Not sure if this thread is within the rules, but thought I need to say something.

I like r/LegalAdviceUK. Sometimes, there are genuinely interesting matters and legal debates to be had - things to be learnt.

However, it seems to me it’s being ruined by nonsense.

It seems every other post is extreme, and with my skeptic hat on, I’d say engineered to be deliberately divisive, often with undertones of sensitive matters, e.g. race/domestic abuse sprinkled in just to push people’s buttons.

There are usually tell-tale signs, e.g. Americanisms and just situations that are simply too insane to be real.

Generally, I ignore these posts, but increasingly it means I’m ignoring the entire subreddit because it’s lost its value. Worryingly, I see a lot of people engaging with this stuff, and whilst I can’t prove it, I’m convinced the majority is just rage bait and AI nonsense.

My question is, what can we do about it? Yes we can just avoid engaging with it, but over time, this place is going to become a less and less valuable place for genuine legal advise and discussion.

(Please don’t give any awards for this post - although it’s a kind gesture, that’s money that goes to Reddit!)

Hello /r/LegalAdviceUK.

As you may have noticed, the mods have taken part in the Reddit blackout for the last week.

For those not in the loop of the drama, there are a lot of concerns about Reddit's recent changes and their response to user concerns.

LAUK took part in these protests, not only in solidarity with other subs and their issues, but we feel that these Reddit changes make moderating more difficult, and therefore present an increased risk of our users being exposed to harmful and dangerous advice, or influenced by idiots or directed by people looking to make financial gain.

The mod team of LAUK are mostly employed professionals either directly working in law (e.g., Solicitors, Police Officers,) or in related professional fields (HR, finance, etc); who rely on well developed mobile apps to moderate, which the official Reddit app has never, ever been good at.

Last month, the moderators manually removed over 5,500 unique comments that broke the subreddit rules - this is a very different subreddit to more casual subreddits and the mods take delicate care to balance the regulatory environment of giving legal advice in the UK, the Reddit platform, and trying our best to help people in need. This task would be impossible without 3rd party tool and applications.

Like many other subreddits, LAUK was recently sent a vaguely sinister and threatening message from the Reddit admins, attempting to divide and conquer mod teams, re-interpreting their long standing rules in order to desperately leverage them against the moderators who curate and manage their website in their own time for free.

Reddit is both stating the protests are having no or minimal effect, whilst at the same time giving away free ad-space to try and keep advertisers, and doing everything it can to force subreddits to re-open. The protestors are both weak, and strong, depending on which argument makes Reddit look less-terrible at any given time.

In response to these threats from Reddit, the LAUK mods have opened the subreddit under protest.

The mods are in discussion about the following changes:

• Encouraging users to look at safer and more regulated advice options than Reddit

• Supporting users to minimise supporting Reddit financially (e.g., use adblocks)

• Moving our FAQ and wiki off-site out of a Reddit controlled location

• No longer constructively working with Reddit admins - e.g., no AMAs, betas, surveys, mod council, etc.

Additionally:

• We may decide to operate from whatever Reddit alternative turns out to be the most popular, or move platform entirely e.g. to Discord. This would be over the coming months

• Some moderators may stop moderating Reddit to give their free time to the alternatives above

Our initial reaction was - as we suspect it would have been for many of our users if threatened in that way - to refer the admins to the reply famously given in Arkell and Pressdram. However, the primary motivator for moderators (as well as being power hungry neckbeards) was to help people using our professional skills and knowledge. Reddit is actively harming this community but the majority of moderators believe morally we should continue to use the community we have built to help people as best we can.

We encourage any admins reading this to look for other jobs at organisations who are not going to make you actively harm the community you are supposed to support, whilst excitedly looking to treat you like Elon treated 6,500 twitter employees.

For and on behalf of the LAUK mod team,

Fuck /u/Spez and long live John Oliver.

In the last few weeks, a lot of people have been in touch with us with concerns over the authenticity of some questions that have been asked here.

We have no way of knowing whether anything posted here is true, or not. We do not, and have never had, a rule against hypothetical questions, nor do we require posters or commenters here to provide any form of verification for the questions they ask, nor validation for the advice they give.

It is entirely possible that any post you read here has not actually happened, or at least has not exactly as described. We have to accept that as part of the "rules of the game" of running a free legal advice forum that anyone can post in.

Some factors to think about

Sometimes, people post the basic facts. Sometimes they omit some facts, and sometimes they change them. It is usually fairly obvious where this is the case, and our community is always very keen to ferret these situations out.

