Comments by "" (@redtela) on "BlackBeltBarrister" channel.

  1.  @paulforman6414  also don't use the radio, or have passengers/pets, and heh, with the cost of fuel at the moment, why not just "don't use the vehicle"
    38
  2. I wonder what might have happened in the appeal if they had tried to argue that this case was no different to using the controls provided within the car, rather than trying to debate it on the communication aspect. Two examples here: Firstly, in my car, there is a control physically mounted to the car steering column (that I cannot remove) which will cause my phone to skip to the next track and change volume, etc. I can also control the same from the car radio itself. So for this case, I would posit that using the phones touch screen is no different to using manufacturer provided (and Type Approved) controls within the vehicle. Of course, much simpler to avoid a prosecution by using the vehicle mounted controls, rather than my phone (which I have chosen to mount to the vehicle). Secondly, and likely more difficulty for me to defend, on my bike, everything is voice controlled. I can, for example, say "Hey Cordo, next track" - and it causes my phone to switch to the next track. Clearly, I'm not using a hand-held device, but I am still communicating with a device designed to be hand held and it is communicating with both the internet and my bluetooth headset. In this case, however, I think an officer would find it quite tricky to read my lips (though my closed helmet) to know what I was doing to even have a chat with me.
    25
  3. 1. Russian boots were on the ground, and actively telling people how to vote in the referendum, with an instruction that failing to vote correctly would mean they watch their loved ones face a firing squad, before the firing squad shot them. Are you going to pretend that was in any way a legitimate referendum? 2. While it's true that in 2014 Ukraine started shelling residential districts in Donetsq etc, I wonder why you don't reference that it was in reaction to the armed insurrection that had already been started by Russia?
    16
  4. my personal interpretation, yes, that is illegal. The way around it, would be to use a device that is designed as in-car sat nav, since that isn't a two-way communication device, regardless of if you're operating it by hand or not. Another way, is to use voice controls rather than touch screen (good luck to the officer trying to prove what you were saying).
    11
  5. Might be worth, in another video at some point, going over the process for "excessive speed." The experience of Single Justice Process definitely worked in my case, I now cringe when I'm a passenger in a speeding car. Those fines hurt, and I was lucky to keep my licence!
    11
  6. I live 2 miles from the nearest public road (which is single track), and Amazon drivers that have a GPS pin over my house struggle to find it. I've never seen trick or treaters brave enough to come knock on the door. Crime ain't an issue. The local community is all farmers, so invariably they'll all have shotguns etc that they can take into town if idiots get a little rowdy
    10
  7. Friend of mine was a store detective, he had to be exceptionally careful re PACE and SIA when in plain clothing. He worked for an agency that could ask him to go into a number of chains, and didn't actually have to announce himself to store staff (consider cases where staff are suspected of theft). It was hilarious bumping into him when shopping though... "Hey Dan, how's work going?" - visible grimace.
    9
  8. An interesting aside to this, being a biker, I have before now been in a petrol station that refused to serve me - after I had put petrol in the bike - because they required that I remove my helmet. The helmet was an "open face" modular one, with the front flipped up, so all of my face was already visible, but the clerk insisted that I remove it, or they wouldn't process payment, because, rules are rules, apparently. Me being me, put my bank card back in my pocket, and took out exact change from my pockets, placed it on the counter, told them which pump the cash was for, and left. I never heard a word about it afterwards.
    8
  9. And equally, the opposite is true - in some cases (such as those BBB references), talking to the police openly can lead to CPS dropping the case. For example, if you were clearly and provably somewhere else when whatever it is supposedly happened.
    8
  10. @Skelter1skelter - you make a good point, I've defrosted a frozen engine with tealights before now... wonderful things they are!
    7
  11. Two anecdotal cases come to mind. Case A: I was under suspicion of a thing I didn't do. I was arrested, cautioned, interviewed. The officer walked me back to my car, and at the car, said "oh, do you have the phone that might have been involved in this?" I answered "Yes, here, take it and the PIN is 1234, I don't even care about getting the phone back, because I have a new one." Not a problem at all. Case B: I was witness to an RTC. In fact, I was the vehicle immediately behind a drunk driver who went head on. One of the casualties sat in my rear seat for some time before ambulances arrived. Police attending watched my dashcam while sitting in my drivers seat. They then stated "I'm going to have to confiscate your dash cam as evidence" - to which I replied "I can burn it to a DVD and have it with you in the morning." - They came to my house 1h30 after I left the scene, and I burnt it to DVD there & then for them, no issue whatsoever.
    6
  12. My take - as the father, I would have been positioned off to the right side, to make it VERY clear that there was insufficient room for the car to come through. I've done this MANY times as a motorcyclist, with more novice bikers in front of me. I'm yet to have a car try to argue with me head on. Or when the kid says "shall I pull over to the side?" I would have perhaps said "no, but stop and lets see how this is going to happen. The car should wait for us, but lets not put ourselves into danger." Importantly, on a bicycle, I would NOT have pulled over to the side, but maybe stopping short to see what the car does is enough.
    5
  13.  @misamsung6191  one thing omitted from the video we're replying to, but evident in the actual case text - the defendant was holding the phone in their hand. It was not in a dash mount etc. Also, I think the appeal was based on both "communication" and "data" - that said, the idiot holding the phone was simply wasting the courts time IMO. I would be interested to see a case where the phone was in a dash mount, and being poked with a single finger, rather than being held.
    5
  14. I came out of a supermarket one day to find that the rear light panel was smashed on my car. No note, no-one around. I found it easier to simply pay the £75 and replace the part myself. I now just park as far away from the doors as is possible... only people that care enough about their own vehicles to walk that far, park near by.
    5
  15. Here here. At least I wasn't the only one actively listening, rather than trying to judge.
    4
  16. Equally, I quite liked the reference to "I will wear a costume... " - works very well given the meaning of the word in both languages.
    4
  17. Please explain where any part of the guidance that was read out, prohibits homosexuality? Nothing in the guidance even prohibits children questioning their gender - let alone them trying to make their mind up either way about it. Indeed, quite the opposite... this sets out a framework for how education responds, and provides for exceptional cases that are, in nature, extreme. Section 28, it is not.
