Read on Twitter
*** JINGLE ALL THE WAY LIVE-TWEET: THE RULES***
This lecture explores the Christmas classic Jingle All The Way through the lens of English & Welsh law.
Contributions are welcome, but I'm perfectly prepared to tweet the entire film to a wall of embarrassed silence.
This lecture explores the Christmas classic Jingle All The Way through the lens of English & Welsh law.
Contributions are welcome, but I'm perfectly prepared to tweet the entire film to a wall of embarrassed silence.
This paper considers, inter alia, how Arnie/Howard’s intrepid search for the perfect Christmas present might have been different had he, Sinbad and the whole gang been subject to the law of England and Wales.
Some basic rules so we’re all singing from the same song sheet:
As I am not an American lawyer, nor diligent enough to do the research, we assume that all activity takes place in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
As I am not an American lawyer, nor diligent enough to do the research, we assume that all activity takes place in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
Also, there’s no presumption of doli incapax here. We’re treating all children as over the age of criminal responsibility (10 years, since you didn’t ask). So if we get a chance to prosecute Jamie, trust me - he’s heading for youth detention.
We start with some good clean Turbo Man fun.
Naturally we have to defer to autocorrect, so he is henceforth Turbot Man.
Naturally we have to defer to autocorrect, so he is henceforth Turbot Man.
It’s Arnie! He’s such a hard worker. With such a lovely telephone manner.
I hope his devotion to his customers doesn’t impinge on his relationship with his family. That would be terrible.
Uh oh. Liz is mad.
And Arnie is speeding! Strike 1!
I hope his devotion to his customers doesn’t impinge on his relationship with his family. That would be terrible.
Uh oh. Liz is mad.
And Arnie is speeding! Strike 1!
The Feds are after him! Fortunately he didn’t commit an offence of failing to stop. Which is good. So far, speeding aside, this is a law-abiding start.
This officer, though. Not entirely sure what powers the Road Traffic Act 1988 give him to humiliate Arnie in this way.
This officer, though. Not entirely sure what powers the Road Traffic Act 1988 give him to humiliate Arnie in this way.
It’s Ted! Lovely, smiley, clearly-spends-every-night-til-3am-on-4chan-slagging-Chads-and-Stacys-one-day-his-hard-drive-is-going-to-be-Exhibit-A-in-a-Crown-Court-near-you Ted!
And he’s muscling in on Arnie’s family.
And he’s muscling in on Arnie’s family.
Jamie’s in a mard because Arnie was late.
IF HE HADN’T STOPPED FOR THE POLICE, HE’D HAVE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, JAMIE. ADULT LIFE IS COMPLICATED. THERE WILL BE OTHER KARATE TOURNAMENTS.
If Arnie had laid down some truth at this stage, we might avoid the ensuing calamity.
IF HE HADN’T STOPPED FOR THE POLICE, HE’D HAVE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, JAMIE. ADULT LIFE IS COMPLICATED. THERE WILL BE OTHER KARATE TOURNAMENTS.
If Arnie had laid down some truth at this stage, we might avoid the ensuing calamity.
The unspoken universal truth underlying this film, the philosophy at its heart - more vibrant and bursting with meaning than any message about the commercialisation of Christmas, the importance of family or the endurance of paternal love - is that Jamie is a spoiled little shit.
Arnie has promised the Turbot Man doll! And he’s forgotten to buy one! And they’re very popular so he’s never going to find one on Christmas Eve!
Also, Jamie is wanging on about the parade. I hope the relevant consents have been obtained under the Public Order Act 1986.
Also, Jamie is wanging on about the parade. I hope the relevant consents have been obtained under the Public Order Act 1986.
Ted has a reindeer. But does he have a licence as per s1 of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976?
Ted does not qualify an exemption in s5, in that he is running neither a zoo, nor a pet shop or circus in Wales, so faces an unlimited fine.
As everybody knows.
Ted does not qualify an exemption in s5, in that he is running neither a zoo, nor a pet shop or circus in Wales, so faces an unlimited fine.
As everybody knows.
It’s Sinbad! He wants the Turbot Man doll too! It’s a melee!
The shopkeeper things they’re a pair of right mugs.
I sense a crime on the way...