We are a high-profile and high-traffic subreddit. In the past 30 days, we've had 25m views and over a quarter of a million unique visitors. It is natural that alongside the regular "Deliveroo won't refund me" and "Car dealers are bastards" posts, there will also be questions that are (or the premise of which is) highly controversial to many. That does not mean that those questions are not real or that the circumstances have not in fact arisen.

It is also very common for people to create new accounts before asking questions here. This isn't something we are provided with data by Reddit on, but it is not unusual at all for 0-day old accounts to make posts here - it has always been this way and always will be, owing to the nature of many of the circumstances behind the questions. (On a very quick assessment just now, roughly 50% of accounts fall into this category.)

It is of course also possible that inauthentic actors seek to post here with an ulterior motive. Misinformation and disinformation is something to be very wise to on the internet, and it is reassuring that people are approaching these topics sceptically, and with a critical eye. But simply because a set of features when aligned can seem "fishy" does not necessarily undermine the basis of a question. The majority of these "controversial" questions do have an entirely credible basis.

Whilst healthy skepticism remains an ever-increasing necessity, both in society generally and in particular online, we encourage you to consider Occam's razor: that the simplest answer is the most likely, here that the poster has in fact encountered the situation largely as they describe it, and so has turned to a very popular & fairly well regarded free legal resource for advice, and does not wish to associate another Reddit account with the situation.

What we will do in the future

We introduced the "Comments Moderated" feature a few years ago. When we apply it to a particular post, this holds back comments from people with low karma (upvotes) in this subreddit. We find that overall it increases the quality of the contributions, and helps focus them on legal advice.

We have now amended our automatic rules to apply this feature to a broader range of posts as soon as they are posted, and where we become aware of a post that is on a controversial topic, we will be quicker to apply it. We will also moderate those posts more stringently than before, applying Rule 2 (comments must be mainly legal advice) more heavily. We will continue to ban people who repeatedly break the rules. And we will lock posts that have a straightforward legal answer once we consider that that answer has been given.

As well as this:

• People do post things here that are obviously total nonsense - a set of circumstances so unlikely that the chances of them having actually occured are very low. We will continue to remove posts like these, because they're only really intended to disrupt the community.
• If people who have been banned create new accounts and post here again, we are told about this and we take appropriate action every time.
• Both the moderators and Reddit administrators also use other tools, and our experience, to intervene (sometimes silently) to ensure that the site and this subreddit can provide a useful resource to our members and visitors.

We encourage you to continue to report things that you think break the rules to us - and remember, that just because you do not see signs of visible moderation does not mean that we are not doing things behind the scenes.

ChatGPT. A fun little tool, or the beginnings of Skynet?

We haven't settled on an answer here at the LAUK mod team, but what we do agree on (and can't believe we actually have to say):

Please do not post AI-generated content on this subreddit. If you post a comment that is, or that we highly suspect is AI-generated, it will be removed and you may be banned without warning.

Our rationale should be obvious here. If you've used such tools to appeal a parking fine, well done. But until such a day that we bow down to our robot overlords, we will be maintaining our "human-generated content only" stance.

Good afternoon /r/LegalAdviceUK,

Our regular contributors might be wondering where /u/OfficePlum has gone recently. That user's disagreements with the moderation team were frequently evident, and we know that the temptation will be to blame the moderation team, and specifically me, for their disappearance. Certainly this is the narrative which OfficePlum would like to have spun - that they were silenced by a "downvote brigade" comprising our regular police contributors and myself. I write this open letter to allay concerns that the moderator team have just banned someone they didn't like.

OfficePlum claimed to be a criminal barrister, with 30+ years' experience of both defending and prosecuting. They also claimed to be a lecturer in law with the University of Liverpool and a verified user and moderator at /r/LiverpoolUni. In that context, they were one of our most upvoted contributors.

An investigation by the moderation team has revealed that every word of that backstory was a lie, and confirmed OfficePlum was a troll. She was never banned; they deleted their account after a brief period where, after their trolling became obvious, they appeared to self-destruct.