    4
  18. There is a lovely long downhill road where I grew up, the speed limit is (or at least was) 30mph. That didn't stop me & friends riding our non-modified push bikes down it at speed anywhere between 50-80mph. One year, I had my parents buy a speedo for my bike just so we could figure out the speeds we were doing. We didn't go through wheel bearings any quicker than anyone else. (Though yes, I was clearly risking a speeding offence)
    3
  19. Call me old, or skeptical, or both... paying a company and giving them the data in order for them to instruct others to remove your data sounds like it's just begging for the "good guy" to suffer a data breach at some point in future. Credit search alerts are free on a number of platforms, there is no need to pay a company anything to be told that someone has fraudulently applied for a loan in your name. I'm not even going to recommend a free one (because the same future data breach theory applies). Free credit alerts, 2FA, and calling the bank when something unusual happens (responding to the alert) is the way we all stay safe.
    3
  20.  @paulkemp8520  it doesn't allow discrimination, since guidance does not revert laws. Discrimination is already an illegal act, enforced by laws.
    3
  21.  @Henry1965ism  - do you honestly think that such a case would make it past the CPS threshold for charging, let alone into a trial? What's wrong with the police "finding it out for themselves" by you telling them? Why be difficult, just for the sake of being difficult?
    3
  22. @Red Lobster Skull you clearly like to debate things online (based only on this thread). Believe what you like, it was in the days before smartphones. On a shorter hill, heading towards the petrol station, I remember 47 being as brave as I could handle before hitting the brakes. Feel free to lookup the pedal cycle land speed record too (and yes, that bike wouldn't use stock components). Enjoy your debate.
    2
  23. @Red Lobster Skull Yawn. Please learn to read messages properly. I for one, won't be drawn into your keyboard warrior ways.
    2
  24. My inference, the pedestrian has precedence... and while they continue to walk in the same direction... I see no issue with driving "behind" them (subject to safe distance and speed, such as when passing a pedestrian on a single track lane). However, if they choose to turn around and walk back, then an offence may arise if I have driven into the limits of the crossing. But is it worth the risk (of harming another person) if I screw this up? Probably not.
    2
  25. @Mirily - your compassion and thought for others is a credit to you.
    2
  26. My response has always been "I'd love to know, rather than try to make assumptions"
    2
  27. @Barney Laurence perhaps you don't realise how case law is determined. It starts from the letter of the law, and then the courts interpret it. Until a case is heard that sets out the defence I suggest above, no-one knows if it would work or not. Further, my curiosity revolves around the use of the words "hand held device." Clearly, if holding it in your hand, that's illegal (and rightly so, IMO). But interacting with the device while it's not physically held in the hand, has as far as I'm aware, not been tested in a court.
    2
  28. Shhh. Sincerely, a Euro 5 compliant diesel owner.
    2
  29.  @davecooper3238  I wouldn't really call your situation (or mine) discrimination, since discrimination requires a protected category, and simply being a biker doesn't make us belong to any of the established categories. In my case, I couldn't possibly have been guilty of an offence, as I left legal tender to cover the cost of goods they had provided me. Had you have walked away, you would likely have had at least an angry letter coming your way. I mean, I also grumbled when they stopped us sitting on the bike at the pump, which was very convenient to do when you can pay at the pump, but it's because some idiot set himself on fire one day in the US, and now we're all treated like idiots, unfortunately.
    2
  30. @paulaberstler4449  well, you remember history differently than I. I have a personal connection to Crimea, and I remember the timeline very well.
    2
  31. As you often say, each case turns on it's own merits. The example in this video (shifty person looking for cameras while stuffing their pockets) - clearly dishonest. Someone taking a sausage roll from the shelf, eating it and placing the wrapper in the trolley with the rest of their shopping - unlikely to be dishonest.
    2
  32.  @paulkemp8520  nice logical fallacy. No, that's not what I'm saying. I am, however, saying that it's guidance, and in no way shape or form does it surpass the Equality Act 2010 - which deems discrimination illegal.
    2
  33. One would hope that innocence does not need to be proven/decided. Sadly in many cases it does need to be proven, such as JD did.
    2
  34.  @goygoyim6443  yes, they did, and they failed to identify themselves at the earliest opportunity. So I could have come to the hallway with a baseball bat - and been fully justified. But Amazon drivers do the same thing, it's a "perk" (sarcasm) of living remotely. So I have a coat rack in the hallway, and hang my cargo net there when I'm not using it, just in case someone nefarious opens the door randomly (lots of elastic to tangle them in). Funnily enough, the local postie always knocks, and he's apparently quite used to me not being dressed when I open the door. Being a reasonable person has always stood me better than being pedantic about the rules (and the defence by them would be "there's no number, we didn't know if it was a storage cupboard, a hallway, or anything else").
    2
  35.  @geordiewishart1683  and in the case that you're replying to... they didn't suspect the occupier of the property had committed any offence - and indeed openly admitted (while outside) to not even being sure of which property they had just opened the door of. Thereby failing to reach a suspicion level, let alone a belief level. I would think that a closed door, which requires opening, does not constitute "insecure" - until you try the handle, you have no indication of it being locked or not. I wasn't claiming trespass had occurred, or that trespass is criminal. My point on multiple dwellings, is that there are actually 42 rental properties here on the farm. The farm itself is private property with residents being granted a right of access. Beyond the rental properties, there are at least another 15 buildings that have no names/numbers on them, and the private 600m long farm track has provision for tennants/workers to have access to the properties. S17 PACE would - as you suggest - grant them rights to enter the farmland and subsequently the property owned/controlled by/occupied by the suspect they wanted to arrest - if indeed they did want to arrest the person they were looking for. It would not be lawful for them to randomly walk into the milkshed, for example unless they had a belief that the person was in there. The fact they didn't establish which property it was, and were "blindly" searching, confirms they did not hold a valid belief. However, as I've said in this thread, I'd rather treat people reasonably, rather than stick to the formalities of the law. So I chose to diffuse any potential bad situation, invited them in, and gave a clear demonstration to them that they were in the wrong place. They actually couldn't have been more polite about it (other than maybe knocking).
    2
  36. @@paracolider the proposal is for single sex spaces to be guaranteed for children. This means no 15yr old boys, thinking they are girls, are allowed into the female changing rooms after PE. They are welcome to use the male facilities, or the disabled facilities, or the school can make alternative arrangements. What about that is "treatment"?
    2
  37. I've been in a similar situation - I wasn't a witness, it was just clear that they were looking for someone that I've never met. I chose to overlook the fact that they opened my front door without even knocking, and invited them in so I could see what help they might need. I've never met the suspect they were looking for, nothing illegal has happened in the house that they could find against me, so no obligations to anyone and nothing to lose by being friendly. Plus, if those officers for example happen to pull me over on a traffic stop, there's a slim chance they might remember that I wasn't difficult for the sake of being difficult.
