I went to all the way to magistrates court because cps had a view that I had breached a non molestation order. I was self representing through family court and as I was obliged to send my statement and mackenzie friend information to her personally, I emailed them to my ex. Ex had me arrested, on the day of the hearing. I went to court one day and the adjourned as they were confused as to what to do. 2nd hearing a few months later. The cps representative said " this is a case that makes me want to retire early" There was no grounds to charge me with "breaching the non mol" as I was doing what was expected of me. So going all the way to magistrates court via cps doesn't always mean you're screwed. I just had a vindictive ex.
Way back in 2000, CPS had a different approach. I was rearrested for allegedly breaching a restraining order after a former friend decided to lie to the News of the World. She'd already lied to police previously but I was suffering severe depression and in a suicidal state, so was in no fit state to be tried and yet the original trial at the magistrates court continued under the presumption that there was nothing wrong with me. As a result, I pleaded guilty under duress and given an unnecessary restraining order that I knew would put me at risk from her as I'd noticed her malicious behaviour towards others who she'd turned on previously. In a distressed state, I sent her mother an angry mobile phone message. The CPS and the police decided to dive in with both feet. I spent a week on remand because of this evil little bitch. The kicker was that the depression was caused by six months of sexual harassment and sexual assault by her and her mother, who's requests for sex I'd turned down (with two incidents in front of another witness who refused to come forward). It was her mother who would actually make the complaint against me months later. The Police and CPS saw nothing wrong with her behaviour. In her second statement, however, she made up a story about waking up one morning to find a message from me on HER phone. She had no phone at the time. Months later, I found another interview she had given to a women's magazine where she slips up and stated that I'd sent it to her mother's phone. That interview also included other fabrications, including one where she claimed I'd turned up unannounced one day to a hotel her mother was staying at and that when she opened the door, I just smiled and walked off. Pure, twisted, evil. And yet, despite since becoming familiar with the law, after getting my own law degree as a result, I've had barrier upon barrier put up in front of me. The fact that this little bitch is now a solicitor does burn me up. The case included breaches of PACE and of Articles 3, 6 and 10 ECHR. Possibly even 2 and 8. And throughout all this, the Police, CPS and even the CCRC have sided with her. There has been ZERO concern over her behaviour and the impact it had on justice and my mental health. I have spent the last 23 years recovering from PTSD. I diagnosed her with Histrionic Personality Disorder years ago and something one of Dan's Depp v Heard guests said made me reconsider the possibility that she also had Borderline Personality Disorder. But if you ever try to correct some of the myths believed by those within the legal system regarding the behaviour of too many women, you're likely to be targeted and described as a misogynist or a liar yourself. Great fucking country, huh?
@@daviddavies3637 . Over many years, there has been much success getting domestic abuse considered a gendered crime, with men always being the perpetrators. Often, even when they have been shown to be an abuser, a woman is still treated as a victim.
I'm pretty sure by "CPS" he was referring to the Crown Prosecution Service, not Child Protective Services. Basically he means that simple ignorance of the law (an honest mistake) can probably get you out of being charged with a crime if the officers are understanding, but if you're already being charged and prosecuted it's not going to be a strong defense in the courtroom.
8 - I used to work for a company that had a specific social media clause in the contract of employment. It covered two aspects, the first was to do with negative comments about the organisation and work colleagues. The other was messages which were deemed offensive. They also used to check because I was told to remove something from my LinkedIn profile pertaining to my security clearance.
However, if you don't have your boss or colleagues as 'friends' on your social media account, and the posts/profile are not 'public', it would be difficult for them to know, and you would have a case, if they used someone or a tool to get to that information, to prosecute them for privacy breach, or even breach of your right under the Human Rights Act to privacy and a family life. Who can say they haven't moaned to a friend or family member about something at work at some time after a hard day? If your boss went out of his way to find that moan, then that is a clear case, I would say. If you share a work confidence on a public post, though, that is quite different.
My granddad thought he changed his name in 1950, after he left the army, but it turned out the paperwork was never filed properly so he had been using his "new" name for 42 years (getting married, having children all using the new surname). Then at 65 he went to claim his pension and discovered his name was never changed, it was an absolute nightmare to fix.
I find it interesting because most of these myths seem to be 'permission givers' for people to justify their actions or views. They simply want them to be true!
Hi Daniel, I knew about the moving on for sleeping rough as I've worked for Homeless charties and all but one of the legal myths. I didn't know you could use a pseudonym in certain circumstances. Thanks for this.
Actors do it all the time. Some caseworkers do it to protect themselves or others in certain situations. Legally, there are few cases when you need to let the police know your name, and, if you are known by another name (professionally, for example), to give that name is not an offence as long as you can justify it if called upon to do so. For example, as a busker, my name is Ukelele Eric. Some police seem to think they have a right to move on buskers - broadly speaking, they don't. So if they ask my name, I'll say - it's there on my sign. In this case, it probably wouldn't take them long to find out my actual name, if they can be bothered, but even if I was called Giraffeman, the principle is the same.
It was a successful defence used by Ken Dodd. The defence's argument in the case of Ken Dodd was he was a comedian not a professional accountant and could not be expected to be an expert on accounting law. He was acquitted.
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 Come on .... Dodd was acquitted because *the Jury liked Dodd a HELL of a lot more than they liked HMRC* They knew he'd screwed his tax up They just did't want to convict him. As the Dodd himself said, 'It turns out my shows's educational too - I was in the foyer last week and I heard a conversation between two little old ladies as they came out and one said to her friend 'Well - THAT'S taught me a lesson''.
@@Farweasel My point was his lawyer put it as a mitigation/defence that he was not an accountant and that mitigation/defence was allowed in court. The judge to my knowledge did not strike those arguments off and tell the jury to ignore them, so it was a defence that was allowed, that he could not possibly be expected to know because it is something people study for for years and have to have qualifications in etc.
