Cat Scot loses 2 YouTube channels

It came as an unexpected pleasure yesterday to learn that YouTube had removed the main video channel belonging to Catriona Selvester, aka Cat Scot, aka Wildcat Scot, aka CalamiTcat.

Cat Scot 2018-11-06 YouTube

The channel succumbed to an excess of copyright strikes—ironic, considering her recent gloating about having taken down another person’s YouTube channel for that self-same reason:Cat Scot 2018-11-06 via HG blog.png

In terms of famous last words, this wasn’t really on a par with “Either this wallpaper goes or I do”, as dear Oscar Wilde was alleged to have moaned on his deathbed (he didn’t really, but it’s still a good story).

However, it turns out to have been ironic, which might be even better in the long run.

As it turns out, annoying “Michael of the Mouse Family” might have been part of Cat’s undoing, as he immediately launched—and won—a challenge to her complaint:  Cat Scot 2018-11-06 MKD counter YTCat Scot 2018-11-06 Michael via Twitter

Perhaps they have, Michael.

We’re also aware of at least two other successful copyright strikes against Cat, who was an enthusiastic thief borrower of other people’s material, with nary a thought to the niceties of crediting her sources or fair use principles. So go, team!

The other shoe drops

For a brief while yesterday, Cat could console herself that her back-up channel (with half a dozen videos and about that many subscribers, but still—a channel. Of sorts), remained intact.

However, that didn’t last.

Within a few hours, we learned that the second account, too, was gone-zo:Cat Scot 2018-11-06 YouTube copy.pngSic transit gloria mundi and all that.

We find it more than a bit annoying that YouTube responds (relatively) promptly and efficiently to threats to their income stream, while taking a lackadaisical approach to issues like harassment and child endangerment, but at least in this case we will take our victories where we can find them.

And in our Hubris Department…

We’d like to remind you of this blast from the not-too-distant past:

“I will say and do exactly whatever the fuck I like…Nobody will stop me…I won’t be censored, so that’s that.”
~ Cat Scot, 17.10.18

Catriona has had her Twitter account locked down to “friends only” for some weeks now, and so sadly her reaction to yesterday’s news remains a mystery. However, here is an artist’s representation:Cat Scot 2018-11-06 meme

44 thoughts on “Cat Scot loses 2 YouTube channels

  1. “Catriona has had her Twitter account locked down to ‘friends only’ for some time now”

    …And lest we forget that she’s also had her Facebook account set to ‘disabled’ ever since Gingergate broke on 8th September 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  2. LOLOL



    OK I’m over it now

    No not really



    I guess the gloves on the other paw now hey kat???
    I suppose she will have to open a new channel and claw her way back up the ratings…

    Liked by 3 people

  3. And the good news keeps on coming! The SGT Report Ella interview video (which contained images of the children and was being promoted by a known child-abuser friend of Cat Scot’s) has come down in the last few hours 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

      • Yes, we’ve had some decent results with Vimeo, haven’t we. If memory serves, we got a few of Angie’s videos taken down from there, and some of Praterson’s.

        Plus I seem to recall we got Cat Scot’s Vimeo channel banned a few months back. It really isn’t her year, is it? 😆

        Liked by 2 people

    • And only we make death threats apparently, so I would wonder what Freeman Emma and Lynne Scotts comments are then???

      Liked by 3 people

    • I don’t know which is more scary – the spelling, the grammar, the misinformation or the fact that some of these people are allowed near children in a professional capacity.


      • Actually I am surprised that noone picked up on this…

        Say whaaaa?
        “Abe made a startling statement on camera to his mum saying. “eating babies made him feel strong”

        So much for the vegetarian thing then lol

        Liked by 1 person

        • Actually, he made the little boy say that. I think he was planning to use it as part of his advertising campaign for cannabis as a cure for trauma-based mind control or whatever.


          • Yeah he was the one that made the boy say it, but I love that statement, even more so considering his ‘vegetarianism’ (apart from chickens, allegedly…)

            Liked by 1 person

  4. I reckon a dedicated group needs to be formed to lobby ex-Deputy UK PM Nick Clegg now he has joined Facebook. It needs to be a group of like-minded and especially victims and have a lawyer onboard (there must be many who would join).

    Is Clegg going to risk his reputation (?) by ignoring the numerous cases of defamation against innocent British citizens and the promotion of child abuse material?.
    I would have thought the reason Facebook hired him is to try and improve their image after the Russian / US election scandal.

    He may even find himself legally liable as a British citizen and corporate director if he is personally ignores the illicit attacks upon victims seeing as an example, the Hampstead children are genuine victims of child abuse but even if they are only alleged victims they are guaranteed life-long anonymity and just because their names have been revealed does not absolve people of legal responsibility when they publish their images and names.

    # There is also a serious matter, I believe, of the sham of denying access in the UK to the videos which happens but is easy to get around.

