Irreverent video with TikTok creator Jarad Rowan launches ahead of busy camping season
Ramblers Scotland has today launched a new short film featuring Scottish TikTok star Jarad Rowan, aimed at encouraging responsible wild camping in Scotland.
Jarad, known as @LittlestChicken to his hundreds of thousands of social media followers, discovers five ‘Rules of Wild Camping’ during a trip to Borders Forest Trust’s scenic Corehead estate near Moffat.
The light-hearted video – supported by NatureScot and John Muir Trust – shows Jarad learning where to camp, what to pack, where to go to the toilet outdoors, how to leave no trace and the importance of using stoves rather than lighting fires.
Jarad, aged 21 from Stranraer, said: “This was such a great project to be involved in and I had the best time filming! It was also really cool to be shooting in Dumfries & Galloway. There are some lovely spots here in Scotland. I’m wondering does this make me an icon in the world of wild camping now?!”
The film has been planned by Ramblers Scotland alongside a team of young adults – the target audience – who have completed Ramblers Scotland’s Out There Award, which helps 18 to 26-year-olds kick-start their journeys into the outdoors.
Ramblers Scotland director Brendan Paddy said: “Scotland has world-class landscapes for everyone to explore. Getting more people active outdoors more often will help make Scotland a happier and healthier nation.
“It can also provide valuable income for rural communities and help more people feel inspired to protect the places where we all love to walk.
“The challenge we now face is making sure that the welcome increase in people getting outdoors is backed by the support needed to ensure people have the knowledge and opportunities to enjoy the experience responsibly.
“I hope our new film will support people – especially beginners – to plan fun, responsible nights out under the stars.”
Ramblers Scotland and partners have launched the video ahead of what is expected to be a hugely busy summer for Scotland’s outdoors, particularly as many festivals, indoor parties and overseas travel remain off limits.
In fact, a recent study by the David Hume Institute (DHI) showed 36% of people in Scotland spent more time outside in nature last year than before – with 58% intending to spend more time outside in future.
It will be shown across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Twitter and TikTok throughout the summer.
Viewers are linked to a detailed new webpage at ramblers.org.uk/wildcamp that helps beginners plan safe and fun wild camps in Scotland.
The video campaign is part of a wider programme of visitor management activities led by VisitScotland and Scottish Government with public, charity and private partners.
Together the partnership aims to deliver not just communication and education activities about enjoying the outdoors responsibly but also to address issues related to infrastructure and to co-ordinate direct engagement with visitors to prevent problems arising.
Last year, antisocial and irresponsible behaviour by a small minority of visitors in some popular locations caused real issues for the environment, local people, and other visitors. This summer is expected to be even busier, so it is vital that people act responsibly.
The film was produced by Edinburgh-based video agency Heehaw.
Google and Facebook are failing to take action to remove online scam adverts even after fraud victims report them, raising concerns that the reactive approach to fraudulent content taken by online platforms is not fit for purpose, Which? research has revealed.
The consumer champion’s survey found that a third (34%) of victims who reported an advert that led to a scam on Google said the advert was not taken down by the search engine, while a quarter (26%) of victims who reported an advert on Facebook that resulted in them being scammed said the advert was not removed by the social media site.
Which? believes that the significant flaws with the current reactive approaches taken to tackling online scams makes a clear case for online platforms to be given legal responsibility for preventing fake and fraudulent adverts from appearing on their sites.
Which? is calling for the government to take the opportunity to include content that leads to online scams in the scope of its proposed Online Safety Bill.
Of those who said they had fallen victim to a scam as a result of an advert on a search engine or social media, a quarter (27%) said they’d fallen for a fraudulent advert they saw on Facebook and one in five (19%) said a scam targeted them through Google adverts. Three per cent said they’d been tricked by an advert on Twitter.
The survey also highlighted low levels of engagement with the scam reporting processes on online platforms. Two in five (43%) scam victims conned by an advert they saw online, via a search engine or social media ad, said they did not report the scam to the platform hosting it.
The biggest reason for not reporting adverts that caused a scam to Facebook was that victims didn’t think the platform would do anything about it or take it down – this was the response from nearly a third (31%) of victims.
For Google, the main reason for not reporting the scam ad was that the victim didn’t know how to do so – this applied to a third (32%) of victims. This backs up the experience of Which?’s researchers who similarly found it was not immediately clear how to report fraudulent content to Google, and when they did it involved navigating five complex pages of information.
Worryingly, over half (51%) of 1,800 search engine users Which? surveyed said they did not know how to report suspicious ads that appear in their search listings, while over a third (35%) of 1,600 social media users said they didn’t know how to report a suspicious advert seen on social media channels
Another issue identified by victims that Which? has spoken to is that even if fake and fraudulent adverts are successfully taken down they often pop up again under different names.
