Grobnob's Confession.

“There we go, ‘Dave’s Channel got zapped by Matt,’ did it?
Are you sure it was Matt? It might have been me, ha ha, pretended to be Matt, to get Matt into trouble, ha ha.
People are always pissing me off, always, the whole world pisses me off. I’m always pissed off at the world, with the World by the world.”
What the admission implies
If genuine, this amounts to (i) deliberate impersonation; (ii) sending communications while falsely claiming to be “Matt Taylor”; and (iii) doing so with the purpose of getting Matt “into trouble” (i.e., causing platform or real-world consequences). In legal terms, that points squarely at dishonest false representations and messages sent with intent to cause annoyance, distress, or other harm. Legislation.gov.uk
Potential criminal offences (September 2021 position)
Communications Act 2003, s127(2)(a) — sending a message “known to be false” for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety. Using an account or message that pretends to be Matt, with the stated aim of getting him into trouble, fits the elements prosecutors look for. Maximum penalty (then) was up to six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine on summary conviction. Legislation.gov.uk+1itlaw.fandom.com
Malicious Communications Act 1988, s1 — sending an electronic communication that conveys information the sender knows is false, with intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient (or another). A fake “Matt” message calculated to spark pile-ons, reports, or sanctions can qualify even if the distress lands on Matt rather than the direct addressee. Legislation.gov.ukWikisource
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 — if the impersonation happens as part of a course of conduct (two or more incidents) that a reasonable person would think amounts to harassment, that can be charged. Online conduct counts; prosecutors look at patterns rather than one-offs. Crown Prosecution ServiceSentencing CouncilPure OAI
Fraud Act 2006, s2 (fraud by false representation) — dishonestly making a false representation (e.g., “I am Matt Taylor”) with intent to make a gain or cause a loss or risk of loss to another. If the aim was to trigger channel strikes, demonetisation, or other economic harm to Matt (loss of revenue/opportunity), that intent can satisfy the offence even if the impersonator didn’t profit personally. Legislation.gov.uk+1Crown Prosecution Service
Note: “Identity theft” itself isn’t a standalone UK offence; cases are charged under fraud/communications laws like the above. Research BriefingsAction Fraud
What changed in 2024 (useful context)
From 31 January 2024, the Online Safety Act 2023 introduced a new false communications offence: sending a message you know is false with intent to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (a summary offence). It replaces the old s127(2) route for false messages. The quoted motive (“to get Matt into trouble”) is the kind of harm-intent prosecutors consider. (For conduct in 2021, prosecutors would rely on the pre-OSA offences set out above.) Legislation.gov.ukCrown Prosecution ServiceGOV.UK
Civil wrongs that may also arise
Defamation (Defamation Act 2013 s1) — if statements falsely attributed to “Matt Taylor” and published to others caused (or were likely to cause) serious harm to his reputation, a civil claim can be brought. The “serious harm” threshold is the modern gatekeeper. Legislation.gov.uk+1
Passing off — where someone with goodwill in a name/brand is impersonated so the public is misled and damage results (e.g., loss of audience, opportunities). Although usually commercial, UK courts have used passing off to stop false endorsements and misrepresentations about public figures/businesses. GOV.UKThe Guardian
Intent and evidence
The mens rea in the quotation (“pretended to be Matt… to get Matt into trouble”) goes directly to purpose/intent (s127(2) and Malicious Comms) and to dishonesty/intent to cause loss (Fraud Act). Prosecutors would still need to prove authenticity, authorship, and context: the posts/messages sent, the audiences, any resulting platform actions, and any pattern showing a course of conduct. Preserve originals, URLs, timestamps, witness statements, and platform correspondence; such material is routinely used in CPS charging decisions for social-media offending. Crown Prosecution Service
Bottom line: If that 2021 admission is authentic and backed by evidence of messages sent while impersonating “Matt Taylor,” with the stated aim of getting him “into trouble,” it could have crossed the criminal line under Communications Act 2003 s127(2) and/or the Malicious Communications Act 1988, potentially escalated to harassment if repeated, and — where economic harm was intended — fraud by false representation. Today, the Online Safety Act 2023 adds an even tidier route for knowingly false, harm-intended communications, but the pre-2024 offences already covered the behaviour.