Will "Free Speech" disclaimer actually work? Plus, How far CAN you go online?
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 09. 2024
- A Freedom of Expression Triple Bill today!
Technical glitch meant couldn't use my fancy B Roll edit. So please enjoy the raw A Roll. Stanley Kubrick's job is safe.
Where am I today? cornwallyester...
#artoflaw
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it,.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
czcams.com/users/bl...
6:39 "Obviously, I do a lot of defamation."
Obviously, I'll never quote that out of context.
'Being racist to a BMW car'. 'GBH to a Police van'. 'Shouting at a Police dog'. 'Baring teeth at a Police Officer'. 'Gesticulating at a Police Officer'. - How MSM have framed some of the 'Custodial Sentences' being handed out. Who else finds this both bizarre and disturbing?
It's pronounced BMV
Thats not the worst of it. Some British courts actually imprisoned English people, one a old lady who said a policeman should go away. 18 months for that! ! ! And yet the meek British are not protesting outside the courts or the jails. Bldy pansies the lot of you. Your forbears are turning in their graves that youre cowering in the face of Communism.
Sorry, what media outlet has referred to "being racist to a BMW car" (as distinct from the Romanian occupants of said car, who had their car damaged, were racially abused and, as I recall, beaten) or "GBH to a police van"?
@@SukiLondonthreatening behaviour is illegal, threatening behaviour when in a group of people is worse. So yes, some of the sentences do seem harsh if you look at them as an individual. But they were part of a gang.
@@SukiLondon And have these reasons actually been given, or are they just the fantasies of people who are upset that people like them are being held account for their violent actions? Certainly, the courts have not sent anyone to prison for "being racist to a BMW car" or "GBH to a police van".
"Shouting at a police dog" is genuine and sounds a bit silly. But think about it. In what situation would you be legitimately shouting at a police dog? The only one I can think of is if you are doing nothing wrong and the dog attacks you, and clearly, nobody would be convicted for that. The actual situation is that a large crowd of people were behaving aggressively towards the police, who had been sent there to prevent them from behaving aggressively towards others. If you have a lot people being slightly aggressive, the net effect is a heck of a lot of aggression, even though if you teleported one of those people onto the high street of a town where nothing was happening, their actions might just warrant being told "Come on, stop doing that."
Although "shouting at a police dog" seems like a silly thing, and I'm not sure why they weren't convicted on the basis of something less silly-sounding, they were convicted because they were actively involved in a serious disturbance.
I subscribed simply because you told me not to bother. I appreciate the content, the relaxed presentation style and the background views..!
People begging for subs is the best way to persuade me not to subscribe.
Yes - and I don't like Dan's channel since he started bringing up gammon issues (for all I know he's done with that now, but I don't watch him anymore so I don't know and I don't care), but I have no reason not to like this one, so I'll do the same!
Unfortunately, the Met has been naming and shaming before trial.
Once you have appeared in court then the information is in the public domain.
When?
@@ToothbrushMan My local press, for starters.
Not the susps though
@@JelMain So you are claiming that the Metropolitan police have been giving the press the names of suspects before trial.
This jeopardising the chances of a conviction?
A local lady, Tasnia Ahmed, was jailed recently for failure to report a terrorist offence - yet terrorism reports are submitted anonymously! The same judge recently had me arrested for actually reporting a terrorist offence because it breached my bail condition of not to make contact with the terrorist! My equipment was seized, and although the case was dropped in magistrates court, the equipment was not returned.
You were told not to do something and you did it anyway ofc that happened.
@@BeepBoop2221 i didn't actually do the thing that I was told not to do according to the court so ofc that should not happen. the court cannot dictate for someone not to make a report to counter terrorism! how is that "indirect contact"?
Tasnia got imprisoned for not making such a report, apparently, yet since reports can be anonymous how did the court prove her guilt?
Omg this country is fecked
@@BeepBoop2221 fool 🤣
Very interesting and very informative. Love the rambles and scenery
Massive respect for you and thank you for your channel. In general, any court that does not comply with article 10 is illegitimate and should be dealt with accordingly.
So what happens if you find the policy of the Government or a political party offensive?
You could stop being racist
Good question.
It's nebulous by design. If you keep people guessing about what they're allowed to say then people will censor themselves.