One scam victim, Stefan Johansson, who lost £30.50, told Which? he had repeatedly reported a scam retailer operating under the names ‘Swanbrooch’ and ‘Omerga’ to Facebook.
He believes the social media site has a ‘scattergun’ approach to removing the ads and says that a week rarely goes by when he doesn’t spot dodgy ads in his newsfeed, posted by what he suspects are unscrupulous companies.
Another victim, Mandy, told Which? she was tricked by a fake Clarks ‘clearance sale’ advert she saw on Facebook. She paid £85 for two pairs of boots, but instead she received a large box containing a pair of cheap sunglasses.
‘I’ve had a lot of back and forth with my bank over the past six months, trying to prove that I didn’t receive what I ordered,’ Mandy said. Facebook has since removed this advert and the advertiser’s account.
The tech giants make significant profits from adverts, including ones that lead to scams. These companies have some of the most sophisticated technology in the world but the evidence suggests they are failing to use it to prevent scammers from abusing the platforms by using fake and fraudulent content on an industrial scale to target victims.
The combination of inaction from online platforms when scam ads are reported, low reporting levels by scam victims, and the ease with which advertisers can post new fraudulent adverts even after the original ad has been removed, suggests that online platforms need to take a far more proactive approach to prevent fraudulent content from reaching potential victims in the first place.
Consumers should also sign up to Which?’s scam alert service in order to familiarise themselves with some of the latest tactics used by fraudsters, particularly given the explosion of scams since the coronavirus crisis.
The consumer champion has also launched a Scam Sharing tool to help it gather evidence in its work to protect consumers from fraud. The tool has received more than 2,500 reports since it went live three weeks ago.
Adam French, Consumer Rights Expert at Which?, said:“Our latest research has exposed significant flaws with the reactive approach taken by tech giants including Google and Facebook in response to the reporting of fraudulent content – leaving victims worryingly exposed to scams.
“Which? has launched a free scam alert service to help consumers familiarise themselves with the latest tactics used by fraudsters, but there is no doubt that tech giants, regulators and the government need to go to greater lengths to prevent scams from flourishing.
“Online platforms must be given a legal responsibility to identify, remove and prevent fake and fraudulent content on their sites. The case for including scams in the Online Safety Bill is overwhelming and the government needs to act now.”
Google responded: “We’re constantly reviewing ads, sites and accounts to ensure they comply with our policies. As a result of our enforcement actions (proactive and reactive), our team blocked or removed over 3.1 billion ads for violating our policies.
“As part of the various ways we are tackling bad ads, we also encourage people to flag bad actors they’re seeing via our support tool where you can report bad ads directly. It can easily be found on Search when looking for “How to report bad ads on Google” and filling out the necessary information. It is simple for consumers to provide the required information for the Google ads team to act accordingly.
“We take action on potentially bad ads reported to us and these complaints are always manually reviewed.”
“We have strict policies that govern the kinds of ads that we allow to run on our platform. We enforce those policies vigorously, and if we find ads that are in violation we remove them. We utilize a mix of automated systems and human review to enforce our policies.”
A spokesperson for Facebook responded: “Fraudulent activity is not allowed on Facebook and we have taken action on a number of pages reported to us by Which?.
“Our 35,000 strong team of safety and security experts work alongside sophisticated AI to proactively identify and remove this content, and we urge people to report any suspicious activity to us. Our teams disable billions of fake accounts every year and we have donated £3 million to Citizens Advice to deliver a UK Scam Action Programme.”
A Twitter spokesperson said:“Where we identify violations of our rules, we take robust enforcement action.
“We’re constantly adapting to bad actors’ evolving methods, and we will continue to iterate and improve upon our policies as the industry evolves.”
Polling shows majority of adults in Scotland would back end-to-end encryption in private messaging if children’s safety is not compromised
NSPCC chief calls for a reset of the debate to protect the safety and privacy rights of children
Home Secretary to address NSPCC event on end-to-end encryption
The NSPCC is warning that private messaging is the frontline of child sexual abuse online and is calling for an urgent re-set of debates on end-to-end encryption.
The call comes as polling shows the Scottish public support for end-to-end encryption of private messages would double if platforms could demonstrate children’s safety would not be compromised.
An NSPCC/YouGov survey found 29% of adults in Scotland support using end-to-end encryption on social media and messaging services, but this jumps to 59% if it was rolled out only if and when tech firms can ensure children’s safety is protected.
A total of 183 adults in Scotland were surveyed between 31st December 2020 and 4th January 2021.
