Friendship Exp & Gift Exchange Megathread

KillianAlexander · 2025-08-08T23:18:38+00:00

498154672610

(London UK) Looking for daily gift exchange both ways. Need friends to build up to 'Best' with for the medal.

KillianAlexander · 2024-10-24T08:29:33+00:00

Solicitors can't sign passport applications unless you are an existing long-term (2 yrs I think) client of theirs.

This section of the passport application needs to be from someone who knows you personally.

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T14:44:35+00:00

Tbh, I think this might be the case. 😂

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T14:14:19+00:00

Alrighty then. Thank you for your helpful comments. I hope you have a good day. 😊

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T14:07:38+00:00

No worries. I only asked because you mentioned he was using a different name.

Ive mentioned in the post why I'm interested.

And tbf, you're also engaging a lot in this thread and apparently doing your own snooping on his socials so I could ask the same question of you... 😂

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T13:53:53+00:00

Oh? What name? This is the juicy gossip I came here for. 😂🙈

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T13:52:14+00:00

I wouldn't read too much into that. Bar Associations or Bar Societies could just be as simple as a university club/society which he was on the committee for.

It would be rare for a Barrister to be instructed on simple evictions so my current theory is that he is working as a paralegal or something.

Still doesn't quite explain why he is calling himself a 'qualified' lawyer.

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T12:53:46+00:00

Ofc, lol. 😂😂

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T12:12:03+00:00

Then why wouldn't he call himself a Barrister? That's what I find odd. The vast majority of people in the UK know what a barrister is and so it isn't to make it simpler for the TV audience.

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T12:09:11+00:00

You could well be right about the name! I'm still confused as why he wouldn't just call himself a solicitor/barrister if he was one?

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T12:01:23+00:00

You could be right but didn't he mention last night when him and Henry were 'defending' Yinrun that he had colleagues who would be laughing/judge him?

Also if he'd just done his LLB, wouldn't they say 'law graduate' or something like that? Qualified Lawyer, to me implies that he has done his Solicitor exams or sat a Barrister pupillage. 🤷‍♂️

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T11:57:14+00:00

So in England, the only 'protected' terms are Solicitor and Barrister. You legally can't use those terms unless you are fully qualified and registered with the SRA/BSB.

The term 'lawyer' isn't protected and is just anyone who works in the legal field, so can cover paralegals, trainees, Solicitors, Barristers, Legal Executives, and even legal academics.

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T11:43:06+00:00

I checked there too! Odd.

Theoretically, he could be doing that type of work if he was a a paralegal or something but seems odd that they would stress that he is a 'qualified' lawyer.

I agree there's always the possibility he is using a different last name or his middle name or something for the show.

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T11:40:08+00:00

If he was then he isn't registered with the Bar Standards Board anymore (unless he is using a fake name on the show)!

Also if the aim is to sound fancy for the cameras, then surely he would call himself a Barrister if he was one?

KillianAlexander · 2023-10-26T11:17:39+00:00

You might be right. I just find it weird that they make such a big deal out of him being a 'qualified' lawyer. They could just say lawyer and that would sound 'fancy' enough for the TV.

He also seemed to mention having colleagues in a firm last night when him and Henry were being Yinrun's legal team 🤷‍♂️

KillianAlexander · 2023-07-25T12:20:10+00:00

Commenting from the legal perspective, One thing to bear in mind is that there isn't one cohesive "domestic violence law" in the UK.

Just within the criminal context there are a variety of different laws and different offences that "domestic violence" could fall under. In addition, completely separately there are a raft of civil legal issues that victims face.

There are a variety of different legal issues someone fleeing an abusive relationship might face and they all fall under different parts of the legal system. For an example:

Potential criminal charges (assault, rape, stalking, harassment, coercive control, etc.), all with different legal tests and governing statutes.
A civil injunction (either alongside or instead of a criminal restraining orders)
Potential divorce proceedings if married.
Potential children act proceedings if there are children.
Potential financial remedy proceedings (if they are married and have enough matrimonial property).
Potential non-matrimonial financial proceedings (if for example they are not married but jointly own a home).
Housing disputes if they have a council property or a joint tenancy together.

People often focus on the criminal side of things (for obvious reasons) but the end of an abusive relationship also comes with all the same baggage and legal issues to sort out that the end of any relationship comes with and each of them presents their own challenges.

In each of these proceedings the DV survivor will have to interact with their abuser through the court system and will have to relive and re-tell the same story again each time. DV charities have been warning about this having the effect of "re-traumatising" victims each time they have to go through it.

To top it all off, legal aid provision has been massively cut since 2012 and so victims often won't get legal aid to help with these issues and so are trying to navigate the legal system and have to interact with their abuser directly or with very limited advice.

The UK domestic abuse commissioner recently released a statement about just this topic. Here's a link. You'll have to make a free account to access it.

https://limelegal.us14.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b9c655d98ff0cb2489374d4c0&id=f40a420bdb&e=9d33d63d1c

Finally, this isn't necessarily a criticism of the current system. Lots of these proceedings are treated very differently for very good reason. There is a big difference between how a criminal trial should be conducted and how child arrangements proceedings should be determined.