That is by design as they can't shut down user generated content (yet).
Surely no one thinks it’s ok to say “let’s burn down a building with people in it”
Guy Falkes was ok with it 👍@@molybdomancer195
@@molybdomancer195You have a Party Police. A Party prosecuor. Party Courts. Party Judges. If you aren't in the Party and don't toe the Party line nobody knows what the limit on speech is at the moment. Toby Young made the point Starmer was spreading misinformation as it turns out the rumour about Southport was the "far right" when it was a man in Pakistan. Will Starmer be arrested?
@@docastrov9013 Sorry, is this the same Toby Young who wrote misleading and inaccurate (not my words, but those of the press regulator) articles during COVID?
Free speech can be dangerous but the alternative is worse
Beautifully done as always Alan - hope you are OK in them there woods. Love that you need no notes. Please don't get eaten by the known Cornish bears.
Perhaps we should try the opposite: any comment that, in principle, offends no one, is criminally boring and should be punished as a cause of global warning
Prisons would be much less dangerous places if most people there had been convicted of being boring. No need to smuggle in drugs and knives if they'll just be met with "No, thanks. I'm not really into that kind of thing."
Love it except I'd say, ........should be punished for causing people to nod off.
@@beeble2003 Ahhhh, this gives me *hope*
The fact that were talking about the perils of our speech nowadays is very disturbing 🙁
I enjoy Yours and BlackbeltBarrister's vids very muchly! thanks for all your work!
Something said or typed in private is exactly that, private! If it is then published into the public domain by other people, it wasn’t the original man or woman that placed it into the public domain. To allow the government to prosecute things said or typed in private, is one of the grossest public trespasses into the private! Also, having an opinion contrary to the government stance, or contrary to anyone else’s, is not a crime! Nor is expressing that opinion! An opinion or subject view is not an incitement or encouragement to commit crime….nor is humour or sarcasm!
"Something said or typed in private is exactly that, private! " if those words were typed into one's X thread or Facebook page, is that still 'private'?
@@JohnnyMotel99 If it’s a private group or a private chat, then you’ve spoken/typed in private. The private and public domains are very separate. If someone else enters that private text into the public domain, then it’s the action of someone else isn’t it….its not your deed….you haven’t personally consented to its public publishing! 🙂
The Internet is not private
@@trappedinroom1014 Would that defence stand up in our courts? Or is that your opinion? I don’t know if this argument has been tested in the courts.
@trappedinroom1014 that's not how that works, you're posting on a platform even if it's "private" it's actually not.
The mental image of the cps rushing into a coma ward and turning off life support is a glorious picture of the unintended consequences of legal definition.
Where would one get hold of such a catalogue of women's services? Asking for a friend.
Lol
I suspect that it is now of collectable value. Try Sothebys?
It will be a bit out of date by now.
I love your videos: the interesting places you walk to, coupled with invaluable information that, at this point in time, we really need. Thank you 🙏💕
Alan, take care and get well.
Thank you Al👏
Let me guess before watching the video. "Disclaimer: the law doesn't apply to me" isn't a defence.
More like “Disclaimer: I don’t mean to break the law and if I did then I didn’t mean it” isn’t a defence
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything."
@@xboxblakeyjnr8280Didn't we just welcome the prisoner exchange with Russia as great. Those people broke The Law in Russia. As such a big fan of The Law you'll want them sent back?
Vicarously enjoying your walks, but please don't walk into any holes 😱
Don't worry -- his fancy gimbal will ensure that we still get good-quality footage as he tumbles.
@@suestreet9934 Best to avoid brown holes, in particular, during this mpox crisis.
Let's just adopt American freedom of speech laws. That would be the simplest and best thing to do in my opinion.
These are simple things to detect, investigate and punish (all the tick boxes for the authorities), with the limited resources or the police and courts, why are they not making any real effort with prolific shoplifters, street mugging for ebikes, phones and expensive watches, car cannibals and catalytic converter thieves, and people selling illegal substances, could it possibly be that it actually requires the police to do some real work
Criticism is the fertilizer of human growth.
Thank you Alan, interesting, educational and useful. Hope you are feeling better soon.