Major tech firms currently use a range of technology to identify child abuse images and detect grooming and sexual abuse in private messages.
But there are fears that Facebook’s proposals to end-to-end encrypt Facebook Messenger and Instagram would render these tools useless, with estimates that 70% of global child abuse reports could be lost.
In 2018 these reports resulted in 2,500 arrests and 3,000 children being safeguarded in the UK.
A major NSPCC roundtable attended by the UK Government Home Secretary, Priti Patel, will today (Monday) bring together child protection, civil society and law enforcement experts from the UK, US, Canada, Ireland and Australia.
The charity will call for an urgent reset of the debate around end-to-end encryption which they say has increasingly become an ‘either or’ argument skewed in favour of adult privacy over the safety and privacy rights of children.
More than half (52%) of adults in Scotland believe the ability to detect child abuse images is more important than the right to privacy and more than a third (39%) think they are equally important. Only 3% say privacy should be prioritised over safety.
94% support social networks and messaging services having the technical ability to detect child abuse images on their sites.
95% support a technical ability to detect adults sending sexual images to children on their services.
Sir Peter Wanless, NSPCC Chief Executive, said: “Private messaging is the frontline of child sexual abuse but the current debate around end-to-end encryption risks leaving children unprotected where there is most harm.
“The public want an end to rhetoric that heats up the issue but shines little light on a solution, so it’s in firms’ interests to find a fix that allows them to continue to use tech to disrupt abuse in an end-to-end encrypted world.
“We need a coordinated response across society, but ultimately the UK Government must be the guardrail that protects child users if tech companies choose to put them at risk with dangerous design choices.”
A re-set debate should focus on demonstrating the impact that end-to-end encryption will have on engineering away platforms’ ability to find abuse in private messaging, and how this can be avoided.
The current debate predominantly focuses on the impact of end-to-end encryption for law enforcement, which emphasises the investigation of abuse after it has already taken place – rather than focussing on the loss of platforms’ ability to detect and disrupt abuse much earlier.
At the roundtable, the NSPCC will share new research and analysis about the implications of end-to-end encryption for child protection and call for tech firms to refocus their approach through safer design features and investment in technology.
It says tech firms should strive to achieve a new settlement that balances properly the benefits and risks of end-to-end encryption, underpinned by legal safeguards through regulation.
The NSPCC is calling for a reset of the debate that allows parties to reach a balanced settlement on both safety and privacy by:
Considering the needs of all users, including children
Avoiding characterising children’s safety as a simplistic trade off against adult’s privacy
Reflecting children’s digital rights under international law
Tech firms respecting the full range of fundamental rights at stake, rather than privileging some over others
Considering how particular design features can exacerbate the risk of end-to-end encryption to children – e.g. Facebook algorithms that suggest children as friends to adults and plans to auto delete messages on WhatsApp
The UK Government Home Secretary will address the meeting a year after the NSPCC brought together 130 children’s organisations to call on Facebook not to proceed with end-to-end encryption until they can guarantee children’s safety won’t be compromised.
The NSPCC’s report End-to-End Encryption: Understanding the Impacts for Child Safety Online compiled research and interviews with experts from 17 organisations in the UK, US and Australia, including industry, government, law enforcement, civil society and academics.
Its policy briefing Private messaging and the rollout of end-to-end encryption – the implications for child protectionsets out the importance of a range of responses to ensure child protection can be maintained in end-to-end encrypted environments, through technological, civil society and legislative and regulatory action.
Three members of Scottish Hockey’s Lead the Way initiative who have been involved in the mental health work undertaken by the University of Edinburgh Women’s Hockey Club have produced a case study to help others.
Eilidh Campbell, Emma Lambert and Hana Nasser from the 2020-21 Lead the Way cohort, alongside club Welfare Officer Iona Grant, developed it to share with hockey and sports clubs across Scotland as a means of promoting and supporting mental health initiatives within clubs.
Eilidh explained: “Emma and I are both on the Lead the Way programme. During one of our discussions, we talked about mental health in hockey, especially over the lockdowns, and about what our clubs had done to help members and support people.
“Edinburgh University has done a really good job, so we talked about everything we had done as well as what worked well for us personally and for the people we know.
“Then Scottish Hockey got in contact and asked if we would be interested in putting a case study together on the things we had done and its impact.”
Eilidh and Emma approached Iona Grant and Hana Nasser to help with the case study as they had both played a role in the club’s approach to mental health.
Hana had come up with the idea of having the club post anonymous stories on its social media pages detailing members’ personal mental health experiences. People could submit their stories via an anonymous online form to shine a light on mental health while tackling stigma.
