Will "Free Speech" disclaimer actually work? Plus, How far CAN you go online? 

6:39 "Obviously, I do a lot of defamation." Obviously, I'll never quote that out of context.

A local lady, Tasnia Ahmed, was jailed recently for failure to report a terrorist offence - yet terrorism reports are submitted anonymously! The same judge recently had me arrested for actually reporting a terrorist offence because it breached my bail condition of not to make contact with the terrorist! My equipment was seized, and although the case was dropped in magistrates court, the equipment was not returned.

'Being racist to a BMW car'. 'GBH to a Police van'. 'Shouting at a Police dog'. 'Baring teeth at a Police Officer'. 'Gesticulating at a Police Officer'. - How MSM have framed some of the 'Custodial Sentences' being handed out. Who else finds this both bizarre and disturbing?

Unfortunately, the Met has been naming and shaming before trial.

I subscribed simply because you told me not to bother. I appreciate the content, the relaxed presentation style and the background views..!

So what happens if you find the policy of the Government or a political party offensive?

It's nebulous by design. If you keep people guessing about what they're allowed to say then people will censor themselves.

Free speech can be dangerous but the alternative is worse

Something said or typed in private is exactly that, private! If it is then published into the public domain by other people, it wasn’t the original man or woman that placed it into the public domain. To allow the government to prosecute things said or typed in private, is one of the grossest public trespasses into the private! Also, having an opinion contrary to the government stance, or contrary to anyone else’s, is not a crime! Nor is expressing that opinion! An opinion or subject view is not an incitement or encouragement to commit crime….nor is humour or sarcasm!

Where would one get hold of such a catalogue of women's services? Asking for a friend.

The fact that were talking about the perils of our speech nowadays is very disturbing 🙁

Very interesting and very informative. Love the rambles and scenery

Massive respect for you and thank you for your channel. In general, any court that does not comply with article 10 is illegitimate and should be dealt with accordingly.

Perhaps we should try the opposite: any comment that, in principle, offends no one, is criminally boring and should be punished as a cause of global warning

Let's just adopt American freedom of speech laws. That would be the simplest and best thing to do in my opinion.

The mental image of the cps rushing into a coma ward and turning off life support is a glorious picture of the unintended consequences of legal definition.

These are simple things to detect, investigate and punish (all the tick boxes for the authorities), with the limited resources or the police and courts, why are they not making any real effort with prolific shoplifters, street mugging for ebikes, phones and expensive watches, car cannibals and catalytic converter thieves, and people selling illegal substances, could it possibly be that it actually requires the police to do some real work

Beautifully done as always Alan - hope you are OK in them there woods. Love that you need no notes. Please don't get eaten by the known Cornish bears.

I enjoy Yours and BlackbeltBarrister's vids very muchly! thanks for all your work!

What I see in current society, especially online, is a culture of deliberate antagonization. People seem to post to get attention, & inflammatory comments get attention. I think it touches into narcissistic & addictive adaption behaviors. Couple that with low self awareness, low responsibility, poor critical thinking & communication skills, and society is in a bit of a pickle. Education rather than punishment is probably what's really needed.

Vicarously enjoying your walks, but please don't walk into any holes 😱

Let me guess before watching the video. "Disclaimer: the law doesn't apply to me" isn't a defence.

Good video. Another point is by using that disclaimer, might do more harm than good to their defence as they're demonstrating a knowledge of the law and knew they were sailing close to the wind.

I have been harmed by stopping my winter fuel payment. fearful of want is next as labour hates OAPs

Alan, take care and get well.

I love your videos: the interesting places you walk to, coupled with invaluable information that, at this point in time, we really need. Thank you 🙏💕

People need to understand that no legal code in any country provides the right to post their ignorant dumb opinions on privately owned social media platforms and violate the standard restrictions on speech e.g., inciting violence, libel, harassment, etc.

Criticism is the fertilizer of human growth.

