Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #FakeLaw
Most recents (24)
Algunas reflexiones sobre la #LeySoloSiEsSi y su reforma recién aprobada, tratando de huir de los alarmismos, exageraciones y las falsedades que hay alrededor de todo ello. Hilo breve.
1) Como ya he dicho alguna vez, la #LeySoloSiEsSi, en la parte que modifica el Código Penal (la Ley es más amplia), es una #FakeLaw. No hacía nada de lo que publicitaba. Solo cambió el nombre de los delitos sexuales y eliminó la violencia/intimidación como criterio diferenciador. 
2) Consecuentemente, si no cambiaba de la legislación anterior la carga de la prueba con el "yo sí te creo", ni ponía en el centro el consentimiento, puesto que ya lo estaba, su reciente reforma impulsada por el PSOE es neutra, deja todo igual que siempre. Fuera alarmismos.
Lots of comment on here over the past 24 hours about Benjamin Mendy.
Two helpful observations:
1. If you didn’t hear the evidence at trial, your hot take on the jury’s verdicts is worthless.
2. There is to be a retrial, so contempt laws still apply to those hot takes.
Two helpful observations:
1. If you didn’t hear the evidence at trial, your hot take on the jury’s verdicts is worthless.
2. There is to be a retrial, so contempt laws still apply to those hot takes.
As a general observation, a “not guilty” verdict tells us nothing more than the fact that the jury were not sure of guilt.
It doesn’t equate to a positive finding of innocence.
It doesn’t automatically mean that a complainant was lying.
It just means “not guilty.”
It doesn’t equate to a positive finding of innocence.
It doesn’t automatically mean that a complainant was lying.
It just means “not guilty.”
The common misconceptions about what conclusions we can actually draw from jury verdicts are something I address in #FakeLaw.
Until we start requiring juries to give reasons for their verdicts (something I support), we will never know why and how they reach their decisions.
Until we start requiring juries to give reasons for their verdicts (something I support), we will never know why and how they reach their decisions.
In today’s episode of “Things I Didn’t Expect To Say When I Started Tweeting As An Anonymous Lawsplaining Rabbit”, may I place on record my thanks to Leonardo Di Caprio’s new alleged love interest for what I think we can all agree is her exquisite taste in literature.
#FakeLaw
#FakeLaw
Not *just* a law book, MailOnline. A Sunday Times bestselling law book exploring the popular myths we are fed about our justice system by those in power, from the author of fellow bestsellers “Stories of the Law and How it’s Broken” and “Nothing But The Truth”. Oh yes.
#FakeLaw
#FakeLaw
Anyway, if you want to get in on the act and read the literature of the Hollywood elite, #FakeLaw is available from all these lovely places.
Three bits of #FakeLaw in this Mail article:
1. The government has *not* “boosted legal aid funding by £135 million”.
This is a lie. It has not increased legal aid funding by a penny. To the contrary, last year it *reduced* legal aid payments by £240 million.
1. The government has *not* “boosted legal aid funding by £135 million”.
This is a lie. It has not increased legal aid funding by a penny. To the contrary, last year it *reduced* legal aid payments by £240 million.
2. There was an enormous and *growing* backlog long before Covid.
We warned about this at the time.
The backlog was caused by government cuts. Covid simply made things worse.
It is dishonest to pretend that the sole cause was Covid.
We warned about this at the time.
The backlog was caused by government cuts. Covid simply made things worse.
It is dishonest to pretend that the sole cause was Covid.
3. It is false that criminal barristers “will earn £7,000 extra per year”. This is a figure plucked out of the air by the Ministry of Justice to divert from the savage cuts that are driving junior criminal barristers out of the profession.
Don’t let them lie to you.
Don’t let them lie to you.
As people have asked (and you only have yourselves to blame)…
1. The precise charge isn’t reported, which is a huge error for reasons we’ll get to. But in any event, whatever the charge, there is no criminal offence in existence that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.
1. The precise charge isn’t reported, which is a huge error for reasons we’ll get to. But in any event, whatever the charge, there is no criminal offence in existence that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.
