@@SaintGerbilUK Tbf, how brief and tempestuous it was is all EVERYONE remembers when it comes to that government, on either side of the political divide. And it was hilarious, and this is still a news channel with infotainment graphics.
I have a bad feeling about this bill. Things that are considered harmful or trolling can in the hands of impotent government and officials quickly becomes a slippery slope, since they are likely to accept views that hard criticism and parody online are harmful or trolling.
The slippery slope started with the Anti-Protest & Anti-Union Bills, then wanting to give more powers to the police *(Re: The Met)* while taking away privacy on platforms like WhatsApp. This is just a further step down that road. There's also the whole Human Rights dispute where the UK wants to break off from the prior agreements on them & make their own Bill. (Can have both, just saying...) This might not be very relevant, but I just think it's funny how Johnson got off very lightly for his lockdown breaches where a lot of other people didn't get that same leniency as him. One rule in one place but another in the others ...
“The government has instead reached a ‘verbal agreement’…” if you need an agreement done with someone and they refuse written and insist on only verbal. I’d take that as a huge red flag.
The gov here in Ireland tried to set up a water payment regime, said they would not put in legislation that it would not be privatized, asked us to trust em,,, They got a flee in their ear Water is still a publicly owned resource
I would think that if the backbenchers aren't satisfied with the government's version of the amendment they can always tell Sunak to sod off again. It's a trust exercise.
When stuff like this happens people can dispute over two versions of events he accepted them amendment or he didn't accept the amendment as ours I'm concerned he didn't accept a minion introducing it into the house of lords means it didn't have the Prime minister's backing also who are the rebels somebody will say the people who brought this amendment forward are the rebels other people say the rebels are the ones who didn't want it
thank goodness the harm section got removed. frankly i find it hilarious that conservatives say how soft society is nowadays yet they're the ones implementing laws that reinforce it.
@@mariotheundying they actually are American conservatives fight tooth and nail and get offended when their religion is even criticized while American liberals don’t exist in the actual political world
This is why the centre left have been telling the radical left to stop eroding free speech for years now. The more you create a cultural climate of speech suppression, the more you enable the right to benefit from that. The arrogance of radical leftists to think that this cultural climate would never be turned around on them - pure hubris.
One positive way of looking at this is, it’s pretty difficult these days for MPs to get away with unsavoury behaviour. This kind of corruption and all the sexual impropriety has went on forever but in the past it was never scrutinised or even known about. It’s now far too easy to get found out. I just wish the media would be more “factual” instead of “influential” and “opinionated.” Just read the bloody news to us!
My main issue with this bill is how vague it is, and how easy it would be to abuse. For example, the government still deems “gender dysphoria” a mental health condition. This could easily lead to media companies being forced to ban trans health and social resources online for promoting and encouraging the “mental condition” of dysohoria. Another example could be a court making a president for political harm falling under this law too. For example, “radicalising” children, which sounds more than reasonable on paper, but which could extremely easily escalate to ban any political discourse online that rejects the government’s current policies or other political issues, such as the monarchy or calls for boycott. Just one judge in the right place and right time could entirely destroy access to health or political information for thousands, or even millions, of people, and there’d be nothing stopping them. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but the government genuinely seem as if they’re preparing to walk the country onto the slipperiest slope they could find.
This is the actual problem and issue, because no matter what you do (or what you don't), due to human nature, there will also be an "evil". But laws are made, to act as a "lesser evil". Whatever choice we make, we will always be presented with some "evil" to deal with, but I am going to say that I will prefer to choose a "lesser evil" to live by. It's not easy, but generally speaking I believe that people should have their freedom, up to the point when their freedom hinder's someone else's freedoms, and that includes hate speech. Hate speech can have a shilling effect on it's own, as it can effectively silence minorities, so in this particular case, I have no issue with legislating and banning hate speech. But the processes in how we do it, are tricky to develop. Regardless, giant techs should be held more responsible and do proper moderation of the content they host.
@@herlandercarvalho Freedom as in hands off approach, but the Anti-Protest, Anti-Union, Increasing Police Powers in the face of the Met Scandals, Human Rights Amendments/Scrapping HRA in favour of their own, Talk about wanting to take away privacy on WhatsApp etc It doesn't paint a good picture when they say they want to reform the wokearati press either. You guys must see how this is the red flag, right?
It's not the tech bosses you need to worry about if anything causes physical or mental damage is so vague its just impossible to take part. "I like waffles" "Why do you hate pancakes? You cause mental damage!" Well off to prison for me...
What is harm? 👸🏻 Not voting for me is harming my Chance's to win. 👸🏻 Telling the truth about me is harming my self image. 👸🏻 Supporting someone else is harming my chance to win. 👸🏻 Not liking me is harming my public image. 👸🏻 Debunking me is harming my pride.
This will have no impact on established social media companies, or their senior leadership. It will impact independent setups for family, colleagues, and friends.
Yep, no way is there any risk to corporations but you at home can be made an example of and make the police look like they're actually doing something. This bill should be scrapped in it's entirety.
idek, its fuckin dumb. People say that wind turbines are ugly but between wind turbines and transformers/substations/power lines, all of which are totally fine apparently, I'd take the turbines.
@@moritamikamikara3879 Sweden wanted to build an offshore wind farm that could be seen from the coast but some of the people who lived nearby said it would destroy the nature reserve that was on land after the coast and there were enough idiots that the wind farm plan was scrapped,😂😭 rest assured there are bigger idiots out there
I'm skeptical too, regarding any laws that regulate the ability of people expressing themselves, and freedom of speech. However, it is almost a trolley problem if you don't act either. Would you allow to something bad to happen by choosing not to act, or would you prefer to act to choose a lesser evil? I'm going with the latter...
@@herlandercarvalho How about you go with the third option: Don't Tell people what they can say or think, inform the pansies with the hurt feefees to Nut Up or get offline and Tell the Government to Sod Off.
@@danielseelye6005 That would be a fantastic argument if that's all this bill was about, that just isn't the case though. One of the things the bill seeks to restrict is the use of deepfakes, which is quickly becoming a huge problem. They're already at the point where people can fall for them if they're not looking out for the tell tale signs and they're only going to become more convincing in the coming years. It has huge potential for fraud and misinformation. Look at all the morons who invested in cryptocurrency last year because their favourite online celebrity told them to. All you have to do is make a video of yourself promoting some crypto you made, deepfake a footballer on to your face, and BAM! Free money at the expense of some idiots. Ok, maybe you're smart enough to avoid obvious scams and you won't fall for misinformation. I think we can all agree half this country is completely retаrded. What happens when someone picks a popular MP who they don't particularly like and deepfakes him in to some prince Andrew type stuff to sway the outcome of an election? Does that not sound a little bit problematic to you? It doesn't even need to be a good deepfake either. Just convincing enough to trick a small minority of morons.
