As a litigant in person, I have found this video very helpful and it raises similar issues to the other videos regarding words not to use in court. One example of how Legal English and Plain English differ is the use of the words "bias", "prejudice", and "discriminate" which are almost synonymous in Plain English but have very different meanings in Legal English. Perhaps Alan could give his interpretation but my explanation is that if you declare your bias, you can act with as much prejudice as you like but you must never discriminate.
Brilliant as ever and thank you. Part reminds me of a late (there seem to be more and more!) Cypriot friend who would repeat a family saying 'our village so our law!'
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.”
Properly fascinating! Talking of dictionaries, given that English is a descriptive not perscriptive language, and words just mean what they're commonly accepted to mean, what happens to statutes if they used words whose meanings have changed since the law was written?
This happens a lot. Because statutes and cases are frozen in time. That's why we have at least three different meanings of 'malice' in law. It's also why judges have to say things like 'the beatles are a pop group'. In a few hundred years time, people might not know that. Especially if they are Stones fans.
Explains why some are so desperate to change the meaning of terms in a way that just so happens to benefit their political faction in court. Nice end around on democracy, if you act like something is criminal you can effectively make it criminal without involving parliament at all.
They never taught us the difference between unlawful and illegal at law school in London. I remember a criminal law lecturer who went to great lengths to correct students who used one of the words when he thought it should be the other, but he never explained the rationale. It was slightly baffling. After a few years in practice you start to figure out that they're essentially the same, except where the term is statutorily specified. I have tended to use unlawful when suggesting that something might arguably be against the law, and illegal where something has been determined by a court to be so. The latter term seems harsher and more definitive, and I feel you'd fare better as a respondent in a defamation case if you'd accused someone of doing something that was unlawful rather than illegal.
Looking at the etymologies (OED) ‘illegal’ is a borrowing from French or Latin (or combined), where the first evidence the OED has is from the early 1600s, though the word ‘legal’, noted to be Anglo-Norman, has evidence of usage from around 1425. In contrast, the word ‘unlawful’ has evidence of use from around 1387, but given that ‘unlawfully’ has evidence from around 1350, it’s likely that it is significantly older. You might note that the prefix ‘un-‘ is of Germanic origin with very wide usage in Old English (definitionally pre-Norman), and ‘lawful’ is cognate to the Old Norse lǫgfullr, whereas ‘il-‘ is an assimilated form of the Latin prefix ‘in-‘ where it occurs before the initial letter ‘l’, and words in English that use this have evidence of coming into English mainly from the last quarter of the 16th century through the 17th century (as does ‘illegal’).
@@artmedialaw When hounds were a hunting dog permitted only to the owners of the game. Owning the wrong dog in a Royal Forest could be temporarily problematic. Laws in Royal Forests might be worth exploring. "By hook or by crook" etc.
Hmmm, so that famous Elvis song might not be tautological then? Though my doubts about whether he was aware are quite high - or that a 'Murican would have been interested in distinctions relating to English royalty 😂
Love your channel thank you. Could you cover the law as it stands between disruptive housing association tenants and nuisance to neighbours please. Thank you David
Positive Law, used largely on mainland Europe, assumes all is forbidden unless legally permitted. Thus if you exercise a right that is not accorded by the law such an act is unlawful. English law is more in a tradition of if it's not prohibited you are allowed- negative law. Where the ECJ may, in effect, declare UK law does not conform to human rights it is, in effect, saying that the UK does not have the freedom to legislate in such a way. Although it does not refer to any particular law, by referring to a human right which it considers appropriate, it can and has effectively struck down decisions based on UK law. A mixture of positive and negative law in the UK has and most likely will cause continuing upset in the justice system, sometimes putting judges in an invidious and unfair position. Where the words illegal and unlawful may be loosely used, the two words are quite different outside the courts. 'Illegal' is prohibitory assuming if not prohibited all acts are permissible. 'Unlawful' effectively says 'you do not have permission granted by law.' or, if the law does not allow, are prohibited by default. This is the English tradition v The Napoleonic tradition. Although the difference between the words is muddied by usage... both can appear to always be the same, some differences appear to exist.
Etymology isn’t everyone’s idea of fun. But it’s good to know. I never knew that of bye-laws but now I do. Very interesting. Thank you. 👍😁 P.S. In technical areas words can get commandeered. In mathematics, topology for instance, a set can be both ‘open’ and ‘closed’ at the same time. “Not a lot of people know that.” - Michael Caine.
Whilst there is no modern distinction, I did feel there was a distinction when applied to old school Germanic law. In particular a murder might be unlawful, in which case the payment of a weregild might be acceptable (there was no requirement for its acceptance) to prevent a fued, or illegal, where it was specifically prohibited by the authority governing society. In other words, while both were wrong, there were generally provisions for an unlawful act to actually occur within the jurisprudence. As authority became more complete in matters of law, naturally unlawful acts also became illegal.
There was provision in Norse society for "self judgement" where the offender could offer a penalty, and if it was accepted, the Althing would rule on it. Till then it was an unlawful killing, and the option was to be out-lawed. All to avoid blood feud in small communities.