    2
  38. I'm probably a little lucky... I live on a farm that has it's own 3-phase generator, we have our own water supply and our own dedicated sewage works. If things get serious, we have a lot of trees nearby, a wood chipper, and the heating system is powered by wood chippings (that normally arrive in the back of a 7.5 tonne truck once a week). If diesel becomes a problem, I own a couple of axes, and I have a "van life" power solution (charged by the mains, has a huge battery). In the past when we had bad snow, I used a tractor to plough/grit the local roads (and the council paid me for it!) I also enjoy camping (tent or hammock), so I have things like sleeping bags, alternative methods of cooking (paraffin, etc)... mobile phone signal rarely works here anyway, so you get used to not using a phone. And yes, I'm in the UK, and no, I'm by no means a "prepper." The last bad storm we had (last winter), took me 2 days to be able to get the car to the nearest town. Really wasn't a huge deal. I can imagine folks in Central London running around like headless chickens in a blind panic though...
    2
  39.  @tezinho81  I have also voluntarily attended a police station... only I took my solicitor with me. He was fully briefed before we arrived, and I had a clear picture of his advice. I had an open conversation with the interviewing officer, per my solicitors advice, and everything was perfectly fine. I didn't have "iron clad evidence" - but neither did they. I don't remember my solicitor actually saying a word in the interview room. There was no "bravado" involved, and the interviewing officer couldn't have been more professional IMO. So I think either you've had a bad experience, or you just like arguing on the internet.
    2
  40. The same argument was made over Brexit, asking for a new referendum. My opinion remains the same - the people voted, and a majority emerged. A shade under 60% of the UK population voted, Labour came away with a 174 seat simple majority - while the Conservatives took their biggest defeat on record to date. In fact, a 251 seat loss is the single biggest loss of any political party in the entirety of British history! To re-vote simply because we don't like what the winners have been doing, while they are not known to have broken any laws or parliamentary rules, would be to undermine democracy itself. For the same reason as a 2nd Brexit referendum never happened, a re-vote on the General Election should be denied (and undoubtedly will be denied). Those that are unhappy, vote with your feet - choose better at by-elections and the next General Election. To those that argue "all politicians are the same, there's no-one good to vote for" - there is nothing stopping you standing as a candidate in your local area.
    2
  41. I came here to post similar... I particularly laughed about the IP part of this. I mean, VPNs have their uses, but they are not the be all & end all of security.
    2
  42. other half is a teacher, and yes, it's a grey area, but appropriate force is permitted. She's told me that if she ever has to use force, to expect an automatic suspension pending an investigation, but I think that just makes the balance right. Dissuade, rather than outright disallow. She's also a black belt in karate, and I saw the light bulb go off in her head the day I suggested "simply block & feign until they get tired/bored"
    2
  43.  @therealbacon3384  I was laser tagged by an officer at the roadside doing 50 in a 30. My opinion only, but my offence should be considered much more serious than 100 on a motorway. Not many kids running out into a motorway... Good luck.
    2
  44. I think this will be a minefield for them - when they have already lost subscribers, squeezing more cash from existing subscribers (with the cost of everything else going up) is risking more subscribers simply cancelling the service. Of course, it's their right to do that. I would question how it is going to be implemented - for example, I, my partner and our children all have devices with Netflix ability (TV, laptops at least 2 desktop PCs, mobile phones)... about the only way I can see them enforcing this is by IP address. Within my house, my external IP changes dynamically (within the block provided by the ISP). But I also have a VPN, if I happen to be in the UK at a hotel, rather than using public wifi, I will be using VPN. That's a different IP address (and I'm not using the VPN to circumvent geographic restrictions, because I'm still in the UK). Further, if any of us use a mobile phone to watch Netflix and it's on 4G or 5G, rather than on Wifi, that is yet another IP address. My kids could be on a school trip, sitting on a coach, and want to watch Netflix through the account I pay for. Other than IP/IP range enforcement, I'm not sure how they can detect usage that is against their terms, and for example, if they try it, what is there to stop me just having everyone use the VPN (which is a private VPN that I setup, and as a single static IP)?
    2
  45. BBB, given your job, you should be well aware of how fallible the human memory is, right? Hence your interest in the topic... Others online have speculated that Harry is possibly suffering with PTSD (either caused by his military service, his family life - including but not limited to the infamous death of his mother, or any other reason). Perhaps, in that view, "making up memories" is a rather unkind turn of phrase? In a court room, one might use such emotive language in the attempt to influence a jury. Outside a court room, perhaps we should focus on potential legitimate reasons why someone might hold a false belief, and give them the benefit of doubt that they might simply be honestly mistaken? Just my 2p.
    2
  46.  @jamingaming9251  what makes you think I don't do the same defensive riding, regardless of the mass? You think I don't cycle too, for some reason? Give your average car driver enough room to squeeze by, they will. Make them choose between stopping or hitting you head on, they ALWAYS see sense and stop.
    1
  47.  @jamingaming9251  the same situations happen with 2 wheels with or without an engine. Though I will add, when filtering (despite it being perfectly legal) a motorcycle rider will take some proportion of the blame if there's an insurance claim. So my gut reaction to your "I had no choice" - is that there's always a choice, including but not limited to lowering the risk by riding slower. On my push bike, car headlights at this time of year are a problem (and cars with LED lights are worse). On the motorbike, however, car drivers tend to dislike my Philips Xtreme bulbs on main beam.
    1
  48.  @holteenderavfc375 travelling fairgrounds, etc.
    1
  49. Did you say it's perfectly legal to use a VPN to change the appearance of location, just to watch TV shows/services that aren't available in my current, actual location? I hope due diligence was done, because I'm pretty sure that is against the Terms of Service for several subscription platforms (that is to say, it's likely a breach of contract). NetFlix for example, used to hold the opinion that they would terminate the subscription of VPN users. More recently, they moved to change their service instead, so when using a VPN, if they know you're using a VPN, you simply see things that have a global licence only. In those cases, that content was already visible to you, using a VPN just limits what content you can see. Nothing about that VPN company in-particular, it just annoys me that a lot of VPN providers extol this "benefit" of using a VPN, when it's never been true (one could argue, such claims contribute to false claims to generate sales).
    1
  50. A query on the definition of "hand-held" given the wording in this video of "if you can prove it's voice activated..."... would it count as hand-held, if the device is fixed firmly into a holder, and the holder itself is immovable. While firmly fixed in place, if the only interaction is a single finger in a swiping motion eg, within Android Auto, swiping right to dismiss a notification. Granted that may be careless driving, and is definitely "using" the device, but does interaction with one finger count as being "hand-held"?
