Comments by "Bond25" (@Bond2025) on "BlackBeltBarrister" channel.

Alex Belend will hopefully leave people alone now. Police are taking action against him after the way he spoke about them. He got exactly what he deserved. More concerning is the thick stupid people that were scammed out of their money to pay for possessions, holidays etc. I still can't understand why so many allowed themselves to be scammed. He promoted a common interest and purpose and lied about wanting money to sue the BBC. Hopefully you have all had counselling and got a refund.
16
The problem is a lot of normal cyclists will think twice, but "professional" ones will always do it to try and cause an accident and get a claim out of it...then start hate campaigns and get everyone saying the driver is at fault etc. You see it all over twitter and youtube. People now even just walk in to the road as they think the Highway Code states vehicles must stop for them, most buses and HGVs can not stop instantly! People need to all take responsibility and not assume the position of Lycra Lout and start shouting they know their rights, it only takes one mistake to get themselves killed.
9
The lesson is - don't break the Law, very simple one to follow.
4
Most of the auditors do it to try and make money from claims. They will provoke and hope someone makes a slight mistake in words or actions. I saw this at a police station when they had a srone looking through windows and people on the ground had a group behind them gesturing and causing a nuisance. It was no wonder the police wanted them to move away. People also get filmed inside police stations and the idiot auditors don't know who they are or why they are there. Many auditors are jobless lowlife types with criminal records that you would not want anywhere near you.
4
You need to remember, if you are being attacked, that person has set out to cause you serious harm or kill you, so you need to get in first. Don't ever be scared of defending yourself in any attack, even if your home is broken in to. Attackers quite often fall down the stairs two or three times after being startled when you walk out of the bedroom and switch the light on. A Chief Constable once said, "Dead witnesses can't talk, so it was self defence" which seems fair enough.
4
Your umbrella is a weapon too. Mine has a spike at the end.
3
Well if you believe that, you believe anything. Most use a disposable craft knife or a knife from the kitchen drawer.
3
There always seem to have been two storylines running in parallel with a lot of cases you see reported in the news and most follow the same template, so this is not about the name you mention, but what people often do and it applies to many cases that have been reported previously and concluded. The best advice is if you have done something, prolonging the agony of not just holding your hands up and admitting it makes you look worse. You also waste a lot of your own money, or that of other people. Anyone donating money that later claims to have been misled will then be against others. Think of the following fictional people A,B,C,D,E and fictional Company F and fictional Police in a case that is not real, but the wording used as an example only and bearing no resemblence to anyone named here or elsewhere or any case open or closed. Person A complained bitterly that Company F had a vendetta against them for no reason, picked them at random and had used/influenced police to arrest them for no reason, search property, take possible evidence away and make up false things between them to accuse Person A of as they think they are such a threat, they are best silenced. Person A tells everyone this as fact and finds a common ground or similar thing people do not like about Company F or police and works on that to steer everything away from them, on to police and Company F. That can lead to people being asked for a petition, campaign or even donation to fight the horrible police and Company F when it might really be used to cover their own legal fees or financial needs, particularly if they were in any debt. Persons B,C,D,E don't know each other and maybe complained to police that Person A had somehow behaved in a way that made them feel threatened and reported it to police with evidence and/or witnesses resulting in investigation and action. Person D was more annoyed, wanted to be left alone and went to the high court and got some sort of proceedings issued and suggested a huge figure and a promise to leave them alone and say no more or the action would continue against Person A. Person A then confused the police action for what they found themselves accused of for a completely different thing! They tried to twist it by claiming to be a victim and being attacked by random people from Company F and police. People will use all sorts of tricks to deflect a situation.
2
I carry a biro, easily doubles as a Kubotan.
2
He is very busy during the day, so was sitting up doing a quick youtube edit and decided to open a parcel he forgot about from earlier on that day. That sounds reasonable to me. Someone run at him as he was walking out of the kitchen with a cup of coffee and large knife about to be used to cut a scone! There are loads of defences. The best I heard was for a man being caught in a shop with a knife and accused of attempt robbery. He had been "making a pie" and was cutting pastry up when he saw a friend walk past, he run out of his kitchen and over the road to see him going in to a shop and followed him in, completely forgetting about the knife he was holding. The CCTV didn't match up with that version of events!