Very interesting video. I always understood illegal was an action against an Act of Parliament and unlawful was an action that was clearly "illegal" but but there was no specific Act of Parliament against it. But I can see how perhaps over time the two words have merged to mean the same. Another interesting word is environmental "conservation" which was meant to conserve something but is now used to describe the culling (killing) of deer for sport and managed in a way to keep deer number high.
Heh. On my application to officially change my name, one of the witnesses stated his profession as "Viking". Still applicable, as it was a profession not a race. 😁
The origin of language is a fascinating subject as it tells you a lot about the real meaning of words - a bit like Hansards tell you a lot about the intention behind the drafting of legislation. Thanks for that.
@@terryboland3816 the etymology tells you the origin. Which can tell you whether the definition has changed from its original form. From there, you can look into whether the change was benign or organic versus malicious.
@@geroffmilan3328 Yes, etymology can tell you whether the meaning of a word has changed but it doesn't tell you what the 'real meaning' is. That is simple lexicography.
@@terryboland3816 I take the view that the original meaning of a word is its genuine meaning, notwithstanding subsequent adaptations are a fact of life, some of which are accidental, stemming from ignorance of the original definition, whilst others represent a deliberate attempt to change history through redefinition. Let's consider "boomer" as a topical example. A contraction of "baby boomer", defining a specific generation, later reappropriated to mean "anyone who is, or just sounds, older". Trying to stop that happening is hilariously fruitless, but there will come a time where many misunderstand material using the original definition. A better path is to generate a new word... but if that word just goes through the above process, the effort was wasted. In reality: "Language is the liquid / That we're all dissolved in / Great for solving problems / After it creates the problem" After all, it probably wouldn't be too hard for me to point out how you & OP might be using different definitions of the word "real" - meaning they were as accurate as you were.
Having trouble with this video, I was distracted by your hat sir! Was it set at a jaunty angle or was it skew-whiff? You refrained from the sick bird joke, well done.
According to Microsoft CoPilot (so not necessarily 100% accurate): "Unlawful" and "illegal" are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle difference: Illegal: Something that is prohibited by law and is usually criminal. For instance, theft and murder are illegal activities because they break criminal laws. Unlawful: More broadly refers to actions that are not authorized by law, but might not always be criminal. It could encompass breaches of civil law, contracts, or other regulations. For example, a contract that breaks employment law might be termed "unlawful" but not "illegal." Basically, all illegal actions are unlawful, but not all unlawful actions are illegal. Make sense?
Alan the video I would like to see is about the definitions of 'sex' and 'gender'. Here in New Zealand the government uses these terms interchangeably, which is a mistake. The relevant law is the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021. I hold that sex is determined by chromosomes ie a male has XY and a female has XX; and it is impossible to change. Gender is a social construct, has such designations as 'man', 'woman', 'boy', 'girl'. This is changeable and is up to the person involved as to which one they identify as.
Just playing "devil's advocate" here - some would argue, and it's a matter of semantics, that "unlawful" is applicable where there is a "lawful" version of the mens rea. E.g. Unlawful wounding...it could be argued that a wounding inflicted in self-defence could be termed a "lawful wounding"...as opposed to something being "illegal" which would mean that's in an offence or a civil wrong ab initio (from the outset) according to statute and/or the common law. I agree that in practice they're interchangeable.
The 'unlawful' limb of gbh is specifically to cover self defence. It's an element the prosecution have to prove to the requisite standard. Done a few vids on self defence/use of force that go into a bit more detial.
Was interesting and informative, just raises the issue as to why some seem to got the impression that there is any difference when it comes to judicial processes and standings under legislation and its applicability.
Possible interest for a video - at a concert on Saturday, when introducing a song, June Tabor said that press ganging laws hadn't been repealed. Curious to know if I could be forced into the navy walking down the street one day!! Perhaps a video on odd un-repealed laws (if you haven't dome one already).
Eek, I'd better be careful drinking in Falmouth. But I was thinking about doing something like this. And also some of the myths. Like whether you can actually use a bow and arrow on a Welsh person in Chester. No!
Interestingly, Bryan Garner who edits Black's Law Dictionary, has published the last articles by Robert Megarry, the English High Court judge and legal scholar. Garner also has a chapter in Reading Law (Co authored with Antonin Scalia) on various dictionaries and their rules fur laying out meanings.
@@artmedialaw I'm not a lawyer but a philosopher and medieval scholar, and in my field the way dictionaries work can be weird and wonderful. I'd be interested to hear about the legal side of things, if you decide to do that.
= Common criminals get taken down for doing illegal things, whereas the Police and Boris and tax evaders and OJ Simpson etc expensive solicitors will successfully defend their clients from the consequences of their unlawful actions.
Sheering sheep is a kindness. Left alone, they rub against sharp things to try and remove their wool. In the summer months they get way too hot and can be injured by the excess heat if their wool is till in place. I myself have seen sheep with terrible lacerations where they have scraped against hawthorn to remove their wool. So sheering sheep and using the wool is in no way exploitative.