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 I'm surprised. *But* that's a pretty solid basis for your original observation then. I *still* suspect he had a sympathetic jury mind 🙄
In regard to point 8, what counts as egregious enough content often comes down to what they put in their social media policy. If they don't have a policy, then if it goes to a tribunal it will be up to the tribunal itself to decide whether what you did was bad enough to be terminated. If the social media policy says not to do something, even outside of work hours; well you signed the thing so you have to comply, unless it's really manifestly unreasonable (which again, you'd have to prove at an employment tribunal). This is why all businesses should have a formal social media policy, to cover their own arses.
That’s not quite true as many companies don’t have a policy regarding social media, such as small companies. If you disclosed something private or derogatory or plain untruths about your employer you can be disciplined and fired. A guy in the company where I worked was fired many years ago for bringing them into disrepute outside of working hours. He didn’t even get it to a tribunal because the judge said he had no case!
@@happyguy5414 so the judge has essentially looked at the case and decided that the actions were so egregious that they didn't need a hearing. That doesn't disgree with anything I said. I'm saying having a policy gives the company more power over the borderline cases
I think that people get confused between UK & US law. We get it in the NHS too! I heard a staff member saying a patient had coded! 🤣 I couldn't help but laugh! I said they "crashed? Had a cardiac arrest?
This is a very common myth and can be very damaging. I would encourage anyone who has children and is living with the children's other parent to research and review their legal situation. There is no need to get married, but you need to understand the legal implications of not being married in certain situations, such as the death of your partner.
A Police friend explained that there's a loophole in Pace about interviews, they only have to explain at a Police station about providing a Solicitors but at your home pace does not stipulate they need to advise you, it only mentions advising at a Police station. Seem unlikely to me.
I find this one hard to stomach these poor people have no were to live, I've had no heating on this year and it's been very cold so those who have no were to live goodness knows have they have survived the winter so far at least I've had my electric blanket to try and keep warm I cannot imagine been alone on the streets scared with no one to care about you, and then the cops come along and move you so you can't even be seen it's all very sad.
Fun fact, A friend once came to see me and got mugged on the way, When we met up we went to report the mugging at the police station where the officer asked my friend "Why didn't you hit him with your skateboard?"... Surely that would have been 'assault with weapon'... Gotta love UK police...
If legal terms are in "legalise" how is a "average person" supposed to understand the law when they use grammatical statements against you, how can they expect you to understand it when they require years of study to actually be able to even offer a opening in court.
Another one on Employment Law - I don't know if the law has changed over the past 12 years or so, but having entanglements with the police/courts can (or most definitely could back then) lead to you being fired for Gross Misconduct Outside the Workplace.
The prospect of giving a different name via a pseudonym or anonymity is potentially going to become a problem when the Online Safety Bill becomes law and everyone will be required to give their actual details to online firms. Also, you would be amazed at how much control your employer could hold over your private life. Ask footballers who are given some strict rules to adhere to prior to matches. Employers don't tend to enact such control because it can generate bad press and publicity for the company or organisation.
Not knowing or being mistaken about the law is the origin of the expression "ignorance is no excuse" - which in itself is the expression of the legal presidant I believe. And as for not being charged if you are provoked, an investigating officer or the CPS could use this as evidence of a motive.
Disclaimer,any names of any likeness of person or person's living or dead is purely coincidental. Wait a long time ago I read a case about just that a lawyer was pulled over and she was drinking and refused a breath test and it escalated before body cam's it was thrown out because she said she was drinking and was charged for DUI after all. This was in the late '80's early 90's I was in the dentist office when I read about it.
I am unclear on a point. If someone behaves or speaks "In a manner liable to cause a Breach of the Peace", is that a defence if I make such a breach? Is this now the other person's liability, as the circumstance is of their engineering?
Except: applying the law is entirely at the discretion of the police, the CPS and the courts. Justice is only for the rich, even when the law is clearly written.
A video on police failing to act or investigate say pulling the mental health card on the victim would be very helpful. As always great content. If only an app to record evidence was available 📲
Re rough sleeping. Is the vagrancy act still relevant which does make sleeping under the stars illegal. Wales police used it a lot. Used to be a support worker
I worked someone who was a drug addict, I'm a street cleaner. Anyway this drug addict broke into a butchers after work but in the area he worked in. He got probation can't remember how long for in the magistrates court. However the case got reported in the local paper where the employer read about it and sacked the drug addict. The employee appealed and won getting his job back on the grounds that. He should not have been sacked based on what the employer had read in the paper. This was in the 1980's
In regards to employment law I think the best advice for anyone is to be a member of a union who should be able to advise as they employ good barristers like you old chap.
Agreed. Employment Tribunals used to be a great way of resolving employment issues but now you are often confronted by at least a solicitor or even worse a barrister. Ordinary people, however skilful, cannot hope to compete with professionals at that level.
@@petelattimer6808 This is true but if a company breaks the law they have to recognise a barrister employed by a union . Do not believe the propaganda my friend. Union member all my working life and I have had a dispute with a non union firm and won with the assistance of my union.
@@petelattimer6808 Companies who refuse to recognise unions, tough shit to them. Companies who dont allow staff to be a member of a union,,, tough shit to them as well. Everyone, no matter who they work for are entitled to join any union they want.
In an earlier video you stated that you can use your chosen name and that you could change your name without using deed poll and there is no requirement to part with any moneyinn order to change it.
You can use any name in everyday use, it is only for legal uses you have to use your legal name, or it can be considered fraud If everyone calls you Fergy, so much so that most people don't know you are actually Fergus, then there is no issue unless you sign a contract under the name Fergy, rather than Fergus
@@davidioanhedges if I used a deed poll service, that would be my new legal name. So there is no difference if I use my chosen name as long as those I have dealings with accept it!
@@fergusdangerfield156 Changing your name by deed poll means it is your new legal name - the only place it does not change is on your birth certificate
So, all these people using their “married” surname need to use their birth surname for contracts/legal documents are in error? BBB perhaps you could clarify this.
