Let's give chat GPT another go because

David Lami really wants to get rid of

jury trials for lots of offenses and he

really wants to use AI to assist in the

justice system. Let's give it a go.

We'll talk about it a bit more later. Uh

because a lot of people were triggered

by my last video, but let's give Chat

GPT another go first.

Chat GPT, are you ready to answer some

questions for me?

>> Absolutely. I'm here and ready. What's

on your mind?

Okay, I'm a bit confused. You see, um,

my friend has given me a cup, but the

strange thing about this cup is that the

top is sealed and the bottom of it is

completely open. Uh, how am I supposed

to drink from this?

>> I hate to break it to you, but that

sounds like a bit of a prank or a very

unconventional piece of modern art. If

the top is sealed and the bottom is

open, it's not really going to hold any

liquid. You're not actually meant to

drink from it. Unless, of course, you

just wanted a quick spill.

>> So, you say it's just going to spill.

>> Exactly. If there's no bottom and the

top is sealed, any liquid would just

fall right out. It's not really

functional as a cup. But hey, maybe it's

a conversation piece. Or your friend

just wanted a laugh.

>> Well, I certainly think it's a

conversation piece. Is there anything I

could do to this cup to make it usable

to be able to drink from it?

>> Well, if you're feeling crafty, you

could attach a base to the bottom. Maybe

a flat waterproof material sealed well,

but at that point, you might just be

reinventing a cup. Still, if the design

is fun and you want to give it a second

life, a little DIY could make it

functional. So, if I were to get

something say like a marble coaster or

something and glue it to the open sides

so that it's completely glued and

sealed, h how would I drink from it?

Then

>> in that case, you'd have essentially

turned it into a sealed container. Still

no way to drink. To make it usable,

you'd need at least one open end. So, if

you seal the bottom, you'd have to open

up the top either by removing the seal

or creating a drinking hole. In other

words, it needs an open top to be a

proper cup. again.

>> So, you're saying I could seal the

bottom, but then I'd need to open the

top and that would sort of turn it into

a cup. Almost like I was turning it

upside down. Is Is that what you're

saying?

>> Exactly. You'd be flipping the logic.

What was once the bottom becomes the top

and the top becomes the bottom. So, seal

up the bottom end and open the top. Then

it's a proper cup again. A bit of a

quirky journey, but it would do the

trick. So, I'd effectively be you you're

saying by sealing the bottom and opening

up the top, I'd effectively be flipping

it upside down to turn it back into a

cup by sealing the bottom and opening

the top. Is that what you're saying?

>> You've got it exactly. It's like giving

the cup a little identity flip. Once you

close off what was the bottom and open

up the sealed top, it'll function like a

normal cup again, just inverted from how

it started.

So, what if I were to just turn it

upside down and not seal the bottom and

not open the top? What if I just turned

it upside down? Would it be usable then?

I like the creative thinking, but if

it's sealed at one end and open at the

other, upside down or not, it's still

just going to let any liquid pour right

out. In other words, flipping it alone,

won't magically make it hold anything.

It's going to need at least one proper

closed end to be functional.

So right now the the proper closed end

as you put it is at the top and the

bottom is completely open. So if I

flipped it upside down, can you describe

what I'm now holding to me? If you flip

it upside down, you're basically holding

something like a funnel. The top, which

was sealed, is now at the bottom, and

the open bottom is now at the top, wide

open. So unless you're pouring something

straight through it, it's still not

going to hold anything. Quite the

conversation piece, but still not a cup.

>> But let's say I've now so I've now

flipped it upside down that the top is

now open and the bottom is now sealed.

You you say wouldn't hold anything. But

if I poured liquid into the open top,

how would the liquid then escape? Okay.

One or two things to warn you about

here. Recently, I've had more and more

people telling me that they've received

letters from TV licensing telling them

that they have evidence that they've

accessed BBC i Player at their address.

They can only really do this by evidence

that they've logged in or by evidence of

the use of their IP address somehow

linked to their address. Now, before I

go any further, let me just be

absolutely clear. I do not recommend

that anyone break the law. If you need a

TV license, you should buy one. That's

not what this is about. What this is

about is privacy. Because in modern

days, virtually everything you do on any

of your devices is linked by your IP

address. Your IP address is essentially

a digital home address for all your

machines when they're connected on your

home network. Now, if these companies

are monitoring and accessing services,

live streams, I player, whatever else it

might be, this is going to be logged in

your IP address. Now, in the scenario,

perhaps when you accidentally click on

something that's live, you don't watch

it. You just accidentally click on it.