2
@stevie6340 I am just looking up what the rules are around legal aid now, how much you are allowed to have in the bank etc. It is means tested. Usually only very poor or very rich people can have access to fair justice, people working on a average income often have to pay monthly contributions of £600-£800 a month. There is no guarantee you get any of this back if you are not convicted either - so this is why people hate false accusers. A Judge wouldn't direct a QC on legal aid to help with a case like this. That's not the way it works. A person would need to find his own representation, then make applications for legal aid and then make a further application for a QC. Why would they even need a QC on a relatively easy case. It's almost sounding as bad as when people will say "we have London Counsel" thinking everyone is going to be scared. They are no better qualified than Counsel from any other Area. Judges are way more clever than a lot of people and see the same things all the time.
2
It is inappropriate speed that can be just one factor of many in accidents and not always the fault of the driver. If a child was playing in the road on a 20mph limit and run after a ball for example, someone doing 20 might hit them, someone doing 30 would be past before they run out - it is not always a case of saying "too fast". You might also need to ask why a child was put at risk by parents. I have been at 137mph in one car in a 40mph limit and 155mph in a 70 limit. The 155 was inappropriate I thought due to other road users and time of day, but the 137 was appropriate because it was early hours of the morning and no one about on a road that would require a car ato reach and no pedestrians, homes or businesses nearby. I must say those speeds were allowed, not just some boy racer! Many people do not know how to control a car, that is why they crash. Many can only go fast in a straight line and take no account of what is around them. That's why you see so many idiots crashing BMW or Audi cars all the time, they rely on driver assistance but run out of talent. I think the ban was uncalled for unless the person keeps committing the same type of offence. What we have now is clueless Magistrates who volunteer for something to do in retirement, or have an axe to grind and are not legally qualified. There are a few exceptions, but the Judiciary do NOT have any respect for them and often have to sit on appeals to guide them in the errors of their ways, or call in to question what a Law Student thought was legal advice before telling them what sentence to give and letting them decide how bad the person looks. Why else would someone dress up for a hearing if it was only a hearing based on facts and evidence? Some probably give full sentences to burglars if their shed was broken in to for example! Others might not like speeders. What we have to watch for is busy-body Magistrates falling for character references which are all rubbish as every criminal is "honest and trustworthy", "looks after sick relative" or "suffers a disability and would find it hard to get around", maybe "unable to take children to ballet or football" and the "hardship" argument. Time and time again it just means a person couldn't care less about his or her family, job or home unless he or she is caught. Why are people still driving with 12 or more points by the way? Bent Staff or people charging not to add points? Rant over!
1
@lucee2261 No one is guilty of anything unless it was proved and they were convicted by a Court.
1
The cyclist should have done that, but none will admit their mistakes or even deliberate actions. I can't tell you how many I have seen deliberately trying to cause accidents. Usually on estates it is children who will ride with no lights and go between cars and across their path and cause cars to stop. I have filmed this a few times. Then you get out of work teens who think where there is blame there is a claim and stage accidents by waiting for someone to turn across their path and riding in to the side of them before lying on the floor - all for a bit of money. The major problem is caused by the lycra louts who have all got helmet cameras and copies of the highway code and almost make themselves vexatious litigants. They stay on the same parts of roads identified and shared by others and will put their own life at risk by deliberately riding in to people. It is a really silly game to play.
1
I actually have a large 8inch by 3inch knife at home and use it every day for cooking! That is the genuine use for it and it's mainly for chopping vegetables as I do like to cook, mainly Indian, but also Chinese foods. If someone happened to break in whilst I was preparing a meal for the next day, they should know not to touch anything sharp.
1
You probably tell that STORY everywhere. The judge locked up a criminal who chose to break the law. Don't you want that? It's what you were asking for.
1
You wouldn't last 5 minutes in Liverpool with that sort of support for vile criminals. You are part of the problem in society.
