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

  1. We know virtually nothing will be done regarding cycling on pavements and when the rare situation of someone getting fined does happen, all that will happen is that they will argue the case that it is a unmarked shared path. The worrying consequence from this tragedy, and it is a tragedy, is that pedestrians will now be considered second class citizens who must give way to all cyclists (and e-scooters, mobility scooters et al) as they ultimately have a duty of care and liability if any harm comes to them within their presence. Even if that means walking into the road or standing aside to give way. No anger, gestures or imitation need be involved.
    5
  2. Or worse still, inform every other business to refuse that person any custom.
    5
  3. And in turn, social media companies do not want anyone who truly values personal privacy (see the recent moves by Twitter which stopped privacy front-ends working completely). And increasingly in future, people who don't pay a subscription fee.
    4
  4. Uncomfortable truths are deemed "hate speech", because people treat it as offensive and distressing to themselves. Problem is, unlike with trolling or a personal attack, you can't easily dismiss the truth and the truth will eventually come out. Time is vindicating.
    4
  5. Websites are going to have a duty to ensure no-one within the UK is using a VPN to bypass forthcoming age/ID verification for all sites accessible in the UK that host anything not "safe for kids" or is age restricted (hint, YouTube has age restrictions) by July. As you can't tell who is using a VPN and where from, it's effectively a VPN ban. But I suspect it's only a matter of when, not if, VPN's are banned. They tried once when the Online Safety Bill was going through Parliament.
    4
  6. Governments and justice systems tend to take a zero tolerance approach to dissent. Their intent to send a deterrent is designed to make everyone self-censor and therefore suppress criticism.
    4
  7. It will eventually extend to unwanted attention. We've gone from extreme examples such as up-skirting to cyberflashing. Then to cat-calling and wolf-whistling. Now we have the Mayor of London wanting unwanted looking or "staring" as it is being termed at a woman to be criminalised. Eventually it will get to things such as unwanted flirting, unsolicited messages on online dating and "creepy" behaviour. Which will make criminals of men who are inept, clueless or clumsy at approaching women either online or in real life or whom are just simply unattractive.
    4
  8. I was concerned that when Belfield put all of his content behind a paywall that if it succeeded, that other content creators would look at the cost of shedding their non-paying viewers for a small percentage of paying viewers and whether it will be more profitable than the uncertainty of ad-revenue on YouTube. It appears Belfield's experiment has succeeded. For just a small percent of his viewers paying the fee he asks for, he can easily cover his expenses and live a very comfortable lifestyle. The problem is, viewers are not bottomless bank machines who can pay out for everyone they watch and at a time where we are looking at inflation pressure on consumers reducing spending and a potential recession.
    4
  9. And what's to stop them placing a CIFAS marker on you so you are deemed too much of a risk by every other business, effectively become barred from every financial institution and utility and become persona non-grata for up to six years?
    4
  10. Considering that any FM radio from the last few decades receives RDS data within its frequency window and DAB is reception of digital data by default, wouldn't that now make changing the station on a car radio illegal?
    4
  11. Looking into the sentencing remarks and not condoning what Belfield has done, I do think there are consequences from this case for content creators, social media users, platforms, comedians and anyone who platforms them. There's already talk of civil cases against other channels, broadcasters and individuals based on what happened to Belfield.
    4
  12. Both private and public sector firms are planning to introduce wide scale automation. We then have two questions - what do we do with all the millions of unemployable people? And for the Government - where does their tax revenue now come from?
    4
  13. Wait until everything becomes "as a service" where you pay a subscription fee for everything instead of owning it. Companies, entrepreneurs and individuals have started to realise that paywalls are far more profitable than a one-off payment or advertising funded and it allows full control of their product, intellectual property and preventing any potential consequence from boycotts from advertisers and post-sale customers.
    4
  14.  @ditch3827  We're now going the opposite way, where people are claiming that electric vehicles and lithium batteries never catch fire and only diesel/petrol vehicles catch fire. Any claim otherwise is now claimed to be a conspiracy theory or misinformation (things that can be censored). At this point, you can understand people's concern, scepticism and suspicion.