This bill will be very difficult to enforce, I also don't like the idea of Police knocking on your door because of a mean tweet. This law could be used to censor people's opinions, which is especially dangerous when it comes to discussing elections or referendums, we already saw this in the last two US Presidential elections!
This entire law is terrible. It just enables bad, negligent parents to continue the status quo, and let the mobile devices and computers to the "parenting"... And you know the bit about trolling is just going allow people to avoid legitimate criticism by stating that they are being trolled - ordinary people won't do it though, it'll be the rich and powerful...
Tech companies should be held responsible, and have more responsibility over the content they host. That has nothing to do with parenting, nor does it specifically apply to minors. Your argument seems to imply that everyone should be on their own devices, and that no law enforcement should exist either. I am no expert in UK law (or any laws for that matter), but I'm pretty sure you have laws in the UK that protect public space order and criminalize anti-social behavior. And the internet is, a public space albeit a virtual one, where we can observe, every day anti-social behavior, is it not? So I really don't see any difference. Sadly, because humans are terrible grown-ups, sometimes governments, do need to step in the role of "parenting".
@@herlandercarvalho It's disingenuous to say this has nothing to do with parenting and kids, when it was the high-profile deaths of two kids, that led to the formation of this law... I'm genuinely confused as to how you reached the conclusion that I think "everyone should be on their own devices, and that no law enforcement should exist either." Firstly, I don't think everyone should be on their own devices, least of all children. As a parent, if you feel the need to give an internet-enabled device to your kid, take some personal accountability/responsibility, parental control systems have be available for decades. This basically the same argument that's used against video games, when a mass-shooting happens in the US... Ban violent video games, parents don't have to worry about their kids being influenced into mass-murder... As for the later half of the statement, the bit about "no law enforcement" you seem to think I'm suggested, that's the dumbest takeaway, you have to be a clown to even suggest that - although, once this law goes live, if you are a UK resident, feel to report me, since under the vague, language of the this law, you can take it as me trolling you. Take it as protecting "public space" against "anti-social" behaviour. The Electronic Frontier Found and Reclaim the Net, as well as plenty other organisations have explained why this is an awful law.
@@DizY_8 Quote: "It's disingenuous to say this has nothing to do with parenting and kids" I never said that, nor have I implied. The issue here is whether tech companies should have responsibility on the content they host on their platforms, including comments. Parents should be responsible, obviously. But you seem to not be aware of the dark recesses of the web, and how easier it is for children, who are often much more tech savy than parents, and how inadequate and futile parental controls are on a device connected to the internet. Are you really suggesting that children should not have a computer and/or internet access at all? That is an unrealistic and absurd expectation! Absolutely and completely absurd! And are you expecting every parent to have the means or know how of an IT to be able to lock as much as possible his children access? Are you freaking out of your mind? No... that is a responsibility from the content provider. A good example for this is the fact that IPTV services will provide adult themed channels which will be protected by a PIN to prevent children from accessing. But even then, it is not outlandish to imagine that a child, may be able to, with fair ease, regardless of parental control to acquire that PIN. I never said parents should not be responsible, but you have implied that tech companies have no responsibility whatsoever either! I have no clue why you brought the video games topic on this conversation. You are aware that, video games are subject to a rating system, and that is controlled by governmental entities, right? To force the responsibility of the content, on the game company. If a game is set to a certain rating that is +18, and the parent decides to give it to a 5 year old, that is the parents responsibility, obviously... But there is a mechanism imposed to the game company to allow parents to be able to make that assessment. So if these mechanisms for games are already legislated, there should be similar mechanisms at the very least, for sites, and enforce them moderation on the content they provide, or otherwise fine them for not being compliant. I'm not going to even bother replying to the last bit of your comment, as I have not in any way insulted you. That tells more about your lack of argumentation than anything else... Have a nice day!
I wonder how the UK thinks it can enforce these laws when major tech CEOs don't live in the UK, or rarely ever go to the UK and have lots of power thanks to money. The UK economy is already floundering and its auto market and other markets are crashing and burning due to Brexit. The UK doesn't have anywhere near the soft power it once had. Not even from just 2 years ago. The UK is certainly however doing an excellent job at killing business and future investment. I get wanting to protect kids. But the UK government is doing it all in the wrong ways. All they're doing is killing more and more investment and creating an atmosphere where the UK economy will just continue to stagnate.
That won't happen, EU is also moving in the same direction and recently a German court ruled that Twitter will be fined for each tweet containing hate speech or misinformation, for the amount of €250k. If major social media sites leave the EU, they will lose billions in business and ad revenue. I'm not against increased moderation, quite the opposite, I think these giant tech companies should be more responsible with the content they host, but there needs to be a balance in order to not harm people's liberties. I'm pro free speech, but I'm not pro hate speech, nor do I have an absolutist view regarding freedom of speech. Words matter, and we are beginning to see it's effect in our society, even though many people have been warning us of the perilous path we are currently taking as a civilization, for over a decade now.
@@richardjames3022 That’s like arguing that every time someone gets shot, the manufacturer of the gun should be prosecuted instead of the one that fires it. The only ones accountable for kids should be their parents. Not the British nanny state and not tech companies. They provide a service to the world but it’s parents job to be the ones that regulate what they allow their kids to see. The simple answer is stop giving them smartphones, iPads and unlimited internet access or at least apply proper parental settings. But blocking adults from using popular social media apps just because of kids is unfair and is no different from saying an adult can’t buy alcohol because some people drink underage. Parents and parents only should be responsible for their kids.
"I am a fighter not a quitter" was not a Truss original. It was plagiarized from Peter Mandelson (not too sure if he plagiarized it from someone else too). It's astonishing that anyone would plagiarize anything from Lord Mandelson much less his notorious famous last words, but that's Truss.
Why don't we just skip all the lengthy paperwork and ban everybody from making jokes? In fact, just ban everyone from saying anything. Because there'll always be somebody somewhere that gets offended by it, and we couldn't possibly risk somebody getting upset because of something they saw on the internet, that is completely unacceptable.
Cigarettes, fast food, the exhaust of car engines and many other things are physically harmful. Stress at workplace can harm one mentally (and physically in long-term). Not everything that is bad should be banned.
