Will Basschat survive the Online Safety Act?

[TimR]

Do the new proposed laws say anything about remaining anonymous? I assume the authorities via Ped can currently easily find out where I live if they have reason to.

 

That would be an interesting twist.

[OliverBlackman]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

 

The problem with the Internet is twofold. People can be anonymous and people can say things they wouldn't normally say without seeing the offense they're causes and/or risking real repercussions. 

I made a mess of the anonymous bit, or have I stolen someone’s identity? 🤔 we’ll never know…..

[asingardenof]

On 22/12/2024 at 19:32, Bassassin said:

 

By the same token, the very act of using a VPN to cover your tracks would be inherently suspicious. If you've got nothing to hide, etc...

Ah, the fallacious motto of authoritarian governments everywhere.

[prowla]

3 hours ago, asingardenof said:

Ah, the fallacious motto of authoritarian governments everywhere.

There is a balance required…

• On the one hand, the government has no business prying into our lives. 
• But on the other, the government has a duty to gather intelligence to protect our lives.

The public has to trust the government and the government has to respect the public. 
Overall I think the UK government tends to act in our interests, but there have been occurrences which could lead us to question that.

 

I’ve given a personal example where a government authority has sent a fine for allegedly breaking a law and said pay up or we’ll double it. It’s been demonstrated that no law was broken and their response has been now we’ll treble it. They know that no law was broken and they’ve accessed personal data to send the demands. 
That’s the risk in implementing badly thought out laws and putting their implementation into that hands of badly trained or dishonest operatives. 

We should question these proposed changes and consider their impacts. 

[TimR]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

I’ve given a personal example where a government authority has sent a fine for allegedly breaking a law

 

You've been sent a fine for the non payment of a charge. 

 

The law you've broken is not what you've been charged for, it's for non payment of that charge.

 

🤦‍♂️

 

If it's a box junction fine, then it's pretty clear, you have to contest it within 14 days the same way as you contest a parking fine. If you just refuse to pay the fine, you just descend into a world of pain. 

 

DVLA conditions state that they are able to give your details to people. If you don't want your details shared, you can easily opt out by handing in your license and stopping driving. 

Edited December 27, 2024 by TimR

[prowla]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

 

You've been sent a fine for the non payment of a charge. 

 

The law you've broken is not what you've been charged for, it's for non payment of that charge.

 

🤦‍♂️

 

If it's a box junction fine, then it's pretty clear, you have to contest it within 14 days the same way as you contest a parking fine. If you just refuse to pay the fine, you just descend into a world of pain. 

 

DVLA conditions state that they are able to give your details to people. If you don't want your details shared, you can easily opt out by handing in your license and stopping driving. 

Almost every point you make there is wrong, along with your apparent assumptions as to what has been done. 

Basically you don’t know what you are talking about. 

[TimR]

7 minutes ago, prowla said:

Almost every point you make there is wrong, along with your apparent assumptions as to what has been done. 

Basically you don’t know what you are talking about. 

 

Mainly because I'm having to read between the lines because you haven't at any point given definitive reason why you've been fined other than you were stopped in a box junction.

 

You have obviously not been successful in appealing either of the fines. You're being evasive which leads me to believe you've shown the same attitude to the fines/charges. 

 

If I've got that wrong, then maybe you'd like to enlighten us. 🤷‍♂️

Edited December 27, 2024 by TimR

[Stub Mandrel]

10 hours ago, TimR said:

This means now, more than ever, people are not happy when their view of the world is challenged.

 

You're wrong about that 😉

[prowla]

3 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

Mainly because I'm having to read between the lines because you haven't at any point given definitive reason why you've been fined other than you were stopped in a box junction.

 

You have obviously not been successful in appealing either of the fines. You're being evasive which leads me to believe you've shown the same attitude to the fines/charges. 

 

If I've got that wrong, then maybe you'd like to enlighten us. 🤷‍♂️

Maybe just stop trying to read between the lines and make assumptions. 

As for your “obviously”, that is incorrect too, because the inference you have made is wrong. 

As for enlightening the royal “we”, ok, then…
I don’t know why you are referring to “either of the fines”? There is one fine which doubled then trebled. (And then reverted to doubled when it was pointed out that they had made a procedural error.)
FYI, the fine was issued for stopping in a box junction, but there is no such law. (The law is that you may not stop if your exit is blocked by stationary vehicles.)

The fine (a penalty charge) was contested, but they rejected it on the basis that the vehicle wasn’t stopped due to the presence of oncoming vehicles preventing it turning right (there is no right turn at that box junction).
A subject access request (SAR) was raised for their video evidence, but they failed to send it and increased the fine (to treble).

A second appeal, to an independent tribunal, is in progress. 
When it was pointed out that the SAR and independent appeal had been raised, they reverted the trebling of the fine. 
They have decided to contest the appeal and continue to misquote the law, and despite the fact that their own video evidence shows traffic continuing on past, through, and exiting the box junction (ie. the exit was not blocked and so there was no transgression of the law).

 

[TimR]

You're still being evasive.

 

Why were you stopped in a yellow box junction?

 

Simple enough to answer. 🤣

 

I thought it was an offense to enter if your exit is not clear. I'm not aware that it has to be a stationary vehicle blocking the exit. 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2024 by TimR

[12stringbassist]

I wish people would just stay on topic as regards this thread.

[tauzero]

31 minutes ago, 12stringbassist said:

I wish people would just stay on topic as regards this thread.

 

NAHAY?

[ped]

Unsubscribe 

[prowla]

8 hours ago, TimR said:

You're still being evasive.

 

Why were you stopped in a yellow box junction?

 

Simple enough to answer. 🤣

 

I thought it was an offense to enter if your exit is not clear. I'm not aware that it has to be a stationary vehicle blocking the exit.

 

Timothy.  Tim.  Timmy.

You're being nosey and I will not give more precise information here - simple enough?.

The fact that you are ignorant of the law and seem to have taken it upon yourself to cross-examine me ends now.

As a parting gift to you, look up TSRGD 2016, paragraph 11; that should improve your awareness issues.

 

8 hours ago, 12stringbassist said:

I wish people would just stay on topic as regards this thread.

Apologies - it was intended to be relevant to the context, as an example of how an authority misusing its power can be a danger, rather than an open discussion of that particular case.

If they do implement this proposed law, there will: (a) be an increased burdon & cost for forum providers, and (b) there assuredly will be instances of it erroneously being implemented against innocent site staff.

The authorities charged with upholding the law will raise cases based on any combination of the following: ignorance of the law, lack of understanding of the law, over-zealousness, revenue generation, obfuscation and lack of adherence to procedures, or downright belligerence.

If you put in place a control then you also put in place a group of people whose livelihood depends upon the implementation of that rule.

These laws are not inherently benign.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2024 by prowla

[asingardenof]

5 hours ago, prowla said:

As a parting gift to you, look up TSRGD 2016, paragraph 11; that should improve your awareness issues.

Schedule 9, Part 7, Paragraph 11 to be precise. There are lots of paragraphs 11 in the legislation.

[prowla]

54 minutes ago, asingardenof said:

Schedule 9, Part 7, Paragraph 11 to be precise. There are lots of paragraphs 11 in the legislation.

Sorry - missed that part!