Whilst I might agree that a sheep that has not been bred for its wool, or chop making properties……(and I think it would be extremely difficult to find such an animal), …then to sheer that sheep might be exploitative. However, sheep that you find in this modern world, have undergone a transformation, causing non sheering to be cruel in the extreme. Letting all the sheep go, to cease farming them will result in coat overgrowth that the sheep cannot manage, as can be seen by hill sheep that avoid/evade the annual round up.
@@kathrynhobbs8874 The most likely hypothesis is that sheep were bred from Mouflon some 10000 years ago in what is now Iraq. They are not naturally occurring animals and aren't well suited to the natural environment. So human intervention is needed for health reasons.
It is a 750 year celebration of Magnus the Law-mender this year, being second in the world establishing a law system gathering all of the land. He took over when vikings ended. As his name says, he mended laws. These where laws from five areas in Norway, all “things”, like Gulating, Borgarting and so on. All going back hundreds of years prior of Magnus. These courts lives on today. In my humble opinion, there is a distinct difference of the terms: - “unlawful” is used with regards to when petty crimes are or may occur, and there might be doubts of laws. - “illegal” is when it is clear all knows. Since vikings were mentioned: Magnus Lagabøter took traditional Norwegian approaches of the earlier laws, stating no man can be judged steeling if what he takes is «bread to live». Ie, close to being unlawful, but way away illegal.
so is there list, "bylaws, and where they, and "dukes-of-hazard, still, where county lines are for said by-laws?, if whizzing up down motorway, how districts, rules, covered little patches by-laws you must go in and around, on your tip?
No, what's scary is that you think there is a difference and that you don't appreciate that the use of unlawful as opposed to illegal in that context is merely down to the former being more common in usage.
I always assumed that as laws can both expressively prohibit things, and proscribe how things must be carried out that "illegal" referred to doing something the former prohibits and "unlawful" was to not do something in the way the latter says you must. Take the proroguing of parliament for example that was deemed "unlawful", it is not illegal to prorogue parliament only it must be done in a certain way which wasn't followed by Boris and hence it was deemed "unlawful" rather than "illegal"
I’ve always wondered what the limits of bylaws were in terms of how far the councils authority extends. And also for that matter the limits of their powers of enforcement and punishment for infraction of bylaws. If I was some sort of maniacal totalitarian mayor who had the support of his council could I make some absurd by law that says you must be wearing a Mr blobby outfit if your name begins with a J on a Tuesday and you’re walking down this particular street otherwise the police will arrest you and make you bathe it in a bath tub of custard?
@@yorkiemike - ya think huh? Well my friend, you think wrong. Take the Courts Act 2003 as an example - primary legislation which, according to available records supplied through direct enquiry with House of Commons Enquiry Service, was not subjected to a full parliamentary vote through the usual divisions (no record of ayes and nays exists, no record in Hansard), suggesting it may have been passed through committee without full parliamentary scrutiny. This is why we have something called the Judicial Review for secondary legislation, because it may not be.... oooo! dare I say it without being branded FMOTL... lawful. There is case law (common law, law made by judges in court)... would you like it?
In E&W we have negative rights. That is to say, anything not specifically prohibited is allowed. Some jurisdictions have positive rights. So there will be some document(s) setting out exactly what you are permitted to do.
I'm just learning and Blacks law dictionary very useful. Could it be farfetched not to rely on Blacks law because its by an american author. Any english law dictionary equivalent to Blacks law?
3:28 "Honi soit qui mal y pense" Shamed be he who thinks bad/ill of it. Allegedly said by Edward III referring to when his cousins garter fell down in a dance and thus was born the Order of the Garter.
Interesting, I thought that perhaps it was just another example of using two legal words from different traditions as the normans took over so that there was no doubt about what a phrase might mean, eg "assault and battery", one from the French tradition and one from the Anglo-Saxon tradition.
Courts which were created or evolved for specific purposes and which still technically exist are very amusing. England has a 'High Court of Chivalry' for heraldic disputes (last presided over by the late Lord Justice Goddard) and the Barmote Court for lead-mining in Derbyshire, as well as the Verderers' Court... All with some sort of real jurisdiction, though seldom exercised.
@@artmedialaw The Act abolishing them mentions the possibility of transferring a case to arbitration in a sort of stannaries court where the matter would be decided. It's presumably a dead letter though.
as you state bye law can have a regional standing .does the term body politik afforded by a king of england (george 1st 1718 to the french hospital rochester kent )in their great charter ,stand for ever and therefore afford rights over all of that kingdom today. without let or hinderance ! seeking knowledge . merci beaucoup
I do recall being told once that illegal was something that was proscribed in law (e.g. driving 40mph in a 30 limit) and unlawful was doing something that wasn't explicitly permitted (e.g. a police officer arresting someone without proper grounds to do so).
A crime needs a victim, corpus delicti and malicious intent, mens rea. All lawyers are wrongly trained. There are no victimless crimes and there are no accidental crimes.
@@yorkiemike It is More of an idea than a real thing, but when I saw natural law, I suppose I just meant the natural order and the law of nature. So, like, the laws of physics. My point is that, from a practical standpoint, these words are the same, but technically, they are slightly different.
@@pagusmedia I don't understand then. Nature is horrible, 'red in tooth and claw', as they say. Animals kill each other, so is murder legal under natural law?