@@violetasiii Long term health problems caused by smoking tend to be treated by public services such as the NHS. Should the NHS pay to treat such obviously self inflicted injuries?
Britain isn't going to jail tech bosses. The idea that a capitalist country, let alone under the rule of the traditional party of the rich, would jail big capitalists such as Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk is entirely ludicrous.
@@istherenofreename She's an exception to the rule. Most of the time, without fail, the big bosses avoid prison despite openly doing things which are illegal.
@@lavenderb3an Which is a sad thing honestly... I do believe if those who manage social media platforms were more accountable for, we would have better social media, specially considering that many countries have extradition agreements, which would make hard for them to avoid. I have no idea when was it that social responsibility, stopped being a thing. It is a staple of modern society, and I think this trend of thinking those in power should not have more social responsibilities, is a dangerous way of thinking.
@@herlandercarvalho The reason social media is the way it is is because it's governed by the same profit motive as everything else in capitalism. You have to fundamentally alter the basis of society, and that includes taking social media out of the hands of the rich and into the hands of the people who work to run it.
They couldn’t jail them anyway because Zuckerberg and musk don’t live in Britain and aren’t under the jurisdiction of British courts. It’s a party piece. It’s impossible to enforce. All it will achieve is cause British social media executives to exit the country in case they are targeted with jail threat
I'm sorry but who actually wants this bill? Why is the government even considering this bill? "You better suppress this speak or that speak, or it's behind bars for you buddy" looks laughably orwellian
@@aycc-nbh7289 Because they do NOT NEED to sell your data. Storing data to comply with legal requirements is ok, especially as by using the site you will have consented to that. Look in more details at the consent setting and you must be able to opt out of "distributing my data to third parties" or alike.
Why does the British government have such a sick obsession with legislation that 'thinks of the children''?. Children have parents and it is they who should be liable for failure of protection in most cases. Ofcourse that doesn't mean the state shouldn't intervene, but too much and we'll all be living like sheltered children afraid or ignorant of things in life and controlled by anyone who is ambitious and ruthless to do so.
It has developed a child centric culture. Too much emphasis is put on kids over here at the expense of everything and everyone else. It’s really messed up and unfair
Parents need to have conversations with their children about on line bullying, and being bullied. We need to keep informing our offspring the dangers of bullying others.
That thumbnail . . "Uhm, America. Would you mind extraditing these big tech bosses so we can jail them?" You know the the US will tell you to go do to yourself? On that topic does any of these big tech giants find themselves situated in the UK? I searched for a list now of big tech in the UK and I barely heard of any of them. You can jail the Vodafone CEO and I don't think anyone globally would notice.
Are you stupid. We live in a globalised world. They have regional Cheif executives and yes Big tech bosses visit the London frequently. But this channel has a pro Labour bias which means they constantly berate the Conservative party. This law means nothing and no tech boss is going to jail. So this video is pointless
@@RRaymer Ofc, I mean there was the Randy Blythe who got arrested the moment he landed in the EU, but you do realise that should they try pass a law like that would mean they'd not longer visit? Or are you stupid? And a globalised world doesn't mean UK law will be adopted in the US or anywhere else really for that matter. In fact the opposite. If the US says lets sanction so and so then the UK will follow suite, even if they didn't want to. I find it hilarious that people talk about this globalised world as if it actually exists (or let me at least say that the globe has equal say and input in how it is run). I mean people saw what Russia did now and went "If you want to wage war then the it has to be done with the backing of the UN, otherwise it's illegal and a war crime", forgetting about the Iraq war. The US said yes, the UN said no and the US went ahead and did it anyway . . . So how globalised to you think it really is? It's globalised as long as it fits the superpowers of this world (and right now there is only really 1 superpower). So I recommend keep your mouth shut when that superpower is talking and fall in line, okay? Less you embarrass yourselves when trying to say you'll arrest it's people. If you did do it, expect the US embassy in the UK to close very soon, followed by swift US sanctions. Watch that Pound Sterling become the weakest currency within a few weeks. The UK aren't a superpower anymore, so stop trying to act like one.
@@dontworry1302 Yeah that makes sense. Or if they visited the UK. I mean there was the Randy Blythe who got arrested the moment he landed in the EU, but you do realise that should they try pass a law like that would mean they'd not longer visit? I mean if they did do it, expect the US embassy in the UK to close very soon, followed by swift US sanctions and probably watch these companies leave the UK like they did Russia. Watch that Pound Sterling become the weakest currency within a few weeks. But that was my point. The thumbnail and title of the videos says "big tech bosses", ie US citizens behind bars (like that would ever happen, without consequences).
"'Harm' means physical or psychological harm." So the same word is both the subject and object of that sentence. In other words, A=A. That's a terrible way to write a definition and would hopefully get you fired from your job with a dictionary publisher. But to give a circular definition the force of law . . . is a frightening thought.
Eh, literally all industries have to meet due diligence. They can't have it both ways, if social media companies are going to assert so much control over user data and IP uploaded onto the websites, then they have to meet certain levels of due diligence. Of course, the question is what, but like if my company has to export things according to regulation then instagram shouldn't be able to monitize having hard drugs be two clicks away from kids on their app through their search engines.
While the way the bill is written, and the ramifications of it are terrifying and I hope it gets rejected, there does need to be more done to protect youth online. Social media has been shown to be addictive for youth (and adults), and the algorithms behind them are optimized to maximize engagement which causes this issue. Add to that the myriad ways that social media can hurt vulnerable people (radicalization, cyber bullying, grooming...) Also on "using TH-cam as parenting", given how much technology is integrated with school and life in general, good luck keeping kids off social media. Yes, you could ban it and not give them a phone, but then you're setting them up to be bullied and constantly missing out on things.
Johnson didn't "have to contend with" brexit and prorogation scandals, he created them deliberately through his own policy decisions, like Truss' economic confidence problems. In contrast, this rebellion really is something Sunak "has to contend with."
In reality there has never been free speech since the dawn of time. While you can say anything you want, you are NOT free of consequences. Society has always extracted a punishment for unacceptable speech.
Here's how this will go wrong. Every website would need to introduce KYC, this is to prevent children from encountering harmful content. How do you do this? Stop their access. Kids won't have the ability to KYC anyway. So KYC is on every website including adult content. That means that all adult content that people won't want to KYC for will only be torrent websites. Which websites will children only be able to access? Torrent websites which have just been jam loaded with adult content. It's almost like they want everyone to use the darknet. GG government.
