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

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
"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
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
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
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
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
@@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
@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
@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
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
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
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
"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
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
@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