@@pagusmedia I don't understand then, can you give me an example? Nature is horrible, 'red in tooth and claw', as they say. Animals do horrible things to each other, so are all those things legal under natural law?
@@yorkiemike Well. I'm thinking of an I word which, as Al likes to say, is an essual offense in the UK. Society looks down on it because it's abusive. The natural world doesn't care that it's illegal, just that any child is potentially more likely to end up physically or mentally disabled than a child born not from the I wword so I'm led to believe. Let's now take building on flood planes and/or too close to a body of water without thinking about flood defences. It might be legal, but bad things will happen if you do
What’s being described here of course is common practice in the modern era. What we need to do is research the origins of the two words. But in the meantime, it’s obvious that LAWFUL refers to the LAW as in The Common Law as granted to Man by God; and LEGAL refers to the statutes and acts made by some men who assumed the rights to do so - not only contrary to God’s Law, but according to the Bible and the Oaths sworn by monarchs - in the name of God and in the sight of God, whilst swearing upon the Holy Bible which is the word of God. Shall we discuss the REAL MEANING of the word PERSON? Despite deriving from PERSONA, the Latin for a mask as worn by an actor, and despite the King James Version of the Bible being translated into English FROM Latin, the word PERSON does not appear in the King James Version of the Bible. Funny that isn’t it? Now let’s see if this comment gets deleted as 90% of my comments do. Peace 🏴 PS It took the Normans two weeks to conquer England. It took them TWO HUNDRED YEARS to take Wales.
![TEEDEE TADA - DIAMOND NARAKORN X LEGO LYKN [Special Dance Performance]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QgtZedFeumA/mqdefault.jpg)
As a lawyer I can’t help but say - one is against the law and the other is a sick bird 😂….
😂 The old ones are the best.
THE OLD JOKES ARE ALWAYS THE BEST
LMA0
I am chuckling here. That was my exact thought when I read it, too. 😂😂😂
The dad is strong in this one.
By Law. Wow. I never worked that out. This is a Law based version of 'Rob's Worda'.
As a litigant in person, I have found this video very helpful and it raises similar issues to the other videos regarding words not to use in court. One example of how Legal English and Plain English differ is the use of the words "bias", "prejudice", and "discriminate" which are almost synonymous in Plain English but have very different meanings in Legal English. Perhaps Alan could give his interpretation but my explanation is that if you declare your bias, you can act with as much prejudice as you like but you must never discriminate.
As an old American lawyer, I second your comments on Black's.
As always found this both useful and interesting. Never thought about the derivation of by-law-so...have learnt something interesting!
As am not a lawyer but love knowing how words and phrases come about I find this very interesting and even the law bit has it's moments more please.
Brilliant as ever and thank you. Part reminds me of a late (there seem to be more and more!) Cypriot friend who would repeat a family saying 'our village so our law!'
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.”
You beat me to it. I'm sure that there was a contemporary reference when it was published.
Quoting Terry Pratchett ... you have, if that was possible, gone up in my estimation ....
GNU pTerry ...
The Turtle Moves!
Education is always welcome. Thank you.
You’re a great guy. Entertaining and educational
Great to get confirmation of what until now my wife and I only suspected. Friends not food!
Properly fascinating! Talking of dictionaries, given that English is a descriptive not perscriptive language, and words just mean what they're commonly accepted to mean, what happens to statutes if they used words whose meanings have changed since the law was written?
This happens a lot. Because statutes and cases are frozen in time. That's why we have at least three different meanings of 'malice' in law.
It's also why judges have to say things like 'the beatles are a pop group'. In a few hundred years time, people might not know that. Especially if they are Stones fans.
Explains why some are so desperate to change the meaning of terms in a way that just so happens to benefit their political faction in court.
Nice end around on democracy, if you act like something is criminal you can effectively make it criminal without involving parliament at all.
They never taught us the difference between unlawful and illegal at law school in London. I remember a criminal law lecturer who went to great lengths to correct students who used one of the words when he thought it should be the other, but he never explained the rationale. It was slightly baffling. After a few years in practice you start to figure out that they're essentially the same, except where the term is statutorily specified. I have tended to use unlawful when suggesting that something might arguably be against the law, and illegal where something has been determined by a court to be so. The latter term seems harsher and more definitive, and I feel you'd fare better as a respondent in a defamation case if you'd accused someone of doing something that was unlawful rather than illegal.
Phobia is not hate, it is fear.
In Australia the words do have different meanings. Unlawful is against the law while illeagle is a sick bird.
FMOTL will be spitting their dummies out.
"Situation: normal" there, then 😂
From my limited experience of them, their dummies are in a near permanent state of spat outness anyway.
That was a brilliant talk, thanks.
