Comments by "janburn007" (@janburn007) on "BlackBeltSecrets" channel.

Personally, I enjoy all the videos the way they are - factual & genuine - without drama & hype.
5
Let's just hope that the police are choosing not to pursue J K Rowling because she is a high profile person who might attract bad publicity for the police & these new laws, but then later choose to pursue lesser known people for very similar things (because they may be less likely to attract publicity).
3
Although the failure of the company all those years ago cannot be directly tied to Captain Tom Moore & the Foundation in his name - I think it still could possibly be a reflection of the competency or otherwise, of the people who were running/managing that company - & it's possible that that level of competency/incompetency may have carried over into the Foundation - because the same people were involved in the establishment of the Foundation, as were involved in that failed company all those years ago. I'm only suggesting that as a possibility though - as I do not know exactly "why" the company failed, all those years ago. But when dealing with companies, I always think it's a good idea to check who the directors are, & find out whether they were also the directors of previously failed companies - because that may give people a good idea of how competent they are when managing a company as a director.
2
I actually think that Meghan had lost the respect of many people even prior to that "curtsy" event - but if they had not lost total respect for her by then - I think that curtsy was definitely the straw that broke the camel's back. And I don't think Meghan will ever be able to recover from that, & her reputation will remain forever damaged - no matter what high-profile PR company or agency she employs to try to improve her image now. I don't think the British public will ever forgive her for that - it was so very disrespectful of the late Queen & the British royal family in general. Harry clearly also looked very embarrassed by what Meghan did.
2
The thought police have been alive & well in the UK for many years now - it's just that their actions have not always attracted a lot of publicity - especially against lesser-known people who may not be as much in the public eye. A number of years ago, police paid a home visit to a person because they had made a comment/post on a social media site, which included a quote of something another commenter had previously said. Apparently, someone found that quote offensive, & reported the person who had quoted it in their post (not the person who had originally posted it) to the police - as they obviously did not like it for some reason. This resulted in the police visiting the person in their home, & questioning them about their post. Amongst the things which the police said to the person was " we're just here to make sure your "thinking" is correct". This demonstrates that the UK police believe part of their role is to monitor/police people's thoughts, in addition to anything they may say/write in social media. I just hope that it's eventually made clear to the police that they should not be trying to police people's thoughts, or arresting them for "wrong thinking". How can they sufficiently prove, in a court of law, that someone's "thinking" was not correct, if they have not also stated it out loud, or put it into writing? Or were these police officers just a couple of "rogue" police - a case of "police gone bad"? I can't recall what ultimately came of that situation, but fortunately the person did manage to capture most of that police encounter in an audio recording.
2
@Bubblebang5 Yes of course, one size does not necessarily fit everyone. And that's why it's important for each person to first seek personalised medical advice from their doctor. In my area, some doctors were still available for "tele-health" consults when they could not be seen in person, during the height of the pandemic restrictions.
2
@JasperDaniels-w5f I think it's simply a well-known fact that the vast majority of people who had the vaccination, suffered no ill effects whatsoever. Of course, that's not to say that no-one suffered any ill effects. There are some well-known risks associated with ALL vaccinations - not just the Covid vaccination. And that's why it's important for everyone to seek medical advice from their own doctor first - to assess their personal suitability for any vaccination that may become available - based on their own personal health situation & any known medical conditions they may have.
2
I believe the decision by the royal family not to publicly wish Prince Harry a happy birthday, via the royal family's web site, is deliberate & warranted, given that he is no longer a working member of the royal family. The royal family may well have wished him a happy birthday privately, or sent him a birthday card - & if that is the case - I'm sure that Harry is probably saving that to publish & make public in his next book - & that is why we may not have heard anything about it yet. If he had not received any birthday wishes at all from the royal family - Harry most certainly would have made sure it was on the front pages of the newspapers the next day, because he would have wanted everyone to know about it. Also, sending birthday greetings should a reciprocal thing - & I wonder if Harry sends birthday greetings to any of the royal family members himself. If not, then surely he cannot expect to receive birthday greetings from them himself. But I suspect Harry may well hold other members of the royal family to higher standards than he upholds himself.
1
Yet even some people who were fit & well contracted COVID-19 & died as a result. Which is why people should seek a personalised opinion from their own medical practitioner, as to their suitability for the vaccine & whether they should have it or not - then make their own decision. There are still many people who have had the vaccine, without any ill-effects at all.
1
@Bubblebang5 Any doctor worth their salt would not promote any vaccine to a patient whom they knew would very likely suffer a severe adverse reaction to that vaccine. And this is the case, no matter how many doctors may have been told that the vaccination was necessary for most people. Doctors are required to always recommend what is in the best interests of the health of their patients - & that may well be something different to the norm, for a lot of people.
1
@dragonprince8894 Sure - it may not be a very large number of healthy people at all, who died as a result of contracting the Coronavirus. But I suspect that if you just happened to be one of those highly unlucky ones who DID refuse the vaccination & then later contracted Covid & died as a result - you &/or your family, would probably not be very happy about that. There's always some kind of risk involved with such a decision & everyone involved needs to be able to accept that risk & the consequences of it - even if it means they may die, as result.
1
@noremac4807 Even during the times of maximum Covid restrictions - any doctor could be sued for malpractice if they did not advise their patients NOT to have the vaccine if their health was such that they had contra-indications for the vaccine. Even the health authorities were clearly indicating there were certain people who should NOT have the vaccine if they had certain medical/health conditions &/or suggested such people should first seek their doctor's medical advice . A doctor could be guilty of medical negligence if they did not advise such patients against having the vaccine.
