35 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

But the case isn't doomed yet—the complaint pleads publication/accessibility in detail to survive early dismissal (low 12(b)(6) threshold).

OK this is not the BBC topic but:

 

Key Aspects of Rule 12(b)(6)
Purpose: To challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint early in litigation.
 

Standard: The complaint must contain enough factual allegations for the court to reasonably infer the defendant's liability, establishing "plausible" grounds for relief, not just "possible" ones, per Twombly and Iqbal.

 

 

NB Those words 'plausible not just possible' come out of Supreme Court defamation rulings.

 

And the strongest words the complaint offers on 'publication' are IMMENSE LIKELIHOOD

27 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Ah, the classic "ad hominem" retreat—when facts and legal analysis get too inconvenient, just insult the messenger and the people who find it persuasive.

BlackBeltBarrister isn't "some YouTube idiot"; he's a practicing English barrister with a qualifying law degree, professional qualifications, and real courtroom experience.

His breakdown of the Trump-BBC case was measured, cited the complaint directly, and highlighted both strengths (falsity, potential malice) and practical pressures (defense costs) without hysterical predictions.

Dismissing him because he makes YouTube videos is like dismissing any expert who communicates publicly—whether on TV, podcasts, or (gasp) writing articles.

The irony? You're repeating talking points that align more with UK media spin ("it'll be dismissed instantly!") than with the actual filing or US federal procedure.

If his take is "nonsense," feel free to point out the specific legal errors instead of sneering at people who listened thoughtfully.

Empty heads aren't the ones engaging with detailed arguments; they're the ones shutting down discussion with insults.

Other empty heads post a very similar post twice.

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Other empty heads post a very similar post twice.

Well the fact is some poster just post insults and nothing factual that adds to the debate! mentioning no names!

47 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

when facts and legal analysis

Come up with some and I'll take a look. Sorry but just because somebody on youtube is spouting it doesn't make it fact or even a legitimate legal analysis. Just because you may agree with it doesn't make it true.

33 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

NB Those words 'plausible not just possible' come out of Supreme Court defamation rulings.

Correction: Supreme Court Rule 12(b)(6) rulings but not defamation rulings.

When you used an AI tool to generate that response, you didn't check the sources, did you? Always double check for the hallucinations.

 

The comment about the OU is basically lifted from the OU's prospectus. Yes, OU degrees are as rigorous as any other UK university degree (all UK degrees are equivalent). But the AI because it doesn't understand UK academia has wrongly conflated the size of the programme with the barristers in court. The OU is the largest university in the UK, with 200,000 students. But that doesn't mean its got some monster campus in Milton Keynes; that reflects its effectively a distance learning university. Before the internet, the BBC used to show Open University modules; lectures on the telly. Of course night school doesn't really exist anymore, but that's effectively what existed before  c.1995 (Birkbeck College is rather similar), but the point is the same. OU Graduates typically take 5-6 to complete a degree compared to 3-4 years fulltime study.

 

QCs (KCs) have traditionally been dominated by Oxbridge. Pupil Barristers are those barristers who completed their degree training, and then essentially have to apprentice in Chambers for 12 months, before becoming a fully fledged Barrister. According to various sources, ShenSmith did his stint in Holborn Chambers. According to his LinkedIn, he qualified in 2017, and he says he has spent 20 years before university in business, without divulging what kind of business.

 

A 2025 survey of Pupil Barristers show 53% are still Oxbridge, 23% are other Russell Group, 12% are overseas universities, and 11% are other UK universities. 77% of them has a first class degree.

 

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/most-pupil-barristers-still-coming-from-oxbridge#:~:text=A majority of pupil barristers (53%) have,exceeding those from other UK universities (11%).

 

There are only 600-700 pupil barrister vacancies a year (https://www.legalcheek.com/2024/10/pupillage-numbers-rise-sharply-regulator-reports/)

 

https://www.lawcareers.net/Explore/News/Law-graduate-numbers-hit-record-high-while-number-of-firms-hit-record-low-03102

 

In total, there are 180 UK universities offering undergraduate degrees

 

So only 77 graduates from the 156 third tier universities get a spot. The OU produces about 940-1000 law graduates a year (https://about.open.ac.uk/sites/about.open.ac.uk/files/files/Facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures-2022.pdf)

 

Oxford and Cambridge each aim for about 250 law graduates a year. Each of the London schools offering law degrees aim for about 200-250 each year. The Russell group accounts for 24 universities, collectively churning out about 250,000 graduates across all disciplines. Its pretty clear that as a collective, the Russell group  produces a lot more law graduates than thr OU, which you are trying to make out is a premier league law school in the UK. No degree in the UK is second rate (unlike the US), but where you studied does affect where you work. If you want to be a barrister, you don't go to the OU. You might if you have something else in mind as a career. Black Belt barrister got his law degree in 2017. He founded BarristerDIRECT in 2012.