What I see in current society, especially online, is a culture of deliberate antagonization. People seem to post to get attention, & inflammatory comments get attention. I think it touches into narcissistic & addictive adaption behaviors.
Couple that with low self awareness, low responsibility, poor critical thinking & communication skills, and society is in a bit of a pickle.
Education rather than punishment is probably what's really needed.
A lot of basement edgelords have been overstepping the mark and getting away with it.
Many have made a minor side-hustle out of it.
Now they're getting consequences, and tears are flowing.
I think the art of playing 'Devil's Advocate' has been lost, as though it's almost become a social no-no to cross partisan lines in search for the truth and for facts
Something else that I think that is rearing its ugly head in this tribal times is ultimate attribution error - that a group of people is somehow responsible for the actions of individual members within it
Good video. Another point is by using that disclaimer, might do more harm than good to their defence as they're demonstrating a knowledge of the law and knew they were sailing close to the wind.
Subscribed as recommended by BlackbeltBarrister great video Ty ...
When will we see common sense?
Define common sense. The law isn't common sense, almost by definition. That's why you need professionals to study it, interpret it, and argue over it.
Common sense is common, and there isn't often much sense.
@@DavidHughesssThat's why we need law reform.
@@DavidHughesssnot really. There's just a lot of it.
@@LeeGee What kind of law reform do you have in mind?
Thank you!
I have been harmed by stopping my winter fuel payment. fearful of want is next as labour hates OAPs
Love your honesty regarding your knowledge of the law.
Probably better to build up your expertise on where those uncapped shafts are.
Always a great watch. Cheers
This was really a great episode - for me one of the best.
I think the matter you discussed at the start has its roots in Fox and Tucker Carlson and I thought the final two words in the tweets (identical) clearly indicated it has been written by others.
Thank you so much for the wonderful walk which was a great distraction from the three screens in front of me. We have a dear friend a bricklayer who works on restoration who would love the brickwork on the mine engines particularly that around the archways and cornices. A sad comparison when compared with the plastic structures on many industrial sites today.
Please forgive but you commented on your health and please get the breathing checked- my late sister was a thoracic surgeon and always badgered me.
Enjoying your content and the scenery. Mind yourself with the untapped mineshafts. Maybe leave a note to say were you are going . Also, maybe rest a bit 'til you feel better?
I love watching your informative and interesting videos. The fact that you do them in such interesting settings is a bonus but please take care. Don't exert yourself too much.
People need to understand that no legal code in any country provides the right to post their ignorant dumb opinions on privately owned social media platforms and violate the standard restrictions on speech e.g., inciting violence, libel, harassment, etc.
So anyone who disagrees with you is "dumb"? Well I think you are "dumb".
Yes obviously the site has right to remove it but prosecution is a bit overboard, the courts are going to be very clogged
Why are journalists legally permitted to lie?
The difference between print media (todays newspaper is tomorrows fish and chip wrapper) and online is that each time someone views online media, that counts as a new publication so presumably publishers have to take into account changes in the known facts to avoid (presumable) unintentional defamation?
As a New Zealander, I find this channel interesting. Our law is similar to the UK law. It's informative. It's layed back. We also get to see some luvly sights and learn some history.
Beautiful and informative video!
People will want a jury everytime because laws are so tight.
Not an option in a magistrate's court, only crown courts have juries
@@Matty12333 then is it a real court of law
First few minutes... You just described the BBC to a T.
It's concerning the police put so much effort into getting a journalists footage when clear footage of the Manchester Airport attackers was never persued.
Oh my word that last comment on the BBC 😮
Where did all the grown ups go?
I do love the law. It is sometimes who can manipulate language best or who can find an obscure law better
I complained a bit ago about hearing impairment and lipreading. Just to let you know that the subtitling is all cleared up from a bit patchy to very good. :)
Get well soon sir…., whilst staying on a campsite at Chacewater recently I’m pretty sure we have a view of Hawkes Shaft Engine Shed, or at least it looked like the one you mentioned.
Thank you for your extremely interesting and useful videos. I look forward to seeing your new posts which thankfully are appearing almost daily. I’m also loving the beautiful scenery and your commentary associated with it.