Hi BBB you mentioned about used of correct name I have a genuine question, my social housing landlord has a worker who works in tenancy management role (conducts property inspections and evictions) meaning they must show id when asked and the worker im dealing with uses a false name on ALL letters and they claim that they can use any name they want and REFUSE to give me correct name . Is that legal as this person is entering my home ?
Actually now I think about it I very rarely have a handy copy of former employment contracts, I usually have my current one and any amendments such as pay or promotions with tax files, but it could be handy to have a spot to file any employment contracts incase there is something come up that may bight me in the butt later on.
Regarding self defence, would that still apply if the person you were defending yourself against were a security guard or police officer? For (not hypothetical) example you are leaving a shop when someone one grabs your arm and pulls you towards them. You, in the moment believing that are being attacked, push them with your free arm and twist out of their grip causing them to fall over and hit their head. A member of shop staff says they are store security. They had not identified themselves as a security guard and are not wearing a uniform, they only thing to identify them as such is a badge on a lanyard which at the time they laid hands on you was inside their jacket. I witnessed this situation at a 24 hour supermarket in Birmingham about 10 years ago. As I recall the police were called and the person arrested despite many of those around who saw what happened saying their action were justified. If you are going to grab someone without first identifying yourself as a security guard late at night outside a supermarket in that area then you can expect them to fight back.
Just because someone is arrested does not mean they were convicted. And if a security guard in a store grabbed me, I would defend myself. They can only carry out a citizens arrest to detain you if they can show reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed. BBS has done a video on this. Security guards cannot touch you, or search your bags without your permission, except for the citizens arrest. In your example, it sounds like reasonable self defence.
A jury can acquit for any reason whatsoever and you will never know, that isn't to say its not contempt of court but you would be unlkely to prove it as they told their story to the press
Do a video about why solicitors don’t shut case files down, even tho they tell the client they’re no longer working on it. Which prevents the clients from the justice they are due
where would i stand on the name issue i have a name that does not stay on UK computer systems especially bank systems so whenever i open a new account or offered something on credit, the company will change my name on their documentation so that it stores on their systems, i notify them that this is not my correct name but they still keep it the same
The SUPPORT ME links (above) appear to both point to the ongoing subscription. Can you correct this for one-off payments? Seems to be the same on all videos I've checked.
It's an assault and you are likely to get arrested if the kids make a complaint. The fact they were smoking weed will not wash as a provocation You could have called the police, but I like the idea of playing Vera Lynn at full volume, which is an assult of a different kind!
@@mda5003 you started it. If your not going to like a reply to your response. Sod off. I say again. This is the second time you've Harrased me. Be carful what you wish apon others may happen to you. Burner boi.
Looking at the judge,,, " Your honour, he threatened to strangle my wife. Barrister,,, So, can I ask,, was that the moment you decided to cut his hands off and indeed, did cut them off? 😅😂😅
There's a difference between rules of the justice system and rules constraining the government. The rules of court about self incrimination are the same, but in theory Parliament could take them away, it just chooses not to, while Congress couldn't choose to.
You can do what is reasonable to protect your property from damage. What is "reasonable" would ultimately be determined by a jury if it ever went to court (and in the short term, by the police and CPS if they decided it was worth pursuing you for). Jumping the person from behind and raining blows on them - probably not allowed. Shouting a warning and/or physically shoving them away - OK. Hitting them probably OK if the first two options didn't work, or they escalated. Myself, I wouldn't vote to convict you for striking someone who vandalised your car, but I'm not everyone.
Love your videos - be interested if you did a video on the telecoms price rises that are being implemented 14.4% (CPNI plus 3.9%) feels like a UCTA applies eg lack of alternative options and no one would have imagined CPNI would be 10% plus at point of signing. be keen to get your thoughts on how people can respond. I've email BT CEO and Ofcom CEO
So... Using a false name online to protect your identity is a crime? Someone stealing your identity is a crime too.. I heard that evidence is gold and if you can provide it if acting in self defence you have a reasonable defence that you were using self defence?
This channel is really interesting. How the other half live... the criminal class do have some really ridiculous ideas about the law! The myths, especially the ones on some of your other videos about "council tax isn't' legal" and "Acts aren't laws" just make me laugh!
*DAN THERE IS A PROBLEM* At least two messages have appeared in comments below with your picture and a message to call Watsapp It seems FAR more likely to be a scam than something you would do It might help folk here if you would clarrify &/or warn. Incidently, *UA-cam have no catagory under the Report Problems three vertical dot FLAGGING system to state I think its a SCAM*
There's one 'in reply to Mad Mick' and another to 'Frank Words' *As they are time marked an hour or more BEFORE before your comment it looks like UA-cam don't care a* 💩
With regards to the right to silence in a court, what if the answer to the question is self incriminating? I presume that the “silence” itself becomes incriminating. Which is the difference between England/Wales and the United States (5th amendment), I presume.
@WalterSobchak . Of course there can be. If not, the police could simply ask if you did the crime and would have to answer truthfully. There is a situation when being arrested the person is informed that not giving information that they later rely on in court, could go against them. That is because it might be considered less reliable by the court because it was not stated at the time of arrest.
@WalterSobchak there has to be a presumption of innocence (U.K./USA) or of guilt (Napoleonic). Also, this has been the mainstay of British justice since the 18th century, when the phrase innocent until proven guilty was coined by William Garrow in 1791, however the concept was established in Roman law.
As BSB Have advised in Writing a Barrister can lei and Deceive a court or and Judge for a police constable criminl actions of publice abuose of powers with no Consequences. Not evan having a Prosecution to work with. So the legal System is not a lawful act or lawful Institute, we are a Lawless society. Black belt barrister im Afraid you have Publicly lied to the public,
Achmmm. "This content contains paid advertising", I believe still applies if you are advertising your own service ;) Maybe putting the logo up is enough?