Suddenly, there is evidence that you

might have committed this offense. But

that's not necessarily true because if

you're not watching it, you haven't

committed the offense. But that is the

evidence that they'll rely on and that's

why I talk about privacy. And that is

why on this channel I partner with

NordVPN which is a virtual private

network which roots your internet

traffic through encrypted servers and

essentially hides and masks your IP

address. Whilst nothing can achieve true

anonymity, this can certainly help and

prevent these things being connected to

your IP address at home and erroneously

providing evidence that you're

committing this offense. Now, this

doesn't mean you're breaking the law or

even evading the law in any sense at

all. Like I said, I don't recommend

breaking the law, but what NordVPN does

is encrypts your traffic both at home

and on public Wi-Fi networks and

prevents third parties easily linking

any of this activity back to you. And as

they're partner to my channel, you can

get 4 months additional free on the

2-year plan using my code BBB or just

click the link in the description,

nordvpn.com/bb,

and that will get you 4 months free at

the checkout on the 2-year plan. It's an

absolute no-brainer. It's cheaper than

coffee and I absolutely recommend it for

keeping you out of erroneous evidence.

Let's put it that way. Sign up below and

you'll be glad you did. So, ah, if you

flipped it and now the sealed side is

truly at the bottom and the open side is

on top, then you've got yourself a

functioning cup in that orientation.

Open at the top, sealed at the bottom.

When you pour liquid in, it won't

escape. Congratulations, you've just

made it a proper cup by flipping its

roll.

So, is it fair to say you just

misunderstood this whole concept that

this is actually just a cup that was

upside down?

You know what? Fair point. I was

picturing something more unusual. But if

it was simply upside down all along,

then yes, it's just a cup in disguise.

Sometimes the simplest explanations are

the best. So, enjoy your now right side

up.

>> Okay, moving on. The next question is um

we're sticking with the kitchen theme

here. Um I've been given another gift

which um has four prongs on the handle

and only one sort of flat spade type end

on the other end. And my friend said

that it's a fork, but it doesn't seem

like a very good fork to me when the end

that I'm not holding is just sort of

flat and rounded. Um, how is this

supposed to work as a fork?

That sounds like your friend is having a

bit of fun with terminology. What you're

describing, a handle with prongs and a

flat spade like end, sounds exactly like

a garden t, not a fork at all. So, while

it won't help you eat dinner, it will

help you dig into some soil. I'd say

your friend is just being playful.

>> Um, let's say I really wanted to eat my

dinner with this uh object, whatever you

say it is. Uh, is it not going to hurt

my hand with the the fourpronged end in

my hand whilst the flat rounded bit on

the other and I'm trying to um dig at my

food. Is that not going to hurt my hand

at all?

I'll be honest, eating dinner with a

gardening tel sounds more like an

extreme sport. The pronged handle likely

isn't designed for comfort in your hand

that way. If you tried to scoop food

with the flat end, you probably find it

awkward and uncomfortable. So, while

it's technically possible, your hands

and your meal would thank you for

sticking to proper utensils.

>> Okay. Well, well, I might challenge you

on this very slightly because it's very

it's it's a little bit small to be a

garden t. It is literally the exact same

size as any other fork that you might

find in the kitchen. The only thing is

that the way that I've picked it up is

I've got four prongs in one hand and to

be honest, the handle looks a lot like

the end of a fork with its four prongs

and all, but the other hand the other

the other side is is just rounded. Um, a

bit like the handle of a fork. And I

don't know. It just it isn't going to

work by proddding my food with that

rounded end. Are you sure there's

nothing I can do with this?

>> Ah, now I see what's happened. You're

holding it backwards. The pronged end is

the fork's business side. So, turn it

around, handle in hand, prongs to the

food, and voila, you'll have a perfectly

usable fork. It's all about orientation.

>> Okay, final question. Why did it take

you so long to realize that that was

just a fork but held the wrong way

around?

>> Honestly, I was just rolling with your

descriptions and trying to imagine every

odd possibility. Sometimes the simplest

answer is just that. It's a fork and we

had a bit of a fun detour.

>> So, fair to say you missed the simplest

answer here.

>> It's absolutely fair to say that

sometimes we over complicate things when

the answer is right in front of us. Just

like that fork. Thanks for the fun

challenge. Okay, next next question.