    1
  51. Interesting debate here. I once was the vehicle immediately behind a drunk driver, who had a head on collision with traffic coming the other way. My dash cam caught everything very clearly. Once officers arrived, I invited them into the car to view the footage, and they accepted, viewed it and then said "ok, I'm going to need to seize your camera for evidence." I countered with "Really? I'd rather keep it... I can burn a copy to DVD for you this evening, and deliver it anywhere you want, by hand, tomorrow." Initially, the officer said that was OK, and took my details as a witness. Once it was possible, I then drove one of the (innocent) people to the hospital (by agreement with the attending paramedics)... and about 5 minutes after I got home, the same officer knocked on the door with a "Sorry, tomorrow isn't soon enough, any chance you can burn the DVD now?" He was quite happy when I said "yep, no issues, come in, I'll make you a brew while you wait."
    1
  52. Incidentally, I can say "drunk driver" and "innocent" etc - because I know the outcome of the case (and it involved a jail term).
    1
  53. Quite simply, in the original case, I don't know the underlying reason/motivation for the offender to hold a knife to his wife. For me to presume that is domestic abuse is exactly that, a presumption. I haven't read the case notes, and it's not discussed here. If it was related to domestic abuse, then the ordinary English meaning of the text implies he should not have been released early. But often, the law has a different interpretation. Can you conclusively state in that case, that there was a technical legality? If so, why wasn't that discussed in the video? What was the underlying motivation for the knife incident? For all I know, it could have been a case of him defending himself, things went to court, and because it was inside the privacy of their own home, with no witnesses around, the jury found in the wives favour. Yet further, supposing that she was in the marital home as he is being released, is there some reason that she hasn't applied for a non-mol order (or similar) to exclude him from the home? I'm sure many women are in exactly that situation, and I'm not belittling their cases at all... I simply can't speak ill of anyone, without actually knowing the facts.
    1
  54. Prosecuting false accusations comes with a lot of real world problems. There is likely to be a "blast radius" of other innocent people that are affected, and then there's the wider public image of "X said a thing, and was prosecuted for it." Sadly, a lot of people don't dig into the details, and take statements from others on face value.
    1
  55. I have been reported for a TS20 in the past (crossing a solid white line). The bike officer that observed me, and stopped me at the roadside reported "I can see that you went for an overtake, and I saw the car accelerate to block you. If you had tucked back in behind him, I would now be having a serious chat with him, and not you. Your motorcycle control is impeccable, but as a biker, my priority is that you think better." He said absolutely nothing of the fact that he'd just followed me down a valley road where we were both touching approx 115mph (in an NSL area), and I bumped into him again on an advanced riding course, he still didn't care about the speed. An excellent example of why officers are better than cameras. I understood his point clearly, sought additional training for safety, and now I pass that attitude on to others.
    1
  56. TOX also isn't secure, for starters, it is susceptible to KCI, and the TOX Foundation seems susceptible to corruption influences. Also, I believe every project that implemented TOX has since abandoned it.
    1
  57. Yes. (Do I win for the shortest answer? :D )
    1
  58. "I just called it as I saw it" - very true. Unfortunately you are viewing the situation from what would appear to be an ill informed stance. My personal reaction to the meeting, was that I saw the headlines and deliberately went "lets not just follow the headlines, I'll find the original, unedited video, watch it as if I were in the room live." As for other leaders reactions after the meeting, I literally could not care less, I expect they will be busy virtue signalling. The "whole thing" is actually longer than 40 something minutes, if we're including the US media run up to the meeting. Perhaps it might be the case, that you saw the largest number of unsubscriptions on your opinion of the meeting, because you completely misread the situation. My takeaway from that video, was that you were somewhat excusing/justifying the behaviour of Vance & Trump, while laying blame at Zelensky's feet. My comment, on that video of yours, was at least attempting to lay the blame equally at Vance & Zelensky, while somewhat understanding Trump's position. In your previous video, you seemed to hinge on the fact that Zelensky didn't wear a suit. Again, I will re-iterate that when Churchill went to the Whitehouse to ask for US involvement in WWII - he also did not wear a suit. No-one considered him disrespectful. There was also a bust of Churchill on display, in the room when Trump & Zelensky met. I find it odd that your previous stance was that the lack of a suit was the starting point for the tensions, but now, you say it was the "diplomacy doesn't work" comments. Zelensky was upset way before that.
    1
  59.  @notbaltic280  I find it more interesting that your initial response to me, is the words "grow up."
    1
  60. So, let me get this straight... it's OK for you to not wear a suit, to indicate that you're "no better than the viewer, just explaining things that you know"... meanwhile, Zelensky has vowed not to wear a suit until the war is over, to show solidarity with his military forces... and that is somehow disrespectful, just because he happens to be in the Oval Office? This not withstanding, of course, that he has not worn a suit on previous occasions at the Oval Office, including when meeting Trump, but no-one considered it disrespectful then? I know a few Ukrainian folks - and while they have never liked Zelensky, I can understand the cultural reasons behind WHY Zelensky acted the way he did. IMO, Vance was the most disrespectful, and stoked the arguments. Trump was trying to play hardball, so that he can ALSO play hardball with Putin, and Zelensky was ANGRY - to put it mildly. That is why Zelensky's body language was defensive. It is factually accurate that all global leaders, so far, have done nothing to stop Putin. Sure, help has been offered to Ukraine - but none of that help has actually stopped Putin. Sadly, I don't believe deplomacy will work - Putin has a long record of doing whatever he pleases, both within and external to his own country, regardless of any consequences. If your thoughts on Zelensky claiming no-one has stopped Putin is where it all kicked off... Zelensky still wasn't factually wrong, or disrespectful to point it out. I watched the whole thing, including the 3h or so lead up to the meeting - you are factually incorrect that Zelensky was not interrupted. Sure, he wasn't interrupted at the particular point you are referencing, but he was interrupted, talked over, and not allowed to complete answers to comments made by Vance. It was Vance, mostly, who raised his voice in order to talk over Zelensky. Sadly, it is very clear that you do not understand the Ukrainian/Russian culture, and you're applying a Western cultural reference to your observations - which interestingly, lead you to almost the exact opposite conclusion of most of the rest of the Western media, at least in so far as I've seen media references to it. And here I was, thinking that this channel purported to being unbiased.
    1
  61. I'll also add, when Churchill went to the Whitehouse to ask for US involvement in WWII... he did not wear a suit.
    1
  62. I travel overseas very frequently - on average, at least once every 6 weeks. I have ONCE had my laptop searched - when leaving Türkiye to come home, and all they cared about was that it turned on. That was 6-7 years ago, and I remember looking for details afterwards because I thought it was odd... they were acting on very detailed intelligence specifically stating something along the lines of "a plane from Türkiye going to the UK has been threatened." I think your statement of "you have your laptop searched whenever you cross the border" shows just how naive you may be on this topic.
