It confused me a bit too. I think the idea is that lefty journalists petition YouTube (and companies that advertise on Youtube) to “demonetise” (remove adverts) from video makers who they disagree with. So the Times is targeting this guy Alex Bellfield (who is a radio shock-jock) and is asking those companies – Trainline and Vodafone – whose adverts appear on his videos whether they are happy with being associated with him. A nice bit of Woke blackmail.
I think I have got that right.
One problem seems to me is that The Times thinks that:
Among Bellfield’s misinformation crimes, Ellery says, is that Belllfied’s channel “features the parliamentary footage of Boris Johnson accusing Starmer of failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile”
And The Times is trying to use this to put pressure on advertisers. Trouble for them is that most people believe Starmer did fail to prosecute Savile.
Who really believes that when two police forces present files alleging the worst sex crimes against a household name celebrity, the boss doesn’t know about it? Kier Starmer may be innocent from a lawyer’s perspective, i.e. there is no evidence, but most people, I think would judge him guilty.
I am finding it rather hard to get my head around this Keir Starmer business. I suppose I always need to know what’s to be gained and I can’t see what he had to gain from not prosecuting. Perhaps he just forgot.
I’m not saying they were wrong not to prosecute. I have no idea how strong the evidence was. But no one can tell me that the DPP didn’t hear (officially or unofficially) that one of the best known people in the country was being accused of sex crimes.
When the enquiry took place into this after Savile’s death, it turned out the CPS had lost the files so we will never know who knew what.
I think many people are missing the point here, along with the BBC, doing so deliberately.
It really doesn’t matter if Starmer reviewed the case.
Starmer as the Leader of the CPS decided the criteria by which cases should be considered viable for prosecution. Prosecutors would receive training and guidance based on these criteria.
So he must have set the standard that resulted in Savile not being prosecuted. So it’s true to say he failed to prosecute Savile.
Me too, I don’t fully understand how advertising works on say Youtube.
If you have a Youtube channel do you get a choice of which adverts can appear on your channel? I can imagine a situation where you might not want particular adverts shown on your channel.
Likewise, does the advertiser get a choice of which channels his advert can be shown on? I can imagine a situation where an advertiser might not want his products associated with a particular channel. That seems reasonable.
Bill W
2 years ago
Despite some good news coverage, I won’t buy the Times as its too metropolitan in its outlook. It’s also too expensive. I won’t listen to Times Radio either. Reminds too much of Radio 4.
When I worked in banking we got all the papers across the spectrum from WSJ/FT/The Times and Telegraph to the Sun. The Sun (and the Telegraph) were often much better on the economy.
Happy to pay for UnHerd, Spectator, and DT.
J Bryant
2 years ago
I’d love to read an article about how/whether it’s possible to create a viable alternative to youtube. I think youtube has a monopoly on the advertisement market and so it’s the most profitable platform for content creators–what is the track record of people who’ve tried to create youtube alternatives?
The real solution, of course, is to use antitrust laws to break up the major tech companies.
Jason Highley
2 years ago
This could have been a Tweet. But I understand why it is not, since who the hell spends time on Twitter anymore?
Get on Gab.
It must be me, but I got lost reading this. What is the main point of the article?
It confused me a bit too. I think the idea is that lefty journalists petition YouTube (and companies that advertise on Youtube) to “demonetise” (remove adverts) from video makers who they disagree with. So the Times is targeting this guy Alex Bellfield (who is a radio shock-jock) and is asking those companies – Trainline and Vodafone – whose adverts appear on his videos whether they are happy with being associated with him. A nice bit of Woke blackmail.
I think I have got that right.
Thank-you Matt, Like Andrea I had problems trying to discern what was being said. I’m still not sure what to make of it, though.
One problem seems to me is that The Times thinks that:
And The Times is trying to use this to put pressure on advertisers. Trouble for them is that most people believe Starmer did fail to prosecute Savile.
Who really believes that when two police forces present files alleging the worst sex crimes against a household name celebrity, the boss doesn’t know about it? Kier Starmer may be innocent from a lawyer’s perspective, i.e. there is no evidence, but most people, I think would judge him guilty.
I am finding it rather hard to get my head around this Keir Starmer business. I suppose I always need to know what’s to be gained and I can’t see what he had to gain from not prosecuting. Perhaps he just forgot.
I’m not saying they were wrong not to prosecute. I have no idea how strong the evidence was. But no one can tell me that the DPP didn’t hear (officially or unofficially) that one of the best known people in the country was being accused of sex crimes.
When the enquiry took place into this after Savile’s death, it turned out the CPS had lost the files so we will never know who knew what.
I think many people are missing the point here, along with the BBC, doing so deliberately.
It really doesn’t matter if Starmer reviewed the case.
Starmer as the Leader of the CPS decided the criteria by which cases should be considered viable for prosecution. Prosecutors would receive training and guidance based on these criteria.
So he must have set the standard that resulted in Savile not being prosecuted. So it’s true to say he failed to prosecute Savile.
Indeed, Starmer’s WMD moment
Me too, I don’t fully understand how advertising works on say Youtube.
If you have a Youtube channel do you get a choice of which adverts can appear on your channel? I can imagine a situation where you might not want particular adverts shown on your channel.
Likewise, does the advertiser get a choice of which channels his advert can be shown on? I can imagine a situation where an advertiser might not want his products associated with a particular channel. That seems reasonable.
Despite some good news coverage, I won’t buy the Times as its too metropolitan in its outlook. It’s also too expensive. I won’t listen to Times Radio either. Reminds too much of Radio 4.
When I worked in banking we got all the papers across the spectrum from WSJ/FT/The Times and Telegraph to the Sun. The Sun (and the Telegraph) were often much better on the economy.
Happy to pay for UnHerd, Spectator, and DT.
I’d love to read an article about how/whether it’s possible to create a viable alternative to youtube. I think youtube has a monopoly on the advertisement market and so it’s the most profitable platform for content creators–what is the track record of people who’ve tried to create youtube alternatives?
The real solution, of course, is to use antitrust laws to break up the major tech companies.
This could have been a Tweet. But I understand why it is not, since who the hell spends time on Twitter anymore?
Get on Gab.