I suspect (as an ignorant) that the letter is leaning on: 1) the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (It's as close to 'Son of Sam law' that the UK has, I believe.) 2)

I suspect (as an ignorant) that the letter is leaning on: 1) the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (It's as close to 'Son of Sam law' that the UK has, I believe.) 2) Some combination of Malicious Communications Act 1988 / Communications Act 2003 / Protection from Harassment Act 1997 / maybe even Public Order Act or Data Protection Act. Relevant wording of note in the letter (not quoted fully in this article) is "monetise his content...including his videos relating to the... allegations" "Use the platform to undermine the welfare of... potentially illegal behaviour" So the above can be used to argue that this isn't just 'guilty until proven innocent'. Just my diplomatic input. Whatever 'justice' is in this case, I want it. But I do worry that this is overreach, and too broad. (I don't know enough about this case to have stronger feelings, and I refuse to have the knee-jerk reaction - either way - that the vast majority of people seem to be having). Letter: https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118/photo/1 https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118/p...