Technically your identifying with a false name as your legal name is a legal fiction, coprorate identity. (even if it is spely exactly as your given name). But whether knowingly or tacitly we all agree to it which makes if "legal" but absolutly unlawful.
@@grahvis Whats the word for someone who knows nothing stating an actual truth? Becasue your right, sovereign citizen nonsense. is just that.. look up oxymoron. that may give you some idea of your statement.
@waltersobchak1719 more projection, I stated facts even wiki will concur with the legal corporate identity. but if you dont need to know such things then your going to make projected hear say replies. good luck with that. rather you than me. Blacks law dictionary, look up definition of Person. why is the concept of actual reading so difficult for people like you.
If you are fired for saying something that brings your company into the limelight then you are acting as an ambassador for this company so they should pay 24-hours a day?
It speaks volumes that you rarely/never give your actual opinions on things, the fact that if we defend our or our families lives from violence using violence can get us locked up must really frustrate you? Because if it doesn’t, it should. We’re one step away from anarchy with laws like that
Hmm Ok if your employer draws any of those conclusions then you are better off not working for idiots that draw such conclusions and link personal opinions to the company. It's the sort of thing the media likes to do in asking the company "So you support the opinions stated by your employee?" Only a delusional fool can support or draw that conclusion. Making "employment rules" to cover the "thinking or right to have any independent thought whilst working for a company is pathetic, and should be against the law!"
Ignorance of the law is no defence that apply to law enforcement as well?. wrong name on a contract invalidates the contract so you couldn't claim as well as being fraudulent. Rough sleeping I have a problem with in regard that it leads you to the Vagrancy act 1824 rouges and vagabonds is this part of the legislation your referring to? Dan I do enjoy and appreciate your channel however I would like to know which part of legislation you refer to ie powers for a constable in uniform to stop a vehicle on the road whilst that one is easy to look up (163 road traffic act) rough sleeping is much harder (it could be me) would you be a bit more specific on which part of the legislation on which you refer to please as it would help many thanks
Councils get round all the rough sleeping issues by just implementing PSPOs. A disgusting mechanism for imposing controls on the population which give no Right of Appeal or ability to test the legality if for 3 years.
Is it just me, or are these myths rather disappointing? They are somewhat interesting, and I can see where they come from, but I feel we can do better. For example, All judgments only count when the judge hits the gavel. Therefore, if you can clear the distance to the bench and knock the gavel put of their hands, no judgments can be rendered against you and you must go free. Hence the term "Dropping the hammer".
I went to all the way to magistrates court because cps had a view that I had breached a non molestation order. I was self representing through family court and as I was obliged to send my statement and mackenzie friend information to her personally, I emailed them to my ex. Ex had me arrested, on the day of the hearing. I went to court one day and the adjourned as they were confused as to what to do. 2nd hearing a few months later. The cps representative said " this is a case that makes me want to retire early"
There was no grounds to charge me with "breaching the non mol" as I was doing what was expected of me.
So going all the way to magistrates court via cps doesn't always mean you're screwed.
I just had a vindictive ex.
There are a few of them out there.
Way back in 2000, CPS had a different approach. I was rearrested for allegedly breaching a restraining order after a former friend decided to lie to the News of the World. She'd already lied to police previously but I was suffering severe depression and in a suicidal state, so was in no fit state to be tried and yet the original trial at the magistrates court continued under the presumption that there was nothing wrong with me. As a result, I pleaded guilty under duress and given an unnecessary restraining order that I knew would put me at risk from her as I'd noticed her malicious behaviour towards others who she'd turned on previously. In a distressed state, I sent her mother an angry mobile phone message. The CPS and the police decided to dive in with both feet. I spent a week on remand because of this evil little bitch. The kicker was that the depression was caused by six months of sexual harassment and sexual assault by her and her mother, who's requests for sex I'd turned down (with two incidents in front of another witness who refused to come forward). It was her mother who would actually make the complaint against me months later. The Police and CPS saw nothing wrong with her behaviour.
In her second statement, however, she made up a story about waking up one morning to find a message from me on HER phone. She had no phone at the time. Months later, I found another interview she had given to a women's magazine where she slips up and stated that I'd sent it to her mother's phone. That interview also included other fabrications, including one where she claimed I'd turned up unannounced one day to a hotel her mother was staying at and that when she opened the door, I just smiled and walked off. Pure, twisted, evil. And yet, despite since becoming familiar with the law, after getting my own law degree as a result, I've had barrier upon barrier put up in front of me. The fact that this little bitch is now a solicitor does burn me up. The case included breaches of PACE and of Articles 3, 6 and 10 ECHR. Possibly even 2 and 8.
And throughout all this, the Police, CPS and even the CCRC have sided with her. There has been ZERO concern over her behaviour and the impact it had on justice and my mental health. I have spent the last 23 years recovering from PTSD. I diagnosed her with Histrionic Personality Disorder years ago and something one of Dan's Depp v Heard guests said made me reconsider the possibility that she also had Borderline Personality Disorder.
But if you ever try to correct some of the myths believed by those within the legal system regarding the behaviour of too many women, you're likely to be targeted and described as a misogynist or a liar yourself. Great fucking country, huh?
@@daviddavies3637 .
Over many years, there has been much success getting domestic abuse considered a gendered crime, with men always being the perpetrators. Often, even when they have been shown to be an abuser, a woman is still treated as a victim.
I'm pretty sure by "CPS" he was referring to the Crown Prosecution Service, not Child Protective Services.
Basically he means that simple ignorance of the law (an honest mistake) can probably get you out of being charged with a crime if the officers are understanding, but if you're already being charged and prosecuted it's not going to be a strong defense in the courtroom.
Whilst you are clearly entitled to a fair trial irrespective, if I was subject of a non-molestation order I would be ashamed to even admit it.
Lying is wrong unless you're a police officer
If you're a police officer, lying gets you promoted
You obviously know the law very well🤪
Exactly.