The shopkeeper things they’re a pair of right mugs.
I sense a crime on the way...
IT’S ASSAULT BY BEATING CONTRARY TO SECTION 39 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988! TIMES 2!
One on the store assistant. Oof. That’s a maximum of 6 months’ custody right there. Aggravating feature in that the victim was performing a service to the public.
One on the store assistant. Oof. That’s a maximum of 6 months’ custody right there. Aggravating feature in that the victim was performing a service to the public.
The second assault by beating involves using the remote controlled car to cause Sinbad to fall to the ground.
In fact, if Sinbad has sustained injury which is more than transient or trifling, we’re looking at assault occasioning actual bodily harm, max sentence 5 years. Ouch.
In fact, if Sinbad has sustained injury which is more than transient or trifling, we’re looking at assault occasioning actual bodily harm, max sentence 5 years. Ouch.
Ted is stealing the cookie! Theft from a dwelling, section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, maximum sentence 7 years.
Although, being completely honest, 7 years is unlikely for stealing a cookie.
Still wouldn’t put it past a certain someone to AG-Ref it though.
Although, being completely honest, 7 years is unlikely for stealing a cookie.
Still wouldn’t put it past a certain someone to AG-Ref it though.
Schedule 1, paragraph 1 of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 says that yes, they very much are.
Don’t say I don’t contribute to public legal education. https://twitter.com/theholybob/status/1340391391080411141
Don’t say I don’t contribute to public legal education. https://twitter.com/theholybob/status/1340391391080411141
It’s chaos in the toy shop! Assaults-a-plenty!
And in fact, given that there are more than 12, all threatening violence for a common purpose, we may have a riot, contrary to s1 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Who could have predicted that?
And in fact, given that there are more than 12, all threatening violence for a common purpose, we may have a riot, contrary to s1 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Who could have predicted that?
ARNIE, NO. LEAVE THE CHILD ALONE.
The child’s mother is entirely justified in whacking the presumed “pervert” with her handbag. Reasonable defence of another.
Note: “I’m not a pervert, I’m looking for a Tubot Man doll” is unlikely to wash with the jury.
The child’s mother is entirely justified in whacking the presumed “pervert” with her handbag. Reasonable defence of another.
Note: “I’m not a pervert, I’m looking for a Tubot Man doll” is unlikely to wash with the jury.
It’s the Santa factory!
NB: “They call me backdoor Santa” remains, IMHO, one of the filthiest lyrics in Christmas musical history. And I love it.
NB: “They call me backdoor Santa” remains, IMHO, one of the filthiest lyrics in Christmas musical history. And I love it.
Now, there’s about to be a lot of violence. A *LOT*.
But before that, Arnie is not impressed with the knock-off doll, and rightly so. This is a giant conspiracy to commit offences contrary to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.
But before that, Arnie is not impressed with the knock-off doll, and rightly so. This is a giant conspiracy to commit offences contrary to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.
So, the violence. There’s a lot to process here, but some takeaways:
1. Arnie starts the violence. There is no way that his punching the first Santa for clucking like a chicken was lawful. The violent disorder that follows is his fault. Leading role. Cat 1A. 4 years’ custody.
1. Arnie starts the violence. There is no way that his punching the first Santa for clucking like a chicken was lawful. The violent disorder that follows is his fault. Leading role. Cat 1A. 4 years’ custody.
2. There are potentially serious identification problems for a jury, given the ubiquitous costumery.
Turnbull applies. The jury should be warned about the risk of mistaken identification.
There’s also a joint enterprise question with some of the peripheral Santas.
Turnbull applies. The jury should be warned about the risk of mistaken identification.
There’s also a joint enterprise question with some of the peripheral Santas.
On that note, the Court of Appeal confirmed last year that it is not appropriate to ask a defendant to put on the culprit’s clothing in front of the jury, to see if it fits.
So no Santa in the witness box when this 30-handed monstrosity goes to trial.
So no Santa in the witness box when this 30-handed monstrosity goes to trial.
3. For fans of WWE/WWF, the big Santa is the multi-World Champion wrestler Big Show. Not a legal point, but important evidence that I have done some meaningful research for this exercise.
(Thread continues here) https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1340398652146266113