 

He offers an opinion on various matter, not invalid, and not unqualified. But he doesn't offer a learned opinion. Steven Barrett is another Youtube barrister (or former one (controversial reasons), with an Oxford BA no less) who offers an opinion, but no more than that. Maybe Judge Rinder should be consulted for an opinion. Or even Judge Judy, as she is a genuinely experienced and qualified jurist.

 

 

33 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Other empty heads post a very similar post twice.

 

There is a reason two posts look very similar. He's used an AI tool to prepare a retort, but there are tells in the reply. And, as shown, by others, hallucinations.

11 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Come up with some and I'll take a look. Sorry but just because somebody on youtube is spouting it doesn't make it fact or even a legitimate legal analysis. Just because you may agree with it doesn't make it true.

Still waiting for me to spoon-feed you facts because actually engaging with sources is too much effort?

If "somebody on YouTube spouting it" is your automatic dismissal trigger, congrats: you've just invented a foolproof way to ignore any expert who dares explain things publicly.

But sure, keep demanding I "come up with some" while waving away anything that challenges your preconceptions. That's not healthy skepticism, darling—that's just intellectual laziness masquerading as discernment.

Try cracking open a court filing or a Reuters article sometime; the real world might surprise you.

16 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Try cracking open a court filing or a Reuters article sometime; the real world might surprise you.

I do it all the time. I read medical journals too. None of them support your positions.

12 minutes ago, gargamon said:

I do it all the time. I read medical journals too. None of them support your positions.

Good, so let's have some rebuttals we can debate/discuss instead of insults!

12 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

When you used an AI tool to generate that response, you didn't check the sources, did you? Always double check for the hallucinations.

 

The comment about the OU is basically lifted from the OU's prospectus. Yes, OU degrees are as rigorous as any other UK university degree (all UK degrees are equivalent). But the AI because it doesn't understand UK academia has wrongly conflated the size of the programme with the barristers in court. The OU is the largest university in the UK, with 200,000 students. But that doesn't mean its got some monster campus in Milton Keynes; that reflects its effectively a distance learning university. Before the internet, the BBC used to show Open University modules; lectures on the telly. Of course night school doesn't really exist anymore, but that's effectively what existed before  c.1995 (Birkbeck College is rather similar), but the point is the same. OU Graduates typically take 5-6 to complete a degree compared to 3-4 years fulltime study.

 

QCs (KCs) have traditionally been dominated by Oxbridge. Pupil Barristers are those barristers who completed their degree training, and then essentially have to apprentice in Chambers for 12 months, before becoming a fully fledged Barrister. According to various sources, ShenSmith did his stint in Holborn Chambers. According to his LinkedIn, he qualified in 2017, and he says he has spent 20 years before university in business, without divulging what kind of business.

 

A 2025 survey of Pupil Barristers show 53% are still Oxbridge, 23% are other Russell Group, 12% are overseas universities, and 11% are other UK universities. 77% of them has a first class degree.

 

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/most-pupil-barristers-still-coming-from-oxbridge#:~:text=A majority of pupil barristers (53%) have,exceeding those from other UK universities (11%).

 

There are only 600-700 pupil barrister vacancies a year (https://www.legalcheek.com/2024/10/pupillage-numbers-rise-sharply-regulator-reports/)

 

https://www.lawcareers.net/Explore/News/Law-graduate-numbers-hit-record-high-while-number-of-firms-hit-record-low-03102

 

In total, there are 180 UK universities offering undergraduate degrees

 

So only 77 graduates from the 156 third tier universities get a spot. The OU produces about 940-1000 law graduates a year (https://about.open.ac.uk/sites/about.open.ac.uk/files/files/Facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures-2022.pdf)

 

Oxford and Cambridge each aim for about 250 law graduates a year. Each of the London schools offering law degrees aim for about 200-250 each year. The Russell group accounts for 24 universities, collectively churning out about 250,000 graduates across all disciplines. Its pretty clear that as a collective, the Russell group  produces a lot more law graduates than thr OU, which you are trying to make out is a premier league law school in the UK. No degree in the UK is second rate (unlike the US), but where you studied does affect where you work. If you want to be a barrister, you don't go to the OU. You might if you have something else in mind as a career. Black Belt barrister got his law degree in 2017. He founded BarristerDIRECT in 2012.

