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