Not necessarily. Putting systems in place (e.g. AI analysis of the account) to identify child accounts that have not self identified might be enough. Children's accounts would then have much higher filtering of what they can see and what they can post. As long as companies can demonstrate a high success rate in identifying child accounts they would pass a duty of care. Ofcom would likely organize regular attempts to create accounts for children and see if the system works. If companies fail these test regularly, they would be open to prosecution.
@@istherenofreename I'm unsure that that would be enough. Considering the company employers are threatened with jail time, even within a breach of a singular case. Letting even one slip through the gap would be too much risk. Wouldn't it be more practical for companies just to cut their losses?
So when this passes, companies like Twitter and Facebook have to essentially ban British children from their platforms. How do you check a user's age? Ask them and accept any lies? How do you check their location? What if a savvy British 16 year old uses a vpn to pretend they are in another country and claim to be 20 when asked? Have these politicians considered all this? Have they spoken with the social media companies?
Require a copy of everyone's national ID card and charge £5 per year to a personal debit card. Sure kids would borrow an adults ID but it would shield the platforms
What counts as trolling in this bill? What counts as harmful to children in this bill? I am worried that anything that anyone doesn't like could be made illegal under this framework.
The issue I personally have with your ads is the segues, honestly. Just own that it's ad time and don't try and link it to the content of the video - that makes it seem a lot less biased imo
"verbal agreement" so good to feel like our government is being run on a mixture of the honor system and gentleman's agreements. Really makes me feel like my predecessors under the monarchy
What is humiliating about listening to the party that put you there in the first place? Surely it is damned if you do and damned if you don't from the "we need a story that sells" kind of journalism.
"I am a fighter not a quitter!" "I am resigning" such shade I love it 🤣🤣
Yes TL;DR are really showing their biases.
You took my words.
@@SaintGerbilUK Tbf, how brief and tempestuous it was is all EVERYONE remembers when it comes to that government, on either side of the political divide.
And it was hilarious, and this is still a news channel with infotainment graphics.
That clip will live forever!
@@SaintGerbilUK Who cares that was facts not bias
I have a bad feeling about this bill. Things that are considered harmful or trolling can in the hands of impotent government and officials quickly becomes a slippery slope, since they are likely to accept views that hard criticism and parody online are harmful or trolling.
@Walter Palmer are you trolling him? That’s a lashing
@@jakeroper1096 Are you threatening violence? OMG! I'm calling MI5 and GCHQ right now! This type of demented behavior cannot persist!
yea 1984 and brave new world. When you realise it all about control you understand.
The slippery slope started with the Anti-Protest & Anti-Union Bills, then wanting to give more powers to the police *(Re: The Met)* while taking away privacy on platforms like WhatsApp. This is just a further step down that road.
There's also the whole Human Rights dispute where the UK wants to break off from the prior agreements on them & make their own Bill. (Can have both, just saying...)
This might not be very relevant, but I just think it's funny how Johnson got off very lightly for his lockdown breaches where a lot of other people didn't get that same leniency as him. One rule in one place but another in the others ...
Trolling and harmful behaviour is anything going against the party.
Why do you think both parties voted for it.
"I am a fighter not a quitter"..."I am resigning" 🤣 I love how you stitched those together
Comedy is all about timing 🤣
“The government has instead reached a ‘verbal agreement’…” if you need an agreement done with someone and they refuse written and insist on only verbal. I’d take that as a huge red flag.
The gov here in Ireland tried to set up a water payment regime, said they would not put in legislation that it would not be privatized, asked us to trust em,,,
They got a flee in their ear
Water is still a publicly owned resource
I would think that if the backbenchers aren't satisfied with the government's version of the amendment they can always tell Sunak to sod off again. It's a trust exercise.
When stuff like this happens people can dispute over two versions of events he accepted them amendment or he didn't accept the amendment as ours I'm concerned he didn't accept a minion introducing it into the house of lords means it didn't have the Prime minister's backing also who are the rebels somebody will say the people who brought this amendment forward are the rebels other people say the rebels are the ones who didn't want it
@@Doogie2K3 and if you can’t trust the government who can you trust ?
@@dantownsend4246 your family
the fizz truss I am a fighter soundbite is hilarious, I dont think it will ever get old
She got stiched up good and proper, now we have a globalist coup
fizz truss
@@TheAmericanPrometheus, fizz truss
thank goodness the harm section got removed.
frankly i find it hilarious that conservatives say how soft society is nowadays yet they're the ones implementing laws that reinforce it.
Pretty sure the conservative and liberal parties of the USA are not the same in other countries
@@mariotheundying they actually are American conservatives fight tooth and nail and get offended when their religion is even criticized while American liberals don’t exist in the actual political world
@@mariotheundying i'm no expert but i think this is a british news channel not an american one.
I don't think they removed every part that was concerning, just that one, wasn't there some kind of push to get stricter measures added in?
This is why the centre left have been telling the radical left to stop eroding free speech for years now.
The more you create a cultural climate of speech suppression, the more you enable the right to benefit from that. The arrogance of radical leftists to think that this cultural climate would never be turned around on them - pure hubris.
the "I am a fighter not a quitter!, I'am resigning" is always iconic. If Theresa May has the "Dancing Queen" moment, Truss has her own🤣
They quitted her. She fought and lost.
"Can't believe my kids had a bad experience on the internet", said the parent using the internet as a babysitter.
It's been like a month, and we're congratulating Sunnak for not having any scandals yet? I guess it's nice that he didn't come pre-loaded with them...
Seat belts!
He's got one now. He just got done today for not wearing a seatbelt.
One positive way of looking at this is, it’s pretty difficult these days for MPs to get away with unsavoury behaviour.
This kind of corruption and all the sexual impropriety has went on forever but in the past it was never scrutinised or even known about.
It’s now far too easy to get found out.
I just wish the media would be more “factual” instead of “influential” and “opinionated.”
Just read the bloody news to us!
Not even that, we are congratulating him for not having huge, premiership toppling scandals. He's been getting scandals every 1 or 2 weeks.
"I AM A FIGHTER NOT A QUITTER"
"I am resigning"
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Does self harm include voting Tory?
Lol though I dont see why voting Labour isn't also included in your definition....
All political parties in this country have committed self harm except maybe the Greens.
@@foryou6888 Mostly, cause Labor at least has a better understanding of economics. At least from their "track record".
LMAO I made a similar joke.