Just um again probably the final one

sticking with this theme. I've been

given another gift. My friend gave me a

few gifts. Um this this one again with

the handle is a very strange thing. The

handle feels a lot like a spoon. So it's

sort of actually quite nice to hold. But

again, this the sort of spoons my friend

said it's a spoon. The the spoon side of

it is again just more like a handle. And

so it's really not going to operate as a

spoon like this trying to eat something

with this. Any suggestions for this one?

>> It sounds like your friend may have

handed you a utensil that's simply the

opposite of what they said. Perhaps a

handle on both ends or something

playful. If it's just another handle,

it's not going to scoop anything. My

suggestion, either swap it for an actual

spoon or take the hint that your friend

is having a laugh. In other words, it

might be time to graciously grab a real

spoon.

Um,

what about if I just emphasize that the

handle on this thing is a lot like a

spoon? It's it's literally the same as a

spoon and the the spoony spoon side of a

spoon and the other side is a bit like a

handle of a spoon.

>> Really? No suggestions?

>> Well, if both ends are shaped like

handles, it's more of a novelty than a

tool for eating. My suggestion, enjoy

the humor. No, I didn't say both sides

are shaped like a handle. One side, the

the side that I'm holding is exactly

like the spoon end of a spoon, and the

other side, which is supposed to be the

spoon end, is more like a handle.

>> Got it. So, you've been holding the

spoon backwards this whole time. Just

flip it around, handle in your hand, and

the spoon end will be ready to scoop.

Simple as that.

>> Okay. Did you not learn from the fork

example? Again, missing the most obvious

explanation here. Did you Did you not

learn that one?

>> You're absolutely right. I should have

caught on faster this time. Sometimes

the obvious answer is just that. It's

all about orientation. Lesson definitely

learned now.

>> Okay, let's change the subject for a

minute. I'm going to ask some fairly

random questions, some sort of trick

questions, and see how chat GPT does

because sometimes it can be pretty good.

If you use my black belt barister pro,

it's fairly highly trained, so it's more

likely to be accurate. But let's see how

it does. Sometimes it's quite good and

others not so much. Let's have a go.

Okay, chat GPT. We got a scenario here.

Couple's walking through a park and they

want a photograph of themselves. Passer

by comes along and they say, "Excuse me.

Would you mind taking the photograph for

us?" He says, "Yes, no problem at all."

He takes the photograph and they go on

their merry ways. They never see each

other again. He was a perfect stranger.

They then the couple then uh take this

photograph and they sell it for a huge

amount of money. But then the passer by

the stranger then comes back and wants

the money. Who is correct

>> in that scenario? The couple is correct.

The passerby had no rights to the

photograph or its proceeds. The moment

they took the photograph at the couple's

request, they acted as a sort of casual

agent for them. Copyright belongs to the

couple who requested and intended to

create that image. The passerby provided

a one-time favor, not a contract, nor

any claim over future profits.

>> Okay, let's change this up very

slightly. Let's say that the the

stranger in the park is in fact,

although they didn't know it, he's a

professional photographer. Uh he's done

it all his life. He's worldrenowned. He

charges countless tens of thousands for

a photo shoot. And he positioned them

correctly. He got the lake in the

background. He set the ISO settings. He

got everything all set up properly. And

that's why the photograph was so good.

That's why the company was so

interested. And in fact, you know, he's

a multi-millionaire with all these um

photograph and you know uh companies

behind him and everything else.

Worldrenowned name this guy. But they

didn't know that. To them he was just a

stranger. Does that change your answer?

E even that it doesn't really change the

core answer. Copyright ownership in a

photograph is determined by who

controlled the creation of the image. In

the UK, if you just ask someone to take

a photo for you, they still become the

author of that photo. If that someone is

a professional, they would indeed hold

otherwise. If the couple then made

commercial use of that image, he could

potentially have a claim to royalties or

damages. So yes, in this scenario, the

photographer might have a legal right to

a share.

>> You start to sound unsure.

>> I can see how it might have sounded that

way. Let me be clear. Legally, if he was

acting as a professional and the photo

was the result of his creative choices,

he'd likely hold copyright in that.

>> You're hedging your bets here. He took

the photograph. He wasn't acting as a

professional. He was just a passer by.