Hanasaid, “I was doing a masters degree at Edinburgh University and had always been intrigued by athletes’ mental health. I saw that people did not really talk about their mental health, especially if they are athletes, so I put forward an idea to the hockey club then watched it grow arms and legs.
“Iona, as Welfare and Inclusivity Officer, took it on, with Eilidh and Emma getting involved. I had got the idea from the Humans of New York Instagram page – it is run by a New York photographer who takes photographs of random New Yorkers then asks them to tell him their stories. I thought it would be interesting to do that from the angle of mental health in sport.”
Emma, then Publicity Secretary for Edinburgh University, said: “Reaction from the first post was great, and because it was an anonymous submission everyone got on board because they saw it as a positive step.
“It was good to hear what other people were going through. We may all think we know what is going on in our club and team, but then you realise that you do not. So, to hear what was really going on was a positive step.
“We operated through a Google form, and the link is in every post and on the bio of our Instagram and Facebook. Anyone can post. You do not have to be anonymous, and a lot of people have chosen not to be. It is your call whether or not you self-identify.”
One of the main findings was that the Welfare and Inclusivity Officer role at the club has been vitally important in supporting members with mental health issues and promoting inclusivity within the club.
Iona explained, “Welfare and Inclusivity is a big role; mental health problems are so common. We all have our own mental health awareness and the stigma that continues to be attached to mental health issues is highly detrimental.
“As a club, we believed it was important to start tackling the stigma surrounding mental health. What we saw was a gap between people coping with their mental health on an individual level and opting to seek professional help.
“My role sought to help bridge that gap. I promote all the services that are available in Edinburgh, many that people do not even know exist, but I am also a face that people in the club recognise and one that is there to help and support them throughout whatever they are going through.
“I am not there to solve people’s problems, I’m not a councillor or a healthcare professional, but I’m there to lend an ear and promote the services that are available.”
Edinburgh University has been working on expanding the welfare officer role across its entire sports offering, highlighting especially the success of the position at the hockey club.
Recent graduate Hana is now also using her experience to work with her new committee at Watsonians Hockey Club to establish an Inclusivity and Diversity Officer role and to showcase the importance of such roles across Scottish sport.
The Lead the Way: University of Edinburgh Mental Health Initiatives Case Study is attached or can be found here:
Yesterday The Majority, with the support of Scotland Matters, UK Union Voice and over 250 donors who contributed to a crowdfunding campaign, launched the #ResignSturgeon campaign, the first in a series of campaigns leading up to the Scottish Elections on May 6.
The campaign started with :
Three digital billboards
Glasgow – Clydeside Expressway (access near Lidl on Castlebank St)
Edinburgh – Slateford Road (next to Jewson)
Aberdeen – Market Street (at Union Square)
A #ResignSturgeon banner towed behind an aeroplane flying over:
The Scottish Parliament Building in Holyrood and Edinburgh City Centre
Glasgow City Centre and Finnieston Crane area
The campaign is a message to Nicola Sturgeon to ‘take responsibility for her Government’s catastrophic handling of the Alex Salmond Harassment Inquiry, which cost the taxpayer well over £500,000 in damages to Salmond plus hundreds of thousands of pounds more in Scottish Government legal fees, as well as the cost of the ongoing inquiry’.
The group says Nicola Sturgeon hasn’t taken responsibility: ‘She has not fired anyone. The whole of Scotland is talking about her collusion, corruption and cover-up, instead of health, education and jobs. She must resign so the country can move on.’
The campaign message — #ResignSturgeon— is part of an ongoing grassroots hashtag campaign on Twitter that has had hundreds of thousands of retweets and responses and regularly appears on Twitter’s ‘trending’ lists of the social network’s most popular hashtags.
The campaign is funded in part by donations to a crowdfunder, run by The Majority, that has raised almost £6500 to date. https://donorbox.org/billboard-campaign
Mark Devlin of The Majority: “We represent the silent majority of people in Scotland, who are angry and frustrated by Nicola Sturgeon’s shenanigans bringing international shame on Scotland.
“The Scottish public deserve a Parliament and First Minister above reproach and want the Scottish Government to focus on health, education, jobs and the pandemic.
“Instead we have a First Minister misleading parliament, breaking the ministerial code and withholding information from an inquiry into her government’s unlawful, unfair and biased actions against Alex Salmond, all while totally neglecting her day job.”
Alan Sutherland from Scotland Matters: “We call on the First Minister to do the right thing for Scotland: resign and let us focus on recovery from the pandemic.
“She has done great damage to our country and Parliament’s reputation, here and abroad, by conducting an undignified, very public dispute with her former SNP colleague, while preventing the Salmond enquiry from seeing evidence that is crucial to a proper investigation.”