Looking at the etymologies (OED) ‘illegal’ is a borrowing from French or Latin (or combined), where the first evidence the OED has is from the early 1600s, though the word ‘legal’, noted to be Anglo-Norman, has evidence of usage from around 1425. In contrast, the word ‘unlawful’ has evidence of use from around 1387, but given that ‘unlawfully’ has evidence from around 1350, it’s likely that it is significantly older. You might note that the prefix ‘un-‘ is of Germanic origin with very wide usage in Old English (definitionally pre-Norman), and ‘lawful’ is cognate to the Old Norse lǫgfullr, whereas ‘il-‘ is an assimilated form of the Latin prefix ‘in-‘ where it occurs before the initial letter ‘l’, and words in English that use this have evidence of coming into English mainly from the last quarter of the 16th century through the 17th century (as does ‘illegal’).
The one that fascinates me is when did dog replace hound?
@@artmedialaw When hounds were a hunting dog permitted only to the owners of the game. Owning the wrong dog in a Royal Forest could be temporarily problematic. Laws in Royal Forests might be worth exploring. "By hook or by crook" etc.
Next time I'm at Cumberland Lodge I should take the opportunity to do a vid on 'forests'.
Hmmm, so that famous Elvis song might not be tautological then?
Though my doubts about whether he was aware are quite high - or that a 'Murican would have been interested in distinctions relating to English royalty 😂
@@artmedialaw Please do 🤗
Unlawful: wrongful against the law
Illegal: Sick bird 😂
I always thought it was Bye Law, rather than By Law. 🤔
There's a lot of variation! By vs Bye, then whether it's a single word, or whether there's a space or a hyphen.
it also used to be spelled bilawe!
Certainly, both are acceptable for by(e)ways, so it's probably(e) the same for laws.
Thank you for the Terry Pratchett quote. I always enjoy your videos.
#GNUTerryPratchett
Love your channel thank you. Could you cover the law as it stands between disruptive housing association tenants and nuisance to neighbours please. Thank you David
Unlawful is something you should not do. Illegal is a sick bird!
'... because I'm a vegan'. Don't worry. We won't hold it against you ! Haha
What's the difference between unlawful & illegal?
One of them is a sick bird! 🤣🤣
Positive Law, used largely on mainland Europe, assumes all is forbidden unless legally permitted. Thus if you exercise a right that is not accorded by the law such an act is unlawful. English law is more in a tradition of if it's not prohibited you are allowed- negative law.
Where the ECJ may, in effect, declare UK law does not conform to human rights it is, in effect, saying that the UK does not have the freedom to legislate in such a way. Although it does not refer to any particular law, by referring to a human right which it considers appropriate, it can and has effectively struck down decisions based on UK law. A mixture of positive and negative law in the UK has and most likely will cause continuing upset in the justice system, sometimes putting judges in an invidious and unfair position.
Where the words illegal and unlawful may be loosely used, the two words are quite different outside the courts. 'Illegal' is prohibitory assuming if not prohibited all acts are permissible. 'Unlawful' effectively says 'you do not have permission granted by law.' or, if the law does not allow, are prohibited by default. This is the English tradition v The Napoleonic tradition. Although the difference between the words is muddied by usage... both can appear to always be the same, some differences appear to exist.
just found your channel. Wow, what a find!
Computer programming joke:
Loop: see ITERATION
Iteration: see LOOP
Why did the programmer die of starvation in the shower?
Because the bottle said "Rinse. Repeat."
Surely, you mean
Infinite loop: see loop, infinite
loop, infinite: see infinite loop
@@beeble2003 Maybe, but stop calling me Shirley.
@@artmedialaw But they has FABULOUSLY clean hair!
Another classic. Thanks for sharing.
How to wind up Freeman of the Land 😂
Very interesting and informative. Loved the history lesson. Many thanks
Love all this as can share with my class. We’re just about to do the Anglo Saxons then heading for Vikings. 😊
Etymology isn’t everyone’s idea of fun. But it’s good to know.
I never knew that of bye-laws but now I do. Very interesting. Thank you. 👍😁
P.S. In technical areas words can get commandeered. In mathematics, topology for instance, a set can be both ‘open’ and ‘closed’ at the same time.
“Not a lot of people know that.”
- Michael Caine.
I always have wondered how enforceable many bylaws are especially as some of the ones local to me are from the 1950s.
Just as enforceable as any other law. Why would it matter if they're from the 1950s? Some legislation is a lot older than that.
Very useful, enjoyable video as ever.
Whilst there is no modern distinction, I did feel there was a distinction when applied to old school Germanic law. In particular a murder might be unlawful, in which case the payment of a weregild might be acceptable (there was no requirement for its acceptance) to prevent a fued, or illegal, where it was specifically prohibited by the authority governing society. In other words, while both were wrong, there were generally provisions for an unlawful act to actually occur within the jurisprudence. As authority became more complete in matters of law, naturally unlawful acts also became illegal.
There was provision in Norse society for "self judgement" where the offender could offer a penalty, and if it was accepted, the Althing would rule on it. Till then it was an unlawful killing, and the option was to be out-lawed. All to avoid blood feud in small communities.
Very interesting video. I always understood illegal was an action against an Act of Parliament and unlawful was an action that was clearly "illegal" but but there was no specific Act of Parliament against it. But I can see how perhaps over time the two words have merged to mean the same. Another interesting word is environmental "conservation" which was meant to conserve something but is now used to describe the culling (killing) of deer for sport and managed in a way to keep deer number high.