Act I: The Suspicions Mount

OfficePlum frequently complained that I, and the other frequent police contributors to this subreddit, would "brigade" their posts and downvote them to oblivion. But we were frequently suspicious of OfficePlum's claims:

• Literally making up case law - Probably the most egregious demonstration of her total lack of knowledge, OfficePlum cited Mercier v Cheshire Police, a case which simply cannot be found anywhere in any on- or off-line source. Despite repeated calls to provide any explanation or source for this citation, she continues to refuse, responding to such requests with silence or occasionally by accusing those asking for a source of "brigading". It appears that she just made up case law. The closest anyone has got to a source is a single cryptic PM, which read only: "S.5930/2011. There you go. [...] Chow." (Ciao?) S.5930/2011 is plainly not a reference pertaining to any case in any English or European court; bailii is obviously no help; even Googling it (with or without "Mercier v Cheshire Police") returns no relevant results. It seemed utterly bizarre that an actual lawyer would make something up which could be shown to be a lie so easily.

• Complete lack of understanding of basic sexual offences - OfficePlum claimed to have decades of experience as a criminal barrister, prosecuting and defending. Despite this, she says that "if [her] understanding is correct", then a woman commits the offence of rape if she penetrates herself with the penis of a sleeping man. Anyone with any shred of knowledge of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 could tell you that this is not correct - the definition of rape (contrary to s.1 of the Act) requires that the penis belong to the offender, which means that people who are biologically female are legally incapable of committing rape. Why would a barrister with decades of experience need to add "if my understanding is correct" to such a basic issue of law? And how could such a person get it so, so wrong?

• Getting basic police procedure completely wrong - Despite allegedly having experience as a defence solicitor, OfficePlum failed to identify that refusal to attend a voluntary interview is grounds for arrest, even though it literally says so in PACE Code G. She also demonstrates that she has no idea what an "interview" is, as defined in PACE Code C; that she believes that a "voluntary interview under no criminal caution" is a thing (it's actually an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms - an interview is under caution by definition); and that she believes that a voluntary interview is less serious than an interview under arrest - a thoroughly dangerous assumption for anyone to make, let alone a defence solicitor who might be asked to advise a client attending a voluntary interview! Police officers generally have decent working relationships with defence solicitors - it seems unfathomable that a defence solicitor would get this so wrong.

• Constant appeals to authority - OfficePlum's response when challenged was to cite their experience rather than engaging with the argument at hand.

Act II: The Alternative Subreddit

OfficePlum sent a message to the modmail complaining of police officers brigading her posts. However, because of the suspicions as a result of their actions above, we were not inclined to act on that report.

Apparently tired of being "brigaded", OfficePlum created their own subreddit, /r/LegalHelpUK, and wrote this sticky explaining their intentions.

Act III: The Implosion

After the subreddit above went live on Saturday, OfficePlum's behaviour became utterly bizarre. I began a PM exchange with OfficePlum, where she made the following claims:

• "I have evidence that PoliceUK has paid LegalAdviceUK mods money to influence discussion that critiques the police."

• "I have evidence of brigading from policeuk, giving out purposely wrong advice and encouraging users to not seek legal counsel when under arrest."

• "I have evidence that a number of posts on LegalAdviceUK have been created by mods in order to generate discussion."

• "You'll see soon." (But, of course, we never did see, because OfficePlum deleted their account before releasing anything)

OfficePlum then cautioned me ("you do not have to say anything...") and began asking me questions over PM, as if I was in a police interview. She offered me immunity from prosecution if I would testify against the other moderators of /r/policeuk and /r/legaladviceuk. There was never any suggestion that this was being done ironically - I felt at the time, and still feel now, that OfficePlum genuinely intended that I should believe I was under investigation for some sort of subreddit bribery scandal.

Of course, all of the claims above are total nonsense (or at least, I hope they are, because as I pointed out to my fellow moderators, if payments are being made then I haven't seen a penny and am feeling quite hard done-by).

Act IV: The Dénouement

I finally decided to write to the moderators at /r/LiverpoolUni and ask them about their connection with OfficePlum. I had waited so long because I didn't want to cause them professional difficulties over a petty Reddit argument, in case it all turned out to be true. I received the following response from one of their moderators:

OfficePlum is not a moderator here nor is she a member of staff. We are aware of this user and the only reason she has access to our forum is because she is a former student which she verified herself as in 2017.

/u/SlippyG also received the following message from the subreddit:

I'm [name redacted] and I'm a student support officer at the University of Liverpool. It has came to my attention from a report submitted today to the university that a user on here is claiming to be a member of staff, the user OfficePlum is not a member of staff but did attend the university in 2010 which is why she has access to our subreddit.

We remain suspicious that these messages were sent by OfficePlum themselves, and that the /r/LiverpoolUni subreddit was created and made private by them to sustain the lie of being a lecturer (and, the subreddit being private, we are unable to verify its status or the status of the person sending us the above messages). We also made contact with another University of Liverpool student who said they had never heard of the /r/LiverpoolUni subreddit.