    1
  63. I've learnt a thing or 3 about the situation that gave rise to the deformation case, and I personally believe the findings in that case were incorrect. I've seen some of the video... and I agree that no-one is above the law. The correct action would have been to appeal the deformation case (and if overturned, hopefully remove the injunction). I think the recent arrests and questioning under Anti-Terrorism laws we not substantive, but I don't know the guy, so I don't know where he may have crossed a line. No matter what the legal aspects are, long term solitary isolation is not pleasant for anyone. 18 months, with a potential early release at 40% of tariff is still a shade over 7 months of potentially solitary confinement. That's a long time...
    1
  64. I believe you mean 0.004% were caught, and proven to be fraudulent. As a biker, years ago, we all knew which stations didn't care about noise limits etc. Still wrong, though much less dangerous.
    1
  65. I personally take a "should" as a "should if safe to" So in the scenario of coming off an island, if I see pedestrians, I will check behind me to ensure I feel confident I can stop without someone hitting my back-side. If I think someone is following too close, I'll actively position to signal to the pedestrian that I'm not going to obey the highway code "should" rule. So far, I'm yet to see that fail.
    1
  66.  @tomvalentine4928  Says who?
    1
  67. Try that some day and let us all know how you get on...
    1
  68. Where would you draw the line though? I'll hold my hands up to being caught in a 30 at 50. Those fines make your eyes water, and I was very lucky to keep hold of my licence. Some people need education, some people need to feel some consequences of their actions (and, fun fact, when I was caught 50 in a 30, I was actually on my way to a Speed Awareness course for a previous offence). The heavy fine I got has made me slow down.
    1
  69. Quite simple really, end the false dichotomy, and define things such as human rights applicable to a person - regardless of their gender (assigned or otherwise). That, is equality. When it comes to sports, allow the governing bodies the scope to have male-only, female-only, and mixed gender competition categories - allow market forces to dictate how popular they are. If I wish to join an archery team, but there isn't one for 1000 miles nearby, that is not discrimination. I am welcome to setup my own team/club. I can predict how popular my archery team would be, and that's a large part of why I haven't bothered to buy a bow... (archery chosen at random because of it's negligible gender differences) When it comes to prisons - build more (we're already reportedly at capacity) and have spaces determined by use-requirements rather than history. There is no reason a prison couldn't have multiple "trans-sections" and Governors already have a mandate to look after the well-being of all within their establishment equally. Sadly, in many cases not related to gender, sometimes they have no choice other than solitary confinement. Build prisons, create spaces, and the issue goes away. Yes, it would cost more and isn't a popular opinion - but criminals being free to roam the streets also isn't popular. When it comes to public toilets - many organisations have already moved to single-occupancy gender neutral facilities. Tesco being one example, at my local one, they have 1 toilet, for use by 1 person at any time, with a lock on the door. It's disability-friendly access. Don't want to queue behind other people? Go to the toilet at home, no-one is stopping you.... If a pub deems that this policy would drive their customers away, they're welcome to create more toilets and sacrifice some floor space.
    1
  70. The higher in-store price was likely the sales person commission, which clearly doesn't need to be paid if you buy online. Because I know that particular outlet that you mention in the video pay their sales staff commission, if I want something from them, I tend to wait until near the end of the month, and then barefaced haggle with them. I start with "so what's the best price you can do this sale for?" - if they don't move from the ticket price, that's OK, but I likely know the price of the same item in other places already, too.
    1
  71. Perhaps this is a case to discuss the topic of nullification by jury? Emergency service drivers are taught not to encourage drivers to jump red lights (or speed through roadworks etc) - they do this by turning sirens (mostly) and lights off, then resuming after the hazard. To counter the "vehicle waiting for green" point that you make, I have done exactly that. I was driving a very powerful car (4x4 with WRC spec engine), traffic light controlled cross roads in a 50mph area. I was young & stupid, and when my light went green, I launched. Immediately after launching an ambulance appeared to the left of me, with blue lights on but no siren. Thankfully they stopped, because it was already far too late for me to do the same without blocking the junction. For the chap in the case, if I remember correctly, when you get a NIP, you can reply in writing (I know it works that way under SJP). Therefore the chap wouldn't need to go to the court and talk with the magistrate - and it wouldn't increase costs.
    1
  72. These "priorities" aren't really priorities. They're more akin to "responsibilities." Yes, a pedestrian stepping out in front of traffic is idiotic. But they will get injured more than your average car driver. The clip in question, the cammer and the BMW in front of it clearly do not have an interruption in their direction of travel (by road signage), the junction is to their right. The pedestrian is clearly in the wrong, causing vehicles to brake so that they can cross at an uncontrolled junction. However, had something untoward happened, the BMW driver would have likely taken some of the responsibility under the new system. Did this particular scenario cause "mayhem" - clearly not. Some people had a minor inconvenience and everyone went about their day. No car driver experienced more than a 60 second delay. I posit that yes, the pedestrian is an idiot, but all the car drivers behaved as per the intentions behind the new rules, and it really wasn't a problem. Could there be worse situations than this example? Certainly. Feel free to post one for an opinion on that.
    1
  73. So, nothing was actually exposed and nothing was said about whomever might actually be running the country. Just a government response read out, and someone else's video played, so as to distance yourself from the actual opinion. Got it. The government response that was read out is nothing like mind control. It's word salad. They have a duty to respond, that response does not have to make sense. The PR team responsible don't want to write "it would be undemocratic to reverse a recent vote and go back to the polls" for fear of inciting nearly 3 million people to riot. But that is the truth, it would be undemocratic to call a new election just because 4% of the population asked, when the vote completed by a conservative estimate of 13.4 million. Since when do 3 million get to counter what 13million wanted? (For ref, assuming 68 million people in the UK, 60% of those voted, and 33% of votes were Labour, that is 13.46 million)
    1
  74.  @amojak  I suggest you lookup the legal definition, and at least, in the UK, the Equality Act.
    1
  75.  @amojak  See Schedule 28. "Such as" does not appear in the wording of The Equality Act.
    1
  76.  @amojak  re-read me comments, and try to join the discussion productively then, instead of being a keyboard warrior.