Thank you AL 😊
Thank you to the liker's of this comment . AL is the uncle we all wish we had I think some would agree more than most.
Would like to hear your thoughts on the twelve presumptions of law or court
Heh. On my application to officially change my name, one of the witnesses stated his profession as "Viking". Still applicable, as it was a profession not a race. 😁
The origin of language is a fascinating subject as it tells you a lot about the real meaning of words - a bit like Hansards tell you a lot about the intention behind the drafting of legislation. Thanks for that.
Words have meanings within particular contexts - there's no underlying 'real meaning' that etymology will reveal.
@@terryboland3816 the etymology tells you the origin.
Which can tell you whether the definition has changed from its original form.
From there, you can look into whether the change was benign or organic versus malicious.
@@geroffmilan3328 Yes, etymology can tell you whether the meaning of a word has changed but it doesn't tell you what the 'real meaning' is. That is simple lexicography.
@@terryboland3816 I take the view that the original meaning of a word is its genuine meaning, notwithstanding subsequent adaptations are a fact of life, some of which are accidental, stemming from ignorance of the original definition, whilst others represent a deliberate attempt to change history through redefinition.
Let's consider "boomer" as a topical example.
A contraction of "baby boomer", defining a specific generation, later reappropriated to mean "anyone who is, or just sounds, older".
Trying to stop that happening is hilariously fruitless, but there will come a time where many misunderstand material using the original definition.
A better path is to generate a new word... but if that word just goes through the above process, the effort was wasted.
In reality:
"Language is the liquid / That we're all dissolved in / Great for solving problems / After it creates the problem"
After all, it probably wouldn't be too hard for me to point out how you & OP might be using different definitions of the word "real" - meaning they were as accurate as you were.
@@geroffmilan3328 "I take the view that the original meaning of a word is its genuine meaning, "
Then you are entirely ignorant of how language works.
Having trouble with this video, I was distracted by your hat sir! Was it set at a jaunty angle or was it skew-whiff?
You refrained from the sick bird joke, well done.
Could you explain adverse possession rules? Thanks
Loved the legal history
According to Microsoft CoPilot (so not necessarily 100% accurate):
"Unlawful" and "illegal" are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle difference:
Illegal: Something that is prohibited by law and is usually criminal. For instance, theft and murder are illegal activities because they break criminal laws.
Unlawful: More broadly refers to actions that are not authorized by law, but might not always be criminal. It could encompass breaches of civil law, contracts, or other regulations. For example, a contract that breaks employment law might be termed "unlawful" but not "illegal."
Basically, all illegal actions are unlawful, but not all unlawful actions are illegal. Make sense?
I never miss any of your videos and some I'll watch more than once 👏👏👏
Good to know why by laws are so called .
Alan the video I would like to see is about the definitions of 'sex' and 'gender'. Here in New Zealand the government uses these terms interchangeably, which is a mistake. The relevant law is the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021. I hold that sex is determined by chromosomes ie a male has XY and a female has XX; and it is impossible to change. Gender is a social construct, has such designations as 'man', 'woman', 'boy', 'girl'. This is changeable and is up to the person involved as to which one they identify as.
Nice Pratchett quote.
Not winter yet!
Never thought id hear Bo & Luke mentioned inan ar of law video:)
I'm studying contract law at the moment. Can you do something on void and voidable contracts, particularly for minors?
Ta very much
Ah, whether fancy shirts are essentials.
For unlawful carnal knowledge.
Just playing "devil's advocate" here - some would argue, and it's a matter of semantics, that "unlawful" is applicable where there is a "lawful" version of the mens rea. E.g. Unlawful wounding...it could be argued that a wounding inflicted in self-defence could be termed a "lawful wounding"...as opposed to something being "illegal" which would mean that's in an offence or a civil wrong ab initio (from the outset) according to statute and/or the common law. I agree that in practice they're interchangeable.
The 'unlawful' limb of gbh is specifically to cover self defence. It's an element the prosecution have to prove to the requisite standard. Done a few vids on self defence/use of force that go into a bit more detial.
Was interesting and informative, just raises the issue as to why some seem to got the impression that there is any difference when it comes to judicial processes and standings under legislation and its applicability.
Possible interest for a video - at a concert on Saturday, when introducing a song, June Tabor said that press ganging laws hadn't been repealed. Curious to know if I could be forced into the navy walking down the street one day!! Perhaps a video on odd un-repealed laws (if you haven't dome one already).
Eek, I'd better be careful drinking in Falmouth.
But I was thinking about doing something like this. And also some of the myths. Like whether you can actually use a bow and arrow on a Welsh person in Chester.
No!
Interestingly, Bryan Garner who edits Black's Law Dictionary, has published the last articles by Robert Megarry, the English High Court judge and legal scholar. Garner also has a chapter in Reading Law (Co authored with Antonin Scalia) on various dictionaries and their rules fur laying out meanings.
I should maybe do a vid on law dictionaries.
@@artmedialaw I'm not a lawyer but a philosopher and medieval scholar, and in my field the way dictionaries work can be weird and wonderful. I'd be interested to hear about the legal side of things, if you decide to do that.