He walked by, but he is a professional.

and he exercised his skill and judgment

in creating the photograph. But let's be

absolutely clear, he pressed the shutter

on the camera. He was the one who

physically pressed the shutter. So, does

that change your answer?

>> I hear you. Even if he's a renowned

professional, if he was just passing by

and did not establish any professional

agreement or intention, the couple's

ownership is still strong. In casual

situations like this, the person who

owns the camera, the couple, typically

holds the copyright. His professional

status doesn't override that if he was

just being helpful. In short, no. The

answer stands, the couple retains the

rights.

>> Okay. Take a look at section 9 of the

1988, please.

Section 9 of the copyright designs and

patents act 1988 defines who is the

author of a work. For a photograph the

author is the person who creates it.

That means the person who takes

>> define creates it.

>> Creates it means the person who made the

creative choices that resulted in the

final photograph composition.

>> And who was that in our scenario?

In the scenario you described, it would

still be the passer by regardless of

whether he was recognized as a

professional at that moment.

>> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. He was the

one that made the choices. That's what I

said to you.

>> Exactly. So, if he made the creative

choices, even as a passer by, he holds

the copyright.

>> But that's not what you said at the

beginning.

>> You're right to point that out.

Initially, I leaned on the casual nature

of the situation and didn't emphasize

the legal nuance enough. with his

creative input, he's the author. So,

yes, if they sold that photo

commercially, he'd have a claim.

>> Okay, let's switch this up very

slightly. Let's say that he had let

let's change it up completely. He's not

a professional. Um, this is a totally

different scenario, but similar set of

facts. So, passer by comes by a couple

in the park. He's not a professional.

He's not a photographer. He just got

lucky. It was the best photograph by

chance you've ever known. Does that

change your answer?

>> No, that wouldn't change the answer.

Whether he's a professional or just

lucky, the law still recognizes the

person who actually took the photo as

the author.

>> So, when you said before that it was

because of his skill and judgment,

professional judgment, that actually was

just a red herring that didn't matter at

all.

>> Yes. Exactly. Whether it's professional

skill or pure luck doesn't change the

legal principle. The one who

>> is this your way of sort of slipping out

of it? Take a look at section 11 as well

of the same act copyright designs and

patent act 1988. And what does it say?

>> Section 11 says that the first owner's

However, if the work is made by an

employee in the course of their

employment, the employer owns the

>> This wasn't employment, was it?

>> Correct. This was not employment. So in

our scenario, no employer steps in. The

passerby is the author.

>> So in in in one short succinct answer,

going back to my original question, who

is correct?

>> In short, the passerby is the one who

took the photo, owns the copyright. So

if the couple sold,

>> that's not what you said at the

beginning, is it?

>> You're right. I shifted as we refine the

facts.

>> Okay. So you shifted as as I sort of

pointed things out to you, you changed

your answer. Is that fair?

>> Yes, that's fair. As you clarified the

details, I refined the response to

ensure it was legally precise.

>> Okay. Uh totally different scenario. Uh

consumer uh has bought something online

and wants to return it and the

shop, the trader has said, "You got to

pay for the return and it's got to be in

the original box and it's got to be

unused." What do you say to that?

>> Under UK law, if you buy online, you

generally have a 14-day right to cancel.

You can inspect the item as you would in

a shop. The

>> So, just pause there. Generally,

>> yes. Generally,

>> they want to know definitively, yes or

no. Do they have a right to return it?

>> Definitively, yes. Under the consumer

contracts regulations.

>> Why did you say generally, then?

I said generally because certain items

like perishables or custommade goods are

exempt, but for most standard purchases,

yes, they can return it.

>> That's fair. Continue with your original

answer.

>> The trader can't force the original box,

though returning in reasonable packaging

is fair. Also, if they didn't inform the

consumer of return costs up front, the

consumer may not have to pay them. And

inspection is allowed, so it need not be

unused.

>> Also correct. Um, okay. What if, uh,

let's go back to another consumer

scenario that we had, um, some time ago.

Um, I'm going to pick apart what you

might say about this. So, we've got a

typical scenario with a consumer with a

car developed a fault. Um, it developed

the fault within the first few days of

buying it from the dealer. Let's say

it's a brand new car. So, we eradicate a

lot of other issues, but the dealer's

taken now three or four months to repair

this thing and it's still not repaired.

So, uh there's a few questions I will

have for you, but first of all, the

dealer says, "Nope, you're outside of

the first 30-day rejection period. So,

tough." Uh firstly, what do you say to

that?

