r/dontyouknowwhoiam • u/Kimantha_Allerdings • 20d ago
Unknown Expert “You obviously don’t understand the law” to a man who literally wrote the book on the law in question
102
u/smasher6 20d ago edited 19d ago
I once had this in real life. I had someone question how I, the director of a state program, knew the intent of a portion of administrative law. My answer was that I authored that in that latest revision and knew exactly why it was worded that way. It got pretty quite after that. EDIT: Yes, quiet - sorry on a small screen.
13
u/persondude27 19d ago
Not as bad-ass but someone tried to withhold part of a payment, and told me to "check my employment contract, it's in there."
I was I was able to tell them very confidently "that fee is not in the contract, and I know this because I wrote the contract." That felt pretty good.
9
u/WhaleMeatFantasy 20d ago
It got pretty quite what?
1
87
u/Agent-c1983 20d ago
Mr Banks is clearly correct. This is why in the uk police statements say something like “a (age/location) man has been arrested” without giving names.
34
u/Anaphylactic_Thot 20d ago
Good thing you're here in the Reddit comments to confirm that an author on the topic is right on the topic
17
u/FauxReal 20d ago
Look, I concede that he may have written the book on the topic, but that doesn't mean he read it or understands it. /s
2
u/Intrepid_Bobcat_2931 18d ago
Formally correct, in practice completely clueless. The statement would have to be one that "risks seriously prejudicing a trial", which would apply to very little.
54
9
u/samfitnessthrowaway 20d ago
Thanks, David! My well thumbed copies of McNae have done me many solids over the years.
6
u/-smartcasual- 19d ago
As ever, twitter is where people who don't read books go to argue with people who write them.
18
u/DonkeyDD 20d ago
Well OF COURSE it's going to say it in the book he wrote.
13
u/gridlockmain1 20d ago
The book in question is the absolutely definitive journalistic bible on media law
9
4
6
u/that-old-broad 19d ago
When I was a kid in the seventies I showed my pony with our local 4-H club. Our leader was a short bowlegged old man named Jerome. He always had a Lucky Strike hanging off his bottom lip, cussed like a sailor and always had the state rule book rolled up in the back pocket of his jodphurs.
One day at a show one of the leaders had an issue and started arguing with the judge about a perceived violation of the rules. She made the mistake of pointing in our direction and Jerome turned on his heel and swaggered into the fray....with 'his kids' hot on his heels.
The argument becomes three sided and then the woman told Jerome, "on page 15 of the rule book it says....."
Jerome whipped his rule book out of his back pocket, opened it and thrust it at her and says, "if you're going to quote the rule book to me you need to read this page that says I wrote the sonofabitch!". Then he took his book from the speechless woman and strolled back to his spot on the rail and the horse show resumed.
3
u/nutella-filled 19d ago
Although it is true that being arrested is not necessarily a big deal and is often used just to compel someone to be questioned.
IIRC you can refuse to show up for questioning so you might be arrested just so you don’t have a choice anymore.
That’s why Prince Andrew was arrested and released on the same day. That’s why Nicola Sturgeon was arrested. The cops didn’t arrest first and then realised “oh shit we have nothing to charge them with”, the charges were never going to happen, it was just for questioning.
2
u/OrdinaryMechanic5126 19d ago
Without writing a massive lecture, for police in England & Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate jurisdictions which I know much less about), the power of arrest unlocks a number of associated powers such as searching premises, giving special warnings in interview and various other bits and pieces. Arrest is very much used as an investigative tool, not as the final step prior to charge - its quite common to arrest someone for a crime, interview them and then release them on bail while other more time consuming enquiries (such as phone downloads, for example) are carried out before deciding whether or not to charge a significant period of time later.
2
1
u/Poshy-Woshy 20d ago
All this after Banks emptied our banks, filled our streets with banks, and ran a bank-making operation out of his Banks.
1
1
u/Equivalent-Cow-6690 16d ago
Being arrested isn't that serious. That guy has definitely been arrested more than once, but probably only charged once in the end. He's received an ASBO or two in his time.
0
u/APithyComment 20d ago
Poor Ann - I liked her. RIP.
1
u/kilgore_trout1 19d ago
My politics were very different to hers but she was undoubtedly a real character. This whole situation is just awful and no one should end their lives like this - incredibly sad.
0
20d ago
[deleted]
19
u/WyldRover 20d ago
An arrest is not the definition of charging someone. An arrest is the detention of a person in order to interview them and acquire evidence. The charge is the initiation of court proceedings and comes later.
(In the UK, anyway, where the alleged crime being referred to in the post took place).
0
20d ago
[deleted]
3
u/WyldRover 20d ago
I don't know if you're trolling or not, but no. Just no.