Are LEZs legal or bylaws with no relevance to common law???? Can they be mandated by one person of a temporary nature and who will be removed later?
Great analysis. Thank you
It is more interesting to ponder the difference between legal and lawful. Usually the layman and the media says legal where the right word is lawful.
= Common criminals get taken down for doing illegal things, whereas the Police and Boris and tax evaders and OJ Simpson etc expensive solicitors will successfully defend their clients from the consequences of their unlawful actions.
Thank you
Sheering sheep is a kindness. Left alone, they rub against sharp things to try and remove their wool. In the summer months they get way too hot and can be injured by the excess heat if their wool is till in place. I myself have seen sheep with terrible lacerations where they have scraped against hawthorn to remove their wool. So sheering sheep and using the wool is in no way exploitative.
Whilst I might agree that a sheep that has not been bred for its wool, or chop making properties……(and I think it would be extremely difficult to find such an animal), …then to sheer that sheep might be exploitative. However, sheep that you find in this modern world, have undergone a transformation, causing non sheering to be cruel in the extreme. Letting all the sheep go, to cease farming them will result in coat overgrowth that the sheep cannot manage, as can be seen by hill sheep that avoid/evade the annual round up.
Well, better wits have worn plain statute caps… 😉
@@kathrynhobbs8874 The most likely hypothesis is that sheep were bred from Mouflon some 10000 years ago in what is now Iraq. They are not naturally occurring animals and aren't well suited to the natural environment. So human intervention is needed for health reasons.
Unlawful should be used where the action can be lawful in certain circumstances.
It's Illegal, It's Immoral, or It Makes You Fat
Song by The Beverley Sisters
So interesting! Ty.
It is a 750 year celebration of Magnus the Law-mender this year,
being second in the world establishing a law system gathering all of the land.
He took over when vikings ended. As his name says, he mended laws. These where laws from five areas in Norway, all “things”, like Gulating, Borgarting and so on. All going back hundreds of years prior of Magnus. These courts lives on today.
In my humble opinion, there is a distinct difference of the terms:
- “unlawful” is used with regards to when petty crimes are or may occur, and there might be doubts of laws.
- “illegal” is when it is clear all knows.
Since vikings were mentioned: Magnus Lagabøter took traditional Norwegian approaches of the earlier laws, stating no man can be judged steeling if what he takes is «bread to live». Ie, close to being unlawful, but way away illegal.
so is there list, "bylaws, and where they, and "dukes-of-hazard, still, where county lines are for said by-laws?, if whizzing up down motorway, how districts, rules, covered little patches by-laws you must go in and around, on your tip?
Lookin' dapper today Al ❤❤❤
what about the difference between Lawful and Legal?
Pleased to hear you're a Pratchett fan.
Nil illegitimo carborundum.
Unlawful arrest not illegal arrest by Police officer, the fact this 'barrister' doesnt know that is scary.....
No, what's scary is that you think there is a difference and that you don't appreciate that the use of unlawful as opposed to illegal in that context is merely down to the former being more common in usage.
I always assumed that as laws can both expressively prohibit things, and proscribe how things must be carried out that "illegal" referred to doing something the former prohibits and "unlawful" was to not do something in the way the latter says you must. Take the proroguing of parliament for example that was deemed "unlawful", it is not illegal to prorogue parliament only it must be done in a certain way which wasn't followed by Boris and hence it was deemed "unlawful" rather than "illegal"
Don't you mean 'prescribe how things must be done'?
Another excellent contribution!
Wow! fascinating, so one is Anglo Saxons and one is the Normans, so this could be used to see when certain laws came in.
By and bye, I’m aghast, and agog!
Unlawful feels more adjective-y whereas illegal feels more noun-y ??
Thats what my grammar friends seem to be arguing about when it comes to elegance of writing.
I thought illegal was a sick bird
I’ve always wondered what the limits of bylaws were in terms of how far the councils authority extends. And also for that matter the limits of their powers of enforcement and punishment for infraction of bylaws. If I was some sort of maniacal totalitarian mayor who had the support of his council could I make some absurd by law that says you must be wearing a Mr blobby outfit if your name begins with a J on a Tuesday and you’re walking down this particular street otherwise the police will arrest you and make you bathe it in a bath tub of custard?
I think all bylaws have to be approved by the Government, so it should be pretty difficult for someone to enact your scenario. Hopefully.
@@yorkiemike - ya think huh?
Well my friend, you think wrong.
Take the Courts Act 2003 as an example - primary legislation which, according to available records supplied through direct enquiry with House of Commons Enquiry Service, was not subjected to a full parliamentary vote through the usual divisions (no record of ayes and nays exists, no record in Hansard), suggesting it may have been passed through committee without full parliamentary scrutiny.
This is why we have something called the Judicial Review for secondary legislation, because it may not be.... oooo! dare I say it without being branded FMOTL... lawful.
There is case law (common law, law made by judges in court)... would you like it?
What about if there are laws saying what you can do and can't do, but someone does something which isn't mentioned in either case?
In E&W we have negative rights. That is to say, anything not specifically prohibited is allowed. Some jurisdictions have positive rights. So there will be some document(s) setting out exactly what you are permitted to do.