@@howardosborne8647 thankyou 👍😊
Or a politician.
8 - I used to work for a company that had a specific social media clause in the contract of employment. It covered two aspects, the first was to do with negative comments about the organisation and work colleagues. The other was messages which were deemed offensive. They also used to check because I was told to remove something from my LinkedIn profile pertaining to my security clearance.
However, if you don't have your boss or colleagues as 'friends' on your social media account, and the posts/profile are not 'public', it would be difficult for them to know, and you would have a case, if they used someone or a tool to get to that information, to prosecute them for privacy breach, or even breach of your right under the Human Rights Act to privacy and a family life. Who can say they haven't moaned to a friend or family member about something at work at some time after a hard day? If your boss went out of his way to find that moan, then that is a clear case, I would say. If you share a work confidence on a public post, though, that is quite different.
My granddad thought he changed his name in 1950, after he left the army, but it turned out the paperwork was never filed properly so he had been using his "new" name for 42 years (getting married, having children all using the new surname). Then at 65 he went to claim his pension and discovered his name was never changed, it was an absolute nightmare to fix.
I find it interesting because most of these myths seem to be 'permission givers' for people to justify their actions or views. They simply want them to be true!
@dmdirectement can't do WhatsApp but would love to meet in person..
@@madmick9205 It's a scam mate.
@@fiokronsgames2082 I know, but one day I might get lucky and get to meet one of them. That will be hilarious:)
@@madmick9205 Ah :D...
Hi Daniel, I knew about the moving on for sleeping rough as I've worked for Homeless charties and all but one of the legal myths. I didn't know you could use a pseudonym in certain circumstances. Thanks for this.
You can use a pseudonym in ALL circumstances as long as you are acting in accordance with the law.
@@HellllÏôn Thank you.
Actors do it all the time. Some caseworkers do it to protect themselves or others in certain situations. Legally, there are few cases when you need to let the police know your name, and, if you are known by another name (professionally, for example), to give that name is not an offence as long as you can justify it if called upon to do so. For example, as a busker, my name is Ukelele Eric. Some police seem to think they have a right to move on buskers - broadly speaking, they don't. So if they ask my name, I'll say - it's there on my sign. In this case, it probably wouldn't take them long to find out my actual name, if they can be bothered, but even if I was called Giraffeman, the principle is the same.
I was always told 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse'
Seems that's actually the case
It was a successful defence used by Ken Dodd. The defence's argument in the case of Ken Dodd was he was a comedian not a professional accountant and could not be expected to be an expert on accounting law. He was acquitted.
In many cases, I think it should be an excuse because we cannot be expected to know all legislation.
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 Come on .... Dodd was acquitted because *the Jury liked Dodd a HELL of a lot more than they liked HMRC*
They knew he'd screwed his tax up
They just did't want to convict him.
As the Dodd himself said, 'It turns out my shows's educational too - I was in the foyer last week and I heard a conversation between two little old ladies as they came out and one said to her friend 'Well - THAT'S taught me a lesson''.
@@Farweasel My point was his lawyer put it as a mitigation/defence that he was not an accountant and that mitigation/defence was allowed in court. The judge to my knowledge did not strike those arguments off and tell the jury to ignore them, so it was a defence that was allowed, that he could not possibly be expected to know because it is something people study for for years and have to have qualifications in etc.
@@cliffhulcoopofficial8075 I'm surprised.
*But* that's a pretty solid basis for your original observation then.
I *still* suspect he had a sympathetic jury mind 🙄
In regard to point 8, what counts as egregious enough content often comes down to what they put in their social media policy. If they don't have a policy, then if it goes to a tribunal it will be up to the tribunal itself to decide whether what you did was bad enough to be terminated. If the social media policy says not to do something, even outside of work hours; well you signed the thing so you have to comply, unless it's really manifestly unreasonable (which again, you'd have to prove at an employment tribunal).
This is why all businesses should have a formal social media policy, to cover their own arses.
That’s not quite true as many companies don’t have a policy regarding social media, such as small companies. If you disclosed something private or derogatory or plain untruths about your employer you can be disciplined and fired.
A guy in the company where I worked was fired many years ago for bringing them into disrepute outside of working hours. He didn’t even get it to a tribunal because the judge said he had no case!
@@happyguy5414 so the judge has essentially looked at the case and decided that the actions were so egregious that they didn't need a hearing. That doesn't disgree with anything I said. I'm saying having a policy gives the company more power over the borderline cases
I think that people get confused between UK & US law. We get it in the NHS too! I heard a staff member saying a patient had coded! 🤣 I couldn't help but laugh! I said they "crashed? Had a cardiac arrest?
Ya 100%. Unfortunately in the UK, our rights are slightly less. The law protects itself not the people
I’m in HR and social media is a nightmare
Ignore it then.
What did HR do before the interweb..?
Daniel: don't forget Common law marriage!
This is a very common myth and can be very damaging. I would encourage anyone who has children and is living with the children's other parent to research and review their legal situation. There is no need to get married, but you need to understand the legal implications of not being married in certain situations, such as the death of your partner.
I didn't quite get the name of the app again 😀
A Police friend explained that there's a loophole in Pace about interviews, they only have to explain at a Police station about providing a Solicitors but at your home pace does not stipulate they need to advise you, it only mentions advising at a Police station. Seem unlikely to me.
That was the case but this has now been amended!
YET the police can say sorry we will learn from our mistakes, However that Rarely happens with the public
Don't forget to Proofify... Just to wind up a certain person
I find this one hard to stomach these poor people have no were to live, I've had no heating on this year and it's been very cold so those who have no were to live goodness knows have they have survived the winter so far at least I've had my electric blanket to try and keep warm I cannot imagine been alone on the streets scared with no one to care about you, and then the cops come along and move you so you can't even be seen it's all very sad.