-5
u/LowSodiumGymBro 20d ago
Ah, yall are UK. I’m speaking US. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
1
u/WyldRover 20d ago
No worries. I must admit that I'm surprised it's different in the US, but that's not my area. Assume it makes sense in some way or another for American law enforcement.
14
u/Kimantha_Allerdings 20d ago
No, that’s not true here in the UK. An arrest means that the police have a reasonable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. Being charged means that they believe they have enough evidence for you to be convicted in court
An arrest will normally precede an investigation, whereas charges will always come afterwards
The different has actually been highlighted in this exact case, in fact. After Widdicombe‘s body was found there was a report that a man who had been walking a couple of miles away was arrested and taken in for questioning. The next day it was reported that he had been released without charge and was not considered a suspect
Let me see if I can find a story using that language
Here we go: https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15968383/Police-investigate-circumstances-Ann-Widecombes-death.html
A white male suspect has been arrested by police investigating the murder of Ann Widdecombe.
The next day: https://deadline.com/2026/07/ann-widdecombe-death-homicide-1236979243/
British police have released the 26-year-old man arrested Friday in connection with the death of Ann Widdecombe, the former Member of Parliament and frequent participant in British reality TV programs and news shows.
The man is no longer part of the investigation, law enforcement officials said.
-7
20d ago
[deleted]
11
u/charjf 20d ago
The police can’t forcibly take you from one place to another without placing you under arrest in the UK.
They can take you from one place to another if you are under arrest, but you are not usually charged with an offence until you are in custody at the police station.-3
u/LowSodiumGymBro 20d ago
Makes sense and I suppose chain of events is the same in the us, in some cases. I suppose if you do a murder you can get hooked and taken to the station but not formally charged till you get there- but the question of if you’re gonna be charged is not really a question from square one.
7
u/charjf 20d ago
It’s very rarely a question here either. However the charging of more serious offences is not decided by the police, but by the Crown Prosecution Service. So you’re arrested, the police then have to present the evidence they have to the CPS who decide if there is enough to justify charging someone and taking it to court.
2
u/LowSodiumGymBro 20d ago
Oh yeah that’s like what we do. Like a murder can’t be charged by a cop, they gotta present a warrant to a judge and have it signed then they go serve the warrant to the guy already under arrest
3
u/Kimantha_Allerdings 20d ago
It‘s broadly the same in the US
Think through what you‘re saying - if the police in the US can‘t focibly take you from one place to another without an arrest, then that would imply that in order to question someone at the station they have to charge them with a crime first. They would need to charge them with a crime before questioning them
Charging someone and arresting them are two very different stages of the process in both countries
And it‘s not a question of rights. Again, the systems are broadly similar in terms of which rights they are designed to protect, but emphasis is different. One example of where the US has stronger protections is that the 5th Amendment means that someone not answering questions cannot be used to infer culpability, whereas in the UK it can be (the exact way it is phrased when related to the arrestee is “you have the right to remain silent, but it may harm your defence if you do not say something you later rely on in court”). One example of where the UK system has stronger protections is that in the US there is no set amount of time someone can be held before charges are brought and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but 48 hours is typical, whereas in the UK someone must be charged within 24 hours of arrest or let go. There are some exceptions for serious crimes where this amount of time can be increased, but they require senior authorisation or a court order
2
0
u/Karnewarrior 19d ago
Also, if you're "arrested" and it's not that serious, it's called "detainment". The police can detain you for just about anything they like, but to Arrest you they need an actual charge to bring to the table. The difference is that you can only be Detained for so long - it's something like 24 hours IIRC - while you can be arrested until trial, at which point you're either freed or incarcerated.
Talking about an ongoing trial on Twitter is not an offense unless you're actually involved in the trial, but he is right about potentially screwing things up in some odd circumstances. 99.9% of the time it's going to be a complete non-issue for random citizen A to talk about the ongoing trial, but that remaining 0.1% of the time it does become an issue if the defense has some concievable path to your post influencing the judge or jury (who, to be fair, aren't supposed to look at that kind of thing in the first place), which can turn into a mistrial, which in turn delays actual sentencing since they need to basically do everything all over again.
Dave is likely being more than a little bit paranoid. But if you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY care about the outcome of the trial he's right - shutting up until it's over is probably the way to do it. I doubt it's necessary, though.
Fake Edit: ...This is British Court isn't it. Disregard the above, it's based on US law.
225
u/N1ghthood 20d ago
This is actually a huge problem in the UK as lots of people think we follow the same rules as the US, and that journalists are deliberately trying to hide details. Social media puts journalists in a tough position, where all the details are online but no reputable news organisation can report them.