The difference between print media (todays newspaper is tomorrows fish and chip wrapper) and online is that each time someone views online media, that counts as a new publication so presumably publishers have to take into account changes in the known facts to avoid (presumable) unintentional defamation?

Thank you Al👏

It's concerning the police put so much effort into getting a journalists footage when clear footage of the Manchester Airport attackers was never persued.

First few minutes... You just described the BBC to a T.

Love your honesty regarding your knowledge of the law. Probably better to build up your expertise on where those uncapped shafts are. Always a great watch. Cheers

Enjoying your content and the scenery. Mind yourself with the untapped mineshafts. Maybe leave a note to say were you are going . Also, maybe rest a bit 'til you feel better?

People will want a jury everytime because laws are so tight.

surely repeating a rumour online without claiming its true or saying its an allegation/rumour would have te same protection as claiming something is alleged in the press. are the press no longer protected when they report allegations using words like allegedly, reportedly, or claims have emerged

Thank you Alan, interesting, educational and useful. Hope you are feeling better soon.

This was really a great episode - for me one of the best. I think the matter you discussed at the start has its roots in Fox and Tucker Carlson and I thought the final two words in the tweets (identical) clearly indicated it has been written by others. Thank you so much for the wonderful walk which was a great distraction from the three screens in front of me. We have a dear friend a bricklayer who works on restoration who would love the brickwork on the mine engines particularly that around the archways and cornices. A sad comparison when compared with the plastic structures on many industrial sites today. Please forgive but you commented on your health and please get the breathing checked- my late sister was a thoracic surgeon and always badgered me.

I complained a bit ago about hearing impairment and lipreading. Just to let you know that the subtitling is all cleared up from a bit patchy to very good. :)

Oh my word that last comment on the BBC 😮

Why are journalists legally permitted to lie?

When will we see common sense?

As a New Zealander, I find this channel interesting. Our law is similar to the UK law. It's informative. It's layed back. We also get to see some luvly sights and learn some history.

I love watching your informative and interesting videos. The fact that you do them in such interesting settings is a bonus but please take care. Don't exert yourself too much.

Get well soon sir…., whilst staying on a campsite at Chacewater recently I’m pretty sure we have a view of Hawkes Shaft Engine Shed, or at least it looked like the one you mentioned.

I do love the law. It is sometimes who can manipulate language best or who can find an obscure law better

What if you post your own experiences and they fall under these nebulous new laws. It appears to me that Starmer is faling foul of his own law. Calling all the protesters far right and violent, causing distress to those that clearly aren't, causing offence and stoking violence?

If some people think they can create legislation to stop people being rude, offensive, being wrong, nasty, ignorant or spreading rumours then we will be living in a totalitarian state . Since the police have already knocked on someones door to " check their thinking" I'm pretty sure this is not hyperbole.

So let me get this correct. If I were to respond to someone’s facebook post with a sarcastic insult of a reply, it’s the cuffs for me ?

These disclaimers are akin to a "beware of dog" sign. The sign tells the public that you know that your dog could be vicious. The disclaimer tells the public that you know that your statements could be defamatory. Perhaps, like the "beware of dog" sign, it would be best not to say anything. Least said, soonest mended.

It is a matter of fact if something is offensive or not, And yet the general public appear not to agree with recent court actions regarding free speech. and if it is 'obvious' then a Jury will come to that conclusion too.

Where did all the grown ups go?

This freedom of speech argument and slide toward authoritarianism is causing me non trivial psychological harm. There's some nefarious shit going on and truths are being supressed.

Subscribed as recommended by BlackbeltBarrister great video Ty ...

Unless you are the BBC..

This should be a your regularly style of video

You're not "really, really ill" if you are walking about as fast as you are and if you're in need of "someone to come around with a machete" (to chop the branches down!) I'm sure you could find an unemployed youth in London who carries his 'tools of the trade' with him.