2. “Prosecutors decided to pursue him on the lightest possible charge”. That charge is not specified. Presumably that means he was charged with possession of a controlled drug of Class B, rather than possession with intent to supply or production/cultivation of cannabis. But…
3. …if he was indeed charged with simple possession of cannabis, the Sentencing Guideline provides a starting point of a fine, and a range as low as a discharge (no action taken). So this doesn’t square with a community order being “the lowest possible sentence”.
It’s time for some Friday #FakeLaw! Welcoming back an old friend of the show, it’s...
The Mail! With its new double whammy in its misrepresentation of legal aid and the rule of law!
Buckle up, kids. [THREAD] 👇
The Mail! With its new double whammy in its misrepresentation of legal aid and the rule of law!
Buckle up, kids. [THREAD] 👇
1. Let’s start with the headline. In a fun twist on yesterday’s court judgment, apparently it was “Human rights lawyers” who “helped brand Napier Barracks illegal”, rather than, say, the Home Secretary deliberately accommodating asylum seekers in dangerous and decrepit conditions
2. Given the dubious news value of lawyers specialising in asylum and human rights law being involved in asylum and human rights cases, this little intro must serve another purpose.
Subtext: this lawyer helps people we disapprove of (in this case, asylum seekers & travellers).
Subtext: this lawyer helps people we disapprove of (in this case, asylum seekers & travellers).
The government is cracking down on out-of-control whiplash fraud! Saving YOU, the motorist, £35 a year on your premium! Huzzah!
Only, as Chapter 3 of #FakeLaw explains, you’re not being given the truth.
Those in power are misleading you.
[THREAD] 👇
Only, as Chapter 3 of #FakeLaw explains, you’re not being given the truth.
Those in power are misleading you.
[THREAD] 👇
The government and certain media have claimed for years that the UK is, variously, “the whiplash capital of Europe” or “the whiplash capital of the world”.
The truth?
The figures used for these claims don’t stack up.
Insurers have also made the same claim in other countries.
The truth?
The figures used for these claims don’t stack up.
Insurers have also made the same claim in other countries.
When the House of Commons Select Committee published its 2018 report into the government’s “reforms”, it criticised the “absence of reliable data” behind ministers’ - and the insurance industry’s - repeated claims about whiplash fraud.
I regret to announce that, despite trying for what has been angrily described as “an ungodly amount of our limited family time”, I have been unable to find a way to rewrite the lyrics to Underneath Your Clothes by Shakira to plug the paperback release of #FakeLaw.
I’m sorry.
I’m sorry.
Partly I’ve diagnosed the problem as the shameless egotism (even for me) of opening with
🎵You're a book written by the hands of God🎵
I don’t feel that even my talent for false modesty can row back from a start like this.
🎵You're a book written by the hands of God🎵
I don’t feel that even my talent for false modesty can row back from a start like this.
Partly it’s the character limit stopping me hitting the chorus in a single tweet:
🎵You're a book written by the hands of God
Don't get me wrong, this might sound to you a bit odd
But you own the place where all my thoughts go hiding
Right inside this book is where I find them🎵
🎵You're a book written by the hands of God
Don't get me wrong, this might sound to you a bit odd
But you own the place where all my thoughts go hiding
Right inside this book is where I find them🎵
As Saint Dom offers his unique brand of self-exculpatory truth to the country today, a reminder that his self-interest and wholesale ignorance of the rule of law posed a very real threat to our justice system during his fifteen minutes of power. [THREAD]
👇
👇
After the Supreme Court ruled that the government acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament without offering a single reason (let alone a good reason) for doing so, Dom started briefing that he was going to “get the judges sorted”. ft.com/content/6ac426…
When Priti Patel’s Home Office acted unlawfully, and the courts ruled that her Home Office had acted unlawfully, Dom waded in with his size sevens again, briefing (or allowing it to be briefed without correction) that he was plotting “revenge”. mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…
In what is looking spookily like a tandem publicity campaign for the paperback release of #FakeLaw, the Mail on Sunday offers a classic from Chapter 7.
The Burden and Standard of Proof in criminal cases.
Or Why A Not Guilty Verdict Does Not Mean A Complainant Has Lied
[THREAD]
The Burden and Standard of Proof in criminal cases.