    I’ve tried it as an experiment using a UK proxy and been unable to see the videos (as the loon Kane Slater moans about) but using say a Russian or Iceland proxy they can be easily viewed.
    However: I believe it is still illegal to publish the images / videos when they can be easily accessed this way as it makes a sham of the anonymity law. This has to be tested at some stage and I reckon it makes Facebook vulnerable to a massive lawsuit and a class action.
    Just because there are ways around a law does not make right.

    Liked by 2 people

    • So what you are saying is that you would like Facebook to ban access to their site by anyone using a VPN? You are closer to having your wish fulfilled than you think!!!


      • That’s not what I understand GoS to be saying. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he’s saying that he can see Kane’s videos from everywhere else in the world, but when Facebook “thinks” he’s viewing from the UK, the videos are blocked.

        I agree that this is a very poor showing on Facebook’s part. There are court orders specifically demanding that videos of RD’s children be taken down, but Facebook has chosen to use loopholes to ensure they can be seen all around the world except in the UK.

        Liked by 3 people

      • No, I am saying that Facebook, YT , Google and social media really make a mockery of local laws and the fact they are the biggest tax avoiders on the planet rubs salt into the wounds.

        They (reluctantly) remove videos and images of the children so they cannot be viewed in the UK (and make complainants jump through hoops) but in doing so they also breach the law and they are in a privileged position no citizen is.

        When someone posts illegal material that is in breach of laws be it child abuse material or a copyright breach, just because they remove it doesn’t make the original action of them hosting it legal.

        They host illicit material in the first place and enable it to be seen (no matter what sophistry they use : based in the US for that ghastly “freedom of speech” mantra- HQ based in an empty office in Ireland to avoid taxes etc etc. and especially the claim they are not publishers which is now being successfully challenged in many countries and I believe will be in the UK eventually despite an earlier ruling.

        Someone could sue a publication for breach of copyright but social media avoids normal obligations as they allow that material to be copied and spread like a wildfire ( as Judge Paufrey predicted in the children’s case).

        And the easy & free use of proxies to get around the banned viewing of videos which every person is aware off (except perhaps Angie) doesn’t make it right. It’s a bit like someone careering down a 30 MPH zone at a 100 miles and because they weren’t nabbed by the cops they get away with it. But it doesn’t make it legal.

        I’m not sure what the cure is but look at what happens here: we taxpayers spend fortunes in pursuing a case such as Hoaxtead but in the end even laws in place: anonymity for victims : are flouted by social media who play lip service and at the very same time are profiting from these breaches and then avoiding tax on their profits while simultaneously making it easier for new breaches to happen and driving up unemployment by destroying normal advertising and publishing industries and we taxpayers keep picking up the tab.

        Meanwhile politicians who are expected to make policy for this new age (as they did during the Industrial Revolution) are like deer caught in the headlights.
        # If you need a bar-room cleared I can come and rabbit on about this for hours on end.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Also is this true?. There is talk of a ban on proxies?.
        It wouldn’t surprise me but doubtful it would happen and I’m sure the only reason it would is because powerful folk like Rupert Murdoch (and others) who hates Google with a vengeance blame proxies for the illicit download of material..movies etc.
        On the other hand there are multi-millions of people around the world in oppressed countries who rely on proxies to avoid retribution.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Yes, I agree. The complaint being made by GoS was that the videos can be seen in the rest of the world. I simply “stress tested” that request. 😉

    Whatever we might think of the videos being posted and the vile people who post them, they are perfectly legal in the USA. Their first amendment protects posters and common carrier status the providers. English court orders aren’t enforceable in Scotland, let alone the US, *unless* they are registered with the Court of Sessions on Edinburgh, which is why sometimes the Scottish press print stories that they couldn’t in England.

    So the requirement being asked for here is for a US based provider who is only bound to obey the laws of the UK for people in the UK and whose users agree to be bound by Irish law for other disputes is being asked to ban content worldwide? Much as the material is distasteful to us, a US court is not going to uphold an English court order.

    So with that as the starting point, I don’t think it was unreasonable to play devil’s advocate and ask how this ban is to be accomplished so that a UK resident cannot get around it? The easiest way to do this is to make VPN use illegal in the UK (which has been proposed by some MPs, as has the complete removal of HTTPS and other encryption services and it could be argued that the Digital Economy Act 2017 can already be used to do this) or to make it a condition of trading that Facebook must ban access to their site from VPN connected PCs.

    My main point was to be careful what you wish for lest you get it! 😁

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have other proposals that I think are fairer but with today’s clueless politicians have little hope
      As an example:
      As Lord Leveson proposed in his Inquiry: there needs to a Libel Tribunal that any member of the public can access to receive relief as current libel laws mean only the rich can access them. That’s a two tier system of law favoring a privileged few. Hoaxtead is a great example of why this is needed.
      Lousy politicians fought that and his second Inquiry as promised on lies aided by a bullying mainstream media.
      And new laws of Criminal Libel as I have previously mentioned.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.