1
@noremac4807 Even during the times of maximum Covid restrictions - any doctor could be sued for malpractice if they did not advise their patients NOT to have the vaccine if their health was such that they had contra-indications for the vaccine. Even the health authorities were clearly indicating there were certain people who should NOT have the vaccine if they had certain medical/health conditions &/or suggested such people should first seek their doctor's medical advice . A doctor could be guilty of medical negligence if they did not advise such patients against having the vaccine.
1
In addition to apologising for their comments & stating they were not appropriate & incorrect, causing offence to many people, & resulting in their alienation from the business & boycott of the business - I think the only think they can really do is try to re-assure people that their business welcomes all customers - no matter what their personal beliefs may be. However, I don't know that this will necessarily change the boycott situation. I think that once the damage has been done - it is very hard to recover from a statement like that - when it was very clear what was meant by that statement.
1
I'm sure that Trump must have had a jolly good laugh when he heard Starmer say that the UK has "free speech"....
1
There were obviously a number of simply untrue claims that Meghan made in that interview with Oprah Winfrey - that from that time onwards, would have made it very difficult to believe anything at all that Meghan says. One of those untrue claims was her claim that she & Harry had actually been married by the Archbishop of Canterbury a couple of days prior to the publicly televised wedding event, in a back garden with just the bridal couple & the Archbishop (but no witnesses) present. That may be "her (Meghan's) truth" as Oprah later claimed. But it's definitely not a good look when "her truth" turns out to be mostly a series of untrue claims which of course, no-one else believes. As a result of that - Meghan's credibility now lies in tatters,
1
I felt that @tricky216 was rather unwarranted with their criticism & did not really seem to understand that in the previous video, BBB was merely reporting that some people were pursuing the pharmaceutical company legally, alleging that the vaccine had caused them injury. That's not to say that BBB necessarily agreed with these claims or felt that they had merit. So, saying in their post that "thought you'd be better than this" makes it seem that they are accusing BBB of being a conspiracy theorist, because he thinks that BBB is agreeing with the claims - which was certainly not the impression that I got. Ultimately those claims will be proven or not proven in a court of law, & the court may make a decision to award some damages if the injuries are proven to be vaccine-related. And if the court found that the injuries WERE vaccine-related - that would also prove that it wasn't all just a conspiracy theory after all - but legitimate vaccine-related injuries. The other issue that @tricky216 just does not seem to understand - is that all common vaccinations - even the ones that have been around for many years - could have some possible rare but serious side effects with certain types of people & therefore set payments may be awarded to such people who have experienced those serious side effects. This is why - for all vaccines, & especially with the COVID-19 vaccines, it was recommended that if anyone was in doubt as to whether they should have the vaccine, they should consult their own medical practitioner (who would have access to their personal medical records) & seek their advice, as to whether the vaccine was suitable for them. If the recommendation then was that they showed no adverse indicators for the vaccine - & could therefore proceed with the vaccine - but then later still suffered some serious side-effects - the option is then still open to the individual to seek compensation in the form of one of the set payment/benefit amounts, if they qualified for them under the criteria. Unfortunately @tricky216 did not really seem to have a good understanding of how these things work.
1
@JasperDaniels-w5f That was certainly not the impression I got. Even the video's title seemed quite realistic, in my view. But if the number of subscribers increased - that can only be a good thing - though it may have just been a "natural" increase in any case.
1
There's a vast difference between cyber "security" & "privacy". Security does not necessarily guarantee your privacy. Apple iPhones may claim to be "secure", but they are a nightmare when it comes to your personal privacy - because even when the iPhones are switched off, they still behave like an AirTag & will be tracking you wherever you go. The only way to avoid this tracking is by storing the iPhone in a Faraday bag. One way to get around "end to end encryption", is with something like "client side scanning" (CSS) - which actually scans the content of one's phone, BEFORE it becomes encrypted, & sent anywhere at all - & Apple iPhones have already had the ability to conduct CSS for at least the last several models of the iPhone. The only way to avoid this CSS, on either an iPhone or an Android phone, is by using a non-Google/de-Googled mobile phone that does not use either Google or Apple's Operating System. Those who claim not to be worried about end to end encryption or CSS, obviously also have no concerns about their privacy at all - or may simply not have been able to think of all the possible ways their own privacy might be affected by something like this. For those who simply claim they have "nothing to hide" - I do wonder how they might feel if certain politically related views they may have expressed on-line say, 10 - 20 years ago, suddenly come to the attention of a prospective employer who may be checking out their background. Even though the person's political views may have long since changed - they might still risk losing out on that job, if the prospective employer is not impressed by those political views they expressed many years ago. So, when people say things like "I've got nothing to hide" - I think they do need to broaden their minds & their scope somewhat, to consider ALL of the possible ways a total lack of privacy might affect them. Because most of the time, I think people are simply ignorant or unaware of the many ways in which a total lack of privacy may affect them.
1
The company may have gone bust - but "the company" did not buy back the vehicle - Colin bought the vehicle himself, as an individual. Given that the company was already in liquidation at the time Colin bought the vehicle, "the company" would not have been allowed to buy back a vehicle that it already owned. And selling the vehicle to one of the company directors is not illegal, even though the company may have gone into liquidation. If there was no other interested buyer for the vehicle (as was indicated) - Colin may have been seen to be doing the liquidated company a favour, by purchasing the vehicle - as it had to be sold, in any case.
1