Or Why A Not Guilty Verdict Does Not Mean A Complainant Has Lied
[THREAD]
Lavinia Nourse was acquitted by a jury last week of serious criminal charges relating to child sexual abuse.
Amanda Platell’s thesis is that this acquittal proves that the Crown Prosecution Service were wrong to prosecute.
Let’s start with the basics.
Amanda Platell’s thesis is that this acquittal proves that the Crown Prosecution Service were wrong to prosecute.
Let’s start with the basics.
When deciding whether to charge a criminal allegation, the CPS apply a two-stage test.
1) Is there a realistic prospect of conviction based on the evidence?
2) If so, is it in the public interest to prosecute?
Yes to both = a prosecution.
1) Is there a realistic prospect of conviction based on the evidence?
2) If so, is it in the public interest to prosecute?
Yes to both = a prosecution.
Oh boy. It’s been a while since we’ve had one of these.
Presumably this is in honour of the paperback publication of #FakeLaw next week, 27 May 2021.
Let’s look at why this trash from the Mail is as misleading as it is dangerous.
[THREAD]
Presumably this is in honour of the paperback publication of #FakeLaw next week, 27 May 2021.
Let’s look at why this trash from the Mail is as misleading as it is dangerous.
[THREAD]
1. Readers are invited to conclude that £66,000 (not £70k) is too much to spend on this very serious case, in which a child was killed. A “vast sum of taxpayers’ money”, we’re told.
And there’s a quote from this chap.
(We’ll come back to his searing legal analysis, don’t worry)
And there’s a quote from this chap.
(We’ll come back to his searing legal analysis, don’t worry)
2. But the journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right for a criminal trial like this. Such as...
Oh HELLO, you beautiful soft papery munchkins.
Get your own box of delicious paperback legal nutrition at all good bookstores from 27 May 2021.
Ideal for friends and relatives currently disposed towards a #FakeLaw-rich diet.
Get your own box of delicious paperback legal nutrition at all good bookstores from 27 May 2021.
Ideal for friends and relatives currently disposed towards a #FakeLaw-rich diet.
Publicity/rampant egotism requires that the paperback cover includes all those rave reviews from across the political and media spectrum (you guys! Sooo embarrassing).
But in the interests of balance, I should disclose the negatives too.
Like, don’t eat this book.
But in the interests of balance, I should disclose the negatives too.
Like, don’t eat this book.
I also apologise in advance for the postal service damaging your copy in transit.
This post by @Keir_Starmer has made me very sad and, the more I think about it, increasingly angry. I consider it to be thoroughly dishonest. I would like to think that it is ignorance but no matter how much I try, I cannot suspend my disbelief enough.
Let me explain why.
Let me explain why.
Before I do, let me clarify that yes, I know that there are all sorts of problems with getting sexual offences to court and that a tiny minority end up in convictions. Those are problems but they are not the particular problems I am addressing here. This is about sentencing.
Let's start with the suggestion that "attacking a statue = 10 years in prison". No. It doesn't. Criminal damage carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
There is no offence of attacking a statue and nobody is talking about making one. This is simple rubbish.
There is no offence of attacking a statue and nobody is talking about making one. This is simple rubbish.
Increasing the maximum sentence for damaging a statue to 10 years is stupid, yes. It reflects distorted priorities, yes.
But the maximum sentence for rape is life, not 5 years.
This is a bad point that does nothing for public understanding. #FakeLaw
But the maximum sentence for rape is life, not 5 years.
This is a bad point that does nothing for public understanding. #FakeLaw
For those struggling (and there are seemingly many), he has cited the maximum theoretical sentence for damaging a statue, and compared it to a figure plucked out of the air, but significantly below the average sentence imposed, for rape.
Intellectually dishonest.
Intellectually dishonest.
You can make the point that increasing the maximum sentence for low-value damage of statues to 10 years is idiotic, populist guff.
You can make the point that the criminal justice system fails to tackle sexual violence (for many reasons).
But that tweet makes neither point.
You can make the point that the criminal justice system fails to tackle sexual violence (for many reasons).
But that tweet makes neither point.
We are seeing this more and more.
Huge delays in criminal justice, caused *not* by Covid but by government cuts, mean that courts are forced to deal with offenders - including serious assaults - more leniently.