The Majority says it is Scotland’s leading anti-Nationalist media. Since its founding in June, 2020, it has grown to almost 50,000 social media followers.
It aims to unite Scotland’s anti-Nationalist majority; say NO to IndyRef2; Expose Nationalism as a toxic ideology; Support effective anti-Nationalist politicians; and criticise media appeasement.
Vodafone UK has published new research exploring teenagers’ perceptions of ‘fake news’, misinformation and the reliability of the information they find online.
Almost a half (48%) of teenagers in Edinburgh have fallen for fake news and 47% of teenagers surveyed said they were more aware of fake news in 2020 compared to previous years. Vodafone has released tips for parents and children on how to deal with fake news on its Digital Parenting hub.
The research shows that young people in Edinburgh are regularly exposed to fake news, with teenagers reporting to see fake stories an average of 12 times per month, and 23% believing they think they see fake news every day.
Perceptions around fake news
Three in four (73%) of teenagers in Edinburgh correctly identified fake news as ‘misleading information which is presented as news and spread online’.
However, wider perceptions around fake news indicate a lack of comprehensive understanding on the subject – with 23% thinking fake news refers to ‘things Donald Trump claims to be untrue’.
Topics of fake news
With the spread of misinformation reaching new highs last year,the research highlights key topics of fake news in 2020 for Edinburgh teens: Covid-19 and the vaccine (50%), Celebrities (40%), Donald Trump (37%), the end of the world (27%) and the UK lockdowns (20%)
Identifying fake news
Just half (57%) of teenagers in Edinburgh think they can distinguish fake news from the truth. However, the research indicates that tech-savvy teens are using their digital skills to spot the real from the fake, and almost a half (47%) of teenagers in Edinburgh think they are better equipped to spot fake news than their parents.
Main sources of fake news
Predictably, four in five (80%) in Edinburgh reported seeing the most fake news on social media platforms – far higher than on news websites (13%).
Combating fake news
Encouragingly, 17% of teenagers in Edinburgh say someone has taught them how to spot and report fake news and combat misinformation, with this person most likely to be a parent (80%), or a teacher (40%). And, 20% have learnt how to spot fake news using an online resource.
Helen Lamprell, General Counsel and External Affairs Director, Vodafone UK, said: “It’s clear from our research that fake news amongst Edinburgh teens is a widespread issue – and is not going away with Donald Trump.
“It’s so important to educate everyone on the importance of safety online and how to identify fake news. Our Vodafone Digital Parenting Hub has useful resources and advice for what to watch out for and how best to tackle it.”
Emma Robertson from Digital Awareness UK, said:“Since the start of the pandemic we’ve seen a dramatic and worrying spike in the number of young people and their families being exposed to fake news and scams.
“Many of us are being inundated with false information about vaccinations, miraculous COVID-19 cures, politics and so on. It’s critical that young people have the digital skills they need to spot fake news and really think about whether the information we are seeing online could be misinformation or disinformation.
“Fake news reportedly spreads six times faster than real news, so it’s up to all of us to help others identify it and think twice before sharing.”
Vodafone’s Digital Parenting Tips – Five ways to spot fake news
To avoid being tricked by fake news, ask your child to consider these questions:
Is it being reported elsewhere – have you seen this story in other places e.g. on TV or radio?
Is the site name normal – do you trust the website where you saw this story? Check the URL: it should have .org or .com or .co.uk at the end, not an unusual jumble of letters.
Do the photos and videos look accurate or could they be photoshopped?
Headlines matter – but so does content: read the entire piece before you share a story to be sure it’s an article you are happy to endorse.
If you’re unsure – ask a trusted adult for a view.
Following Thursday’s scenes at the Capitol, twitter made the following statement on Friday:
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.
However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement.
The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.
Overview
On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump Tweeted:
“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
Shortly thereafter, the President Tweeted:
“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.
After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.
Assessment
We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
This determination is based on a number of factors, including:
President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.
The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.
As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.
Now also facing impeachment,just how the outgoing President will respond remains to be seen – but it certainly won’t be on Twitter!
AS a result of the current pandemic, a film studio for recording music performances has been set up in An Tobar, with the cameras being remotely controlled, recorded, and edited by operators in Perth and Linlithgow, without having to step foot in the venue.
Over the winter, Music For Winter Solitude, a series of music performances are being created with the first release by Whyte going out live on An Tobar’s Facebook page, Vimeo, and YouTube channels, on Thursday 3 December at 8pm.
For nearly 25 years, An Tobar has welcomed many great musicians to its tiny venue in Tobermory on the Isle of Mull.