 

He offers an opinion on various matter, not invalid, and not unqualified. But he doesn't offer a learned opinion. Steven Barrett is another Youtube barrister (or former one (controversial reasons), with an Oxford BA no less) who offers an opinion, but no more than that. Maybe Judge Rinder should be consulted for an opinion. Or even Judge Judy, as she is a genuinely experienced and qualified jurist.

 

 

 

We are kinda getting of the topic here, instead of rebutting points made by a legal expert we are discussing his credentials, it would be good to get back on point.  But I will reply as you asked! After this I'm only replying to on topic items!

 

Yes agreed, all UK law degrees are equivalent (no "second-rate" tiers like in the US), and the OU's is a fully qualifying LLB, rigorous enough for the Bar.

Distance learning suits mature students (like ShenSmith, who brought 20 years of business experience before qualifying).

Multiple OU law grads secure pupillages every year—e.g., three in one recent cohort alone (Ropewalk, Farrar's Building, Landmark Chambers), plus alumni winning major scholarships and calling to the Bar since the 2000s. It's not Oxbridge volume, but success proves the degree holds up.

On ShenSmith specifically: He earned a First-class LLB (OU), Distinction LLM (Barristers), and Distinction BPTC (with Outstanding grades in complex options like company/IP law).

Pupillage at Holborn Chambers (praised by its head as "able and dedicated"), reduced by 50% by BSB for prior experience.

Called around 2017, he runs a BSB-regulated public access firm (ShenSmith, founded post-qualification), practices in civil/family/commercial, mediates, and litigates.

That's a solid, practicing barrister—not a hobbyist.

 

Pupillage stats? Yes, Oxbridge dominates (53-58% recently, down from higher pre-COVID),

Russell Group next (~23%), others ~11-12%. Only ~600-700 spots/year—hyper-competitive.

But non-Oxbridge/Russell grads (including OU) absolutely get them; diversity pushes are widening access.

 

Claiming "if you want to be a barrister, you don't go to the OU" is outdated elitism—plenty do, and succeed.

 

YouTube? He explains law accessibly (millions of views), but his opinions draw from real practice. Comparing him to Judge Judy (TV arbitrator, not UK barrister) or Rinder (former barrister turned presenter) is desperate—what next, LegalEagle or Judge Dredd?😅

 

A qualified barrister's reasoned take isn't "invalid" just because it doesn't fit your narrative or he didn't swan in from Ox-bridge.

Gatekeeping the Bar as an "elite club" ignores modern reality—merit, experience, and results matter.

ShenSmith has them. Try engaging the substance instead of pedigree-policing.

5 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

 

We are kinda getting of the topic here, instead of rebutting points made by a legal expert we are discussing his credentials, it would be good to get back on point.  But I will reply as you asked! After this I'm only replying to on topic items!

 

Yes agreed, all UK law degrees are equivalent (no "second-rate" tiers like in the US), and the OU's is a fully qualifying LLB, rigorous enough for the Bar.

Distance learning suits mature students (like ShenSmith, who brought 20 years of business experience before qualifying).

Multiple OU law grads secure pupillages every year—e.g., three in one recent cohort alone (Ropewalk, Farrar's Building, Landmark Chambers), plus alumni winning major scholarships and calling to the Bar since the 2000s. It's not Oxbridge volume, but success proves the degree holds up.

On ShenSmith specifically: He earned a First-class LLB (OU), Distinction LLM (Barristers), and Distinction BPTC (with Outstanding grades in complex options like company/IP law).

Pupillage at Holborn Chambers (praised by its head as "able and dedicated"), reduced by 50% by BSB for prior experience.

Called around 2017, he runs a BSB-regulated public access firm (ShenSmith, founded post-qualification), practices in civil/family/commercial, mediates, and litigates.

