Comments by "Gareth Hart" (@tgheretford) on "GBNews" channel.

An icon of free choice. The actual argument used by the Australian Government. In my eyes, that is not a condemnation but a compliment.
105
Everyone should read the terms and conditions of their bank account. You'll be shocked at what you signed up to and how much freedom the banks have to police your speech, your behaviour and private lives. Plus the ability for one company to stop you receiving service from every other bank, building society and utility if they disagree with your behaviour, speech or views.
4
That article from Myers was their Bud Light moment. All acumen of credibility and integrity thrown out of the window to push "the science". It will be interesting to see when the truth comes out how much they backpedal, scrub off the record and change their rhetoric.
2
The concept of a social credit system is terrifying. It will be sold as a way to solve anti-social behaviour, the obesity crisis, to bring about social cohesion, deal with unemployment and end trolling, abuse and misogyny. By restricting freedoms, compelling people to do something like work so many hours a week or mandatory gym membership or punishing people for wrong doing. All sounds good to the ears of someone who wants discipline and wrong-un's getting their comeuppance.. Until you realise, like with bank accounts, this power can be used against you when private companies and the state decide you are in the wrong.
2
Recruitment? Really? That is pretty much being rejected on a dating site, now that the definition is being extrapolated to a much wider range of men (moral panics do that to create fear and guarantee action from the baying mob). What the likes of the CCDH do not get is that the dynamics of online dating have changed dramatically, particularly in the last ten years. More men are now finding themselves disenfranchised from dating. Society places a value on men based on their success in attaining a relationship or success with women for casual acquaintances, probably the family friendly way of putting it. The idea here from the likes of feminists is that your low value and unattractiveness as a man makes women feel uncomfortable, threatened and uneasy which in itself is deemed misogynistic. You can be misogynistic without realising you are being misogynistic, in the same way race divisive ideologues claim that you can have white privilege without realising that you have white privilege. We also have a secondary problem, placing girls and women above men and boys in academia and the workplace, increasing the former's socio-economic status whilst harming the latter. As women in general do not find men attractive who are at a lower social status than themselves, we have, alongside the changes with online dating, a growing number of single, virgin men, the vast majority of whom don't even know what involuntary celibacy is, disenfranchised and now being denigrated as potential extremist terrorists by the media and eventually Parliament. Organisation? Who runs it? Who is their leader? A online message board or forum is NOT an organisation. I suspect the reason why single men are being miscategorised as an organisation is because it makes it easier to proscribe groups by law if they can be presented as an united organisation, to denigrate whole groups in the same manner as other terror organisations and to give the air of greater urgency that you could not do with a disorganised group or community. This might be why this video is getting heavily ratio'd. Completely out of their depth, a total lack of research and out of touch with reality. What are we going to do to hundreds of thousands of single men? And yes, I do say single men because a number of people and organisations do not just have an issue with involuntary celibates but bachelorhood as a whole, because of the value judgement I stated above. I fear single men are about to get the same treatment the unvaccinated are starting to get - scapegoating, segregation and ostracisation.
2
I will tell you what will happen. Virtual Private Network providers will make massive profits. Should you then demand VPN's be made illegal for residential use and succeed, you will see serious consequences. Banning pornography or making it impossible to access without having to give all of your ID (think the Ashley Madison hack for where that will lead) and with the dating market in a horrendous situation where more and more men are being consistently rejected and remaining virgins will lead to a lot more men falling into depression, losing hope and tragically in a growing number of cases, taking their own lives and we will see an increase in men committing sexual offences. As we see in repressive and backward societies and in male prisons (there's an element of truth to the don't drop the soap in the shower joke). Banning pornography or severely restricting it WILL lead to women being put in danger. Anyone who cares for the safety of women should be against this move.
2
We know what will happen, people will move to VPN's and bypass the UK laws. If you plug that loophole, we face an even worse situation with men turning to websites where women exploit the loneliness and inability of the site users to attract a partner in order for the women to make a profit. I fear what will happen when said men suddenly realise these women only consider them as cash machines and that they have been sold a lie. If you think things are bad now with single, lonely men, just wait until you prohibit by law or paywall at a high price access to any sexual outlet and release for men. Banning or paywalling pornography is like banning or highly taxing alcohol. The consequences of prohibition will be far worse than allowing it to continue with safeguards and education. Learn from history - prohibition will fail.
1
I follow actual science compared to "the science". This is why I oppose mask mandates. They are ineffective, countries and states in the United States who dropped mandates did not see a rise in cases, hospitalisations or deaths. They are not the miracle people proclaim them to be, quite the opposite, they are doing harm in a number of ways - to mental health, physical health, the environment, society and so on.
1
When people proudly proclaim that "the virus must be stopped", the state can literally get anyway with anything against the unvaccinated outgroup. The Austrian state is rewriting the social contract - to remove your ability to consent, to abolish bodily autonomy and to engage in a new contract where you do as you're told in every aspect of life, give full, unequivocal respect to the state and under no circumstances do you dissent. I fear our Government looks on to Austria with envy, thinking like with lockdown - 'we thought we could never get away with it, then Austria did it, then we realised we could get away with it'. As said, history never repeats, but it rhymes.
1
Listen to how people justify masks - "I FEEL as if they work..." Science does not work on feelings. Science does not care about your feelings. And feelings can not explain the real world data and statistics which counteract their feelings.
1
If state services are denied to an individual, can they stop paying taxes and National Insurance? If not, denying service whilst still charging them should be regarded as theft. And we know mission creep will kick in - vaccine today, obesity, sugary drinks, gas boilers, extreme sports, hurty words, boosters forever and so forth tomorrow. Anyone who advocates for this should call themselves for what they are - an authoritarian and a segregationist. Just because it isn't levied in relation to skin colour does not make it moral.
1
Remember when parents had responsibility for the safeguarding of their children? I'd rather parents did than the state.
1
Have you seen the current state of the dating market? 80% of men can forget trying and an increasing number of men (a quarter in a USA study) are remaining virgins in their twenties as dating apps allow a wider net of men to be searched and women are chasing a smaller percentage of men. All you will see is more despair, more criminality and more tragedies.
1
Pensions and retirement will become a luxury in thirty years time when people hoping to retire will be told that the all the money has gone. Only those with millions in the bank will be able to retire.
1
The concept of abolishing Internet anonymity is now even more of a pressing matter for those with this agenda considering recent events in the UK.
1
Exceptionally well said. I have noticed the same correlations with religion and ideology. If the NHS is the church, the mask is the cross, a signal of dedication to the faith and anyone who refuses to wear one is a sinner, an outcast, a heretic. The followers have compassion, selflessness and righteousness. The heretics are denounced as selfish, reckless, dangerous and can't even put up with a "minor inconvenience". Freedom is denounced as deadly. Evil, Hell. A torture that sinners will suffer forever if they don't obey the religion and mask up. I am worried about the consequences of the rhetoric around masks from politicians, mayor's, the media and commentators. I agree that we are seeing a divisive tone being taken which will, as the state stops enforcing law, have the public take over. We risk making masks a social norm and not wearing one a social taboo. Forever. Whilst expanding the wearing of them beyond where they are mandated today (already seen more people wearing them outside in near thirty degree heat and high UV levels just this weekend compared to the past) and I fear we will see individuals and groups approaching people and abusing, harassing and shaming people for not wearing them, fuelled by peer pressure to fit in and the rhetoric I mentioned earlier. Unlike the EU referendum where you vote is secret, your membership of the religion of safetyism will be there for everyone to see on your face.
1