Although the anonymous author is (we are assured) a criminal specialist, crime is not the sole focus this time around. The tour d’horizon includes family, personal injury, employment, human rights and the constitution. Lawyers in those fields need no help diagnosing the illness. Where this book succeeds most brilliantly is explaining how much fake law matters and setting the problem in a broader context. Public understanding and appreciation for individual rights have not only been debased, they have been debased to serve ideological ends (“misrepresentation or worse“). In a book ostensibly about the domestic legal system, Donald Trump looms large.

The English Civil Law and its protections is often held up as one of the institutions to be proud of in principle (here in Scotland I'll reserve full judgment), but unlike other institutions like the NHS or the BBC, most people feel that involvement with the law is about other people, unsavoury types who aren't like them, so either through ignorance of how the law works or through the heart getting the better of the head, they resent its protections when it seems to be giving bad people benefits they don't deserve. Most people, of course, will pass their lives without ever being arrested and charged with an offence they didn't commit but some will find themselves on the wrong side of the law – it happens more often than we like to think – and when they do they may suddenly be grateful to have one of those lawyers who get murderers, rapists and paedophiles 'off the hook' on their side. And however much politicians and tabloids rail against huge amounts of Legal Aid being paid out to wrong'uns (who never actually see a penny of it as it is paid to the lawyers in less-than-generous remuneration for their work), those caught on the wrong foot should not have to sell their home to clear their name. The law should be available to all who need it. And don't get me started on the High Court and Supreme Court lawyers unfairly charged with "defying the people's will" over things like Brexit. Their only bias is towards the law as it stands (a bit of a mess to be honest, much of it inscribed in centuries of case law, but we pay them well for knowing their way around the labyrinth) and don't deserve the tabloid bile ("ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE") and consequent death threats piled on them for maintaining it. If we lose judicial independence, we lose the rule of law. The day a judge makes a binding decision affecting the rights and liberties of one of us, not on the legal and factual merits, but with a nervous glance to the press and public galleries, or with a beady eye on political favour or punishment, is the day that the decay in our democracy turns terminal.” The young are always drawn to Marxism, as they should be - it is a wonderful theory, really idealistic. But it doesn't work. And now you see worthy political movements taken over by very knowing and cynical Marxist-inspired anarchists who seek to destroy rather than improve, reshape or even replace. To do that needs discussion and debate. And that they will not allow. There are not two sides, or even ten sides, to any argument any more. There is only one. Theirs. And now I see institutions like universities,the BBC (always biased, but much more so now), even reality tv cooking shows going along with it or else facing public wrath. And everything is public these days. And wrath is the main stance of those whose view is not heeded or is challenged. Here endeth the rant. For now.It doesn't sound like self defence any more. And the whole discussion in the book is on what is reasonable force and what if it is reasonable force (a man hit a burglar on the head just once, it fractured his skull) but the result is much greater than intended. In the UK these discussions are interesting. The implications of the book, on the other hand, are significantly less comfortable to digest. Alongside a better understanding of a broad overview of legal topics, ranging from legal aid to our human rights and employment and personal injury law, comes a feeling of increasing alarm when we start to actually see the huge divide between what the media tells us about the law and what goes on in reality.

Public legal education, particularly in schools, that would help people to critically analyse any information relating to our justice system. On January 10, after a year-long public comment period, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) rolled out new legislation to regulate providers of deepfake content. While certain Western state and national governments have already introduced some legislation in this space, the new Chinese legislation is far more comprehensive and is described as a mechanism to preserve social stability. It specifically prohibits the production of deepfakes without user consent and requires specific identification that the content had been generated using artificial intelligence (AI). Another way is the deployment of deep fake detectors. Intel, for instance, has created a detector ( FakeCatcher) that they claim can analyze videos to detect if they are genuine or fake.I'm fascinated by true crime and legal matters and jumped at the change to request Fake Law through the publisher, who provided me with a free copy to read and review. A deepfake is a piece of modified content created using deep learning, a form of AI called Generative AI. There are a variety of deepfake techniques, but the most commonly seen example is the deepfake video in which the face of a person in the video is swapped with another person’s face. These videos are made with AI algorithms called encoders to make realistic looking but fake content. In the US, 'stand your ground' is a licence to kill any intruder for any reason at all. Or not even an intruder, anyone you reasonably believe intends to harm or kill you. This is the usual police defence when they murder someone or other, especially minorities whom they are always certain were threatening them with (non-existent) guns.

Years ago, this guy, Tony Martin shot two burglars - as they were running away empty-handed. One died. He got charged with manslaughter and there was an outcry of support for him, he was only defending what was his. He said he had been woken by noises and come downstairs with his 12-bore pump action Winchester shotgun. This actually was half the truth. He had heard noises, by the time the men got in he was fully dressed and waiting in the breakfast room. He shot three times. And he did intend to kill them. Another law that the nation struggled to identify as real, was against asking a stranger for parking change. This law has been in place for several centuries under the Vagrancy Act of 1824, and is illegal as it is seen as begging . However, more than half (60%) believed this to be a fake law. So you take a test, it says you are lying, so now the police take this as absolute 100% proof and that is their agenda and they will work to fit all evidence to it. Up to and including false confessions if they can get one. You've seen all the tv documentaries, you've read all the stories of people who spent years in prison, even death row, before it was proved (usually these days through dna) that they didn't do it. You can add to that police corruption, police wanting to clear up cases to make their own records look good for promotion and pay rises. See Among the Lowest of the Dead. But what actually happened? Miller won, the Government conceded, a vote was had in Parliament which went overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit, the courts did not collapse and democracy was not destroyed. A couple of newspapers ran headlines that lawyers didn’t like. It was not the end of civilisation as we know it and nor should the judiciary be, uniquely, exempt from criticism. SB: Philip Davies is a man who, on a BBC documentary, bounced up and down while sitting on an electric chair, enthusing about how that’s exactly the sort of justice we need in England and Wales, so I think it’s fair to say that he is probably part of a constituency that I’m not going to be able to persuade. And ultimately, nice as I think it would be if lots of people agreed with me, that’s not really the primary aim of the book. I’m happy for people to argue against human rights, say, or against increasing legal aid, as long as when they do so they are equipped with – and deploy – actual facts. I naturally happen to believe that if they are equipped with the facts that they will be forced to reconsider their position, but even if they don’t – as long as they aren’t parroting myths and are able to appreciate the counter-arguments, I’ll be content. Ish.Society only functions if we all abide by common, agreed rules. If we don’t understand our justice system, and if our comprehension is corrupted by misinformation, we can’t properly engage with arguments over its functioning. We can’t critically evaluate its performance, identify its flaws, propose sensible reform or even participate meaningfully in everyday conversation about the stories in the news. Our unfamiliarity also makes us vulnerable to those who would exploit the gaps in our knowledge to push ulterior agendas.” The principle behind damages in tort is to restore the claimant to the position that they would have been in had they not been harmed by the action of the tortfeasor. Employment law is concerned with ensuring that in the workplace, your economic rights and human dignity are not infringed or exploited as a result of that imbalance of power. The point of rights is that they don't only apply to people we like. Rights - indeed the law - if they mean anything have to apply equally to all. If we lose judicial independence, we lose the rule of law. The day a judge makes a binding decision affecting the rights and liberties of one of us, not on the legal and factual merits, but with a nervous glance to the press and public galleries or with a beady eye on political favor or punishment is the day that the decay in our democracy turns terminal. But, in reality, English law clearly states that you can defend yourself, your family, and your property against intruders. Under English self-defense laws, even killing can be legally permissible as long your actions fulfill two vital criteria.