Could you do a video on the legality of fining people for entering 15 minute citys
Fun fact, A friend once came to see me and got mugged on the way, When we met up we went to report the mugging at the police station where the officer asked my friend "Why didn't you hit him with your skateboard?"... Surely that would have been 'assault with weapon'... Gotta love UK police...
If legal terms are in "legalise" how is a "average person" supposed to understand the law when they use grammatical statements against you, how can they expect you to understand it when they require years of study to actually be able to even offer a opening in court.
Just keep telling the cop who's questioning you, "I don't understand "
Another one on Employment Law - I don't know if the law has changed over the past 12 years or so, but having entanglements with the police/courts can (or most definitely could back then) lead to you being fired for Gross Misconduct Outside the Workplace.
the sad and worrying thing now is that a good number of those meant to uphold the law, to set an example, are criminal themselves..!
Can I still seek sanctuary in a church ?
No, the last vestiges of sanctuary rights were abolished during the reign of George II.
The prospect of giving a different name via a pseudonym or anonymity is potentially going to become a problem when the Online Safety Bill becomes law and everyone will be required to give their actual details to online firms. Also, you would be amazed at how much control your employer could hold over your private life. Ask footballers who are given some strict rules to adhere to prior to matches. Employers don't tend to enact such control because it can generate bad press and publicity for the company or organisation.
Not knowing or being mistaken about the law is the origin of the expression "ignorance is no excuse" - which in itself is the expression of the legal presidant I believe. And as for not being charged if you are provoked, an investigating officer or the CPS could use this as evidence of a motive.
Just being polite will help many people getting out trouble with the police when it comes to laws you didn't know existed
Disclaimer,any names of any likeness of person or person's living or dead is purely coincidental. Wait a long time ago I read a case about just that a lawyer was pulled over and she was drinking and refused a breath test and it escalated before body cam's it was thrown out because she said she was drinking and was charged for DUI after all. This was in the late '80's early 90's I was in the dentist office when I read about it.
I am unclear on a point. If someone behaves or speaks "In a manner liable to cause a Breach of the Peace", is that a defence if I make such a breach? Is this now the other person's liability, as the circumstance is of their engineering?
Except: applying the law is entirely at the discretion of the police, the CPS and the courts. Justice is only for the rich, even when the law is clearly written.
A video on police failing to act or investigate say pulling the mental health card on the victim would be very helpful.
As always great content. If only an app to record evidence was available 📲
Re rough sleeping.
Is the vagrancy act still relevant which does make sleeping under the stars illegal. Wales police used it a lot.
Used to be a support worker
Does the correct declaration of one's name stand in any way when considering MARLENE HEADLEY?
I worked someone who was a drug addict, I'm a street cleaner.
Anyway this drug addict broke into a butchers after work but in the area he worked in.
He got probation can't remember how long for in the magistrates court.
However the case got reported in the local paper where the employer read about it and sacked the drug addict.
The employee appealed and won getting his job back on the grounds that.
He should not have been sacked based on what the employer had read in the paper.
This was in the 1980's
I think repeatedly adjusting focal distance of cameras during production of UA-cam videos should be a crime!
Just wondering, but is the Vagrancy Act 1824 still a valid act or has it been repealed or replaced.
Per Wiki, mostly still in force and enforcable.
In regards to employment law I think the best advice for anyone is to be a member of a union who should be able to advise as they employ good barristers like you old chap.
Agreed. Employment Tribunals used to be a great way of resolving employment issues but now you are often confronted by at least a solicitor or even worse a barrister. Ordinary people, however skilful, cannot hope to compete with professionals at that level.
unfortunately not all companies have or recognise unions.
@@petelattimer6808 This is true but if a company breaks the law they have to recognise a barrister employed by a union . Do not believe the propaganda my friend. Union member all my working life and I have had a dispute with a non union firm and won with the assistance of my union.
@@petelattimer6808 Companies who refuse to recognise unions, tough shit to them. Companies who dont allow staff to be a member of a union,,, tough shit to them as well. Everyone, no matter who they work for are entitled to join any union they want.
I’ve seen two people fired for posting derogatory statements on FB, bringing the company into disrepute. Even though what they said was true.
In an earlier video you stated that you can use your chosen name and that you could change your name without using deed poll and there is no requirement to part with any moneyinn order to change it.
You can use any name in everyday use, it is only for legal uses you have to use your legal name, or it can be considered fraud
If everyone calls you Fergy, so much so that most people don't know you are actually Fergus, then there is no issue unless you sign a contract under the name Fergy, rather than Fergus
@@davidioanhedges if I used a deed poll service, that would be my new legal name. So there is no difference if I use my chosen name as long as those I have dealings with accept it!
@@fergusdangerfield156 Changing your name by deed poll means it is your new legal name - the only place it does not change is on your birth certificate
So, all these people using their “married” surname need to use their birth surname for contracts/legal documents are in error? BBB perhaps you could clarify this.
@@davidioanhedges legal is the government's term. Its quite lawful to use your chosen name if you identify with it!
Thank you for the great content. 😊
#8 Tell that to Lineker.
proofify lol knew that was going to be mentioned LOL 😆🤣
most companies dont sak/fire you anymore anyways they sicken you and hide behind there polices of sending home or suspension without pay now.
Hi BBB you mentioned about used of correct name I have a genuine question, my social housing landlord has a worker who works in tenancy management role (conducts property inspections and evictions) meaning they must show id when asked and the worker im dealing with uses a false name on ALL letters and they claim that they can use any name they want and REFUSE to give me correct name . Is that legal as this person is entering my home ?
@dmdirectement ?? I don't understand???
@@keepinformed It's a con artist spammer impersonating BBB
@@davidioanhedges I was thinking that with their thumb nail
Overtaking on the left or moving to a lane on your left to overtake is illegal is a myth.
Actually now I think about it I very rarely have a handy copy of former employment contracts, I usually have my current one and any amendments such as pay or promotions with tax files, but it could be handy to have a spot to file any employment contracts incase there is something come up that may bight me in the butt later on.