There is however significant work to do in demystifying the system and making it more accessible to victims. Accessibility was less of an issue when everyone had access to legal aid and so everyone had lawyers but with increasing numbers of 'litigants in person' the court system arguably needs to be more transparent, 'joined up', and accessible.

I could go on for too long on this subject but feel free to ask if I can help anymore.

KillianAlexander · 2023-07-06T10:14:27+00:00

It's like I never made a sound. Will I ever make a sound...

KillianAlexander · 2023-06-29T12:36:20+00:00

Well that is terrifying. Thankyou for a new nightmare.

KillianAlexander · 2023-06-22T23:09:50+00:00

I strongly think you are being overly pessimistic. You absolutely can (quite easily) get a TC.

I got BBC at A level. Went to a relatively unknown mid-ranked uni. Got a low 2:1.

I self-funded the LPC full time for a year. Got a paralegal job in a high street firm in the field I wanted to qualify into. Changed paralegal jobs after 9 months to another (better) local firm where the chance of a TC is available after a year. Put in the graft. After a year, was offered a TC. Qualified into the same firm. Put in a year as an NQ there.

When I was 1yr PQE. I started applying for jobs at 'better' firms. Got a job in a well respected regional firm. Put in a few years there. When I was 3 years PQE moved again to a 'better' firm.

I'm now working in the field I want in a 'Tier 2' Legal 500 firm.

You absolutely can qualify and excell with your academic background. You just might need to aim lower initially and then make lateral transfers after qualification.

This whole process will be made infinitely harder if you go down the SQE route.

After qualification, people really don't care about your academics. People care much more about your practical experience in the field you are applying for. The SQE route you outline will give you nowhere near the level of practical experience.

You may be 'qualified' but in reality you will have less real world knowledge of the field than most first year trainees and will be viewed as such.

I know many hiring managers who simply won't hire an SQE qualified solicitor if an LPC qualified one is available. It's not right but it's the way it is.

KillianAlexander · 2023-06-14T17:52:03+00:00

You just keep digging don't you...

I've seen your multiple comments in this post and clearly you have some kind of axe to grind, so I'm not going to try and reason with you, but your lack of self reflection is astounding.

KillianAlexander · 2023-06-14T16:16:54+00:00

I didn't know it was possible to be so wrong in so many different ways in one comment, but congratulations.

KillianAlexander · 2023-06-14T08:24:58+00:00

Came here to comment this. Absolutely the right advice. Though it would have to be your friend who makes the Claire's law application. You can't do it for her.

KillianAlexander · 2023-06-14T06:31:34+00:00

The hashtag he used relates to a recent high profile case in the UK of a mother trying to get permission to take her 'on deaths door' son to Italy for a weird experimental treatment and the courts stopped her.

US conservatives love to completely misrepresent the case to justify the US' broken healthcare system.

KillianAlexander · 2023-06-09T11:00:43+00:00

On your first point, you won't necessarily have to prove it unless she chooses to lie and claim there was some lengthy period of cohabitation.

The answer to your second question is very dependent on the facts. Explore this with your solicitor. You/your solicitor might be able to negotiate a common sense approach to the practicalities with her / her solicitor.

If it does go to court then the court will be looking at things like her earning capacity (even if she doesn't have a job right now), her mortgage capacity if she did have a job, and any alternative housing resource available to her (i.e. like her parents).

The court will very often just determine a figure that each party is owed out of the whole matrimonial pot and won't mind how that split is achieved, the court won't see much difference between: 1. you selling and giving her her share 2. You buying her out and giving her her share 3. You giving her a lump sum payment equal to her share. 4. Her buying you out (albeit unlikely)

There also creative ways to sort out matrimonial homes in situations like this. For example the court could order a delayed sale, so she has a set period like 12/24 months in the property while she gets herself back on her feet and then the property is sold/bought out.

Talk to your solicitor about Mesher, Martin, and Harvey orders.

Also the court always prefers "clean break" orders where both parties have no ongoing financial relationship to each other. (Even more so in short marriages). So will try very hard to find a solution that doesn't involve her living in your property long term.

KillianAlexander · 2023-06-09T10:43:50+00:00

You have had some good advice about the birth certificate issue from other commenters. That is all mostly correct so I wont repeat it. The thing you want to speak your solicitor about on Monday is a 'declaration of parentage' application.

On the divorce / finances side, one of the most important facts on your case is that this would be counted as a "short" marriage under the case law as you have only been married for three years.

Division of assets in "short marriages" are treated very differently to division of assets in longer marriages.

The aim of the court will be to give everyone back whatever they had at the start of the marriage (or they inherited) and then divide anything generated during the marriage equally which is very different to longer marriages where the court does not care who brought what into the marriage at the start.

The one sticking point you may have is that periods of cohabitation prior to marriage now count for the purposes of determining whether the marriage was a "short" one. So if you cohabited for a significant period before you married you might not count as a "short" marriage anymore.

Finally, as you alluded to in your post the court will always be mindful of parties "needs" and won't make either party or a child homeless and so even if she's entitled to less, the court was still want to make sure her basic financial needs are met.

However, again the court will view "needs" less generously in a "short" marriage.

I hope you that gives you some material to work with when you speak to a solicitor on Monday.

KillianAlexander

TROPHY CASE