If self-harm was criminalized Brexiteers online would all be jailed ROFL
Works both ways. Voting for anyone VS not voting.
So, is the "You are above 18" checkbox considered "sufficient care"?
If I was a social media company and this goes through, I'd save myself the headache and make it 18+ immediately
My main issue with this bill is how vague it is, and how easy it would be to abuse. For example, the government still deems “gender dysphoria” a mental health condition. This could easily lead to media companies being forced to ban trans health and social resources online for promoting and encouraging the “mental condition” of dysohoria.
Another example could be a court making a president for political harm falling under this law too. For example, “radicalising” children, which sounds more than reasonable on paper, but which could extremely easily escalate to ban any political discourse online that rejects the government’s current policies or other political issues, such as the monarchy or calls for boycott.
Just one judge in the right place and right time could entirely destroy access to health or political information for thousands, or even millions, of people, and there’d be nothing stopping them. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but the government genuinely seem as if they’re preparing to walk the country onto the slipperiest slope they could find.
That's cause it is a mental health condition and isn't normal or healthy.
This is the actual problem and issue, because no matter what you do (or what you don't), due to human nature, there will also be an "evil". But laws are made, to act as a "lesser evil". Whatever choice we make, we will always be presented with some "evil" to deal with, but I am going to say that I will prefer to choose a "lesser evil" to live by. It's not easy, but generally speaking I believe that people should have their freedom, up to the point when their freedom hinder's someone else's freedoms, and that includes hate speech. Hate speech can have a shilling effect on it's own, as it can effectively silence minorities, so in this particular case, I have no issue with legislating and banning hate speech. But the processes in how we do it, are tricky to develop. Regardless, giant techs should be held more responsible and do proper moderation of the content they host.
@@herlandercarvalho Freedom as in hands off approach, but the Anti-Protest, Anti-Union, Increasing Police Powers in the face of the Met Scandals, Human Rights Amendments/Scrapping HRA in favour of their own, Talk about wanting to take away privacy on WhatsApp etc
It doesn't paint a good picture when they say they want to reform the wokearati press either. You guys must see how this is the red flag, right?
I could never find a coherent/substantial argument differentiating the slippery slope argument from the setting of legal precedence.
Welcome to every tory bill, british bill of rights, police crime sentencing and courts bill. etc.
It's not the tech bosses you need to worry about if anything causes physical or mental damage is so vague its just impossible to take part.
"I like waffles"
"Why do you hate pancakes? You cause mental damage!"
Well off to prison for me...
The famous "emotional damage" guy is now gaining new, unprecedented levels of power
What is harm?
👸🏻 Not voting for me is harming my Chance's to win.
👸🏻 Telling the truth about me is harming my self image.
👸🏻 Supporting someone else is harming my chance to win.
👸🏻 Not liking me is harming my public image.
👸🏻 Debunking me is harming my pride.
ig you like bullying kids, internet is already being censored atleast the bill will stop people from being harmed
Pretty much what every priest preaches about me in churches all around the world.
DO AS I SAY OR RISK ETERNAL TORTURE!
Exactly!
This will have no impact on established social media companies, or their senior leadership. It will impact independent setups for family, colleagues, and friends.
Yep, no way is there any risk to corporations but you at home can be made an example of and make the police look like they're actually doing something. This bill should be scrapped in it's entirety.
is there a video explaining why he wanted to ban on-shore windfarms? I never heard about this what reason could he have?
idek, its fuckin dumb. People say that wind turbines are ugly but between wind turbines and transformers/substations/power lines, all of which are totally fine apparently, I'd take the turbines.
Wind farms are out in the country if not at sea. Most rural constituencies vote Tory. They contain a lot of NIMBYs. Simples.
@@moritamikamikara3879 Sweden wanted to build an offshore wind farm that could be seen from the coast but some of the people who lived nearby said it would destroy the nature reserve that was on land after the coast and there were enough idiots that the wind farm plan was scrapped,😂😭 rest assured there are bigger idiots out there
Oil + Gas give lots of money to Torries Wind don't!
@@moritamikamikara3879 exactly, fuckin nimbyism at its finest
CEO's, Tax Dodgers and most politicians next please.
The tories are the reasons CEO's can dodge tax and be above the law. They like when the rich are untouchable
What about jailing Sunak for massive tax avoidance, travelling in a car without a seat belt, and attending a lockdown party?!
This bill should be completely cancelled
I'm still quite skeptical about the effectiveness of this bill.
It would be effective, for all the wrong reasons.
I'm skeptical too, regarding any laws that regulate the ability of people expressing themselves, and freedom of speech. However, it is almost a trolley problem if you don't act either. Would you allow to something bad to happen by choosing not to act, or would you prefer to act to choose a lesser evil? I'm going with the latter...
@@herlandercarvalho How about you go with the third option: Don't Tell people what they can say or think, inform the pansies with the hurt feefees to Nut Up or get offline and Tell the Government to Sod Off.
@@danielseelye6005 That would be a fantastic argument if that's all this bill was about, that just isn't the case though. One of the things the bill seeks to restrict is the use of deepfakes, which is quickly becoming a huge problem. They're already at the point where people can fall for them if they're not looking out for the tell tale signs and they're only going to become more convincing in the coming years. It has huge potential for fraud and misinformation. Look at all the morons who invested in cryptocurrency last year because their favourite online celebrity told them to. All you have to do is make a video of yourself promoting some crypto you made, deepfake a footballer on to your face, and BAM! Free money at the expense of some idiots.
Ok, maybe you're smart enough to avoid obvious scams and you won't fall for misinformation. I think we can all agree half this country is completely retаrded. What happens when someone picks a popular MP who they don't particularly like and deepfakes him in to some prince Andrew type stuff to sway the outcome of an election? Does that not sound a little bit problematic to you? It doesn't even need to be a good deepfake either. Just convincing enough to trick a small minority of morons.
This bill will be very difficult to enforce, I also don't like the idea of Police knocking on your door because of a mean tweet. This law could be used to censor people's opinions, which is especially dangerous when it comes to discussing elections or referendums, we already saw this in the last two US Presidential elections!
This entire law is terrible. It just enables bad, negligent parents to continue the status quo, and let the mobile devices and computers to the "parenting"...
And you know the bit about trolling is just going allow people to avoid legitimate criticism by stating that they are being trolled - ordinary people won't do it though, it'll be the rich and powerful...