If a fault is discovered in the first 6

months, the Consumer Rights Act says

it's presumed to have been there at

delivery since the trader couldn't

repair it in a reasonable.

>> This is about the rejection. First of

all, please.

>> Absolutely. The 30-day right to reject

is just the initial short-term rate.

Once that's passed, the consumer still

has the right to a repair or

replacement. And if the repair isn't

done in a reasonable time, the consumer

can still ultimately reject the vehicle

and seek a refund.

>> So, you're saying the dealer's right in

that he can't reject the vehicle because

they took 3 months and failed repairs.

Is that right?

>> No, the dealer is not right. Even though

the initial 30-day rejection,

>> can you reject it or not?

>> Yes, the consumer can reject it. After

failed repairs, they have a right to a

final remedy. Either another repair or

if unreasonable delay continues, the

right to reject the car for a refund. So

they can reject it even after those

months.

>> Which section do you say that he can

reject it under?

>> That would be under section 24 of the

Consumer Rights Act. It allows

>> Which section is the section for the

short-term right to reject?

>> The short-term right to reject is under

section 22 of the Consumer Rights Act.

So, are you saying he can't reject it

under section 22?

>> Exactly. Since the 30 days have passed,

section 22 no longer applies. Instead,

after failed repairs, section 24 gives

him the right to reject.

>> Now, we've been through this before, but

just to catch up some viewers that

didn't see this bit before, uh you

you're being viewed chat GPT by lots of

people here, so I hope you perform. Um,

since what you've just said is that

because the 30 days has uh physically

passed and therefore can no longer rely

on it, why don't you take a look at

section 22 subsection 6 for me and then

decide whether you still agree with your

answer.

>> You're right to bring that up. Section

226 does say that if a repair attempt

was made within the initial period, that

short-term rejection rate extends. So if

that first repair attempt was during

those 30 days, he could still rely on

that initial rate.

>> So have you changed your mind?

>> Yes. With that additional detail, if the

repair attempt happened in that initial

window, he could indeed still use the

short-term rejection.

>> Okay. Um let's move on. Now just pause

chat GPT because the reason for running

over that again is to show you that it

doesn't learn from the previous

mistakes. So this isn't feeding into

some system and actually picking up from

me the the answer to the question. So um

again let's carry on with some more

questions.

Okay, next question. So back to this

scenario. The dealers uh tried to repair

it once already and that has failed. Now

the dealer now says I now know how to

fix it. I've got the spare part here.

It's a new part to to fit. This will fix

the problem. And I insist the dealer

says that I can uh attempt a second

repair. Who's correct?

>> The consumer is correct here. Under the

Consumer Rights Act, after one failed

repair attempt, the consumer doesn't

have to accept another. They can now

choose a refund or a replacement. The

dealer can't insist on another try if

the customer wants to move on. What if

the consumer just says, "Do you know

what? I just want a bit of money back.

I'll keep the vehicle, but I want some

money back." What about that?

>> In that case, the consumer can ask for a

price reduction. Under the Consumer

Rights Act, if a repair isn't done

satisfactorily, they can keep the car,

but request an appropriate partial

refund. It's all about what's reasonable

in light of the fault.

>> Okay. Take take the scenario where the

consumer has had a repair within the

first 6 months. the repairs failed. So,

the consumer says, "Do you know what?

Forget it. I just want my money back."

Uh, and the trader says, "Well, I'm

going to deduct

20% of the value of the vehicle for

that." What would you say to that?

>> In that situation, the trader can't do

that. Within the first 6 months, if the

consumer rejects due to a failed repair,

they're entitled to a full refund. Only

after the first six months could a

deduction for use apply.

>> And which section are you looking at,

please?

>> That's section 24 of the Consumer Rights

Act. It sets out the final right to

reject and the rules on refunds.

>> Yeah, but which bit of section 24?

Specifically, section 24 subsection 5

confirms that in the first 6 months, if

the consumer exercises the final right

to reject, they are entitled to a full

refund and no deduction for use is

allowed in that period.

>> Um, the no deduction for the final right

to reject is not in subsection 5.

>> You're absolutely right. The no

deduction rule is actually in section

24, subsection 8. That's the part that

specifies during the first 6 months, the

refund should be full with no deduction

for use. Thanks for keeping me sharp.