Please would you make a video explaining what is meant by the term ‘fair and average reasonable person’. There are numerous offences where in order to determine guilt, one is required to consider the view of a ‘fair and average reasonable person’. Whilst in the past, this may have been quite obvious, I believe this is now much more difficult to determine. With the population currently so divided, from far left to far right, and everything in between, I struggle to understand what the term really means. I work in a role where understanding this term is important. I have discussed this with some work colleagues and a LA, however the best they could come up with is that a Magistrates is a fair and average reasonable person. I don’t think this is necessarily fair whilst we are living in such a diverse society.
I would be very grateful to hear your analysis of the term.
Thank you in advance.
A history of the man on the clapham omnibus!
To all the people commenting because they're concerned that this law might apply to them and suppress their "common-sense" views of the "truth". Perhaps you should consider that this law is evidence that society as a whole doesn't actually agree with your views. Perhaps, if you're worried that you might be convicted of being offensive and/or causing psychological harm, you should consider that you might actually be being offensive and/or be causing psychological harm. Perhaps, instead of asking "how can I tell if somebody, somewhere will find this offensive?", you should refrain from posting unless you're reasonably sure that what you're saying _won't_ be found offensive. If you can't tell whether something might be offensive, maybe try thinking about how you would feel to be on the receiving end. If your response in all situations would be "I don't care what anyone says to me", try thinking a bit harder. If you still think that you don't care what anyone else says to you, and you genuinely can't recall any occasion on which somebody has said something that has angered or upset you, don't conclude that anybody else thinks that way.
And perhaps you should also bear in mind the "reasonable person" test. Sure, you might say something completely normal like "I ate toast for breakfast", and perhaps some poor person whose pet cat Toast was killed and eaten in front of them would suffer psychological harm from reading that in their Facebook feed. But could a reasonable person foresee that harm? No. So would you be convicted? No. Would you even be charged? No.
Being offensive or causing psychological harm need to be defined. The law is vague and impractical to the point that it is not law. Law needs to be certain so that all may easily know how to observe.
Since the two vityal elements of a crime, a guilty mind and the commission of the act, need to be proved there has to be direct and unmistakeable evidence of both, and to the degree that it is beyond reasonable doubt. Most prosecutions should therefore fail under such a vague and subjective law. A woke law.
@@Must_not_say_that "Being offensive or causing psychological harm need to be defined."
Any law that doesn't define terms is using the ordinary English meaning. The example of theft is given in the video: "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it." Are you going to say that most prosecutions for theft should fail because the words "dishonest", "property", "belonging" and "deprive" aren't defined in the Act, so are somehow vague?
As for "woke", just say what you mean: that you're upset for being called out at being a
💩 to people.
@@beeble2003 Your first - "Being offensive or causing psychological harm need to be defined."
Any law that doesn't define terms is using the ordinary English meaning. - is correct.
What you say about Theft is not since the words can easily be understood.
Laws that address subjectivity and hurty feelings are woke since law should be objective and capable of certainty so that they can easily be observed.
@@Must_not_say_that Grievous Bodily Harm is defined as "really serious harm" to a person. Gee, that's awfully subjective. I guess we'd better stop prosecuting GBH.
The word "offensive" can be easily understood: please, just stop pretending that you don't know what it means. It's not credible. "Psychological harm" is easily understood by an appropriate professional.
Somebody could put a post about spiders. it could cause harm, where does it stop?
surely repeating a rumour online without claiming its true or saying its an allegation/rumour would have te same protection as claiming something is alleged in the press.
are the press no longer protected when they report allegations using words like allegedly, reportedly, or claims have emerged
Unless you are the BBC..
They're regulated by Ofcom so, if the BBC does bad stuff, it's dealt with by Ofcom rather than the courts.
This should be a your regularly style of video
It is a matter of fact if something is offensive or not,
And yet the general public appear not to agree with recent court actions regarding free speech.
and if it is 'obvious' then a Jury will come to that conclusion too.
Penny Mordaunt is the architecture for all this
These disclaimers are akin to a "beware of dog" sign. The sign tells the public that you know that your dog could be vicious. The disclaimer tells the public that you know that your statements could be defamatory. Perhaps, like the "beware of dog" sign, it would be best not to say anything. Least said, soonest mended.
Not at all. Such a sign or disclaimer admits nothing except the injustice of the courts wrongly convicting innocent people.