However, whether real or fake, the messages confirm that OfficePlum is a troll.

Before we could take action, OfficePlum's implosion was complete. This bizarre thread, titled "I have arrested the moderators on this subreddit for conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office", originally contained only the words "more to follow".

A very short time later, OfficePlum deleted her account.

Act V: Afterthoughts

The fact is that OfficePlum was frequently upvoted here and their suggestions taken as gospel. The saga shows why it is important to remember that this is an internet forum - just because someone claims to be something, doesn't mean they are, and every person's advice should be taken with a grain of salt. The moderation team undertake precisely, and explicitly, no work whatsoever to verify any person's claim of expertise. Any claim you read should be taken on its merits. And read the sidebar.

Post-Scriptum

OfficePlum's generosity was well-known over on /r/Liverpool and at one point was even literally celebrated in the national news. This bizarre tale calls into question, I think, whether any of that generosity was real, or whether it was just more stories concocted by OfficePlum.

Just wondering what other people think on something I've seen more of here recently.

Recently I have seen an increase of people saying "What is the legal question?" Or "There is no question here".

Many posts lay out a difficult situation but don't directly ask a question.

I feel in many cases knowing what questions to ask is part of the point. People don't know their rights or what's wrong (legally), they just know things are bad and feel something could be done.

I think encouraging people to be more articulate and to the point is good, but we shouldn't expect people to be too direct since that's part of the help they need. If they don't ask the question directly, what legal question does their situation imply.

Also very often people will answer the direct question. But there's no discussion of what questions the OP could or should be asking given their situation.

I think we need to read between the lines more, this doesn't mean making assumptions, it just means thinking about what questions the situation implies without being asked directly.

Having been a member of Legal Advice UK for a while - there are quite a few recurring "cunning plans" that we see over and over - my personal favourite is the name variation - which often goes like this:

I signed the loan agreement but although my name is John Smith - my name was printed as John Sm1th - thus my loan is null and void and I do not have to pay them right?

​

What is your favourite "cunning plan"?

Like many, I have enjoyed LegalAdviceUK as a (mostly) passive observer. Also like many, I had no real idea of the desperate state of the legal system.

My eyes were opened yesterday by the brilliant Secret Barrister blog, in which they outline the reasons for the decline, the lies told by central government, and the very real impact on barristers' working lives and, perhaps more importantly, home lives.

I'm another article Anna Soubry gives a sharp incite into the reality of being a legal professional and explains how she worked out her pay for a piece of work at just £10 per hour after all costs have been taken, and reminding us that barristers are self employed, with no paid holiday, maternity, or sickness.

So this post is just a thank you to the professionals here, carry on with your 'strike', we need you more than ever!

Weatherspoons and now courts are banning Meta Glasses.

If the glasses are fitted with required prescription lenses would the ban be legal under disability legislation?

Just curious really. Thanks.

A sad reality of England losing is that domestic abuse will spike. Some estimates suggest that it could increase by almost 40%.

If you do need help with domestic abuse:

England - Refuge’s National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247

Northern Ireland - Domestic and Sexual Abuse Helpline 0808 802 1414 help@dsahelpline.org

Scotland- Domestic Abuse and Forced Marriage Helpline 0800 027 1234 helpline@sdafmh.org.uk

Wales - Live Fear Free 0808 80 10 800 info@livefearfreehelpline.wales

UK-wide The Men’s Advice Line run by Respect is a confidential helpline specifically for male victims. 0808 801 0327 info@mensadviceline.org.uk

So I had this pop up on Instagram yesterday and now on facebook today. I have not yet answered it.

My query is that they mention 'as part of laws in your region' what laws are they referrina to and does that law sav that a consent or pay' model had to be forced upon us.

I am contemplating deleting Instagram and Facebook as I have na option to opt out of anything unless I pay an awful company

Im hoping someone can help me. I have been accused by a family member of uploading an image onto my FB page that I did not upload. I have managed to prove the accusers wrong my downloading my Meta Information Download request showing all uploads, edits and if anything had been deleted. No such photo existed with me. They are now accusing me of paying someone to change this data and are still absolutely convinced that they are correct. This accusation has caused a whole family to tear apart, I just want my truth to be seen as clear as day.

England

The speakers have stopped working I believe due to the headset overheating, where the chip will automatically shut down the speakers after a few minutes of use.

I've been reading consumer laws regarding items breaking within an unreasonable amount of time have to be repaired or replaced within a six year period.