Unfortunately, it is absolutely foreseeable that, if a statement reaches a large enough number of people, that it can be taken by one of those people in any way you might think. Any statement on a large enough platform is in violation. The police need only decide which to prioritize enforcement 9f.

Penny Mordaunt is the architecture for all this

'never mind, I've got a compass...' Hehe, so old school 😉

Beautiful and informative video!

Thank you!

Would this apply to MSM when they say “according to other sources “

It's worth charging people with offences relating to hate etc so that case law can be established. Precedence is everything. And people need to be aware that they can be held accountable.

To all the people commenting because they're concerned that this law might apply to them and suppress their "common-sense" views of the "truth". Perhaps you should consider that this law is evidence that society as a whole doesn't actually agree with your views. Perhaps, if you're worried that you might be convicted of being offensive and/or causing psychological harm, you should consider that you might actually be being offensive and/or be causing psychological harm. Perhaps, instead of asking "how can I tell if somebody, somewhere will find this offensive?", you should refrain from posting unless you're reasonably sure that what you're saying _won't_ be found offensive. If you can't tell whether something might be offensive, maybe try thinking about how you would feel to be on the receiving end. If your response in all situations would be "I don't care what anyone says to me", try thinking a bit harder. If you still think that you don't care what anyone else says to you, and you genuinely can't recall any occasion on which somebody has said something that has angered or upset you, don't conclude that anybody else thinks that way. And perhaps you should also bear in mind the "reasonable person" test. Sure, you might say something completely normal like "I ate toast for breakfast", and perhaps some poor person whose pet cat Toast was killed and eaten in front of them would suffer psychological harm from reading that in their Facebook feed. But could a reasonable person foresee that harm? No. So would you be convicted? No. Would you even be charged? No.

Thank you for your extremely interesting and useful videos. I look forward to seeing your new posts which thankfully are appearing almost daily. I’m also loving the beautiful scenery and your commentary associated with it. Please would you make a video explaining what is meant by the term ‘fair and average reasonable person’. There are numerous offences where in order to determine guilt, one is required to consider the view of a ‘fair and average reasonable person’. Whilst in the past, this may have been quite obvious, I believe this is now much more difficult to determine. With the population currently so divided, from far left to far right, and everything in between, I struggle to understand what the term really means. I work in a role where understanding this term is important. I have discussed this with some work colleagues and a LA, however the best they could come up with is that a Magistrates is a fair and average reasonable person. I don’t think this is necessarily fair whilst we are living in such a diverse society. I would be very grateful to hear your analysis of the term. Thank you in advance.

The future is bright the future is 💰💰💰💰💰💰 for many...

Regarding Intent, how come more drunk drivers who kill don't get charged with manslaughter? The average person would say that anyone getting behind the wheel whilst over the limit and then kills someone would say that, under the law, he/she "Intended" to kill someone.

Interesting. The walk too. I've come to the conclusion that British Law is less objective than Philosophy.

I wonder how the legal definition of intent would be interpreted as it applies to communications emanating from large language models.

People seem to confuse freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of speech.

The BBC is no longer fit for purpose, so needs to be privatized. An era has clearly ended. RIH BBC.👋 ITV has better shows anyway.🤦

I love watching these videos. I don't know much about mines but I presume the "engine sheds" were for hauling the man cages up and down the shafts. Could you do a video on contract law and the voluntary agreement aspect of acceptance or consent because there seems to be impositions placed on many people by local authories and utilities companies which seems to undermine "freedom to contract"?

Allan please take it easy

And what if the person believed they were telling the truth at the time of posting? People have been prosecuted for that.

people confuse accident for 'unintended result'. my favorite definition of accident: "ACCIDENT, n. An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable natural laws." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary...(also, 'down by law' and 'above the law' are two entirely different films; one an 'action film' and one an 'inaction film'.)

The basis for self-expression is impulse. Intent could only be tested and proven from related expressions, actions, etc. A one off comment has to be very specifically explicit to hold up on intent and a malicious impulse.

