of the protests we've seen here in the united states joining me now to talk more about this is michael rupert in sebastopol california he is the founder of the collapse and. hey there michael i want to get your insight on what we're seeing in london because i know that you read previous experience as. a police officer i think with l.a.p.d. now six hundred thousand officers have been sent out in london do you think that this whole situation is being handled in the right way. absolutely not and i'm extremely suspicious. provoker tourism. industry was going to want to hear us and u.k. especially to provoke restarts and i'm really worried that's what's happening the own risk. for quite some time but this is the perils and dispersion of the incidents and especially where the media are playing them on both sides of the cause suggest that they really want to trigger massive civil unrest you say what do you think is behind sort of the spreading of civil unrest that frankly we've seen over the last few months happen around the world that they is anyone who is in service of the infinite growth monetary

we sometimes are accused of living on the back of others content, from michael gray to rupert murdoch, and the duncan. they have said, "google takes more ad revenue out of the makes. -- u.k. than itv it is not put back into the companies in the uk." some suggest that google should invest directly to content. that reflects a misunderstanding of what googlers, who we are, and what we're capable of. we provided a platform for people to engage in contact automated software. we show add that they have chosen to put up, but we have neither the ambition or the know-how to produce content in a large scale. can you imagine what would imagine a to put us in charge of programming? strange looking viroid videos, we're looking callable things. what you do is hard and we are not good at it. let us be clear. there's no confusion. we are not good at this. we are good at other things. instead, what we want to do is help to fund content. we shared more than $6 billion with publishing partners worldwide and we have been investing in deep relationships with channels four and five to provide these service

accused of leading off the back of others content and not paying our way by everyone from michael grade to rupertch. quote, google takes more ad revenue out of the u.k. than itv makes. it isn't fair is that reinvesting that back into content independent film production companies in the u.k. unquote. some have suggested that google should invest directly intelligence -- television content. i think we did in that argument i think it reflects a misunderstanding of what google is or who we are and what we are capable and not capable of doing. we provide platforms for people to engage in content. we show ads next to content that owners have chosen to put up. we have neither the ambition nor the know-how to actually produce content at any large scale. i mean, can you imagine what would happen if you put us in charge of programming? i mean, bad sci-fi, strange looking viral videos and weird colorful things. i mean, what you all do is actually hard, and we are no good at it. let's be clear. there's no confusion here because once in a while i have to explain this to people at google. we are not good at th

accused of living off the back of others' content and not paying our way by everyone from michael grade to rupert murdoch. andy duncan and arrested most distinctly by saying quote, google takes more ad revenue out of the u.k. in itv makes. it isn't fair that it's not reinvesting back into the independent film production countries in the u.k., unquote. some have suggested google would invest directly in television content. i think would make it into the argument it reflects a misunderstanding of what google is or who we are and what we're capable and not capable of doing. we provide platforms for people to engage in content or automated software. we show as the donors have chosen. we have neither the ambition or the know-how to actually produce content at any large scale. i mean, can you imagine if you put us in charge of programming? sci-fi, strange looking viral videos and weird colorful things. i mean, what you will do is hard and we are no good at it. let's be clear. there is no confusion here. every once in a while to explain this at google. we are good at other things. so instead, what we'll

but if there is and is giving rupert murdoch it is that he had an access to power his biographer michael wolff said the other night, he never had to explain anything. rupert has always spoken of power, and part of that power, some people allege, involved affecting the way in which the industry sought to dominate was regulated. and that was what the the sky be battle was all about. when david cameron said last year that they're going to abolish off, effectively and leave them with sort of a supervisory role he was almost speaking the words dictated by robert byrd but. that was the accusation. >> that almost seemed to me to kick off what had always been a great hinterland of concern about rupert owning bskyb outcry. of fox a fine a fairly efficient and forward thinking tv outfit. >> i love that headline. spent i will be foxified if you can have it. >> sorry, i've got a batch of. my wife is once said on the way to the debate, why don't you get yourself a packet of tax. and i said no not really necessary. [laughter] >> you said the word foxified and the man visited you. >> i think is always