1
How do you represent someone that you must know is guilty from the evidence abailable? Don't say you don't know or that it doesn't matter what you think etc - the reason no one believes anyone is guilty is because the longer it goes on the more they are paid. Novel research used to be a good earner, that was all stopped as people used to charge this regularly for things that were not unique or unusual areas of Law. Most people don't know a Barrister can be attending various hearings each day, they could do a 15min bail hearing at 10am, then a mention hearing, then a few plea hearings, maybe start a trial and do a few more bits and pieces...if they are not making any money, they do not appear to have good clerks at chambers. They are not organising the hearings very well. Maybe someone should post a list of fees claimed for the different types of hearings, how long they are allowed for each and how many of each during the day and a week. I know Barristers that were being paid up to £800 per day - QCs were being paid up to £750K a year. I have NO sympathy for people on a good wage, or people trying to mislead the public by stating they only earn £200 a week... That would be payment for 3-4 15min hearings on one day. Maybe the barristers complaining they are not being paid what they feel they deserve should post their true claim details. One very famous barrister used to complain he didn't make enough in a day to cover his cigars. A lot of Barristers sit as part time Judges or Recorders and get paid extra for this. Many Judges own Barristers Chambers as partners with others, so it is in everyones interest to have hearings organised and run a certain way. People running chambers take a cut of the money. Even Clerks working in chambers are being paid £45-60K a year and i really doubt Barristers would work for less than them.
1
You were lucky! My local council did this with their car park being half of the local ASDA car park. The council car park is on the left, Asda on the right, but no clear signs. There are lots and lots of random signs which you can't read easily as you get funnelled through a number of turns and pedestrian crossings! It is far too easy to go in the wrong side and be fined. If you park in the ASDA side, then ask for the receipt and tell them about your parking, they pay for it. It is an overcomplicated procedure. I was once approached by a parking warden as I stopped in a car park to collect an OAP relative. I had stopped for 30s. He said because I had "parked" I was getting a ticket, I pointed out that the engine was still running and as I was in the driver's seat, I was "driving the vehicle, but had stopped, not parked", in Law I am driving the vehicle. He then pointed at the "you must park in the indicated bays only" sign, I said that I would do if I was going to use the car park to park in and leave my car. He looked well confused, muttered something and walked off.
1
That I really doubt. No one would sit through a case knowing they could not hear or follow what was going on, they would say something and a Judge would order a fix of the system or alternative system or appointment of someone such as a lipspeaker or sign language person. The loop system in a courtroom is via infrared to stop people sitting outside and using devices to listen in. The headphones you would have been given would have been tested each day and batteries charged overnight and faults fixed within a day, there are many alternative items to use and if you HAD said you were unable to hear, the Judge would have simply moved to a new courtroom and tested the equipment again. Most is Sennheisser equipment, so not cheap. If the problem was with your hearing and you did not have any devices to correct it, such as hearing aids, then you would have been asked if you had any special needs well before any hearing and arrangements made. If you could provide no medical evidence of this, then you would be seen as just using this as an excuse to delay proceedings or to try and avoid justice. Defendants WILL use any excuse they can think of, including "I didn't understand", "couldn't hear", "didn't follow" etc etc. Most would not have all their self diagnosed problems if they were found not guilty. If there are genuine needs, they are catered for. People do NOT lose a case because of a GENUINE disability or medical condition, everyone is given fair and full access to justice, often at great expense to the public to allow that person to be treated fairly. I don't actually believe a word of what you say.
1
There is no profile for someone that carries a knife. Age does not mean you might not use it or harm someone by accident.
1
I don't agree with no comment or prepared statements unless you know the client is guilty. Or they have enough evidence to suggest it. Imagine being arrested and accused of attacking someone and saying no comment on the advice of a duty solicitor because he/she wants to get back home, when you could prove you were at work or in a location elsewhere. Why do so many solicitors give the wrong advice? The legal system is all theatre. It has barristers sitting as judges, people acting for prosecution and defence, people doing deals, dropping cases after using them to earn repeat fees, structuring attendances to make as much as possible etc. The best is a hearing to decide another hearing date. This is why graduated fees and standard fees were all changed, it stops a lot of scamming of the taxpayer. There are very rare cases of private payers and they don't get delayed or messed about with adjournments. Many cases are mis-managed and barristers are notorious for not keeping clerks informed. Chambers are also owned and run by judges and barristers who sit as recorders, so is it true justice when everyone discusses cases and how they might go?