Tech companies should be held responsible, and have more responsibility over the content they host. That has nothing to do with parenting, nor does it specifically apply to minors. Your argument seems to imply that everyone should be on their own devices, and that no law enforcement should exist either. I am no expert in UK law (or any laws for that matter), but I'm pretty sure you have laws in the UK that protect public space order and criminalize anti-social behavior. And the internet is, a public space albeit a virtual one, where we can observe, every day anti-social behavior, is it not? So I really don't see any difference. Sadly, because humans are terrible grown-ups, sometimes governments, do need to step in the role of "parenting".
@@herlandercarvalho It's disingenuous to
say this has nothing to do with parenting and kids, when it was the high-profile deaths of two kids, that led to the formation of this law...
I'm genuinely confused as to how you reached the conclusion that I think "everyone should be on their own devices, and that no law enforcement should exist either."
Firstly, I don't think everyone should be on their own devices, least of all children. As a parent, if you feel the need to give an internet-enabled device to your kid, take some personal accountability/responsibility, parental control systems have be available for decades.
This basically the same argument that's used against video games, when a mass-shooting happens in the US... Ban violent video games, parents don't have to worry about their kids being influenced into mass-murder...
As for the later half of the statement, the bit about "no law enforcement" you seem to think I'm suggested, that's the dumbest takeaway, you have to be a clown to even suggest that - although, once this law goes live, if you are a UK resident, feel to report me, since under the vague, language of the this law, you can take it as me trolling you. Take it as protecting "public space" against "anti-social" behaviour.
The Electronic Frontier Found and Reclaim the Net, as well as plenty other organisations have explained why this is an awful law.
I'd suggest watching Tantacrul's video on the most toxic site on the internet
@@DizY_8
Quote: "It's disingenuous to
say this has nothing to do with parenting and kids"
I never said that, nor have I implied. The issue here is whether tech companies should have responsibility on the content they host on their platforms, including comments. Parents should be responsible, obviously. But you seem to not be aware of the dark recesses of the web, and how easier it is for children, who are often much more tech savy than parents, and how inadequate and futile parental controls are on a device connected to the internet.
Are you really suggesting that children should not have a computer and/or internet access at all? That is an unrealistic and absurd expectation! Absolutely and completely absurd! And are you expecting every parent to have the means or know how of an IT to be able to lock as much as possible his children access? Are you freaking out of your mind? No... that is a responsibility from the content provider. A good example for this is the fact that IPTV services will provide adult themed channels which will be protected by a PIN to prevent children from accessing. But even then, it is not outlandish to imagine that a child, may be able to, with fair ease, regardless of parental control to acquire that PIN.
I never said parents should not be responsible, but you have implied that tech companies have no responsibility whatsoever either!
I have no clue why you brought the video games topic on this conversation. You are aware that, video games are subject to a rating system, and that is controlled by governmental entities, right? To force the responsibility of the content, on the game company. If a game is set to a certain rating that is +18, and the parent decides to give it to a 5 year old, that is the parents responsibility, obviously... But there is a mechanism imposed to the game company to allow parents to be able to make that assessment.
So if these mechanisms for games are already legislated, there should be similar mechanisms at the very least, for sites, and enforce them moderation on the content they provide, or otherwise fine them for not being compliant.
I'm not going to even bother replying to the last bit of your comment, as I have not in any way insulted you. That tells more about your lack of argumentation than anything else... Have a nice day!
Why do they focus so much about the content instead of the base of addiction driving social media platforms? That's how you protect children.
UK turning fascist.
This is total "1984". A joke online could land someone in jail. No laughter allowed, a grey, depressing world.
I wonder how the UK thinks it can enforce these laws when major tech CEOs don't live in the UK, or rarely ever go to the UK and have lots of power thanks to money. The UK economy is already floundering and its auto market and other markets are crashing and burning due to Brexit. The UK doesn't have anywhere near the soft power it once had. Not even from just 2 years ago. The UK is certainly however doing an excellent job at killing business and future investment.
I get wanting to protect kids. But the UK government is doing it all in the wrong ways. All they're doing is killing more and more investment and creating an atmosphere where the UK economy will just continue to stagnate.
can we jail pms and mps also please
Request denied
How about we jail government ministers for failing the public 😂
Europes biggest moneymaker is extorting money from American companies. These bills are ridiculous.
I wouldnt be surprised if social media companies just pull out of the UK if this becomes a issue for them.
@@richardjames3022 Your writing this comment on a social media platform.
That won't happen, EU is also moving in the same direction and recently a German court ruled that Twitter will be fined for each tweet containing hate speech or misinformation, for the amount of €250k. If major social media sites leave the EU, they will lose billions in business and ad revenue. I'm not against increased moderation, quite the opposite, I think these giant tech companies should be more responsible with the content they host, but there needs to be a balance in order to not harm people's liberties. I'm pro free speech, but I'm not pro hate speech, nor do I have an absolutist view regarding freedom of speech. Words matter, and we are beginning to see it's effect in our society, even though many people have been warning us of the perilous path we are currently taking as a civilization, for over a decade now.
Same. I don't see how it's even possible to comply with the bill as stated.
@@richardjames3022 If others are available then put your money where your mouth is and delete your comments on here and go comment on them instead
@@richardjames3022 That’s like arguing that every time someone gets shot, the manufacturer of the gun should be prosecuted instead of the one that fires it.
The only ones accountable for kids should be their parents. Not the British nanny state and not tech companies.
They provide a service to the world but it’s parents job to be the ones that regulate what they allow their kids to see.
The simple answer is stop giving them smartphones, iPads and unlimited internet access or at least apply proper parental settings.
But blocking adults from using popular social media apps just because of kids is unfair and is no different from saying an adult can’t buy alcohol because some people drink underage.
Parents and parents only should be responsible for their kids.
"Hasn't been engulfed in scandals" That aged quickly 🤣
"I am a fighter not a quitter" was not a Truss original. It was plagiarized from Peter Mandelson (not too sure if he plagiarized it from someone else too). It's astonishing that anyone would plagiarize anything from Lord Mandelson much less his notorious famous last words, but that's Truss.
To me, the blue color of the Facebook logo is stressful. Send the managers to jail for mental harassments.
What a stupid wording in the law.
What a cluster fuck of epic proportions!
'Unlike his predecessors he hasn't been in much scandals' lmaoo this aged like milk
Why don't we just skip all the lengthy paperwork and ban everybody from making jokes?
In fact, just ban everyone from saying anything. Because there'll always be somebody somewhere that gets offended by it, and we couldn't possibly risk somebody getting upset because of something they saw on the internet, that is completely unacceptable.