With music from all genres, it has enjoyed concerts by Laura Marling with the singer saying that ‘An Tobar was her favourite venue’, John Renbourn, Amy MacDonald, Frightened Rabbit, The Scottish Ensemble, Tommy Smith, Dougie MacLean, Idlewild, Phil Cunningham & Aly Bain, Karen Matheson, British Sea Power and many more.
2020 was looking to be a good year for the venue, having won the ‘Venue of the Year’ award at the Scottish Traditional Music Awards and a great programme had been lined up to celebrate this accolade. Then Covid-19 hit, and everything stopped. After a month, it became clear it was going to be some time before gigs were possible in the way they had been before.
Gordon Maclean, director of Music, had an initial plan to aim for a period of documentation with musicians still being allowed to work in isolation at An Tobar.
The venue has a long history of producing remarkable records and the studio has always worked alongside the performance season. He thought, maybe it could film musicians working in the studio and sought advice from Gary Ebdy, a lighting designer for concerts and live events and Dr Tom Spink, a senior researcher in Computing Systems Architecture at the University of Edinburgh.
Gordon Maclean, director of Music at An Tobar said: “Having worked with Gary Ebdy from Lunas Live in the past, I was looking for some advice about setting things up and our conversation took a creative path until we arrived at the current set up where we use five remote-controlled cameras to record an in-studio performance.
“I’m upstairs in the studio control room and the band is in the live room so our interaction is minimal. Gary, Tom, and I complete most of the setup before the musicians arrive.
“The musicians live in local holiday houses in isolation and contact between them and local people is virtually non-existent. We all felt it was vital that musicians should feel safe working here and that the Mull population would feel safe having them on the island.”
He added: “This production facility has been made possible through generous support from Creative Scotland who have invested in their portfolio organisations to allow them to rethink how they produce work in a world with no audience.
“With the arts in a precarious situation, we are so grateful that it has allowed us to create opportunities for self-employed artists and crews.”
The design needed to be a robust system that worked within the constraints of the available broadband connection at the venue.
This involved developing an architecture that allowed access to the cameras and recording equipment remotely, and reliably – should they encounter connection issues. The system communicates with a cloud server down in London, which then relays information back to its operating locations in Perth and Linlithgow.
From there, they can watch live camera feeds, and adjust camera positions by sending commands back to Mull (again, via London). Effectively, when a keyboard button is pressed, the signal travels down to London, back up to Mull, and into their operating equipment – all in the blink of an eye!
The communication needs to be super-low latency so that they can effectively operate the camera equipment, and observe what’s going on. They’ve had to build on several technologies – from camera hardware, through to low-latency networking protocols to bring this together.
This new digital format will result in the following performances:
Thursday 3 December, 8pm: Whyte (FREE)
Thursday 17 December, 8pm: Duncan Chisholm (PAY WHAT YOU CAN)
Thursday 7 January, 8pm: Rachel Jack with her band (PAY WHAT YOU CAN)
Thursday 21 January, 8pm: Pete Harvey and the Pumpkinseeds String Quartet performing a new piece commissioned by An Tobar (PAY WHAT YOU CAN)
Thursday 4 February, 8pm: Roddy Woomble (PAY WHAT YOU CAN)
Platforms fail to adequately protect users, says Which?
Almost one in 10 people (9%) have fallen victim to online scam ads via social media sites or search engines as platforms fail to tackle a flood of bogus ads posted by fraudsters, new research from Which? reveals.
The consumer champion is calling for the government to give tech giants greater legal responsibility for preventing scam content from appearing on their sites, after hundreds of people shared their often distressing stories of falling victim to convincing purchase scams.
A purchase scam is when a consumer is misled into paying in advance for goods that are never received or are not at all as described. They are increasingly common on popular websites and platforms with criminals creating fake websites and documents that seem genuine to trick their victims.
With 43 million adult social media users in the UK, Which?’s research suggests that some 3.8 million people might have fallen victim to a scam from an advert that appeared on their social media feed.
When Which? separately asked for victims of social media purchase scams to get in touch, its researchers heard from more than 200 people in just 48 hours.
One victim, Christine, ordered a CBD oil product advertised on Facebook that had been falsely ‘endorsed’ by Fern Britton and David Attenborough. She was promised a sample for £2.50, but £170 was later taken from her bank account.
She told Which? the money was “more than my weekly pension and I’m so upset. It happened weeks ago but I can’t stop thinking about it”. Christine is worried she faces a fight on her hands to get her money back because she did receive a sample, although she doesn’t think it is genuine CBD oil.
Which? surveyed 2,000 members of the public, asking those who use social media and search engines about their experiences of adverts on these platforms. It found that nine per cent of social media users had fallen victim to a scam ad on social media feeds. The same proportion of search engine users also reported falling victim to a scam ad on those.
