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

  1. No device sold on the market can beat the laws of physics
    365
  2. What's the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth? About six months.
    357
  3. Minority Report is supposed to be a work of fiction, not a work of inspiration!
    335
  4. You no longer need to come to your own opinion, the Government will do it for you "for your safety". Deviation from the accepted Government opinion will not be tolerated and will be punished harshly.
    174
  5. Certain comments? It's literally anything that the authorities deem "inaccurate information" that can get you arrested now.
    43
  6. There is a danger of how the law is written that it could be used by bad actors to cause real mischief and ruin lives of otherwise law abiding individuals. A hacker releases a virus or blackmail malware with encrypted images which end up on the target's computer, the images get decrypted into a hidden folder and then the hacker alerts law enforcement of who you are. When the Police turn up and ask why you have these images on your PC, you're none the wiser and denial is not a defence. A case of the law not catching up to technology and potential for exploitation. A virus with a large spread could have major consequences for a lot of people.
    41
  7. What is frustrating is that you can get help if you are on benefits but if you are ineligible (mostly single, childless people on full time minimum wage or just above), you get nothing but are still subject to all the rent, bill and price increases plus additional working tax burdens on top. And then I wonder why I see low paid workers quitting or reducing their hours in a cost of living crisis where the logical assumption would be to work more hours to increase pay.
    40
  8. Today, a mainstream newspaper revealed that a building society had closed the account of a customer who had complained about the pride flag. Defending that they had the right to close accounts on the grounds of someone being rude or discriminatory, regardless of where that behaviour took place. Plus people have been barred from getting a bank account from any other business. Setting a dangerous precedence where private companies are compelling us all to speech codes or face being unable to function in society.
    34
  9. Extraordinary times will bring extraordinary measures from both Government and energy companies. One thing both the state and private companies do not like is their authority being threatened through dissent. There is no way the Government will allow the big energy firms to fail in the same way as the banks or pull out of the UK.
    31
  10. Ultimately what these individuals are advocating for is the banning of criticism and offence. No-one is exempt from criticism (even me) and you do not have the right to not be offended. I do not want to see us become an totalitarian state where only one positive viewpoint is allowed. The Simpsons warned of this from a moral viewpoint in a Treehouse of Horror episode.
    29
  11. It works if you want to introduce new laws to make criticism of politicians illegal under the guise of protecting the safety of the criticised.
    25
  12. It's good that you mentioned the point that you can banned from every other bank (and building society and utility) - something being missed in a lot of the conversations about this issue.
    23
  13.  @davecooper3238  Should banks have the power to revoke someone's ability to function and survive in society because of a viewpoint they disagree with, bearing in mind that banks don't just close accounts with them, they also have the right to inform every other business to not do business with you?
    23
  14. This will be more important for renters to take note of as landlords are increasingly moving to AirBnB in order to get around a number of the restrictions and tenant protections that traditional renting has.
    23
  15. No. Dissent will not be tolerated. Don't be surprised if sedition comes back on the books.
    22
  16. Will someone tell the Government that 1984 is supposed to be a warning, not an inspiration.
    21
  17. It will be an interesting experiment to see if Belfield can make the £1 a week paywall he has put up pay off (excuse the pun). If he succeeds by having a small percentage of his subscriber base pay up and makes money far in excess of what he made on YouTube, other content creators will start to move to exclusive paywall content far beyond what they do via Patreon and SubscribeStar. A few thousand subscribers paying his fee equates to approaching £200k a year, amounts the vast majority of content creators could only dream of on here. But a warning from history for Belfield, the last time that was attempted by a well-known YouTube content creator, it did not end well and they disappeared into obscurity.
    20
  18.  @88klac  All that has to happen is for politicians to state that criticism and opinions against them will put them in danger of their lives, as per recent tragedies against MPs and it'll be easy to shut down dissent.
    20
  19. There are now laws on the books to deal with "creeps", whether its sex-based harassment in public or online safety. A lot of the complaints boil down to "an unattractive man is in my presence or has spoken to men and this makes me feel offended and caused me alarm". The law hasn't been tested in a court of law yet to my knowledge but it's only a matter of when, not if.
    18
  20. Won't be long before we are directly told what we are allowed to think, say and believe.
    18
  21. In effect now, everyone should be told that everything you say, do and believe can be used against you in a court of law on a conspiracy charge should the authorities believe that you are potentially a criminal, whether true or not. Pre-crime is here, selectively enforced, but now reality. How long before criticising an MP becomes a charge of conspiracy to assault, harm or worse?
    16
  22. Schrodinger's Feminism in action.
    15
  23. Of course not. When men do it on dating apps, it's misogyny. When women do it on OnlyFans, it's enterpreneurship. Misandry is not recognised as an issue in society and in a few aspects, actively encouraged.
    14
  24. There does seem to be a desire for those with power and influence to demand not to be filmed while they also demand that you are filmed.
    14
  25. The demand to increase the numbers of successful prosecutions will require us to move from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. Which means that collateral damage is inevitable. It's also how those involved in angry pile-ons online work in terms of their perception of justice.
    13
  26. I can imagine that fixed in-car entertainment systems including car stereos were an oversight and that loophole of distraction will be closed in future. The problem there though is that if car stereos and radio listening is banned inside a car on the grounds of being a distraction, radio stations which overwhelmingly rely on the revenue from advertising to listeners commuting in their car will lose that income and it will decimate the industry leading to station closures and job losses.
    11
  27. Uncomfortable truths can be the most offensive things someone can say because the person who its aimed at knows in their conscience that it's true and can not be dismissed unlike trolling or a personal attack. It's a very quick way to find yourself shadow-banned or outright banned on social media, forums and comment sections.
