Meghan and Harry are the reasons why I don't donate money anymore.

If I may disagree on the Archewell issue: their spokesperson was unequivocal that the cheque had been submitted months ago but remained uncleared. If you were running some sort of charity, foundation or even commercial enterprise, would you not ensure someone in your finance department was keeping adequate records, reconciling bank statements, and ensuring that cheque payments didn't remain uncleared for months? This IS not a storm in a teacup... it goes to an apparent reckless disregard for basic accounting (and accountability), especially when money received is in the form of donations. Quite a red flag!

Beautiful background.. 🇨🇦

I think its not about the small fee they have to fork out... Its the documentation that needs to be submitted as well.

Hello. I not a lawyer so I especially enjoy the way you explain what is happening in all the cases you discuss with your audience. Love your sense of humor and the added value of you showing us such beautiful places. I don’t understand why you don’t have 200 suscribers❤

You are right, it’s not a story. It’s great we can call Harry delinquent.

I love your channel, you always make your law stories interesting and entertaining and the locations you choose are magical ❤ thank you, lots of love ❤

Such a gorgeous view 🤍 timeless.

I've been hoping you'd look at this Al...I did think it was actually more than a missing cheque though? Isn't there a missing or inadequate financial statement too? Whichever it is it's incredibly embarrassing to H&M...perhaps they would be better to spend big on excellent admin staff rather than PR...just saying...!! Great location again Al...

Of course Daniel suggested Prince Harry, hes the go to cash cow for him Please dont go down that road

Currently they're removing scrap metal here, including the beds of people in this care home in the Midlands! Leamington Spa/Whitnash! It's an absolutely horrendous nightmare!

It is the archewell is not a foundation it is a public charity ( 503c). Different rules

OK, you got a genuine "laugh out loud" for opening splash. Well played!

Sir Brian Leveson's father was a consultant psychiatrist. When Maggie Thatcher started closing long-term psychiatric institutions Leveson Senior said to his son "If this continues, in twenty years' time my patients will be silting up your prisons".

well done for being excited to remember to say 'the subscribe and youtubey' things 🤣 love your work👍

Good morning to you. A smashing video again. Liking the roundup format thing. Sort of a 'teaser' for upcoming others. I appreciated the sound quality/volume change - it caught me by surprise and caused me to wake up and pay more attention. The extra scenery images are fab. Thank you. 😊.

Confirmation statement now costs £34, there is no penalty for late filing. Late filing penalty is for late filing of annual accounts of a limited company or LLP.

If it was just a technical/admin error, why is the delinquent notice still on their 2022 record? The Cali AG has not removed the notice from their record even though the charity is now compliant.

Now waiting for the "Pearl & Dean" cinema adverts at the start

I'd argue that the hospital order is, in some regards, more restrictive than a prison sentence as the patient generally gets no say in the medications they are prescribed and are compelled to take them. A lot of antipsychotic medications have adverse effects that contribute to significant obesity and type 2 diabetes, thus increasing the cardiovascular risk of the patient. Forensic units are also locked units and patients are kept under extremely close surveillance. Furthermore, if (and it is only an if) the patient is ever deemed "safe" enough to be released they will be subject to a community treatment order and conditions on release including ensuring they are still adhering to their medication regime. I'm pretty sure deviation from this can result in the patient being recalled to the hospital and/or further detention under the MHA. I think the AG should not have interfered with this case as it gave the families the false impression that an incorrect decision had been made. The failure of the challenge will surely have led to further disappointment and some element of traumatisation of the families. The AG, being legally trained, should not bow to the pressure of public opinion when they are in full knowledge that the decision reached was both lawful and appropriate. It not only undermines their office and the justice system but it wastes the time of the court.

Just as in the Post Office Scandal, the Lucy Letby expert witness was not instructed as per the Attorney General's requirements. That alone should make the convictions unsafe, the expert himself went on TV and explained how his appointment came about and it was VERY irregular.

He hasn’t filed since 2021. That’s not an admin error.

Brilliant videos, love the views & wobbly technology with the legal info too 🏰

Thank you. Very interesting

It has been alleged. Archewell is not a charity in the state of California. Since it is registered in Delaware.

It seems nothing was filed, and on the other sude of the pond everyone claims that's done online, and no one sends cheques any more. I wonder if someone is reluctant to sign off those accounts

Jurors will ignore anything they have heard outside the court, I do not think so. People are human and prejudices slip in.

Love the titles, keep it up please 😊

Nice background. Just need to check horizon / sea is level next time. Perhaps do another from this spot? Interesting content and I thought the sound level was fine (the sea noise was not distracting) until the glitch towards the end. 👍🏻

"A view with a view, ... and you and no-one to worry us ... no-one to hurry us!"

The £13 fee at Companies House that you mentioned has just gone up to £34.

Thank you Al

Funky Fanfare!

It's difficult to concentrate with the beautiful background 😂 Thanks Al x

Yes, but isn't it over a year since they have owed the money?

I think you've made an error regarding the hospital order case. He wasn't found to have been legally insane. He was convicted, but with murder reduced to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. His responsibility was diminished, but he was still responsible. That's very different (at least legally, if not practically) to being acquitted due to insanity. If he were found not guilty by reason of insanity, the judge couldn't have imposed a punitive sentence. In this case, they could have done, they just didn't consider it appropriate.

Good morning Alan, another interesting video. Thank you. We are going to Cornwall in June and Pendennis Castle is on the list, it looks lovely

The GWR named one of its steam engines Pendennis Castle.

A DG doing inane posturing for optics? I'm shocked - SHOCKED.

😎👍

Thanks Al! Enjoyed that! If you could pick those 15 minutes of music, what would you pick?!

Data does matter, spike in baby deaths & spike in post office prosecutions. The doctors raised concerns & were chastised. No one raised concerns w spike in PO prosecutions. In a world where data is so easily compiled it would seem we’re only interested in end of day dollar reports. For other important data, ie ppl, we’re often asleep at the wheel. Asleep or that no one cares to look very closely.

IMHO if doctors precribe psych meds, and you (while sane) stop taking them, that's analogous to a sober person getting drunk. You should be liable for the consequences.

Pearl and Dean next?

Not wanting to nitpick but it would appear you're not convicted on what you did, rather the outcome of your actions. A video on that would be good.

Did you not review this before you uploaded? The volume's all over the lace towards the end. {:o:O:}

Why not talk about the bizarre decision of the solicitor general to appeal the case of the climate activist who held up a sign advising jurors of their rights in English law. It seems very dangerous on two grounds. Firstly, for a judge to instruct defence that they ‘can’t’ present an arguable line of defence is not only a restriction on free speech, it is putting a thumb on the scales of justice to improve the chances of a conviction. Secondly, by preventing a jury from knowing established legal rights means that juries are unequal - if you’re lucky enough to have someone on a jury that does know the law, you could get a different verdict to a jury which has no idea about jury equity or nullification. Surely, the judge exists to ensure the trial is fair and the jury are fully informed. Otherwise we might as well forget trials and go from charging straight to sentence…

Al, you are absolutely hilarious and so rubbish at asking for likes and subscribes 😂

Are you going to say anything about the PO IT Enquirer. Or is that like a court case and a bit dodgy??????

Dodgy sound today.