It also revealed that six in 10 (64%) social media users and almost six in 10 (57%) search engine users said they were confident they could spot these scams. But previous Which? research has suggested this confidence is misplaced – which could create a perfect breeding ground for scams.
Louise from Birmingham regularly shops at Ted Baker and started seeing convincing ads for what she thought was a Ted Baker Outlet store on Twitter over a couple of days. She visited the site linked to the advert and paid £75 for a discounted bag and shoes.
She never received her order and is still waiting for her bank to decide whether it will refund her. The retailer’s Twitter account had already been suspended before Which? flagged it. “I will never, ever buy anything I’ve seen on a social media advert again,” she said.
Ryan, 24, thought he was buying a keyboard and mouse through a retailer advertising on Google’s shopping results. He paid £65 but ended up receiving a cheap iPhone case instead. “To get a refund I had to return the case to an address in China at a cost of £35, which is obviously ridiculous,” he said.
Ryan paid with PayPal, which is still investigating. He said he didn’t report the advert to Google because he did not know how to. Which?’s researchers found that Google’s tool for reporting adverts in its search results involved filling in a long form which could put people off using it.
While the sums of money involved in these scams may appear small to some people, Which?’s investigation suggests that online ad scams are happening on an industrial scale. They also provide fraudsters with sensitive information about victims that could potentially be used to mount future attacks.
Over the last 12 months, Action Fraud says that it has received 83,822 online shopping fraud reports, with reported losses reaching around £62.3 million over that period.
Which? believes social media sites and search engines must be far more proactive in preventing scam ads from appearing on their platforms in the first place, particularly as people are more reliant on shopping and socialising online than ever this winter.
Platforms have launched initiatives to deal with scam adverts but many of them rely on users having to report these themselves. This leaves lots of people still exposed to scam ads and at risk of falling victim before they are reported and taken down.
Which?’s investigations continue to expose the harms consumers face when shopping and socialising online. The consumer champion is calling for online platforms to be given greater legal responsibility to prevent scam content appearing on their platforms. The government has an ideal opportunity to deliver this in the upcoming online harms bill, but if it is not included, ministers must set out proposals for new laws to protect consumers from online scams.
Adam French, Consumer Rights Expert at Which?, said:“Our research suggests that online purchase scams are taking place on an industrial scale, with scam victims suffering significant financial and emotional harm when they are targeted by fraudsters.
“Despite being known for innovation, social media sites and search engines are lagging behind scammers, seemingly taking little responsibility for stopping misinformation and harmful content from reaching their users.
“The government must step in and protect consumers by giving online platforms more legal responsibility to prevent scam content from appearing in the first place.”
Which?’s advice on what to do if you’ve been scammed by an online advert
It is possible to get your money back in many cases, although the process might be time consuming and inconvenient.
If you paid using a credit or debit card your money is covered by card protections. Ask your bank if you’re eligible to claim using chargeback or Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.
When you use PayPal, your money should be protected by its Buyer Protection policy. You can make a claim through your PayPal account.
If you paid using a bank transfer, contact your bank as soon as possible and ask if it can help you. This kind of fraud on social media is on the rise, according to UK Finance.
How do I report a scam advert on social media or search engines?
Report the advert to the platform you saw it on. All the major social media platforms and search engines allow you to flag scam adverts using a ‘report’ button or a reporting form.
If you’ve lost money or personal details to a scam, report it to Action Fraud online at actionfraud.police.uk or by calling 0300 123 2040.
James, from Lancashire, spotted an advert on Facebook for a Little Tikes clearance sale. It linked to a website that was convincingly branded to look like the official Little Tikes website, so he paid £105 for a climbing frame.
But it never turned up, and the website has since disappeared.
“It’s been so frustrating. It’s unbelievable scams can be so easily advertised on Facebook.” James said.
Fortunately his bank was “very helpful” and because he paid using a credit card, it refunded his money.
One victim in his 50s told Which? he’s been conned six times after buying products he’s seen advertised on social media, including shoes, toys and tools. He has lost around £200 in total.
Additional statistics from the market research
73 per cent of social media users aged 18-34 said they were confident they could spot a scam, although Which? research earlier this year into scams on Facebook suggested this group may actually be more vulnerable to being scammed on social media.
49 per cent of search engine users surveyed trust that the retailers that appear in their search engine’s results are safe from scams. Only 35 per cent of social media users say they trust the retailers that appear on their social media feed are safe from scams.
Social media users are seriously underestimating their chances of falling victim to online fraud and suffering devastating emotional and financial consequences because tech giants are not doing enough to warn and protect them, Which? is warning.
