCOM breech, but ultimately the observers move away from the channel leaving those who just generally agree with their stance on events so would never report them. Add to that when previous reports are rejected despite apparent flagrant breeches and it's no surprise such channels can continue to exist within their own bubble.

[FrancisC]

CNN is reporting that RT America is ceasing production and laying off staff in the U.S.:

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1...09019?s=21