    3
  15. Can confirm. Also applies to tumble dryers, movies and music playing through speakers/home cinema systems and conversations where the participants don't realise how loud they are being.
    3
  16. Eventually every website has it (YouTube has for a while with Premium) and eventually they'll want both your data and to pay for the privilege.
    3
  17. That's the danger this case could communicate to the public. Because pedestrians will have to make sure no harm comes to any cyclist, mobility scooter or e-scooter rider within their vicinity. And ultimately, they will now get priority by default because the alternative could be a criminal record, loss of liberty and loss of income for the pedestrian.
    3
  18. People in the UK have an attitude that emergencies and disasters never happen so we never need to be prepared. Add in a distrust of both the Government and the mainstream media and we have the perfect storm (excuse the pun) that if something serious does or is about to happen, things will go south pretty quickly. And the Government will be blamed for it.
    3
  19.  @antifugazi  Now we are potentially reaching the point where cyclists will force pedestrians off the pavement. Or at the very least, fearful of cyclists within their presence because of any potential legal consequences should they come to harm which cyclists do not need to fear the other way round.
    3
  20. Google Chrome will soon ban third party cookies. The question is, as advertising revenue is Google's bread and butter (for now), what finanical incentive do they get from this move?
    3
  21. Every critic and dissenter of the Government and establishment had better learn the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
    3
  22. This is a problem with video gaming. You don't own the game, you pay for a licence. Problem is in the digital realm, copyright owners have taken away the licence to play the game you've paid full price for and consumers have no legal recourse other than to boycott that publisher in future. Video gaming companies are not happy about the resale of physical (retro) second hand games either as they believe they are being deprived an additional sale of and revenue from that copy of the game.
    3
  23. And who funds the transmitter network when the BBC goes behind a paywall and therefore online only? That's the end of free-to-air broadcasting and everything goes behind a paywall. Excellent if you have hundreds a month to spare, disastrous if you are a pensioner reliant on the state pension.
    3
  24.  @EgoChip  Which is why the Government wishes to outlaw anonymity.
    3
  25. Yes. Worse still, they could place a marker on you to tell everyone else to close accounts they have with you and refuse business with you.
    3
  26. Wouldn't their video constitute a violation of the new Online Safety Act in that it is advocating for illegal activity even if they don't actively tell people to break the law? Also, in terms of anyone who fails to provide a reading is in breach of the law, would that apply to anyone who has their bills estimated but isn't being enforced?
    3
  27. The way things are going, it will be quicker for the Government to tell us what acceptable thoughts, opinions and views everyone is allowed to hold. Eventually the Government will make it a crime to criticise them, even if it is in your own head and not expressed in any communication.
    3
  28. I get the distict impression that there is a desire to make speculation illegal. I personally worry that the motive in the confession note is being ignored, all we will hear is "lessons have been learnt" and we will be doomed to repeat history.
    3
  29. I was previously questioned about my Internet usage outside of work, long before social media was a thing. Which they can do if they believe it will have a detrimental impact on yourself or your work. Nothing came of it.
    3
  30. There are people who genuinely think that pavements are there for cars to use as free parking. If I turned the tables and stopped in the middle of the road, I'd be quickly put into the back of a police car.
    3
  31. How long before we are told that using less electricity by cutting usage is depriving suppliers of their rightful income and be considered stealing like disabling ads on a browser or skipping ads on a recorded programme? The way things are going, the only place where people will be fed, kept warm and kept distracted from reality will be prison.
    3
  32. Remove the word 'truth' from that sentence and it'll become more accurate.
    2
  33. The prospect of giving a different name via a pseudonym or anonymity is potentially going to become a problem when the Online Safety Bill becomes law and everyone will be required to give their actual details to online firms. Also, you would be amazed at how much control your employer could hold over your private life. Ask footballers who are given some strict rules to adhere to prior to matches. Employers don't tend to enact such control because it can generate bad press and publicity for the company or organisation.
    2
  34. Of course, a gym, members club or the like requires an individual membership and fee for every single member of a household. Would Netflix et al have to require a fee for every single individual in a household if we are going by that analogy?