Such notices act as a warning/information to put responsibility upoin the reader, and admit nothing.
The disclaimers have arisen because of the n justice of the courts and the malice of the prosecutions.
@@Must_not_say_thatRubbish. They're just someone writing something on their social media. They mean nothing but kind of admit guilt.
@@alfsmith4936 You obviously failed to read or take into account my last paragraph.
They are now inserted as a protection from unfair and unjust persecution.
So let me get this correct. If I were to respond to someone’s facebook post with a sarcastic insult of a reply, it’s the cuffs for me ?
Regardless of whether it's an offence, you should bear in mind that sarcasm in writing is often very hard to detect, especially in a public or semi-public forum where some of the people don't know you well.
"A sarcastic insult". So an insult, yeah?
@@yorkiemike No, not necessarily. It's unclear whether he means "an insult that is also sarcastic" (e.g., calling somebody a genius to mean that they're stupid) or "insulting words used sarcastically, so the insult isn't actually intended" (e.g., A calls B a moron, B does something really smart, C sarcastically say "Not bad for a moron", with the intended meaning "You're obviously not a moron because you just did that thing").
You shouldn’t rely on the “it was only banter” excuse.
@@yorkiemikeit is you who used the word ‘insult’.
If some people think they can create legislation to stop people being rude, offensive, being wrong, nasty, ignorant or spreading rumours then we will be living in a totalitarian state . Since the police have already knocked on someones door to " check their thinking" I'm pretty sure this is not hyperbole.
"....will be"? We already are.
What if you post your own experiences and they fall under these nebulous new laws. It appears to me that Starmer is faling foul of his own law. Calling all the protesters far right and violent, causing distress to those that clearly aren't, causing offence and stoking violence?
It definitely caused distress to me.
There are NO Starmer laws, he's only been PM a few weeks, parliament has been on recess since. All the laws are Tory laws.
There are no new laws. The conservatives passed the online communication act last year, but it replaced the malicious communication act 1988.
Which protesters do you think don't have far right views?
So you're hypothesizing that a non-violent person who was present at one of these violent "protests" would be distressed at being called violent? I put it to you that a non-violent person would have left the "protest" at the point when it turned violent and would, instead, be distressed by the violence. They would then not be distressed by the Prime Minister calling the "protesters" violent, because they would reason, "I was not violent, and I left when the violence started, so he's not talking about me."
@Book-Mark - what new laws are these, and when were they enacted?
It's worth charging people with offences relating to hate etc so that case law can be established. Precedence is everything. And people need to be aware that they can be held accountable.
So you are advocating lawfare to find out what the law is?
Obviously bad law.
@Must_not_say_that Well, it's a very efficient way of testing the legislation to determine whether it is able to achieve its aims. People don't get charged willy nilly, their actions are analysed to determine whether they meet the elements of the offence. It can be very easy indeed to establish a prima-facie case. It is in the public interest for new laws to be effective.
@@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682
Well you are obviously living in another universe because we are seeing innocent people are very much being arrested, mistreated and beaten, kicked and the like and being charged even though they are innocent, just ot make an exmple of them.
Furthermore they are being wrongly advised to plead guilty to get a lighter sentence and to avoid being held on remand for a longer period than any sentence.
The court system is a complete failure and is merely carrying out govern ment instruction and policy.
@@stevenpeaketrainsandstuff3682
The legislation is deficient if it needs to be tested. it is not Justice to put people through the court process in order to find out what the law is.
You must be out of your mind to think that kind of lawfare is acceptable or Justice. You must be a lawyer.
And people do get charged will nilly. We are seeing innocent people arrested, mistreated charged and convicted and given disproportionately heavy prison sentences. This is, of course in line with government instruction and policy and public statements.
@Must_not_say_that Please re read my above statement and tell me where you think I am wrong. Any new legislation will be tested in court eventually. This is how it is supposed to work. Defendants get to defend their charges and face their accusers, a jury of their peers determine guilt or innocence. How fair is that?
Unfortunately, it is absolutely foreseeable that, if a statement reaches a large enough number of people, that it can be taken by one of those people in any way you might think.
Any statement on a large enough platform is in violation. The police need only decide which to prioritize enforcement 9f.