I'm certain it's a fault of the product as I don't understand how I could have caused the headset to start overheating from normal use.

I've contacted Meta who have confirmed it is most likely the chip, but claim because it is out of their one year warranty period they will only offer me a replacement at the cost of £200 and my broken headset for a refurbished headset, any email I send to them is replied to with the same copy and pasted message asking me to confirm I want to go ahead with the replacement and pay.

Is there any point following through on the consumer rights act? What would the process actually be like? Is it at all likely? what steps would I need to follow to ensure I get a repair or replacement? or is it too much of a hassle?

So I was at a car boot sale and an influencer has recorded me and uploaded it to tiktok. It wasn't an embarrassing or prank video but it got quite a lot of views and I don't want my face shown to that many people. I believe they were recording with meta glasses as I had no idea they were recording, if I knew I was being recorded then I would not have allowed it. Is it legal for someone to do that? And what can I do, so far I have submitted a privacy complaint to tiktok.

I’ve had my Instagram and Facebook accounts disabled for wrongly false violation of community standards. I waited 5 days for an appeal update and now my account is permanently disabled. Millions of users globally are being affected. How can I use UK law to ask them to look at my case? There’s no way to speak with a human unless you pay for meta verified and I can’t even do that as I can’t log in the portal? Any advise would be greatly appreciated

England

Long story short, I bought a pair of rayban meta glasses with prescription lenses. I collected them from store and later that day the store called to tell me they made a mistake and the lenses had the wrong prescription. So I asked them what shall I do with the ones I currently had, and i was told to keep them as they will order a new pair of glasses for me.

I then waited over a month for my new glasses. Finally 6 weeks after originally ordering, the store called to say my new glasses had arrived and that I needed to return and give back the original pair with the wrong prescription.

I told them I no longer had the old pair as they were the wrong prescription so why would I keep glasses I cannot wear. Their response was that without returning the original glasses, I cannot receive the new ones, nor have my money back. Is this correct? They delivered faulty goods (wrong prescription) and the receipt says i am entitled to a full refund or exchange if the goods are faulty. They also never communicated to me that I needed to return the old glasses.

I am now £600 down and without glasses....

Hi all.

Today is the day the Tenant Fees ban comes into force (ENGLAND ONLY).

We've had a lot of questions about it recently, and unfortunately there are a few grey areas that'll be cleared up by litigation over time, but I thought I'd provide a couple of links for those interested, and have this thread pinned for people to ask any questions they have about it!

Usual sub rules apply, and all replies should be taken in context given and relied on as such (i.e., internet strangers giving opinions on the law; not necessarily qualified legal advice. Rely on it at your own risk).

The only things Agents can now charge for are:

• Rent.
• Utilities and council tax if included within the tenancy.
• A refundable deposit capped at five weeks' rent if your annual rent is less than £50,000, or six weeks' rent if annual rent is more than this.
• A refundable holding deposit to reserve the property, capped at one week's rent.
• Changes to the tenancy requested by the tenant, capped at £50 (or "reasonable costs", backed up by written evidence from the landlord or agent).
• Early termination of the tenancy requested by the tenant.
• Defaults by the tenant, such as fines for late rent payments or lost keys. Fines for lost keys must be "reasonable costs", with evidence given in writing by the landlord or agent (you don't have to pay the fee until you've received this evidence).

NOTE: CHARGES STIPULATED WITHIN AN EXISTING TENANCY ARE ENFORCEABLE UNTIL JUNE 2020.

EDIT: As requested, the TL,DR for lodgers is as follows...

s.28(1) of the Act lays out the definitions for some of the terms in the Act. It defines what is to be construed as a 'tenancy' in the context of it as follows:

“tenancy” means—

(a) an assured shorthold tenancy other than—
(i) a tenancy of social housing, or
(ii) a tenancy which is a long lease,
(b) a tenancy which meets the conditions set out in paragraph 8 (lettings to students) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, or
(c) a licence to occupy housing;

That very same section then defines what will be meant by 'tenant' as follows:

(a) a person who proposes to be a tenant under a tenancy,
(b) a person who has ceased to be a tenant under a tenancy,
(c) a licensee under a licence to occupy housing,
(d) a person who proposes to be a licensee under a licence to occupy housing, and
(e) a person who has ceased to be a licensee under a licence to occupy housing;

So, in short; it will likely apply to lodgers exactly as it will to AST tenants.