1
Can you turn the radio or tv off in the background and upload the video again as the noise is louder than you.
1
Try getting hold of Sky Green Energy...far too busy to even reply now.
1
No we are not, but then I don't support and sympathise with criminals either - being a more honest and decent person than some scum with a criminal record. Have a think about it.
1
All the parking tickets or permits I have seen clearly state, as do disabled badges, "this must be positioned clearly the correct way up in the windscreen and be clearly visible". What would you have done if they said that although you had the permit showing on the seat, it was not as required, "on the dashboard" . I had an encounter with a Council contracted parking enforcement person that issued a ticket to a vehicle that was parked on Crown Property! The parking enforcement person had no right to come on to the property and was removed as soon as he was noticed by Security Staff and Armed Police Officers. He then called the police to report Security and the officers in attendance who said it was not public property, or public land, it was indeed Crown Property and private. Access was restricted and he was breaking various Laws by being on the property and not leaving on the instruction of armed officers. His argument was that I had crossed a paved public area to access the parking area via automatic bollards and he did not think I should be allowed to do. There were NO notices stating access was not allowed or that people with pre-arranged permission to have the bollards lower on approach were not allowed to cross a 30ft pedestrian area to reach the Crown Property Land in a vehicle. The police did try explaining this to him, but he persisted and I had to appeal it. My first letter was rejected, I actually had to obtain various letters stating the vehicle I was in was registered with the Council to lower the bollards, prove I was contracted to work at that time, pay for plans of the area from HM Land Registry and submit this all with photos and old photos from Google Earth showing there are NO signs restricting access to anyone, or any vehicle at any time. This took months to resolve and finally the Council cancelled the parking fine and said their decision, although based on the evidence I had provided and that of their own Council Staff, plus HM Land Registry, set no precedent and they would continue to ticket vehicles on this land - in the full knowledge they have no right to do so. They don't own it, have no permission to be on it and anyone going on to it can be prosecuted as it is a restricted area. I think it was 4 months from the date of the fine that I had my letter stating it was cancelled. I provided all the evidence within 2 days and it was ignored. The Council couldn't understand they didn't own every piece of Land or road and were not aware of how the bollards operated, who was able to use them for work purposes and which land their contracted staff should avoid.
1
Is your wig really still made from horse hair and are they expensive?
1
You need to explain MORE about this no win no fee type arrangement. Some claims companies ask customers to pay for an insurance policy in case they lose the case - you then pay them from the insurance policy. The one advertised here takes up to 50% of any damages, which means you will get around £1000 if they win. If you lose then who knows what you will pay because they will not send me the terms and conditions and make a point of trying to shift responsibility for you not getting your money unless you stick to the conditions! It is not very clear what they mean by this how how much it will cost if they lose. There is no one to email and no one will answer questions.
1
@soylentgreen326 Exactly, that's payment for all those extra unrequired 2minute hearings to ask for future hearing dates to be changed - when it could be done by email! We all know that Barristers were well annoyed when Graduated Fees were changed to stop the abuse that had gone on for years. All those short hearings really added up and it doesn't help that some Judges are part or full owners of Barristers Chambers that have a monopoly in some parts of the UK. This is probably why cases take so long, keep getting delayed and moved etc. The more hearings, the more money. It put payments back to covering work and hearings that were actually required...
1
@soylentgreen326 They do, but to be fair you are paying for their vast experience of the Law. You try going in to a case representing yourself and see how far you get. There are procedures and timetables to follow throughout a trial, various tasks need to be completed like obtaining and disclosing evidence, obtaining reports, getting experts in particular fields. You get what you pay for with Barristers, apart from the people that represented people involved with Post Office cases - they really let their clients down badly and should be struck-off. It is very true that the more money you spend, the better your defence will be. That usually applies to people that have committed offences and get off on a technicality. If you have not committed a crime and there is no evidence, you should be able to rely on a Jury, but a lot are either thick or stupid when it comes to keeping up with the cases. They should really have some form of IQ Test before people can serve on a Jury. You will always get people making their minds up based on a persons wardrobe, character references written by random people and they will often stay deliberating to avoid going back to work for part of the week. Everyone knows what goes on! If you have a Barrister from London, you will nearly always win. If you have what's known in the legal profession as a "Liverpool Jury" you will always get away with certain offences due to local hatred of police and government.