That's not specific enough. Intent comes with a "reasonable person" definition. If, for example, you falsely post that you had toast with strawberry jam for breakfast and some weirdo is somehow genuinely offended and/or psychologically harmed by that, you are not liable, because no reasonable person would foresee that outcome.
The future is bright the future is 💰💰💰💰💰💰 for many...
Allan please take it easy
I was just ruminating how best to express that same point...deliverance of legal opinion served with adrenaline results in a frothy, albeit enlightening, outcome. Half the adrenaline, and double the elocution of the diatribe for a much more satisfying outcome.
I'd love to be on those walks and discuss legalese while dancing with history and nature on equal terms.
Love this channel!
@@stephensaines7100 Maybe Alan could set up a lucrative sideline of legal rambles, where he leads a group on a tour of the local countryside and whatever interesting law-related thoughts that are running through his head that day? I'd go on one :D
@@yorkiemike A "group tour" might be too much, albeit the gist is right. A handful of 'scholars' who'd be far more participatory might be the ticket though.
'never mind, I've got a compass...'
Hehe, so old school 😉
This freedom of speech argument and slide toward authoritarianism is causing me non trivial psychological harm. There's some nefarious shit going on and truths are being supressed.
And the nefarious shit is called reform UK.
You're not "really, really ill" if you are walking about as fast as you are and if you're in need of "someone to come around with a machete" (to chop the branches down!) I'm sure you could find an unemployed youth in London who carries his 'tools of the trade' with him.
The BBC is no longer fit for purpose, so needs to be privatized. An era has clearly ended. RIH BBC.👋
ITV has better shows anyway.🤦
But people can hate anything so how can anyone not be offensive?
Interesting. The walk too. I've come to the conclusion that British Law is less objective than Philosophy.
Would this apply to MSM when they say “according to other sources “
The basis for self-expression is impulse. Intent could only be tested and proven from related expressions, actions, etc. A one off comment has to be very specifically explicit to hold up on intent and a malicious impulse.
People seem to confuse freedom of speech with freedom from consequences of speech.
Yes. There is no such thing as the freedom to threaten, intimidate and cause distress. If you walk up to someone in the street and threaten to punch them in the face, that isn't free speech, it is threatening violence. If you con someone out of money by promising to provide a return on investment but then abscond with the money that isn't free speech, it's obtaining money by deception. If you mislabel the ingredients on a foodstuff that isn't freedom of speech either. There are plenty of speech based crimes that are not protected by the free speech defence. The crimes are characterized by the intent and effect, not by the means by which they were carried out.
The issue of freedom of speech was dealt with by another English speaking jurisdiction 235 years ago. Shouldn't we be making a better effort to emulate the 1st amendment to the US Constitution rather than getting tied up in disputed definitions? Whose definition of "intent" is the right one, that understood by the people or the one imposed by the judiciary? Incidently we suffer a similar problem with the word "marriage" again to suit one minority, or "emergency" as in Climate Emergency to suit another minority. In this case the words "reasonably foreseeable" could have been used instead of intent if that is what the law means. Then the lay person would understand rather than have it explained by an expensive lawyer.
In our increasingly fractured society created by the imposition of multiculturalism it is not difficult to inavertently cause offence to someone, somewhere or even cosmetically to a third party on behalf of the potentially offended. Even well founded biological facts a comment may offend someone with a different truth. We do now seem to enjoy Freedom of Truth!
Is the intention to silence to majority for the benefit of the minority? Or will that be explained away as an unforseen consequence?
That's exactly why there is no such thing as "hate speech" in the US. The Court stated that the term "hate" could not be legally defined, being too nebulous.
Oh god no! Elon Musk was able to call one of the British guys who helped rescues that Thai football stuck in the cave a pedo and US courts decided this wasn’t defamation. Freedom of speech untrammelled is just awful
Get well soon
I've added that all my videos are made for cinema for display to the public.
Regarding Intent, how come more drunk drivers who kill don't get charged with manslaughter? The average person would say that anyone getting behind the wheel whilst over the limit and then kills someone would say that, under the law, he/she "Intended" to kill someone.
That is because virtually all road accidents and deaths caused by motorists falls under the Road Traffic Act. So they can only be charged with causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving.
