The Letter of (Unjustified) Threats, Exposed!

Comments · 380

• BL

  @BlackBeltBarrister · 2 years ago (edited) · pinned

  With &nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB0Eyusqqz4HVSBKdLxGhcQ">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB0Eyusqqz4HVSBKdLxGhcQ</a> - subscribe for more!<br>Previous videos for context:<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sskav4IEuaQ">https://youtu.be/Sskav4IEuaQ</a><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4OYe1Bwzh0">https://youtu.be/X4OYe1Bwzh0</a>

  11

• GR

  @grahvis · 2 years ago

  Solicitor&apos;s advert. &nbsp;&quot;In a hole? Come to us, have spade, will dig.&quot;

  26

• DA

  @DaveW-h2r · 2 years ago (edited)

  &quot;&apos;Cease &amp; Desist&quot; – @artmedialaw asked what the linguistic term for this is. I would say it&apos;s a &apos;tautology&apos;, which hopefully makes this answer &apos;adequate enough&apos; (see what I did there?). However, more specifically in a legal context, it&apos;s known as &apos;legal doublets.&apos; This practice has an interesting history. It dates back to the Middle Ages when there was a transition in the language due to Latin influences from the Romans and French influences from the Norman Conquest. The use of Anglo-Saxon and French-derived words together aimed to avoid any ambiguity in legal contexts, so we used words derived from both languages (Latin followed by French). For reference, other legal doublets in modern use include &apos;terms and conditions,&apos; &apos;null and void,&apos; &nbsp;&apos;aid and abet&apos; and &apos;fit and proper&apos;.&quot;

  149

• DS

  @dstr001 · 2 years ago

  In what world did they think that a QUALIFIED barrister would in any way take these letters seriously lol, at what point did they think someone who knows the law inside and out would in any way be threatened by them?

  50

• OR

  @Orchardman53 · 2 years ago

  The original firm in question must be quite annoyed that it&apos;s paying cash (and reputation) for the hash the legal firm is making of this situation.

  18

• ST

  @steve3291 · 2 years ago

  i can only imagine that the solicitor is a pal of the business owner. If not, they need to examine their business model.

  48

• MI

  @michaelmason5459 · 2 years ago

  I have a feeling that the &nbsp;driver may have been the owner, director or manager and &nbsp;has lost face in front of his employees, is now doing his best with the &nbsp;emails/solicitors &nbsp;letter to try and regain face or prove a point by bullying you to comply with him so he can reclaim some authority back, &nbsp;which in turn could cost him a lot of money. Should have put his hand up and apologised.

  8

• FO

  @forsdykemontague1017 · 2 years ago

  Principles costs money in legal terms. Most people cannot afford to get justice in our English legal system even if they have been wronged. Recently listened on Audible “The Secret Barrister”, great book, however it highlights the shame of our system. IF the system continues as it is, the people will not tolerate it.

  7

• ED

  @edwardthompson3469 · 2 years ago

  I think we should all take a moment to thank the company for such a fantastic learning opportuinity. Should be a case in a textbook somewhere!

  18

• LI

  @liamhemmings9039 · 2 years ago (edited)

  Any law firm that uses Re: most likely should be ignored, especially when the header is also incorrectly capitalised; the body of letter says “we understand” followed shortly by “I understand” and even more so when the letter has an appendix. Hilarious.

  10

• SU

  @suzannehaigh4281 · 2 years ago

  I had a similar one from a solicitors, I was only upset in the way that a supposed relative would do this, intimating I was stealing from them. &nbsp;Basically I told them to show some evidence, never heard another thing.

  8

• CA

  @carldufton1286 · 2 years ago

  As an ordinary man in the street with a poor education I really appreciate people like yourself who take the time to educate us on these matters. Thank you and keep it up please

  4