If you ever go to Devon for these videos I’d love it if you tried to cover Fast Castle. I went as a child and I think it would make a fabulous background to one of your videos (assuming it is still there on its outcrop and the sea hasn’t claimed it)

Very good, informative video. Hoping not to cause offence, but it did remind me of Paul Whitehouse as a Fast Show, “Helicopters, brilliant aren’t they”, type of sketch ! Regards AJ

But people can hate anything so how can anyone not be offensive?

Is repeating an actual or demonstrable truth encompassed by the act?

Difficult for the layman when sometimes the law says a word (eg "offensive") has its normal meaning and sometimes (eg "intent") it doesn't.

Many of the rogue statements on social media may have been made before all the public disorder. Therefore, could some of the verdicts have been influenced by hindsight wisdom?

If you use such a disclaimer, and subsequently post something that is untrue and/or causes hatred towards any group etc., would that be frowned upon by a trial judge, and lead to a worse outcome for the poster? i.e. would it backfire?

You need some lemon, ginger and honey tea with cinnamon it should perk you right up, use a fresh slice of lemon and ginger, put it in a teapot to straw for a few minutes before putting in a cup, add honey and sip slowly so not to scold yourself, it works for me.🐱🐈👍

It amazes me how whiny the British trolls are

If that disclaimer were to work, I would start selling bumper stickers that said "I did not intentially break the spead limit, go through a red light or drive whilst over the limit"...

I have a problem with the "definition" of offensive, as acceptable to a "reasonable person". Lots of people found my long hair and dress offensive in 1968. Including the police. Magistrates would have agreed with them I suspect. So would bewigged and gartered Judges I have little doubt. I do not take a social consensus as a benchmark. The Germans did that once. My dress and hair are less of an issue now. So has reason changed?

Presumably this is all in regard to english and welsh law, something very few ppl study. What i keep finding is that governments and its departments use human rights law to protect themselves and not the public for who it was designed.

I've added that all my videos are made for cinema for display to the public.

The issue of freedom of speech was dealt with by another English speaking jurisdiction 235 years ago. Shouldn't we be making a better effort to emulate the 1st amendment to the US Constitution rather than getting tied up in disputed definitions? Whose definition of "intent" is the right one, that understood by the people or the one imposed by the judiciary? Incidently we suffer a similar problem with the word "marriage" again to suit one minority, or "emergency" as in Climate Emergency to suit another minority. In this case the words "reasonably foreseeable" could have been used instead of intent if that is what the law means. Then the lay person would understand rather than have it explained by an expensive lawyer. In our increasingly fractured society created by the imposition of multiculturalism it is not difficult to inavertently cause offence to someone, somewhere or even cosmetically to a third party on behalf of the potentially offended. Even well founded biological facts a comment may offend someone with a different truth. We do now seem to enjoy Freedom of Truth! Is the intention to silence to majority for the benefit of the minority? Or will that be explained away as an unforseen consequence?

Also try this: since people rarely know the law, and since statute law rarely mirrors common ideas, no law may be enforced in its first 100 years, to allow it to become common.

I think a deep dive into Offensive vs Grossly Offensive is needed, the definition seems to have blurred significantly since DPP v Collins

"non trivial......harm"??? Does this suggest an element of subjectivity on the part of the alleged victim?

Please film in 60 FPS if possible, the video will look better with movement as you are walking.

What's the penalty for calling a Cornish Engine House, an engine shed?

How about the ambiguity of phrases such as 'likely' to 'stir up hatred' ... or being 'grossly offensive'? Surely, these expressions are so vague and subjective how can this be applied?

If someone says something that might be construed as hateful, yet is true, what happens then?

Surely RU-vid influencers can be prosecuted on the grounds of being reckless or negligent, if not wilfully inciteful.

6:54 I think it is best just to admit that the "laws" on hate speech, are intentionally bad. They are basically subjective to the point of being non sensical.