Manslaughter relates to offences where a person is killed because of the defendant's actions, but there is not the necessary mens rea (i.e. guilty mind) requirement to bring a charge of murder. There is no specific statutory offence of vehicular manslaughter in England and Wales.
@@GrahamAckrill Thanks for the info. IMO Vehicular Manslaughter should be an offence.
people confuse accident for 'unintended result'. my favorite definition of accident: "ACCIDENT, n. An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable natural laws." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary...(also, 'down by law' and 'above the law' are two entirely different films; one an 'action film' and one an 'inaction film'.)
And what if the person believed they were telling the truth at the time of posting? People have been prosecuted for that.
I wonder how the legal definition of intent would be interpreted as it applies to communications emanating from large language models.
It amazes me how whiny the British trolls are
If you ever go to Devon for these videos I’d love it if you tried to cover Fast Castle. I went as a child and I think it would make a fabulous background to one of your videos (assuming it is still there on its outcrop and the sea hasn’t claimed it)
Sounds like my kind of place. And also I could go cream first without having to hide in a corner of the tea shop.
Is repeating an actual or demonstrable truth encompassed by the act?
Many of the rogue statements on social media may have been made before all the public disorder.
Therefore, could some of the verdicts have been influenced by hindsight wisdom?
Do you have any example cases?
Very good, informative video. Hoping not to cause offence, but it did remind me of Paul Whitehouse as a Fast Show, “Helicopters, brilliant aren’t they”, type of sketch ! Regards AJ
I really want to do a vid just cutting between locations.
"In't law brilliant!"
6:54 I think it is best just to admit that the "laws" on
hate speech, are intentionally bad. They are basically
subjective to the point of being non sensical.
I have a problem with the "definition" of offensive, as acceptable to a "reasonable person". Lots of people found my long hair and dress offensive in 1968. Including the police. Magistrates would have agreed with them I suspect. So would bewigged and gartered Judges I have little doubt. I do not take a social consensus as a benchmark. The Germans did that once. My dress and hair are less of an issue now. So has reason changed?
Difficult for the layman when sometimes the law says a word (eg "offensive") has its normal meaning and sometimes (eg "intent") it doesn't.
If that disclaimer were to work, I would start selling bumper stickers that said "I did not intentially break the spead limit, go through a red light or drive whilst over the limit"...
Except in the cases you cite they are all capable of prfecise measufrement whereas the law he is discussing is not and is so vague and subjective as to render it not a law, and incapable of knowing how to observe it.
The distinction is so great, yet somehow you have missed that.
You need some lemon, ginger and honey tea with cinnamon it should perk you right up, use a fresh slice of lemon and ginger, put it in a teapot to straw for a few minutes before putting in a cup, add honey and sip slowly so not to scold yourself, it works for me.🐱🐈👍
@@SukiLondon oh, i suppose you can have it without honey but it would be a bit tart.
@@SukiLondon yes, it's also yummy and s good dring just before bed.
Surely CZcams influencers can be prosecuted on the grounds of being reckless or negligent, if not wilfully inciteful.
Not if they are communistic Islamists.🤣
I love watching these videos. I don't know much about mines but I presume the "engine sheds" were for hauling the man cages up and down the shafts. Could you do a video on contract law and the voluntary agreement aspect of acceptance or consent because there seems to be impositions placed on many people by local authories and utilities companies which seems to undermine "freedom to contract"?
"non trivial......harm"??? Does this suggest an element of subjectivity on the part of the alleged victim?
So this means any political or contentious comment or even joke could fall foul of this law. So this ends all online discussions forthwith! It then raises questions about suppression of free speech!
What's the penalty for calling a Cornish Engine House, an engine shed?
Is the BBC exempt?
Check out the linked video for details; but yes.
They're regulated by Ofcom rather than the courts.
😂😂😂
If anything it only highlights premeditation to me
The only winners with these new laws are lawyers £
.....and the politicians. These new laws are designed to silence dissent. Welcome to 1933 Berlin.
I thought that was a Cornish mine engine for a while.......then the accent sort-of gave it away.
Presumably this is all in regard to english and welsh law, something very few ppl study.
What i keep finding is that governments and its departments use human rights law to protect themselves and not the public for who it was designed.