I believe that quote is from James D Nicoll and not Terry Pratchett.
The delux is the one with the real hair
"Whatever will they think of next."
..... but Blacks Law dictionary says .......
I'm just learning and Blacks law dictionary very useful. Could it be farfetched not to rely on Blacks law because its by an american author. Any english law dictionary equivalent to Blacks law?
Osborn's is the one most english law students use.
3:28 "Honi soit qui mal y pense" Shamed be he who thinks bad/ill of it. Allegedly said by Edward III referring to when his cousins garter fell down in a dance and thus was born the Order of the Garter.
It has taken me four attempts to watch this video uninterrupted. Is there a law that one can use to stop relatives from disturbing my peace?
I am too deaf to hear my doorbell, phone, and et cetera.
Unlawful and illegal are similes, just as sex and gender are ( contrary to how some people seem to think ).
1:16 so … he didn’t get clean away?
Interesting, I thought that perhaps it was just another example of using two legal words from different traditions as the normans took over so that there was no doubt about what a phrase might mean, eg "assault and battery", one from the French tradition and one from the Anglo-Saxon tradition.
There is a video on here on those 'legal doublets'
Courts which were created or evolved for specific purposes and which still technically exist are very amusing. England has a 'High Court of Chivalry' for heraldic disputes (last presided over by the late Lord Justice Goddard) and the Barmote Court for lead-mining in Derbyshire, as well as the Verderers' Court... All with some sort of real jurisdiction, though seldom exercised.
We had the stannary courts in cornwall. The courts have been abolished, but there's a good argument that stannary law still exists.
@@artmedialaw The Act abolishing them mentions the possibility of transferring a case to arbitration in a sort of stannaries court where the matter would be decided. It's presumably a dead letter though.
I recall it also says that the stannary courts powers now vest in the county court.
@@artmedialaw Stannary towns in Devon too.
Yeah. But have you sen what they do with jam and cream up there? It's an anarchy.
what about unlegal vs illawful ?
as you state bye law can have a regional standing .does the term body politik afforded by a king of england (george 1st 1718 to the french hospital rochester kent )in their great charter ,stand for ever and therefore afford rights over all of that kingdom today.
without let or hinderance !
seeking knowledge .
merci beaucoup
GNU Terry Pratchett.
I do recall being told once that illegal was something that was proscribed in law (e.g. driving 40mph in a 30 limit) and unlawful was doing something that wasn't explicitly permitted (e.g. a police officer arresting someone without proper grounds to do so).
I suspect that's just somebody retrofitting a definition, not being satisfied with the answer that they both mean the same thing.
Correct
That was really interesting!
A crime needs a victim, corpus delicti and malicious intent, mens rea. All lawyers are wrongly trained.
There are no victimless crimes and there are no accidental crimes.
Mad as a hatter.
@@EvoraGT430A sov cit loon.
I suppose your woolly hat that isn't wool ought to be referred to as a woolish hat.
I've always taken illegal to mean against society's laws, whereas unlawful is anything you might do to violate natural law.
What's 'natural law'?
@@yorkiemike It is More of an idea than a real thing, but when I saw natural law, I suppose I just meant the natural order and the law of nature. So, like, the laws of physics.
My point is that, from a practical standpoint, these words are the same, but technically, they are slightly different.
@@pagusmedia I don't understand then. Nature is horrible, 'red in tooth and claw', as they say. Animals kill each other, so is murder legal under natural law?
@@pagusmedia I don't understand then, can you give me an example? Nature is horrible, 'red in tooth and claw', as they say. Animals do horrible things to each other, so are all those things legal under natural law?
@@yorkiemike Well. I'm thinking of an I word which, as Al likes to say, is an essual offense in the UK. Society looks down on it because it's abusive. The natural world doesn't care that it's illegal, just that any child is potentially more likely to end up physically or mentally disabled than a child born not from the I wword so I'm led to believe. Let's now take building on flood planes and/or too close to a body of water without thinking about flood defences. It might be legal, but bad things will happen if you do
What’s being described here of course is common practice in the modern era.
What we need to do is research the origins of the two words.
But in the meantime, it’s obvious that LAWFUL refers to the LAW as in The Common Law as granted to Man by God; and LEGAL refers to the statutes and acts made by some men who assumed the rights to do so - not only contrary to God’s Law, but according to the Bible and the Oaths sworn by monarchs - in the name of God and in the sight of God, whilst swearing upon the Holy Bible which is the word of God.
Shall we discuss the REAL MEANING of the word PERSON? Despite deriving from PERSONA, the Latin for a mask as worn by an actor, and despite the King James Version of the Bible being translated into English FROM Latin, the word PERSON does not appear in the King James Version of the Bible.
Funny that isn’t it? Now let’s see if this comment gets deleted as 90% of my comments do.
Peace 🏴
PS
It took the Normans two weeks to conquer England. It took them TWO HUNDRED YEARS to take Wales.
The word illegal seems to be stronger in usage and meaning than the word unlawful.
Is it unlawful to not wear your hat on straight 🙂 and do in-laws come into it????
I'm going to pretend that was deliberate, to take advantage of the light coming from the side.