    1
  77. There is no requirement to give a FULL defence at interview. However, if you're actually innocent, there's no harm in having an open conversation. Indeed doing so will likely help the police/CPS end your involvement quicker, and save tax payers money. After interview, if charged, the defence will require a FULL disclosure from the prosecution, and then you get to formally (in writing) reply with your defence statement. The point BBB was making, applies to if you first mention something in the court room, it will look like you just made it up. If you don't mention it in a police interview, but do before trial (via your legal representative), then it will be argued that you did raise the defence statements at your first available opportunity (you might not know it's a valid defence, until you discuss it with your counsel and they point it out to you). Justice should certainly not be blind, it relies on all the facts being uncovered/brought to light!
    1
  78.  @clarkmerchant2  I'm neither police nor CPS. I also know of one specific case where indeed the investigating officer was convinced of someones innocence due to interviews alone. The interviews were pre-charge too, and no charge was ever made. It happened to me, when I was interviewed about a thing that I didn't do. I'll add that my solicitor was with me throughout the interviews - not the duty one. Infer whatever you like, but context matters. If you understand the law (and not only the thing you might be accused of), and you're innocent, there is literally no benefit to staying quiet. However, there's more ways than just in an interview to communicate the facts. For example, you could choose to stay silent in the interview, wait for the transcript of the questions, and then, via a solicitor, formally write your reply. If later they charge you, it would be unreasonable to accuse you of not mentioning something earlier, that you NOW rely on as a defence. And yes, legal proceedings are expensive, if you KNOW you're 100% innocent, and you choose to stay silent, you're choosing to not end that expense as early as you can. So you also then can't complain when the local council tax rises.
    1
  79.  @silviafarfan2523  then you clearly don't understand the words you quoted, ie, "actually innocent"
    1
  80. Quite some time ago, I parked my motorcycle in a "half length bay" - standard width, still had the white paint at the sides, but it was half length because half of it had been converted to paving, and it was directly outside the shop entrance (the shop I was going into). There was approximately 2m of paving for people to walk on outside the shops, with some bollards, and then half of this space (and the adjacent one) were paved over. Me, presuming they did that because they didn't want cars parking too close to the shop doors, and not seeing dedicated motorcycle parking, thought this was ideal. So I parked in it. I came back to the bike to find a parking charge notice for "blocking a fire exit" (note that I was about 4m from said "fire exit" - main shop doors, with a motorcycle that is about 75cm wide at it's widest point). So I took pictures, had a little chuckle to myself and went home. I considered it utterly ridiculous that anyone thought I was blocking a fire exit, when it appeared to still be a designated parking space. Instead of writing to the company, I picked up the phone, and to my surprise, got through to a human. On explaining, the chap replied with a "what bike do you ride?" - I answered and he chuckled with a "don't worry, I'm a biker too, the attendant in that car park is well known for hitting bikes with pointless tickets. Let me cancel that for you. Have a good day."
    1
  81. Purely for the fact that the car is over the centre line, I agree with the fine & points. We can't see any potential reason why the car was over the line, but if such reason exists, the appropriate action would be for the car driver to slow down.
    1
  82. I went to a comprehensive too, and my careers advice was rather rubbish. I went on to university, and came out with a "debt" (that I never really felt while paying off, because it was taken from salary). At highschool, we had in excess of 30 students per class. I still have no clue how that has any baring whatsoever on VAT for private schools. Yes, the charges will go up for those paying private school fees, but that does not necessarily mean that students will flock to other schools. Market forces will come into play, as they always do. The school that sees a mass exodus of students will adjust their income streams accordingly. Splitting classes in two doesn't duplicate everything such as heating - virtually all schools have a central heating system, and even unused classrooms are heated (or not, if the heating system is broken in winter, and on in summer, like ours always was). Private school teachers are not paid for by the local authority (my partner happens to be a teacher). Schools will find it very difficult to cut salaries of teachers (changes to terms & conditions of employment must be agreed by the employee), and the teachers union is already quite well versed in having employment discussions. You don't NEED to be in a catchment area to get into a school, the catchment area takes priority, but schools will and do accept students from outside the area (take cases of poorly behaved students excluded from a given school, for example). Private school closing? Well... the teachers need to work somewhere to pay their own bills... sure, the school need the physical space, but my high school used temporary buildings for their own reasons. Lots of straw man thinking going in this video. Lets say that the government decides not to raise capital by any mechanism - the outlook to the economy does not look fantastic (we can't keep "printing money" as that causes inflation)... they will have to do something, and that will upset someone... but will it negatively affect us all? Probably not.
    1
  83.  @G58  have you seen any of the Aussie traffic laws? Just curious...
    1
  84.  @Gruxxan  a car radio also isn't a two-way communication device
    1
  85. My question here, what defines which toilet a person should use? Is self identification enough alone? So, should someone identify as a woman/girl, do they use the women's toilets? Or the self-contained facilities? Is my CIS daughter taking a risk by using "female toilets"? Equally, is my trans daughter taking a risk by using anything other than the self-contained facilities?
    1
  86. I have before been a little dishonest. I filled up knowing I was due to be paid the following day. I made a statement to the petrol station staff to the effect of "I just realised I left my wallet at home" I had to fill out the paperwork, and they actually gave 28days to pay, without any additional cost or escrow. I returned the next day, when funds had cleared. It took a little time (for both parties), but the staff I encountered were extremely professional and kind throughout.
    1
  87. Given he was holding it in his hand, the conviction is (in my opinion) sound. The interesting part though, is that section you quoted (6a, of reg. 110), seems to imply that a mobile phone counts under the legislation, regardless of how it is being used at the time of alleged offence ("...if it is, or must be, held at some point..."). Combine that sentiment with reg. 110 S 4 and it could be argued that regardless of how the device is being used, it is still a device that falls under the consideration of reg. 110. So, in theory, in-car controls that communicate with the phone, or voice control of the phone, may well count as "use" - and of course, until such a case is heard in a court, everything is simply speculation anyway.
    1
  88.  @ArminGrewe  I see what you're saying in respect of reg. 110 p6 (a), but with the stated definition of "communication" - (6)(c)(i) states that interactive communication includes "sending or receiving oral or written messages" - so it may yet be argued that verbal commands to a phone count under this regulation too. Again, until a case is tried, we have nothing but speculation. Had this chap not been holding it in his hand, he could have tried the route of "a mounted device doesn't count as handheld" - which might have set the tone for vocal prompts too. Or a magistrate would see sense, and class it as a distraction, which means we're not even talking about reg. 110 anymore.
    1
  89. Media companies, being companies, have a responsibility to their shareholders. Sensationalistic reporting practices, particularly where divisive opinions are being discussed sell more newspapers and generate more clicks (and therefore advertising revenue). Simple market economics at play. No-one ever said things had to be fair, or completely true. In the latter, if the facts are so egregiously wrong, slander laws exist. Those slander laws would not exist if all reporting was solely limited to the truth. To give journalists whatever credit they may deserve, perhaps someone has made such an article about his release... and perhaps the editorial team has chosen not to publish it, because they want the space for something they consider more important (and by "space", I'm including bandwidth for online media).