I am fine with punishing tech bosses and holding them liable to pretty much anything and everything, but this bill feels so draconian.
Unfortunately the internet can name bill’s totalitarian in nature set to its use as an information centre
I bet 2 minutes in jail before they bail out for a few million must be super scary.
[6:54] I love the little Cue Dot - I forgot they were a thing!
Loving the old-school cue marker!
Cigarettes, fast food, the exhaust of car engines and many other things are physically harmful. Stress at workplace can harm one mentally (and physically in long-term). Not everything that is bad should be banned.
Actually all these things you listed should be banned
the problem with stress at work place, it's not really enforceable.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 why? if someone wants to smoke, they should be allowed to smoke, it's their body
@@violetasiii Long term health problems caused by smoking tend to be treated by public services such as the NHS.
Should the NHS pay to treat such obviously self inflicted injuries?
@@diverguy3556 I'm fine with my taxpayer money treating smokers, healthcare should be free irrespective of your own choices, it's a human right
0:28 ""I am a fighter and not a quitter ... I am resigning." 😂 😂 😂 I couldn't stop laughing !!!
6:51 I haven't seen that on the upper right.... since early 2010s lol
0:29 This is proper news reporting!
Is there a single British political party that doesn't want to implement most authoritative policies? Tory's, Labour, SNP. They're all at it
Liberal Democrats but they have been around for decades and the British public never show any interest in electing them sadly.
Britain isn't going to jail tech bosses. The idea that a capitalist country, let alone under the rule of the traditional party of the rich, would jail big capitalists such as Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk is entirely ludicrous.
How is Elizabeth Holmes doing now? 🤣
@@istherenofreename She's an exception to the rule. Most of the time, without fail, the big bosses avoid prison despite openly doing things which are illegal.
@@lavenderb3an Which is a sad thing honestly... I do believe if those who manage social media platforms were more accountable for, we would have better social media, specially considering that many countries have extradition agreements, which would make hard for them to avoid. I have no idea when was it that social responsibility, stopped being a thing. It is a staple of modern society, and I think this trend of thinking those in power should not have more social responsibilities, is a dangerous way of thinking.
@@herlandercarvalho The reason social media is the way it is is because it's governed by the same profit motive as everything else in capitalism. You have to fundamentally alter the basis of society, and that includes taking social media out of the hands of the rich and into the hands of the people who work to run it.
They couldn’t jail them anyway because Zuckerberg and musk don’t live in Britain and aren’t under the jurisdiction of British courts.
It’s a party piece. It’s impossible to enforce.
All it will achieve is cause British social media executives to exit the country in case they are targeted with jail threat
Wow ,the brits are really good at sorting their priorities .(Irony )
They are desperately triyng to diverge the attention away from the crisis they are in, that's why they do it
You mean sarcasm. Irony is a person in medical need being hit by an ambulance.
Small tech company bosses might be jailed. Facebook et al will just close their UK offices and relocate to another country.
I'm sorry but who actually wants this bill? Why is the government even considering this bill? "You better suppress this speak or that speak, or it's behind bars for you buddy" looks laughably orwellian
So how compliant is the UK with the GDPR now that there is a new requirement to disclose information?
GDPR certainly allows companies to store information that they need to operate.
@@istherenofreename Then what about big analytics firms whose models require constant data transfers?
@@aycc-nbh7289 Because they do NOT NEED to sell your data. Storing data to comply with legal requirements is ok, especially as by using the site you will have consented to that. Look in more details at the consent setting and you must be able to opt out of "distributing my data to third parties" or alike.
@0:29 loooool i love it when you sneak in jokes like this when i least expect it
Why does the British government have such a sick obsession with legislation that 'thinks of the children''?. Children have parents and it is they who should be liable for failure of protection in most cases. Ofcourse that doesn't mean the state shouldn't intervene, but too much and we'll all be living like sheltered children afraid or ignorant of things in life and controlled by anyone who is ambitious and ruthless to do so.
It has developed a child centric culture.
Too much emphasis is put on kids over here at the expense of everything and everyone else.
It’s really messed up and unfair
Time for another revolution.
Omg, at 0:25 'I am a fighter, not a quitter!!!' '...I am resigning.' hahahaa
Pretty sure its them that should be in jail after what they have done to the country and the economy.
Do please tell me what trolleying is @1:28 😏.
Parents need to have conversations with their children about on line bullying, and being bullied. We need to keep informing our offspring the dangers of bullying others.
Government should not let the people do anything they want,, that's very much hermfull
Veto this bill please
A verbal agreement is worth the paper it's not printed on.
That thumbnail . . "Uhm, America. Would you mind extraditing these big tech bosses so we can jail them?"
You know the the US will tell you to go do to yourself?
On that topic does any of these big tech giants find themselves situated in the UK?
I searched for a list now of big tech in the UK and I barely heard of any of them. You can jail the Vodafone CEO and I don't think anyone globally would notice.
I believe most of them have offices in the UK for compliance work. I'd expect the heads of those offices are the ones who would be charged.
Are you stupid. We live in a globalised world. They have regional Cheif executives and yes Big tech bosses visit the London frequently. But this channel has a pro Labour bias which means they constantly berate the Conservative party. This law means nothing and no tech boss is going to jail. So this video is pointless
@@RRaymer Ofc, I mean there was the Randy Blythe who got arrested the moment he landed in the EU, but you do realise that should they try pass a law like that would mean they'd not longer visit? Or are you stupid?
And a globalised world doesn't mean UK law will be adopted in the US or anywhere else really for that matter. In fact the opposite. If the US says lets sanction so and so then the UK will follow suite, even if they didn't want to.
I find it hilarious that people talk about this globalised world as if it actually exists (or let me at least say that the globe has equal say and input in how it is run).
I mean people saw what Russia did now and went "If you want to wage war then the it has to be done with the backing of the UN, otherwise it's illegal and a war crime", forgetting about the Iraq war. The US said yes, the UN said no and the US went ahead and did it anyway . . . So how globalised to you think it really is? It's globalised as long as it fits the superpowers of this world (and right now there is only really 1 superpower).
So I recommend keep your mouth shut when that superpower is talking and fall in line, okay?
Less you embarrass yourselves when trying to say you'll arrest it's people. If you did do it, expect the US embassy in the UK to close very soon, followed by swift US sanctions. Watch that Pound Sterling become the weakest currency within a few weeks.
The UK aren't a superpower anymore, so stop trying to act like one.
@@dontworry1302 Yeah that makes sense. Or if they visited the UK.