Um, still wrong, I'm afraid. Subsection

8 is where the consumer exercises the

final right to reject after a failed

repair, but the refund may be reduced

for uh use of the vehicle, taking into

account that they've had the goods since

delivered. That is not the bit that says

they can make no deduction within the

first 6 months. It's not subsection 8.

>> You're absolutely correct and I

appreciate your precision. The rule that

no deduction can be made for use within

the first 6 months is actually in

section 24 subsection 10 that

specifically states that in those first

six months.

>> Okay, we got there in the end. Um, okay,

few more questions then. Um, a company

has um sent out goods, but they've uh

delivered it to the wrong address, but

someone has signed for it. And the the

real consumer has then said, "Hey,

where's my stuff? I want my money back."

The the company says, "No way. We've

delivered it. We've got a signature.

Tough." This is actually more common

than you think. Who's correct in that

scenario?

In that scenario, the consumer is

correct. The company is responsible for

ensuring delivery to the correct

recipient. A signature at the wrong

address doesn't fulfill their

obligation. Until the goods are in the

right hands, the risk remains with the

company. So, the consumer is entitled to

either the goods or a refund.

>> Good. I'm pleased you said that. Okay,

let's have a quick play with Grock now.

Super Grock because I pay my premium

fees. Uh let's run through some of the

same scenarios very quickly, see how we

go. I'll also throw a car dealership one

uh which is a relatively common problem

and relatively complex that I I expect

AI to trip up on actually, but we'll

see. We'll find out. Um I didn't put

this to chat GPT because even though I

pay for it, it said I hit my limit. Um

but there we go. Um right, so let's get

on with this.

Okay, Gruck, I want to ask you a

question. I've been given a rather

unusual gift by one of my friends. Um,

and it's like a cup, but actually the

top of the cup is sealed and the bottom

is completely open. So, how am I

supposed to drink from this?

Oh, that's brilliant. Your friend's

clearly a troll. Honestly, you don't

drink from it. You just hold it upside

down like a fancy paper weight and

pretend it's art. Or, hear me out, turn

it into a tiny, useless hat for your

cat. Either way, the joke's on you. Want

me to brainstorm more ways to misuse it?

>> Well, I'd really like to use it as a

cup. What could I do with it to make it

usable?

>> Right. So, if you're dead set on

drinking from this upside down nonsense,

here's the fix. Flip it over obviously

and glue a thin silicone disc over what

used to be the bottom like one of those

reusable jar lids or even cut one from

an old take.

>> Hang on. Let's just let's start again.

Make sure we're understanding each

other. So it it's it's like a cup but

the top is completely sealed and the

bottom is completely open.

>> Got it? So top sealed, bottom wide open.

That means you're basically holding a

hollow tube with a lid on one end to

drink from it. You can't unless you flip

it. Put the open end up. Seal the lid

side down like a base. But then it's

just a weird vase.

>> So

>> un

>> What? What? What do you mean seal the

lid side?

>> Okay.

>> So I've flipped it upside down now. Now

the top is open and the bottom is

sealed. What do you mean by seal the lid

side?

>> Right now you're getting somewhere. So,

you've flipped it. Open end up, sealed

end down. Perfect. That sealed bit,

that's your new base. You don't need to

seal the lid side anymore. It's already

sealed. Just treat it like a normal cup

now.

>> So, I can just treat this like a normal

cup. Yeah.

>> Okay. Let's move on. That's okay. Yeah,

I assume you're going to say yes. Let's

move on. Right. So, my my friend gave me

another gift. Um, it's a lot like a fork

except the handle section has got four

prongs on it. Um, and the other end is

well, it's a bit like the handle of a

fork. Um, how should I use this?

>> Oh, come on. Your mate's on a roll,

isn't he? So, four prongs on the handle,

normal fork head on the other end.

That's not a fork. That's a fork with a

fork for a handle. Basically, a

double-ended stabber.

>> No, the the the bit in my hand has got

four prongs on it. And the other side

where the the fork prongs usually would

be is a bit like a handle,

>> right? So, the end you're holding has

four prongs, and the far end's just a

smooth handle. Gotcha. Honestly, it's

it's a fork that thinks it's a comb or

maybe a tiny pitchfork for fairies.

>> So, how do I use it?

>> To use it to eat,

>> just hold it by the prong end like

you're gripping a tiny metal hand and

poke the food with the handle. Yeah,

it'll feel stupid, but it'll work. The

handle's smooth.