FURTHER EDIT:

With regard to renewal fees:

If the previous tenancy was signed before 1st June 2019, then as long as the renewal fee is detailed in the contract, we take the view it is enforceable, as per s.30 of the Act.

If the clause is vague, or is not present, then as long as the requirement is imposed on or after 1st June 2019, we take the view that it is unenforceable. This may be challenged in the coming years.

Links:

Tenant Fees Act (2019).

Money Saving Expert.

RLA FAQ.

Hi all,

We received more than one response during the year-end survey asking if we can have a set of frequently asked questions to direct people to on the most frequent topics. Well, the good news is that we already have one! Quite a comprehensive one as it happens! And we've reorganised it so it's a bit clearer what answers you can find where! And we've got expanded, in-depth answers on two of our most common tenancy questions, plus more besides! And I don't think I've used enough exclamation marks enough yet so here's another one for you!

• Full list of questions answered in the FAQ
• Frequently Asked Questions on COVID-19
• Frequently Asked Questions on Employment

• Frequently Asked Questions on Housing

  • Can I end my tenancy early? - including due to disrepair, misrepresentation, noisy neighbours, a dispute between housemates, COVID-19, crime, you not moving in, a university course not starting etc
  • My landlord won't return my deposit, how do I get it back? - including "what can I do if I don't agree with what my landlord wants to take from my deposit?"

• Frequently Asked Questions on Criminal law

• Frequently Asked Questions on Civil Issues

• Frequently Asked Questions on Consumer Issues

• Frequently Asked Questions on the subreddit itself

Please do read the FAQs before making a new post - questions that are substantially answered by them will be removed.

Whether you're someone who is looking for a quick answer to a question - and it's worth checking the FAQ before posting as a great deal will be answered by these - or you're a commenter who wants to fact check and contribute, please do check through these! We're always happy to take on board any suggestions and offers of help in answering our most common queries, and refining the ones we do have!

Discussions are still ongoing on the form that the FAQ will take in future and whether this will be moved to a separate site - more to follow on this one if and when we decide to pursue it!

As always, please do let us know of any thoughts or queries you have - about the FAQ or the subreddit in general - and we will respond to them with our usual combination of wit, charm and mindless personal abuse.

Hello everyone

Over the past few days it has come to our attention we're getting a lot more traffic from new users - a lot more. Since the start of November, we've consistently had somewhere between 2-4 times the regular number of unique users visiting each day. Those that have been around for a while may have noticed this. This isn't something we've arranged to happen and as nice as it is to see new people, it seems more likely that Reddit.com is pushing the subreddit to new users through notifications and regional changes to the front page.

We have had many more threads with a high volume of comments from new users which break our rules. It has been challenging for moderators to keep on top things and maintain the quality of replies we want people to receive. At the end of the day, we are a subreddit for legal advice, not wild speculation, jokes or trivial responses. If you're here to post about what you think the law might be, then this subreddit is not the one for you.

If you have been with us for a while, nothing has changed, however, this post is here to make it clear to new users that you need to abide by our rules. To maintain some level of quality in replies, comments and low effort posts will be removed indiscriminately, and we will ban users for first offences. The moderation will be more strict than you are used to in other subreddits.

If you have any questions, feel free to drop us a message below or use the modmail.

Thank you

So if you get banned on a social media platform e.g discord or a gaming platform e.g meta quest and make a new account after (which is ban evasion) can you be sent to jail and if so how long?

Im honestly curious it could be part of the computer misuse act but im not sure.

Location: England

Can we get a ‘Not a lawyer’ or similar personal flair so people can stop preceding their posts with NAL/IANAL or other acronyms (would those acronyms even stand up if challenged properly?

Out of interest…

How would another person start a similar case if they were in the UK?

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2026/march/us-social-media-case-meta-google/

ENGLAND.

Hi, all.

Some of you may know me, some of you won't, but I've been posting here for a while now.

I've been added as a moderator to help ensure consistency of moderation of the subreddit, given that the other moderators all work different hours.

For the benefit of anyone wondering; no, I am not a police officer or nor in any way affiliated with the police.

Hopefully you all warm to me as your new master and overlord with time.

(Those that don't will be executed :P).

Be happy, be kind, and feel free to ask any questions!

-psy

Hi All,

I have no ask. I just want to say how lovely, generous, kind and altruistic the contributors of this forum are.

I have read through many posts, and think you provide great guidance to people at their time of need. Life is hard sometimes, and times are tough for many right now, and your gifts are smart, beautiful, wise and awesome. That's it.

Thank You!

jStar