The consumer champion’s latest research using an online community of Facebook users showed that a majority were lulled into a false sense of security by the platform’s social nature. They mistakenly assumed they could spot fraud and that the company’s systems would protect them effectively.
However Which? found a third of participants did not know that fake products might be advertised on the site – putting them at risk of falling victim to purchase scams. A quarter did not spot an investment scam advert with a fake endorsement from a celebrity.
If this was to be replicated across Facebook’s user base of 44 million Britons, huge numbers of users could potentially be at risk from fraudsters who lure in victims with fake accounts, posts and paid-for ads on the site.
The financial consequences for those tricked by these fraudsters as well as those who post scam adverts on websites and search engines like Google can be devastating.
Which? has heard from many victims of these types of scams – including a man who lost almost £100,000 after clicking on an online investment advert featuring fake endorsements from MoneySavingExpert’s Martin Lewis and Deborah Meaden from BBC show Dragons’ Den.
The emotional consequences are equally serious. Scam victims told Which? that it had shaken their confidence in themselves and their ability to trust other people. A woman who lost £30,000 to an investment scam which featured prominently on Google said she still feels shame and despair 15 months on from her ordeal, adding: “It breaks you as a person.”
Which? is calling on the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to act now and include online scams in the upcoming Online Harms Bill so that consumers are protected from this huge and growing problem.
Which? carried out in-depth research with an online community of Facebook users over 10 days, and also conducted a nationally representative online survey including 1,700 Facebook users, as part of its new policy report ‘Connecting the world to fraudsters? Protecting social media users from scams’.
The research found that older social media users are often more concerned about scams, and perceived as being at greater risk by their fellow users. But the findings suggested that younger people may actually be more susceptible to scams as they are more persuadable and more likely to take risks, such as taking part in online shopping and quizzes used by some fraudsters.
Knowledge among users of what Facebook does to protect people from becoming a victim of a scam was low, although users assumed Facebook did have systems and processes in place. However, when details of Facebook’s actual systems and processes were explained, users were sceptical about their effectiveness and questioned whether they are sufficient.
Just three in 10 (30%) respondents to Which?’s online survey of Facebook users said they were aware of the scam ad reporting tool introduced by the site in 2019. Only a third of these, 10 per cent overall, said they had used the tool themselves.
Which?’s research was conducted with a focus on Facebook due to its size and influence in the social media landscape. However, the consumer champion believes that the findings and implications of this research can be reasonably extended to apply to other similar social networking sites and online platforms.
The amount of money lost to fraud every year is huge. In the year to June 2020, Action Fraud received 822,276 fraud reports, and the value of losses from reported incidents was £2.3 billion. Action Fraud estimates that 85 per cent of all fraud in the year to June 2020 was carried out digitally.
Which? spoke to one man, retired and in his seventies, who lost almost £100,000 to a Bitcoin scam, which started in February 2019, by a company called Fibonetix. He had seen an online advert which had fake endorsements from celebrities including MoneySavingExpert’s Martin Lewis and businesswoman Deborah Meaden.
The man, who preferred to remain anonymous, told Which?: “Being scammed in this way was utterly devastating. I think about it virtually every day and it’s really affected my confidence, my ability to make decisions and has ultimately changed the person that I am. Fortunately I have been able to get through it with the support of my family.”
Another victim, a sound engineer in her forties, was searching for investment advice on Google and ended up filling in contact details with a firm that seemed legitimate. Receiving a phone call a few days later she then ended up falling victim to an incredibly sophisticated scam, which took place over several weeks, and lost £30,000. Her case is currently being investigated by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
She says the experience has impacted her mental and physical health and that “it’s been really traumatic. At the time it felt like no one cared or wanted to discuss my case with me. It breaks you as a human being and leaves you scared of the outside world.”
Despite it happening 15 months ago she says: “It’s still hard to trust yourself and others. Often people think these things only happen to older people and it takes a long time to not feel like an idiot. There’s a lot of shame and despair which hasn’t gone away and I’m still awaiting closure to this day.”
Which? is calling for online platforms, including social media sites, to be given greater responsibility to prevent scam content appearing on their platforms.
The government has a perfect opportunity to deliver this in the upcoming online harms bill, and if not ministers must set out their proposals for further legislative action to effectively protect consumers from online scams.
Rocio Concha, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Which?, said:“The financial and emotional toll of scams can be devastating and it is clear that social media firms such as Facebook are failing to step up and properly protect users from fraudsters on their sites.
“The time for serious action on online scams is now. If the government doesn’t grasp the opportunity to deliver this in the upcoming online harms bill, it must urgently come forward with new proposals to stem the growing tide of sophisticated scams by criminals online.”