    2
  35. It's not a crime to wear headphones or earbuds as a pedestrian. If anyone isn't happy with that, start an ePetition, write to your MP and start a campaign to lobby Government. However, by that logic, what happens to the deaf and hard of hearing? They have just as much right to use the pavement and cross the road as anyone else.
    2
  36. The Online Safety Act might disagree with the concept of being allowed to promote her views.
    2
  37. How long before unwanted attention such as flirting, creepy behaviour, unwanted glances, staring or unsolicited messages - for example, via dating apps - in public or online for anything not covered by existing law and beyond cyberflashing, cat-calling or wolf-whistling gets added to the Online Safety Bill and/or the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill? I detect an appetite for such behaviour and I would not be surprised if a poll comes out suggesting 72% of those polled support such moves by Government to deal with misogyny (but not misandry) but it would criminalise a lot more men for merely being unattractive and within someone's presence or being rejected in dating (ie. punching above their weight in the dating market).
    2
  38. Wait until Government reconvenes in September. You ain't seen nothing yet.
    2
  39. We're now reaching the point where people are claiming that electric vehicles and lithium batteries never catch fire, that it must only be diesel and petrol and that any claim to the contrary is a conspiracy theory and misinformation. With this in mind, I can imagine that car parks would put in a no diesel/petrol car rule in their buildings on the grounds of health and safety.
    2
  40.  @PINACI  The VPN service is still operating in the UK and serving UK citizens. It's covered by the law.
    2
  41.  @PINACI  Doesn't matter. If they're accessible in UK territory, they're covered under the law and if they want to get paid by payment processors, they won't have a choice but to comply.
    2
  42.  @PINACI  How are they getting paid? Payment processors and anyone who converts fiat currency to crypto will need to operate in the UK. Even then, WhatsApp and Signal are not UK companies but still have to comply with the law, if anything, threatening to leave the UK. Same applies to VPNs.
    2
  43. That's what every company will need to do. But I suspect the likes of Amazon, eBay, Netflix, Meta, X (Twitter) and UK companies will remain accessible in the UK and most people won't care I fear.
    2
  44.  @TheWtfnonamez  VPN's are covered by law. Either they comply or leave the UK.
    2
  45.  @stuartfountain9929  I think a campaign/lobbying MPs to ban mobile phones, headphones and other distractions in public places would be popular. I personally wouldn't support it but if people do think it is a good idea, they should write to their MPs, start an ePetition and start a grass roots political/awareness campaign.
    2
  46. What will happen is the end of free-to-air broadcasting because the BBC is the prominent funder of it and if it goes subscription based, it goes exclusively online. No more ad-funded ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, TalkTV, GB News and the rest because they can't afford to take up the slack of what it would cost and would have to be paywalled. No more terrestrial radio, they'd go behind a paywall too. People do not realise the wide reaching consequences of what they are proposing unless they're happy to pay hundreds a month to access the various (predominately American owned) paywalls to access what they have now for much less.
    2
  47. Noise pollution is the one thing that we don't talk about as a society yet it can have very deterimental effects on someone's mental and physical health. My experience is that people don't care about how loud they are and there is no consideration for other people, particuarly late at night where people put their movies on loud through home cinema systems, speak loudly to their mates or turn on their washing machines and tumble dryers. I suspect the assumption is that "its my house, I can do whatever I like in my private space and if it spills out into other properties, that's their problem". The second I heard of this plan, I just knew it would result in this very problem.
    2
  48. We know what will happen. They'll say that Elon is inciting violence, person gets arrested for threats and then they'll justify new laws that will make the criticism of politicians within the UK or any platform accessible in the UK illegal under the guise of "safety".
    2
  49. The only way you will solve that is to ban all personal electronic devices in public. But who wants to be the one to enact that? If you thought the Online Safety Bill was unpopular and kicked up a stink...
    2
  50. If you are an employee, you are now pretty much guaranteed to be under a social media and disclipinary policy which allows your employer to guide and monitor what you say and do outside of the workplace, not just inside of it. Even what you post in this comments section is covered.
    2