1
How about a video on Data Protection and Retention Laws, maybe UK in general and UK Internet Company compared to a VPN company registered and operated from British Virgin Islands or other location that is very difficult to deal with legally. By using a VPN, you agree to them doing what they want with your personal data. You have no control over who stores it, where it is stored, who can access it and for what purpose, or who customer profiles might be sold to. How would you stop a VPN from collecting all the data flowing through their system, profiling users and selling it, or steering your traffic to the websites owned by the highest bidder. There are no Laws in countries they register in and operate from for this reason. They are known as "law-less" countries. A VPN is not needed for most people, exactly WHAT do you think sharing all your personal details, banking information, emails, banking sites and general browsing is going to do if you volunteer all this to a company and pay them to take it! Don't connect to unknown WiFi, there is no need as everyone has 4G/5G now. Your IP number is only one of a few hundred ways your identity is tracked around the Internet every day. If you do want a secure VPN Tunnel, you can go in to your Home Router and switch on the VPN Server, then copy the code in to the OpenVPN App for your computer and phone. That means no matter where you are, you connect home securely and use your own Internet connection, so always appear to be at home. An alternative is a raspberry pi with PiVPN running on it, very easy to do. Use the Wireguard App on your computer or phone, connect back home from anywhere securely and use your own internet. VPNs are throttled by ISPs now, they also repurpose other home users systems to connect out on if you are not busy and route traffic via your home system, so other users assume your IP. This is used to connect people to BBCi, ITV, Netflix etc as ALL VPN IPs are blocked by major services. You might also need to do a show on consumer rights and refunds if people are thinking of signing up to a VPN in a Law-Less country. I dare you to try and cancel a VPN, see how far you get as that 30 day guarantee is not as clear as it seems. Many people complain stating it is ignored.
1
I'm not sure if people just invent things in order to post - anyone with knowledge of what goes on will spot the people doing this within minutes. Jury people are provided with notebooks and pens to USE DURING A HEARING, some will get assistive technology if they want it. It's a standard thing in England. The only request is that they are not taken out of the Courtroom or Jury Room and any written or stored information/material is disposed of by the Court at a time they request. Memebers of the public can make notes, but have to check first and be advised about what they can and can not be used for.
1
s139.5 is a joke, this is why certain groups think they can carry a knife and FOBL (Fear of Being Labelled) means Police will not deal with it using the Law and evidence they have.
1
All Courtrooms have audio recording with times, so when you request a transcript, you get all that. The system is accessed by an Independant company and they are paid by the hour to sit and type out everything said. It is not in their interest to miss bits off. If the equipment breaks, handheld devices are used and that is all logged and stored after being added to the recording system. If you feel Barristers are taking their time to try and get extra pay - you try representing yourself in a case. You will not last 5minutes. I have seen many loudmouthed little cretins go screaming and shouting and almost convict themselves within minutes, because they are thick. That's often why they were caught, but that's a different story!
1
Great news.
1
What about being charged for obeying a traffic signal! Example, stopped at a RED traffic light on a busy road junction with 4 lanes on each road (crossing) with a 40mph limit. A police car, ambulance or fire engine appears from behind displaying flashing blue lights and sounding horns and/or sirens - clearly in a hurry to get somewhere or respond to an emergency. If I choose NOT to cross the red light, can I be prosecuted for obeying a traffic signal? The reason I ask is that a lot of emergency vehicles will try to force people to cross red lights and drive in to the path of other vehicles who might not be expecting this to happen and make no allowance for slowing or stopping without much notice. Emergency drivers do this by waving their arms and shouting or getting too close and keeping sirens on and sounding horns! Bad road planning is not the fault of the motorist, neither is poor positioning of emergency vehicles based on predictive data.
1