    1
  90. I also grew up cycling, and now ride a large motorcycle. With respect, you seem a little blind to the other options that exist. For example, the dad saying "stop but don't pull into the side" (assuming a quick shoulder check proves all is well behind). In the dad's situation, I would have been riding more defensively. The kid had a great position for the parked cars, but that allows the oncoming car space to squeeze past. So I would have positioned into the middle of the road, and sped up closer to the kid. That would leave no room for the car, while allowing the dad the option to swerve left if the car decided to push through regardless.
    1
  91. Weren't all those cases in Australia?
    1
  92. Thanks for raising this, in general, I think the Highway Code is a well thought out document, and I agree with the aims of these latest proposed changes (that is, addressing vulnerability and responsibility). I think that the clauses about waiting if a more vulnerable user looks like they are about to move are probably (or should be) covered by other clauses (ie, the basic tenant of "you don't move unless you can see the way ahead to be clear"). As a result, they are, as you suggest, adding confusion. Clearly, if some pedestrian is already crossing the road when I get to the junction, I should stop and case a blockage in my current lane (with an indicator on) - and I think the existing Highway Code already made that clear enough. The devil always lies in the details though, and ambiguity sets in as multiple parties act at the same time. Also, it's worth remembering the Highway Code definitions for Guidelines (should) vs Rules (must)... when read in that light, I interpret this as "if you don't follow it and no-one has cause to make a claim, no-one cares."
    1
  93. Would you want to risk an officer (or 2) in a car coming the other way, observing you touching your phone? The roadside stop alone would be an inconvenience, but then if they decided to act further, you've got a fine or a day in court to discuss it. Isn't it easier to simply not touch the phone at all? The phone can still be used without touching it...
    1
  94. Thanks for the update on the cradle - that was one of my questions. My phone is always in a cradle when I'm driving, and connected to the car using bluetooth. Regardless of the phone function (calls/music/sat nav etc), I can control all of those functions using the manufacturer provided controls within the car, and I have no need to touch the phone whatsoever, let alone hold it in my hand at any point. I can also hit a button on the steering column to enable voice commands, and then for example "Hey Google, call the emergency services!" Of course, none of this would be a defence for Careless Driving - and indeed, this has always been the case, well before Regulation 110 came along. I was curious about interacting with the phone by prodding at the screen (without it ever being held), and as you suggest, this is probably a grey area at best, and not worth the cost/time of arguing it in a court - in my opinion. Certainly not when there are much safer alternatives available.
    1
  95.  Tom Foster  You're hilarious. How about you try to join the discussion in a productive way, rather than making incorrect assumptions?
    1
  96. If a child were to come at me aggressively with a knife, it's entirely possibly to remove the weapon from them without "hitting" them. I would argue that to "hit" anyone only vary rarely qualifies as "reasonable force" - ie, police officers rarely hit anyone, even when arresting people that don't want handcuffs to be placed on them.
    1
  97. Not that long ago, two officers opened my front door - no knocking, literally just opened the door and shouted "hello" - they did not, at that point, identify themselves as police. So I got up, went from my front room to the hallway, to find these two officers shining flashlights at me. On seeing me, they then identified themselves as police, and asked what the address was (I live on a farm with multiple rental properties, mine doesn't have a number/name on the front door). I told them the correct address, and they replied "Oh, sorry, we're looking for Mr X at number Y. Do you know where that property is?" Quick mental maths told me that they're looking for someone else (that I've never met) at a different property - so I invited them in for a few minutes. I knew nothing illegal had happened in the house, so they couldn't find anything against me anyway. I shared the landlords phone number with them, gave them some options of where the property might be that they were looking for, told them where the post pigeon holes were (so they could check if the person had collected post or not). They thanked me, admitted they were out of their normal area, and left. I still don't know what alleged offence they were seeking information about. My point: sometimes in the course of an investigation, police will talk to you even if you have nothing at all to do with the case they are investigating. I've also been interviewed under caution, but did so with my solicitor (not the duty one) sitting next to me.
    1
  98.  @goygoyim6443  in my family, it's considered fairly rude to stand at a family members door, knock and wait for them to answer. Not just immediate family either. The way I was raised is "family is always welcome, no matter what" - so it's ingrained in me that when the front door opens, it's probably someone I want to spend time with. I just take reasonable mitigation steps in case that's the wrong assumption.
    1
  99.  @geordiewishart1683  s.17 PACE '84 is quite clear - other than when trying to save a life, the officer has to have reasonable belief (not reasonable suspicion) that the person they wish to arrest is within the property they are about to enter. In my case, with there not being a number on the door, and it being a farm with a lot of other buildings that also have no numbers on the door (eg, barns, milking sheds, etc)... that would be exceptionally difficult to prove (other than a first hand witness statement of "I just saw them go in that door"). The rules about multiple occupant dwellings would likely apply... unless it was a large scale hunt for a murderer AND they had reasonable belief that the suspect might be within the bounds of the property. In fact, it turned out that the person they were actually looking for wasn't even on the farm, let alone in the property (when the officers identified the correct property).
    1
  100. Bravo to British Swimming - I wasn't aware they were so sensible and forward thinking (I dated a girl that did synchro many many years ago). I literally posted similar in response to the video - allow the governing bodies the scope to have male, female and mixed categories. Let market forces dictate how popular they are.
    1
  101. The UK has never had free speech, you're utterly deluded if you think it has... go back to the times of Henry VIII or James I... the monarch could behead you at their whim. That is the price of living under a Monarchy.
    1
  102. "Someone must be typing in the date"... nope... mail merge was entirely possible back in the 90's, to do things such as `date = now() + 10 days` Could easily automate the whole printing/packaging/bundling for loading on to a Royal Mail truck. In fact, if they are doing 5000 visits per time period (lets say that's a month) - and lets assume that 50% of visits get an automated letter in the post... that's still 80+ letters per day. Much better to pay for the machinery than to pay a human to get involved.
    1
  103. Logical fallacy. No-one can possibly know who will be assigned (or purchase) a newly built house, and the question does not factor in the number of homeless people we have in & around cities. Migrants have a history of being housed within hotels. Quite famously. Note how I just said "housing" and applied the term to a hotel? It was also looking at gross income, not net income figures. The only issue I see here, is Rainer hasn't been through enough PR & maths training. Politicians never answer questions, quite possibly because they're not familiar with how journalists will play with logic to sell papers/clicks/ad impressions.