The government owes victims an apology.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9…
Huge delays in criminal justice, caused *not* by Covid but by government cuts, mean that courts are forced to deal with offenders - including serious assaults - more leniently.
The government owes victims an apology.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9…
And less of this #FakeLaw please. Covid has not been around for 18 months. The delays in criminal justice have been around for years, and we’re getting worse long before Covid.
Don’t let them lie to you.
Don’t let them lie to you.
For those asking why delay means more lenient sentences, it is set out in the Sentencing Guidelines as a mitigating feature. It should incentivise a “tough on crime” government to properly resource the system to reduce delays.
This government has deliberately increased them.
This government has deliberately increased them.
It’s the last Friday before Christmas.
Still looking for inspiration for gifts for your loved ones?
Unsure whether they’d thank you for buying them a bestselling book about law?
Not too fussed whether they ever speak to you again?
Then #FakeLaw may be what you’re looking for.
Still looking for inspiration for gifts for your loved ones?
Unsure whether they’d thank you for buying them a bestselling book about law?
Not too fussed whether they ever speak to you again?
Then #FakeLaw may be what you’re looking for.
READERS’ REVIEWS:
“Tasteless”
“Not my sort of read”
“Workmanlike”
AND
“This has put me off buying books on amazon. The cover of the book is all torn and damaged , this is for a gift”
HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY RESIST #FakeLaw THIS CHRISTMAS? 🎄🎅
“Tasteless”
“Not my sort of read”
“Workmanlike”
AND
“This has put me off buying books on amazon. The cover of the book is all torn and damaged , this is for a gift”
HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY RESIST #FakeLaw THIS CHRISTMAS? 🎄🎅
RAVE REVIEWS OF #FakeLaw (that I haven’t even paid for) INCLUDE:
(Yes I’ve included a genuine good one just in case I’m actually deterring people)
(Yes I’ve included a genuine good one just in case I’m actually deterring people)
#fakelaw alert. The Conservatives call for the doubling of “prison sentences for thugs who assault emergency workers” because the maximum sentence is currently 12 months. That isn’t true. Let’s see why (a thread) 1/5 dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/…
Assaults on police officers, firefighters and paramedics are rightly viewed by Sheriffs and Judges as serious offences. Just look at this recent example where a 2-year prison sentence was imposed for such an attack dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-new… 2/5
Offences under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 have a maximum prison sentence of 12 months, but serious assaults on emergency workers are common law offences and are prosecuted on indictment with maximum sentences of much more than that. 3/5
There are understandably strong feelings and a lot of questions about this verdict.
Not knowing the evidence, I can’t offer much insight, save to say that proving murder is a high threshold.
The jury have to be sure of an intention to kill or cause really serious harm. [1/3]
Not knowing the evidence, I can’t offer much insight, save to say that proving murder is a high threshold.
The jury have to be sure of an intention to kill or cause really serious harm. [1/3]
It means that if the jury think he might have intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he’s not guilty.
If the jury think he *probably* intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he is not guilty.
If the jury were *almost sure* he did, he would be not guilty. [2/3]
If the jury think he *probably* intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he is not guilty.
If the jury were *almost sure* he did, he would be not guilty. [2/3]
The burden and standard of proof is often misunderstood. It’s something I look at in depth in #FakeLaw.
Without having heard all the evidence, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about what the jury did or did not believe. Other than - they weren’t sure. [3/3]
Without having heard all the evidence, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about what the jury did or did not believe. Other than - they weren’t sure. [3/3]
I’d like to thank the Mail for printing this rot and giving me an opportunity to plug both Stories of the Law & How It’s Broken and #FakeLaw, both of which expose the wild dishonesty of this claim.
Stories of the Law: amazon.co.uk/dp/1509841148/…
Fake Law: amazon.co.uk/Fake-Law-Truth…
Stories of the Law: amazon.co.uk/dp/1509841148/…
Fake Law: amazon.co.uk/Fake-Law-Truth…
Journalist @davidbarrett makes this ludicrous claim.
I challenge him to read Chapter 6 of #FakeLaw and justify his assertion.
Because - spoiler - the “study” does no such thing.
I’ll let readers form their own views on Mr Barrett’s journalistic abilities.
