I'm not a lawyer, so I won't claim expertise. You presumably do know the matter better than I do.

All I can say is that (as a layperson) it appears to say something different. Definitions of terms does not (in normal English) mean they apply throughout. I see no "business use" exclusion.

I'm not saying it isn't the intention to exclude business use.

I'm just saying it's not explicit in that amendment.

It does not state that 1b(ii) is limited to "consumers" as defined there.

It states that it apply to services "provided to a significant number of persons"

This is an explicit blanket statement to cover any scenario where a child might use a VPN.

Per section 1b(ii) of that linked quote, it will apply to business use. Even if they don't employ children!

They're not listening.

Not long ago the tories wanted to "ban encryption". National security you see. Folk spoke up so they looked like the idiots they were and dropped it.

Labour are doing similar here. They also look like idiots. But they plough on. Because they're a different breed of idiot.

If they employ under 18s, there will be extra work to make that happen. And if a worker is expected to work remotely unsupervised, the incentive is to not employ kids.

But the blocker is more than that anyway. Take away their computers and you are de-skilling future workers.

VPNs are standard in the workplace, for remote workers or satellite offices.

Together with other attacks on kids using tech (social media, phone access...), this will limit employment opportunities for under 18s.

They will be voting before they can work. This will have an impact on how they vote.

9. We’ve become so used to all this that we hardly notice it. But isn’t it extraordinary? Almost everyone wants one thing, and almost everyone who represents us – whether in politics or the media – wants the opposite. Yet we tell ourselves we live in a democracy.

Japan and the UK the least likely to sign up for that. In fact, both morelikely to step in and counter it.

Perhaps Love Actually is best not viewed as a political drama?

What wazzock designed that?

I think the former is closer to the truth, but the latter is more a direct response to US officials saying Russia is the reason they want it.

"Sorry Mr Trump, you're a cunt and we don't trust you" is a brave thing to say, more so when you honestly mean it.

Just calmly explain that its a tough decision, but its in the national interest to subordinate ourselves to another nation. People will like that.