I mean there was the Randy Blythe who got arrested the moment he landed in the EU, but you do realise that should they try pass a law like that would mean they'd not longer visit?
I mean if they did do it, expect the US embassy in the UK to close very soon, followed by swift US sanctions and probably watch these companies leave the UK like they did Russia. Watch that Pound Sterling become the weakest currency within a few weeks.
But that was my point. The thumbnail and title of the videos says "big tech bosses", ie US citizens behind bars (like that would ever happen, without consequences).
"'Harm' means physical or psychological harm." So the same word is both the subject and object of that sentence. In other words, A=A. That's a terrible way to write a definition and would hopefully get you fired from your job with a dictionary publisher. But to give a circular definition the force of law . . . is a frightening thought.
Eh, literally all industries have to meet due diligence. They can't have it both ways, if social media companies are going to assert so much control over user data and IP uploaded onto the websites, then they have to meet certain levels of due diligence. Of course, the question is what, but like if my company has to export things according to regulation then instagram shouldn't be able to monitize having hard drugs be two clicks away from kids on their app through their search engines.
Talk about the authoritarian anti-trade union law.
While the way the bill is written, and the ramifications of it are terrifying and I hope it gets rejected, there does need to be more done to protect youth online.
Social media has been shown to be addictive for youth (and adults), and the algorithms behind them are optimized to maximize engagement which causes this issue.
Add to that the myriad ways that social media can hurt vulnerable people (radicalization, cyber bullying, grooming...)
Also on "using TH-cam as parenting", given how much technology is integrated with school and life in general, good luck keeping kids off social media. Yes, you could ban it and not give them a phone, but then you're setting them up to be bullied and constantly missing out on things.
I SAW THAT ADVERT MARKER! Oh the nostalgia!
They're super rich. A simple donation to the party and they can dictate policy and stay out of jail.
I'm going to start calling Britain "Orwellia". It's clear that Britain is committed to adopting _1984_ as its _de facto_ constitution.
If you're going to compare Britain to 1984 why not just call it Airstrip One like Orwell did in the book?
@@vrclckd-zz3pv because I haven't read the book since high school, like most people.
Tech bosses: I dont even know what country you are
One thing is certain, freedom of speech is less and less free.
I cannot understand how anyone could support this awfully overreaching amendment,
...
but both Labour and Conservatives do exactly that. 💀
Which amendment? Many were mentioned in the video.
@@istherenofreename,
- the one alluded to in the thumbnail.
We need reform or the Lib Dems in power. But it just never happens.
British people aren’t interested in liberalism.
@@kultfiction1547,
electoral (STV), institutional (HoL) and federal(ization) reform would be fantastic. Indeed.
Johnson didn't "have to contend with" brexit and prorogation scandals, he created them deliberately through his own policy decisions, like Truss' economic confidence problems. In contrast, this rebellion really is something Sunak "has to contend with."
TLDR: It could turn into a “free speech for me, but not for thee” scenario.
In reality there has never been free speech since the dawn of time. While you can say anything you want, you are NOT free of consequences. Society has always extracted a punishment for unacceptable speech.
Start with Prick Clegg
Here's how this will go wrong.
Every website would need to introduce KYC, this is to prevent children from encountering harmful content. How do you do this? Stop their access. Kids won't have the ability to KYC anyway.
So KYC is on every website including adult content. That means that all adult content that people won't want to KYC for will only be torrent websites. Which websites will children only be able to access? Torrent websites which have just been jam loaded with adult content. It's almost like they want everyone to use the darknet. GG government.
What's KYC?
@@Psyk60 it stands for Know Your Customer. It means they would need to check your identity to allow access.
Not necessarily. Putting systems in place (e.g. AI analysis of the account) to identify child accounts that have not self identified might be enough. Children's accounts would then have much higher filtering of what they can see and what they can post. As long as companies can demonstrate a high success rate in identifying child accounts they would pass a duty of care. Ofcom would likely organize regular attempts to create accounts for children and see if the system works. If companies fail these test regularly, they would be open to prosecution.
@@istherenofreename I'm unsure that that would be enough. Considering the company employers are threatened with jail time, even within a breach of a singular case. Letting even one slip through the gap would be too much risk. Wouldn't it be more practical for companies just to cut their losses?
As a professional Troll, I hate that they're trying to criminalize my life's calling.
The main problem with this bill is how vague it is, it can lead to easy censure, it should be more specific and way less open to perception.
House building targets for councils.. Extremely needed. He should have fought for that one!
Did they try to define harm by using the word harm again but with an extra bit put in front of it...?
I envision this not so much as protection for the weak in society, but for the powerful...
How dare you troll me for my new clothes?!
Spare me this claptrap
What happened to being 'free speech warriors' and such? Save the children!-typical.
So when this passes, companies like Twitter and Facebook have to essentially ban British children from their platforms. How do you check a user's age? Ask them and accept any lies? How do you check their location? What if a savvy British 16 year old uses a vpn to pretend they are in another country and claim to be 20 when asked? Have these politicians considered all this? Have they spoken with the social media companies?
Require a copy of everyone's national ID card and charge £5 per year to a personal debit card. Sure kids would borrow an adults ID but it would shield the platforms
It seems the easiest way to protect children is to not allow them access. There's no way that could backfire...
What counts as trolling in this bill? What counts as harmful to children in this bill? I am worried that anything that anyone doesn't like could be made illegal under this framework.
The issue I personally have with your ads is the segues, honestly. Just own that it's ad time and don't try and link it to the content of the video - that makes it seem a lot less biased imo
A verbal agreement is not worth the paper that it is written on.
Sarcasm
IL bring some chain mail ? 🤣🤣 Were are we ?
Like these CEOs are going to pay a visit to the UK when there's a chance they might get arrested
OMG who added the little black and white advert spinner 🤣🤣🤣
Oh cool, they basically recursively defined "harm" as "harm", super clear
I wish I lived in a country where there were *former* supreme court justices.
He needs to fine them. Hard. £1bn hard every time someone in the UK has to be stung by predator catchers.
"verbal agreement" so good to feel like our government is being run on a mixture of the honor system and gentleman's agreements. Really makes me feel like my predecessors under the monarchy
Liz truss wasn't in power for 49 days, it was 44 lol
What is humiliating about listening to the party that put you there in the first place? Surely it is damned if you do and damned if you don't from the "we need a story that sells" kind of journalism.
Nobody will be going to Prison guaranteed.
Love the old school cue marker :)
Very clever end of programme reminder