I challenge him to read Chapter 6 of #FakeLaw and justify his assertion.
Because - spoiler - the “study” does no such thing.
I’ll let readers form their own views on Mr Barrett’s journalistic abilities.
There’s also a ready quote from professional simpleton @tomhunt1988.
I’d ask Tom:
Why do we need to be “careful”? About what? What does this mean?
Legal aid rates are *fixed by government*, you permabronzed halfwit.
I’d ask Tom:
Why do we need to be “careful”? About what? What does this mean?
Legal aid rates are *fixed by government*, you permabronzed halfwit.
At the risk of giving this kind of #FakeLaw the publicity it craves, the reality is that thousands will read it, and I do think it’s important to put the truth out there.
So here goes.
More #LegalAidLies from the Mail... [THREAD]
So here goes.
More #LegalAidLies from the Mail... [THREAD]
1. We start as ever with a claim that the defendants “got £17,000 off taxpayer”, like they were handed a bag of swag. This is in fact the cost of legal aid set by the government. It’s like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant “gets” the cost of the operation in cash
2. Readers are invited to conclude that £17,000 is too much to spend on this very serious case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
More #FakeLaw from @pritipatel’s fundamentally dishonest Home Office.
“Convicted foreign criminals” have absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the asylum system.
The @ukhomeoffice is spreading false information and should immediately issue a correction and an apology.
“Convicted foreign criminals” have absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the asylum system.
The @ukhomeoffice is spreading false information and should immediately issue a correction and an apology.
Hello @RobertBuckland. Sorry to wake you, but your colleagues are once again spreading misinformation in an attempt to undermine rule of law. Any chance of you dusting off that oath you took?
I’d also ask @neill_bob as Chair of the Justice Committee to please condemn these false and dangerous attacks on the rule of law, and on lawyers who are performing their vital constitutional function in representing those who need representation.
In 2018 I published a book on how politicians have broken our criminal justice system.
In 2020 I published a book on how politicians lie to us about the law.
Still didn’t foresee this. The PM blaming us - the ones keeping the system running - for the state of criminal justice.
In 2020 I published a book on how politicians lie to us about the law.
Still didn’t foresee this. The PM blaming us - the ones keeping the system running - for the state of criminal justice.
For years we have worked ourselves into ill-health, forsaking our families each weekend and late into the evening, for free, to keep the criminal justice system hanging together. Because @BorisJohnson’s party has destroyed justice and we, unlike some, feel a sense of public duty.
We have sat with distraught victims of the most serious crimes, having to apologetically explain that there is no justice for them, because @BorisJohnson and his pals have slashed the court budgets, the police, the CPS, probation - every part of the system. We pick up the pieces.
Gather round, children.
The Mail on Sunday is pushing some vintage #FakeLaw today, with a classic reheating of some #LegalAidLies in the ongoing war on asylum seekers.
Let’s take a brief look. [THREAD]
The Mail on Sunday is pushing some vintage #FakeLaw today, with a classic reheating of some #LegalAidLies in the ongoing war on asylum seekers.
Let’s take a brief look. [THREAD]
The “scoop” is that a law firm, Duncan Lewis Solicitors, has been paid £55million in legal aid over the past three years.
Part of their work involves representing asylum seekers.
Hence the headline of “£55m for lawyer blocking deportation flights”.
But look closer.
Part of their work involves representing asylum seekers.
Hence the headline of “£55m for lawyer blocking deportation flights”.
But look closer.
Firstly, despite the focus in the article on the founder, this is a huge solicitors’ firm with over 800 staff and offices across the country. The headline “£55million for lawyer” implies that this sum went to one individual. It of course did not.
Lie number one.
Lie number one.
Some Sunday morning #FakeLaw to deconstruct, courtesy of our regular guest star, The Sun.
Buckle up, kids [THREAD]
Buckle up, kids [THREAD]
1. Firstly, this man did not “spend £165,000”. That is a lie. This was the overall cost of legal aid in long-running serious criminal proceedings. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “spends” the cost of the operation. It’s nonsensical.
2. In any case, readers are invited to conclude that £165,000 is too much to spend on this case.
But the journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
But the journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
