Ofcom’s Investigation: Our Full Response and Position on UK Jurisdiction

[Skallagrim]

"Looking at someone" — that law clearly describes intimidating sexual harassment, which, given reporting numbers, is obviously an issue.
The only example I could find of someone being jailed was of someone who continued staring after being asked to stop and also intentionally trapping the victim by blocking her exit. Source

The law describes looking at someone, then applies the act of staring at someone as sexual harassment. Even if that makes someone uncomfortable, or even feel threatened it shouldn't cross the threshold for depriving someone of their freedom. That it is even spoken about at all by law enforcement is a pretty serious attack on liberty.

People in the UK have the right to remain silent — but "something you later rely on in court" which means omitting info which could've helped their defense like an albi.

So, as I clarified in a later post - you can stay silent, but the authorities can infer guilt from that and use it against you. By that standard, a lot of places have a "right" of silence. China, for example, gives you the right to refuse to answer questions that are not relevant to the case. But when the prosecutor can say "I think it is relevant" and use that against you, it's not really a "right" that you enjoy, is it?

I'm not sure why the method of counting votes is evidence of corruption

It's not, and I didn't say it was. It is evidence of an archaic administration model that is constructed around tradition and performance, not what actually works. The method of upgrading Britain's archaic ways of gentlemen's agreements, precedents, and stuff someone said in year dot is part of the problem.

There was originally the Magna Carta, on which modern diplomacy was based — there are still around four parts of that document which are used today. However, not having a constitution doesn't automatically equal corruption — it's just a different way of doing things, which has both pros and cons. Apparently, other countries' constitutions were only written because they had revolts and revolutions, and the UK didn't have one of those.

The revolts and revolutions were largely against British colonial rule. It's one of those interesting little facts that is rarely spoken about in the UK but one of the most common public holidays in the world, celebrated by around 60 countries, on average once a week somewhere, is independence from Britain. Magna Carta (a treaty between monarchs and the ruling class) was never sufficient.

The monarchy is generally ceremonial now, and they are still restricted by UK law, etc.

As the former attorney general of the UK said, which I have subsequently linked, the monarchy still has power that can be deployed (and political figures were requesting that very thing). It's not some random person on a forum saying that, it's a KC (King's Council). And, as I said, this power (the Royal Prerogative) is still used by UK politicians because it's very hard to properly oversee or oppose it. It's not a statute, and no vote is taken upon such powers.

 

[6138]

The law describes looking at someone, then applies the act of staring at someone as sexual harassment. Even if that makes someone uncomfortable, or even feel threatened it shouldn't cross the threshold for depriving someone of their freedom. That it is even spoken about at all by law enforcement is a pretty serious attack on liberty.

I think there's two ways you can look at this. On the one hand, "staring" at someone is innocent, you can look wherever you want, it's a free country, right? But on the other hand, there are also people who could abuse this by deliberately staring at a specific person despite being asked repeatedly to stop. That means that after a certain point, an innocent action like staring could in fact become harassment.

The question is: When does that point occur?

We live in a society gone mad, censorship and "cancel culture", etc, has created a society that is fixated on exaggerating the slightest of perceived grievances into outright hate crimes. However I do think that, generally speaking, the UK is a relatively sensible country. You're not going to get locked up for just innocently making eye contact with someone, something else must have happened here for this person to be jailed. If simple innocent staring could get you locked up then everyone in the country would be locked up.

Having said that, I do think the UK (and other countries) are going in a very negative direction regarding free speech, etc, and the recent issues with ofcom prove that.

However, that's not specific to the UK, this is an example of our society, and what is happening to it. Speech is being restricted everywhere, in the online space, in real life, our society has become sensitised and sanitised to the point that it is almost dystopian in nature.

As the former attorney general of the UK said, which I have subsequently linked, the monarchy still has power that can be deployed (and political figures were requesting that very thing). It's not some random person on a forum saying that, it's a KC (King's Council). And, as I said, this power (the Royal Prerogative) is still used by UK politicians because it's very hard to properly oversee or oppose it. It's not a statute, and no vote is taken upon such powers.

There's a big difference between CAN be deployed, and WILL be deployed. It may be true that there are some laws "on the books" that allow the monarchy to have some power, but if the monarchy actually tried to pass laws and control peoples lives, replace the rule of law in the country, repeal civil rights advancements, etc, they would probably just be laughed at. They have no actual "power" in the conventional sense, just a respect for tradition and ceremony.