    1
  104. I recently cancelled my TV licence, online, directly with TV Licencing. I told them that as of December 1st 2024, I no longer require a TV licence. They asked on the form when this might change, and as I genuine do not believe I will ever need one in the future, I put December 1st 2099 in the box. During the process, they informed me that they would not contact me again until the date I had indicated, unless it was regarding the cancellation specifically. They also stated, a little to my surprise, to go ahead and cancel any direct debit - so I did, immediately. A day or two passed, and they sent me an email which read something along the lines of "We've been notified that your direct debit has been cancelled, if you don't re-instate it we might miss a payment - and that means that you will be breaking the law. I had a little chuckle to myself, given that they had told me to cancel the direct debit, and deleted the email. Another day or two passed, and they sent me a "thank you for cancelling your TV licence" email.
    1
  105. My mind is wired a little different... when you asked "how many chairs" and "where's the door"... my response was "why do you care?" Equally, I typically don't carry cash (mostly covid + contactless payment options), so any beggars that ask I can genuinely say "sorry, I don't carry cash" without thinking about it. On a night out, if someone is asking me the time, my reaction would probably be "don't you have a phone? Everyone does these days!" I've also been through martial arts, but in my work life, I spend more time thinking about "Why" than "How" or "What" - so I guess over the last few decades, I've just been conditioned to default that way. I do still have the old habit that I'll make a mental note of any overt CCTV in any room that I'm in though, too.
    1
  106. I find it funny that I purchased a diesel car within 2008-2018, specifically because it's engine was granted VED rate at £0, in Band A. Because it was manufactured in 2013, when VED changes in 2025, I will move to Band B. Currently, Band B is £20/year. My car has never failed an emissions test at MOT. Why is this funny? Because apparently it's also not ULEZ compliant.
    1
  107. @@paracolider and no-one is forcing anyone. At least, not if they are following the guidance that this video is about. Feel free to read the comments I made about my daughter. No-one forced her, to do anything.
    1
  108.  @jons9721  absolutely, yes. While it might not be directly admissible in a court, anything an officer observes (either they see it or hear it) can form reasonable grounds for them to investigate whatever offence it is they think it applies to. For a rather extreme example, the officers that came to my house were looking for someone else... when they identified themselves as the police... if I had replied "are you here about the stolen car?"... they would have been very interested about coming in and talking about it, even though it might have nothing to do with their current investigation. I'd expect a court case to begin something like "we found out about it when he asked us." Equally, when they were invited in, if they saw large stacks of cash piled up on my desk, they'd probably enquire about it - even though just having cash isn't directly illegal, but it MIGHT lead them to a drugs investigation, etc. Of course, all scenarios are hypothetical... just in case there's any trolls reading.
    1
  109.  @jons9721  I agree completely, on both points. But in your situation where you're being asked about a missing child - you can answer those questions outside without having to invite them in for a coffee.
    1
  110. The fine "feels" appropriate here, but for a repeat offence, even the other offence was a lower speed, or crossing solid white lines etc... 28 day ban is just a joke.
    1
  111. It wasn't a terrible definition of asymmetric public key cryptography, I'll let it slide. There is a way for tech companies to comply, without breaching privacy laws. Take Facebook or WhatsApp as an example - using the service to send a message within a web-browser is NOT end-to-end encrypted. The user sends a plaintext message to the server, and the server then encrypts. When using the app on a mobile device, the message is typed in, encrypted and then sent. So the way to comply with the Online Safety Bill is to automate a scan for keywords (and image hash values, etc), prior to encryption. A court would likely find that an automated scan in the interests of public safety (be that child abuse, domestic violence, terrorism, etc) does not constituent a breach of privacy. So, why are tech companies opposed to it? Simply, it's an arms race to the bottom. Lets say that the system gets implemented to check the hash values of an image. People sending the images can just edit the image, change a few pixels, such that the change isn't visible when viewing it, but now the hash is completely different. Lets say that the system looks for keywords, so instead of "plant a bomb" I say "plant a tulip." Or I simply send a voice message instead of text, or a video instead of a picture. Those can be interpreted too, but it's much harder to get right, and again, in a voice message, I can still just say "I'm going to plant a tulip in the garden."
    1
  112. My eldest daughter was bullied at junior school. Group of 4-5 kids her age stood around her, her age, hitting her. My youngest son ran over (4 years younger), and the school called me with "he made them all cry" - I took him for an ice cream since school didn't want him in lessons for the rest of the day. As he's grown up, in high school, a bully was throwing balled up paper at him repeatedly. He threw a chair back at them and he got excluded for 2 days for it. So I enrolled him in karate to teach him the value of an appropriate response. Kids 3 years older than him found out he did karate and wanted to "challenge" him, he stood his ground & dealt with everything the older kid could throw his way, and never once lashed out at the other kid. School did absolutely nothing about it, but he found it funny. It's entirely on the parents to correct the mental attitude of kids, it's clear no-one else will.
    1
  113. "OK Google, open Spotify" - no hands are needed, and it's akin to talking to a passenger. The screen will turn on, yes, but it is definitively not in my hand (in the cradle and voice controlled). Same risk of due care. "OK Google, navigate me home" - etc. Answering a call in my car is a button on the steering wheel (or voice controlled).
    1
  114. The retailer advertises the prices, as a sort of contract proposal. The contract is presumed accepted when you take goods (the same as price stickers on shelves in supermarkets - if the labels are incorrect, legally, the retailer does not have to honour the quoted price). I suspect that "consuming" fuel and not paying for it would be deemed fraud, in the same way that using electricity and not paying for it is an offence. Though I think fuel would be a matter for a subjective test (ie, were you aware you only paid for the wash and should have paid for the fuel, despite an employee error?)
    1
  115.  @terencej72  - Thanks, not quite the point I was making, but any contribution to the discussion is welcome. In my comment, I mention "excessive speed" - and yes, your friend was (in my opinion) driving at excessive speed for the conditions you describe. But, that's more likely to be looked at for Dangerous Driving, than it is an SP related offence (though it sounds like your friend was lucky, and probably got an SP30 with 3 points, and I guess, court costs). In my case, I was seen by an officer holding a speed gun at the side of the road, while I was travelling 50mph but I was 2m within a 30mph zone, and I was on the brakes, but the fact remains that my speed was excessive. That fine is calculated as a percentage of weekly gross income (max £1k), and I was extremely lucky to keep my licence. I was actually driving to a Speed Awareness course at the time! Thankfully, I've "grown up" since then.
    1