That's a solid, practicing barrister—not a hobbyist.

 

Pupillage stats? Yes, Oxbridge dominates (53-58% recently, down from higher pre-COVID),

Russell Group next (~23%), others ~11-12%. Only ~600-700 spots/year—hyper-competitive.

But non-Oxbridge/Russell grads (including OU) absolutely get them; diversity pushes are widening access.

 

Claiming "if you want to be a barrister, you don't go to the OU" is outdated elitism—plenty do, and succeed.

 

YouTube? He explains law accessibly (millions of views), but his opinions draw from real practice. Comparing him to Judge Judy (TV arbitrator, not UK barrister) or Rinder (former barrister turned presenter) is desperate—what next, LegalEagle or Judge Dredd?😅

 

A qualified barrister's reasoned take isn't "invalid" just because it doesn't fit your narrative or he didn't swan in from Ox-bridge.

Gatekeeping the Bar as an "elite club" ignores modern reality—merit, experience, and results matter.

ShenSmith has them. Try engaging the substance instead of pedigree-policing.

 

 

You're arguing the toss. I literally threw you a bone by giving you the name of another barrister (a Trump supporter), who incidently is a favourite of Tommy Robinson's following the Southport murders, who offers up another opinion you so crave and depend on from Youtube (if not smashing the heck out of ChatGPT/Claud/Gemini etc) to tell you what to think.

 

And then you don't even bother to properl;y read properly what I wrote, because you are too busy cosplaying John Wick. You are intolerant of other opinions basically.

 

People like you are too fond of stating what Influencers think rather than what you think. But again, more copy pasting I note from maybe 85% of this latest response. You don't even read your own "reply", because your original points that you plagiarised from the AI actually pretty much supported all the comments I made. 

 

And we can throw up random names of British jurists. Rinder, incidently, is also an experienced barrister. Moreover, Judy Sheindlin; 10 year prosecutor, 11 years a Judge. You (or that the AI) then claimed I compared his opinions to Judge Judy. I did not.

 

But your replies on this thread are typical of why the West is crumbling. You depend too much on social media to tell you what to think. On Youtube, millions of views means he has cracked the algorithm, that's all. You're another old man who doesn't understand social meeja.

 

All you do is go to the AI and it tells you what to think. It stands out a Mile away.

 

To save you googling:

 

https://www.youtube.com/@sbarrettBar

 

 

8 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

 

 

You're arguing the toss. I literally threw you a bone by giving you the name of another barrister (a Trump supporter), who incidently is a favourite of Tommy Robinson's following the Southport murders, who offers up another opinion you so crave and depend on from Youtube (if not smashing the heck out of ChatGPT/Claud/Gemini etc) to tell you what to think.

 

And then you don't even bother to properl;y read properly what I wrote, because you are too busy cosplaying John Wick. You are intolerant of other opinions basically.

 

People like you are too fond of stating what Influencers think rather than what you think. But again, more copy pasting I note from maybe 85% of this latest response. You don't even read your own "reply", because your original points that you plagiarised from the AI actually pretty much supported all the comments I made. 

 

And we can throw up random names of British jurists. Rinder, incidently, is also an experienced barrister. Moreover, Judy Sheindlin; 10 year prosecutor, 11 years a Judge. You (or that the AI) then claimed I compared his opinions to Judge Judy. I did not.

 

But your replies on this thread are typical of why the West is crumbling. You depend too much on social media to tell you what to think. On Youtube, millions of views means he has cracked the algorithm, that's all. You're another old man who doesn't understand social meeja.

 

All you do is go to the AI and it tells you what to think. It stands out a Mile away.

 

To save you googling:

 

https://www.youtube.com/@sbarrettBar

 

 

I'm saying stay on topic and rebut the legal points that have been made, that's all.

You going off on tangents is totally irrelevant to the topic. Its not rocket science!!

On 12/17/2025 at 5:16 PM, Harrisfan said:

How come we never saw Biden's then?

Biden's tax returns

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/white-house-press-release-the-president-and-vice-president-release-their-2023-tax-returns

Biden's health report

https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Health-Summary-2.28.pdf

On 12/17/2025 at 8:31 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

But but but Michelle Obama, Bridgette Macron..

Whoa, they were presidents? Didn't know! I suppose they must have been crucial to the president's decision-making if they were useful in the sack.