Regarding self defence, would that still apply if the person you were defending yourself against were a security guard or police officer?
For (not hypothetical) example you are leaving a shop when someone one grabs your arm and pulls you towards them. You, in the moment believing that are being attacked, push them with your free arm and twist out of their grip causing them to fall over and hit their head. A member of shop staff says they are store security. They had not identified themselves as a security guard and are not wearing a uniform, they only thing to identify them as such is a badge on a lanyard which at the time they laid hands on you was inside their jacket.
I witnessed this situation at a 24 hour supermarket in Birmingham about 10 years ago. As I recall the police were called and the person arrested despite many of those around who saw what happened saying their action were justified. If you are going to grab someone without first identifying yourself as a security guard late at night outside a supermarket in that area then you can expect them to fight back.
Just because someone is arrested does not mean they were convicted.
And if a security guard in a store grabbed me, I would defend myself. They can only carry out a citizens arrest to detain you if they can show reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed. BBS has done a video on this. Security guards cannot touch you, or search your bags without your permission, except for the citizens arrest. In your example, it sounds like reasonable self defence.
Ok I cant seem to find where to sign the proofify thing, waiting list.
Watch it if you beat your carpet outside before 7am
What's the link for proofify?
Can a British Jury acquit in a trial where they consider the law relating to the charges to be unjust or unconstitutional?
A jury can acquit for any reason whatsoever and you will never know, that isn't to say its not contempt of court but you would be unlkely to prove it as they told their story to the press
@@jons9721 very interesting 🤔
Eight common myths that are not quite true?
A half-truth is a whole lie (Yiddish proverb).
What about parking tickets and the Bill of rights 1688?
05:37. Did I just see the long arm of the law?
Right, I'm beginning to wonder if my policy of believing all the internet legal advice, is the wisest one.
I would only use lawyers that have "4" in their name and advertise on daytime TV, is this wise ?
I also use the Simpsons for legal research.
No, its not a good idea.
Sovereign Citizens, Free men of the Land, and auditors, are all the result of people believing what is said online.
Do a video about why solicitors don’t shut case files down, even tho they tell the client they’re no longer working on it. Which prevents the clients from the justice they are due
I have never used the Christian name that's on my birth certificate, it's only now at 63 years old that's it's beginning to be seen as an issue.
where would i stand on the name issue i have a name that does not stay on UK computer systems especially bank systems so whenever i open a new account or offered something on credit, the company will change my name on their documentation so that it stores on their systems, i notify them that this is not my correct name but they still keep it the same
What about claim of right defence as a mistake of law? Love a good claim of right defence 👌
a great vid the number of pub barristers out there that come out with some of things you have covered should be watching this.
Ignorance is no defence
Common sense first then the law.
The SUPPORT ME links (above) appear to both point to the ongoing subscription. Can you correct this for one-off payments? Seems to be the same on all videos I've checked.
Proofify sounds good. nice 🙂
What if you throw a bucket of water over kids smoking weed on the stairs...
Just play a CD by Vera Lynn at full volume and they won't hang about for very long - believe me it works!
@@mda5003 and don't dilly dally on the way..... out the f.kin door. Off you go.... lil shitz. Hello again.
It's an assault and you are likely to get arrested if the kids make a complaint. The fact they were smoking weed will not wash as a provocation You could have called the police, but I like the idea of playing Vera Lynn at full volume, which is an assult of a different kind!
@@passionfruit5320 Not you again! Are you mental? Waste of time responding to your pathetic comments as yours will simply get removed!
@@mda5003 you started it. If your not going to like a reply to your response. Sod off. I say again. This is the second time you've Harrased me. Be carful what you wish apon others may happen to you. Burner boi.
Looking at the judge,,, " Your honour, he threatened to strangle my wife.
Barrister,,, So, can I ask,, was that the moment you decided to cut his hands off and indeed, did cut them off?
😅😂😅
Hi Daniel. Do the police have the right to seize dashcam footage, say after a road accident?
It sounds like there are no absolutes in law and you can be charged for whatever the police can stump up.
Why haven't you advertised you're on Rumble?
Do a Nicola, I can’t remember
You have to answer the questions in court. I don’t think the UK has an equivalent of the US 5th amendment.
There's a difference between rules of the justice system and rules constraining the government. The rules of court about self incrimination are the same, but in theory Parliament could take them away, it just chooses not to, while Congress couldn't choose to.
Of course there are also ECHR provisions on the right to a fair trial
@@gchecosse hopefully Daniel might shed some light on this in a future video.
This content has received the Northern Blue Seal Of Approval.
(Link in the description)
😆
how does the name work if you have changed it by deed poll to something really stupid.
does the self defence argument extend to your personal property? can i hit someone if i see them keying my car?
You'd be allowed to stop them doing it just not by say punching them. Push them away from your car or like guide them away etc
You can do what is reasonable to protect your property from damage. What is "reasonable" would ultimately be determined by a jury if it ever went to court (and in the short term, by the police and CPS if they decided it was worth pursuing you for).
Jumping the person from behind and raining blows on them - probably not allowed. Shouting a warning and/or physically shoving them away - OK. Hitting them probably OK if the first two options didn't work, or they escalated.
Myself, I wouldn't vote to convict you for striking someone who vandalised your car, but I'm not everyone.
Love your videos - be interested if you did a video on the telecoms price rises that are being implemented 14.4% (CPNI plus 3.9%) feels like a UCTA applies eg lack of alternative options and no one would have imagined CPNI would be 10% plus at point of signing. be keen to get your thoughts on how people can respond. I've email BT CEO and Ofcom CEO
A copper once told me how to fiddle the booze test.
Great video as usual, very infromitiave,
So... Using a false name online to protect your identity is a crime? Someone stealing your identity is a crime too..
I heard that evidence is gold and if you can provide it if acting in self defence you have a reasonable defence that you were using self defence?