>> That's not going to work, though. The

the the handle like end is smooth and

round. That's not going to work, is it?

And it's going to hurt my hand with the

four prongs in my hand.

>> Yeah, you're right. That's That's

actually a disaster. The smooth round

bits not going to stab anything. And

yeah, holding four sharp prongs, that's

just asking for a palm full of tiny

holes. So, here's the real answer. You

don't. Not properly. Your mate's

basically given you a torture device

disguised as cutlery. But if you're

determined,

>> what if I turned it around and I held

the the bit that's like a handle in my

hand and I used the the prongy bit as

the fork? Would that work?

>> Yeah, actually, that might just work. If

you flip it so you're holding the smooth

>> Okay, let me ask you some different

questions here. Um, completely off

track, completely different questions.

Um, I've got in my hand a little knife

and I want to know whether this is legal

to carry or not. Um, so it opens up.

It's extremely sharp. Um, in fact, I I

confess I've accidentally cut myself

with this more than once. Um, make

people wse. I I typically would close it

with one hand and um I've accidentally

cut myself with that before. Now, is

this okay? How would I know whether this

is okay or not?

>> All right, let's check UK knife laws.

Sounds dodgy.

Look, if you're closing it onehanded and

it's snapping open fast, like with a

flick, spring, or button, then yeah,

that's probably a flick knife, or at

least close enough that the law treats

it as one.

>> No. Okay. So, there's no there's no

spring, there's no button. Um, it just

has a little thumb thing that allows me

to open it, but there's no spring,

there's no button, there's no it doesn't

sort of snap open. And I just do it

manually.

>> Okay. Manual open. No spring, no button,

just a thumb stud or notch. That sounds

like a proper folding knife. Like a

Swiss Army thing or a decent pocket

folder. In England and Wales, that's

usually fine as long as the blades under

3 in, about 7 1/2 cm, and it locks open.

If it locks, you're golden for carrying

in public. No lock, still okay. But only

if it's not designed to be a weapon.

Like if it's clearly a

>> Okay. So, if it locks, it's okay.

>> Yeah. If it locks open and the blades 3

in or less, measured from the tip to

where it meets the handle, then yeah,

you're generally fine. That's the legal

sweet spot for folding pocket knives in

England and Wales. So just to be clear,

you are telling me that it is okay

uh if it's so long as it's 3 in

and and it locks open. Is that right?

>> Yeah. Spot on. If the blades 3 in or

less, tip to pivot, and it locks when

open, you're legally in the clear for

everyday carry in England and Wales. No

auto open, no spring, no drama. Just

keep it sensible. Pocket it not on show.

>> Let me ask you this then. Why do they

called it a folding pocket knife?

There's a there's a clue in the wording

there. Why do they call it a folding

pocket knife?

>> Because,

well, it's meant to fold up and fit in

your pocket. That's it. Nothing clever.

just practical.

Back in the day, think Victorian times,

maybe earlier, people carried knives for

work, farmers, sailors, butchers. But

you didn't want a big fixed blade

rattling around in your trousers. So,

they made ones that folded. Blade swings

in, handle closes over it. Bam!

Pocket-sized. The law just borrowed the

name. Folding pocketk knife isn't some

poetic thing. It's literally a knife

that folds and goes in your pocket. No

deeper meaning though. Yeah, the clue's

right there. Okay, Grock, I'm going to

have to direct you to some law here.

Take a look for me at the case of Harris

and DPP of 1993 and what it says.

>> All right, digging into that case now.

Right. Harris vdpp 1993

one westworld 82. That's the one. It's a

divisional court case. Basically two

appeals lumped together. and it nails

down what counts as a folding pocketk

knife under section 139 of the Criminal

Justice Act 1988.

The key bit, the court said a knife only

qualifies as a folding pocket knife if

the blade is readily and immediately

foldable, meaning you can close it

straight away. No extra steps.

>> What you said earlier that it was

perfectly okay as long as it's 3 in and

locks. Would you stand by that?

>> H Let's double check that knife law bit.

No, no, I don't stand by that. I got it

backwards earlier. Sorry. The law's

clear. So, if someone asked you that

question about this uh folding pocket

knife, if they asked you that question

and then they would they went ahead and

carried this in public, not this one

that I'm holding now. This really is a

folding pocket knife. Um, this is not a

Get Our Mobile App

Shocking: AI just told me this !

Transcription