    11
  28. If you've read the terms and conditions of your current or savings account, chances are it has a vague policy (or soon will if it doesn't now) that discriminatory or offensive speech or behaviour in any setting is a violation of the T&C's and can also be deemed a fraudulent act as you opened the account knowing you would wilfully breach the T&C's in the future. Potentially that earns you a fraud marker for six years making you persona non-grata.
    11
  29.  @Mr35000000  Criticism is not abuse. If we have reached the level where criticising an organisation is now personal abuse, we're doomed as a civilisation.
    11
  30.  @Zikar  We are at the point now where criticising someone and having that person be offended at that criticism can now land you in prison. This judgement and the forthcoming Online Safety Bill will have chilling consequences for a lot of speech. This is effectively legally mandating the "be kind" mindset into society.
    10
  31. They deem your "offensive" and "abhorrent" political views as a crime.
    10
  32.  @Dpo2203  There have been a number of cases involving e-scooter users and cyclists which led to the death of the pedestrian who was hit which involved the individual fleeing the scene and showing no remorse for their actions.
    8
  33. You're going to watch the weaponisation of the law to censor people, by claiming that (constructive) criticism is offensive, distressing, harassing, (online) stalking and harmful. At which point, you will only be allowed one opinion but you will not be told what that opinion is on a topic. You will be expected to know what it is. And those with the cash, influence and fame will be the ones who decide what the acceptable opinion is. Also, if I was an authoritarian leader and wanted to implement censorship in a western country, I would outsource it to private companies. After all, "they're a private company, they can do what they like".
    8
  34. The one problem I can foresee with your sponsor and other VPN companies is that any future online safety legislation that is being lobbied for will be the banning of VPN's, at least for non-corporate use. I suspect Brazil will be going down this road should they ban X and everyone shifts to using VPN's.
    8
  35. I'm hoping that any action won't result in the public being the target of action because I'm already hearing rumours of fuel protest style action which would hurt the public far more than the Government (who won't care as long as they're alright Jack).
    8
  36. I wonder how this will affect content creators in the UK? A lot of the rhetoric I have seen from those involved in the case speaking today talked specifically of Belfield's videos on his YouTube channel, the website and the content of said videos, not just his communication, as the rationale for the case against him. If that is the case, I can see content creators self-censoring and not critiquing people for fear of prosecution for stalking, harassment or any other offence. Belfield was critical of a number of celebrities in his videos, I suspect now he is in prison, other celebrities will bring their complaints to the police, more confident of their position and success. ETA: Another argument used by the likes of Belfield's opponents is that videos like what Belfield publishes criticising them radicalise his viewers against him to spread abuse, hate and violence which may also embolden Belfield.
    7
  37. I find it deeply concerning that we are heading toward the concept of censorship and instruction by proxy - by contract through employment or service provision not just in work but in your private life. I worry the answer to Lineker will be a Universal Code of Conduct, as we've seen with the Free and Open Source community, applicable to all employees, employers and patrons.
    7
  38. We also know that those deemed to be "involuntary celibates" are also largely over-represented by those diagnosed or could be diagnosed with autism. This creates a problem - profiling and men with autism being profiled in the same manner that we saw with skin colour and stop and search. Both on the grounds of an inalienable characteristic.
    7
  39. And automate. The only people who will be employed will be security staff for where there is still a need for human staff as robotics to apprehend thieves isn't there yet.
    7
  40. Could easily have trolls and hackers exploit this to serve such images silently and then report those individuals to law enforcement for their own glee and amusement. Even if it ruins law abiding people's lives. It seems to be another case where the law has not caught up with technology and new tactics by those with bad intentions.
    6
  41. They shouldn't be, but if you have an account with a bank, building society or utility, including your ISP, there will be a term within the terms and conditions that requires you to not engage in any speech or behaviour that they deem offensive, abusive or in opposition to the values of the organisation in any setting, including outside of the organisations remit and in private. Violation of such will result in immediate termination of the account and their right to inform other businesses to refuse business with you on the grounds of risk.
    6
  42. ​ @marcdraco2189  We are in a situation where someone could post anti-establishment, dissenting and provocative speech on a platform and they could be done for conspiracy to commit gross offence against someone purely on the belief that individual will cause someone gross offence in their mind. Literal thought crime.
    6
  43. We now have the issue that people think criticism of them is either harm, offensive or incitement to action. I am concerned that in the future that criticism could land you in a court of law. And it does seem the person arrested for "inaccurate information" was a prominent critic of the Government and other critics are being reported under the Online Safety Act in the same regard. American citizens - embrace and protect the First Amendment with every ounce of your might.
    6
  44. That's where this issue with toilets but also sports and spaces will conclude. A women's space and a gender neutral space. Because who is going to defend men's identity?
    5
  45. The problem in these times is that a vocal minority of people see opinions differing to their own, criticism and scrutiny as offensive, threats, abuse and harassment. The same people who lobby Government and get listened to.
    5
  46. The way things are going, everyone may as well act as if they've been arrested and enact the advice given to any accused in the interview room. We are going to have to assume now, with the blurring of lines between public and private that anything you say in any setting will be used against you.
    5
  47. I get the feeling that the UK Government is envious and inspired by Kwangmyong implemented in North Korea but going that far would be over playing their hand and would decimate the contribution the Internet makes to the UK economy.
    5
  48. The Government will introduce some kind of Sedition Act that will require public places to record all conversations for "public safety and order". Also bear in mind that smartphones are recording what is said within vicinity of the microphone (it's how personal assistants work and it's also used for advertising data).
    5
  49. Plot twist - they'll impose the 25% increase and then down the line issue a s.114 in order to bring in even more money next year.
    5
  50. If you think it's bad now, wait until the Online Safety Bill becomes law.
    5