This channel is really interesting. How the other half live... the criminal class do have some really ridiculous ideas about the law! The myths, especially the ones on some of your other videos about "council tax isn't' legal" and "Acts aren't laws" just make me laugh!
No.1 Work on the conceit of “ignorance is no defence”.
Establishment. Don’t be fooled
*DAN THERE IS A PROBLEM*
At least two messages have appeared in comments below with your picture and a message to call Watsapp
It seems FAR more likely to be a scam than something you would do
It might help folk here if you would clarrify &/or warn.
Incidently, *UA-cam have no catagory under the Report Problems three vertical dot FLAGGING system to state I think its a SCAM*
There's one 'in reply to Mad Mick' and another to 'Frank Words'
*As they are time marked an hour or more BEFORE before your comment it looks like UA-cam don't care a* 💩
What is the difference between cops n criminal gangs….. one has a uniform n commits crime with no punishment
With regards to the right to silence in a court, what if the answer to the question is self incriminating? I presume that the “silence” itself becomes incriminating. Which is the difference between England/Wales and the United States (5th amendment), I presume.
@Test Gear Junkie Not sure about Scotland! There are differences between English/Welsh and Scots legal systems.
@WalterSobchak .
Of course there can be. If not, the police could simply ask if you did the crime and would have to answer truthfully.
There is a situation when being arrested the person is informed that not giving information that they later rely on in court, could go against them.
That is because it might be considered less reliable by the court because it was not stated at the time of arrest.
@WalterSobchak because a person who is in court is presumed innocent
@WalterSobchak Your friends Stasi by any chance? Innocence is a movable feast. Today's freedom is tomorrow's crime.
@WalterSobchak there has to be a presumption of innocence (U.K./USA) or of guilt (Napoleonic). Also, this has been the mainstay of British justice since the 18th century, when the phrase innocent until proven guilty was coined by William Garrow in 1791, however the concept was established in Roman law.
As BSB Have advised in Writing a Barrister can lei and Deceive a court or and Judge for a police constable criminl actions of publice abuose of powers with no Consequences.
Not evan having a Prosecution to work with.
So the legal System is not a lawful act or lawful Institute, we are a Lawless society.
Black belt barrister im Afraid you have Publicly lied to the public,
They call me tater.
Dosent this show the police have way too much power
Myth No' 2 -----------------------------------------Isla Bryson !!
You can document with the help of your union rep. If you want protection at work join a union.
northernblue is gonna get triggered on this one!!!
Achmmm. "This content contains paid advertising", I believe still applies if you are advertising your own service ;) Maybe putting the logo up is enough?
Technically your identifying with a false name as your legal name is a legal fiction, coprorate identity. (even if it is spely exactly as your given name). But whether knowingly or tacitly we all agree to it which makes if "legal" but absolutly unlawful.
Please, no silly sovereign citizen nonsense.
@@grahvis Whats the word for someone who knows nothing stating an actual truth? Becasue your right, sovereign citizen nonsense. is just that.. look up oxymoron. that may give you some idea of your statement.
@waltersobchak1719 more projection, I stated facts even wiki will concur with the legal corporate identity. but if you dont need to know such things then your going to make projected hear say replies. good luck with that. rather you than me.
Blacks law dictionary, look up definition of Person. why is the concept of actual reading so difficult for people like you.
if you sleeping rough best thing that can happn is to be arrested,,free night in cells with food,,
Have you heard of the "Stand your ground" laws in places like Florida? Goes self defense one better!
If you are fired for saying something that brings your company into the limelight then you are acting as an ambassador for this company so they should pay 24-hours a day?
It speaks volumes that you rarely/never give your actual opinions on things, the fact that if we defend our or our families lives from violence using violence can get us locked up must really frustrate you? Because if it doesn’t, it should. We’re one step away from anarchy with laws like that
How about "Fred of the clan Smith", is that legal.
You just can't use that to argue you shouldn't pay your taxes, a la sovereign citizen BS.
You missed the biggest legal myth - trespassers will be prosecuted.
Hmm Ok if your employer draws any of those conclusions then you are better off not working for idiots that draw such conclusions and link personal opinions to the company. It's the sort of thing the media likes to do in asking the company "So you support the opinions stated by your employee?" Only a delusional fool can support or draw that conclusion. Making "employment rules" to cover the "thinking or right to have any independent thought whilst working for a company is pathetic, and should be against the law!"
how can " not quite true" actually mean anything. Its either true or not. Its the same as a little bit pregnant .
Polite way of saying people are wrong …
Ignorance of the law is no defence that apply to law enforcement as well?. wrong name on a contract invalidates the contract so you couldn't claim as well as being fraudulent. Rough sleeping I have a problem with in regard that it leads you to the Vagrancy act 1824 rouges and vagabonds is this part of the legislation your referring to?
Dan I do enjoy and appreciate your channel however I would like to know which part of legislation you refer to ie powers for a constable in uniform to stop a vehicle on the road whilst that one is easy to look up (163 road traffic act) rough sleeping is much harder (it could be me) would you be a bit more specific on which part of the legislation on which you refer to please as it would help many thanks
Councils get round all the rough sleeping issues by just implementing PSPOs. A disgusting mechanism for imposing controls on the population which give no Right of Appeal or ability to test the legality if for 3 years.
Half of the video: 'It is a common myth but not entirely true'😂
Is it just me, or are these myths rather disappointing? They are somewhat interesting, and I can see where they come from, but I feel we can do better.
For example, All judgments only count when the judge hits the gavel. Therefore, if you can clear the distance to the bench and knock the gavel put of their hands, no judgments can be rendered against you and you must go free. Hence the term "Dropping the hammer".
There is no gavel. This is not America!
@@davidellis1079 r/whoosh
@@pirateadam3686 Possibly. Or maybe you've learned something today. Who knows? 😉😄
The judge does not have a gavel,, another myth.