Is it just me....?
I am having more difficulty with some myths where there are "legal" aspects such as beating speed cameras etc.
As an average Brit, I am pretty sure that had any of the solutions worked other than the totally unworkable speed solution, they would not have been aired anyway....

I can just imagine what would have happened if they had concluded (for example)


"So there we have it, just a double thickness of cling film on your number plate and the speed camera fails" !!!!

I doubt they would be allowed to transmit that :-)

Anyway, still a great show!!!!

Rick

They showed on the show while they were in the shop and Adam was taking photos that cling wrap does not work.

There is also the difference in cameras so what works in England may or may not work here.

Just because nothing worked doesn't mean they are being censored. If you remember correctly (and you might not have seen this episode) they actually defeated a fingerprint lock. They showed it on air. Granted they left out a step or two, but they did show it was possible to defeat that particular biometric device.

MythMod

#1 Yeah I know that I only used it as an example (as I stated ;-)).
#2 I did see that and you are absolutely right :-) I had forgotten that in some cases where something "contraversial" might be indicated they do indeed leave some steps out to protect themselves from comeback!

However, my point really (to use a better analogy that I now have from reading through the rest of the forums....)
Supposing the 3M screen filter works..supposing it works perfectly and does indeed obscure the plate...

Would they simply transmit "wow so there you are, just attach a sheet of 3M screen filter to your plate and it will stop speed cameras catching you"???

I am not saying they wouldnt want to...I am asking whether they would be allowed to!

Incidentally, in the Brit cut of the show we only get the "do not try this at home" piece at the very beginning of the show..... I note that the US audience seem to get it at the start of every segment.... is it that they think we Brits are so boring that we are unlikely to bother trying?? :-)

I also cant quite understand why they feel the need to dub a different narrator? Is that something to do with copyright? I am guessing I might find the answe to that within these forums so I am off for a look round now!!!

Thanks to both for your replies !

Rick

They could indeed transmit that, because attaching an M3 screen filter is illegal in and of itself. As such they are transmitting a crime to beat a crime, which I don't think anyone would have a problem with.

T1ger, I think you're right. Because of the structure of our legal system, should the MBs show something that works to beat the cameras, there would surely come a time when a 17 year old idiot (redundant, I know) blows through a red light at 120mph with the camera-defeating device attached and causes a fatal wreak. Someone would then file a suit against the MBs, claiming that the kid would NEVER have driven like that had the MBs nor 'encouraged' him. I'm sure the MBs have a staff of legal advisers who sweat bullets (it's a metaphor, kiddies, don't post to ask if it's possible!) whenever there is an explosion, flame, or any potentially injurious display on the show.

[quote]Incidentally, in the Brit cut of the show we only get the "do not try this at home" piece at the very beginning of the show..... I note that the US audience seem to get it at the start of every segment.... is it that they think we Brits are so boring that we are unlikely to bother trying?? :-)[/quote]

No, the reason it gets cut is for reasons of time. British TV tends to have fewer commercial breaks than American TV, and in the case of the BBC none at all. As such American TV shows are sometimes edited to remove segments that were intended to link breaks in the programs. In the case of MB this would include the 'don't try this at home warning' - This may also be a result of differences in UK and American laws, where in the latter case the broadcasters may either be required to or feel the need to include lots of warnings just in case someone does indeed try any of the myths at home.

Back to the OP. MB no doubt could have broadcast ways around speed cameras, as long as they made it clear that doing so was illegal in itself - and didn't show to much detail, they often leave out a step or two to prevent someone duplicating their tests. An example of this came from the testing of the myth about firing a gun into the air being fatal. They made it very clear after they tested this myth that firing a gun into the air is illegal regardless of if the falling bullet hits someone or not.

Thanks for all the replies :-)

Just after the bit I posted about the warning I realised that it would be time based. In fact the show on Discovery here in Blighty runs to one hour in total but only has 3 commercial breaks.... quite long ones though!
I believe it is coming to terrestrial telly here in the near future so it will be interesting to see if that has any effects!

I have been going through some other episodes that had a legality issue in and I see what you are mostly saying now.... they leave just enough out to protect themselves.... the door lock pick one (not showing how fire fighters taught the team)...for example.

However, back to my original question... I take the point about something illegal to do something else illegal.... but supposing there was something legal that could help you get away with something illegal?

I wracked my brains to try to think of any myth which would be an example of the above and where they really would not be able to broadcast a confirmation....

I think I found one...beat the breathalyser! If one of the post-drinking-pre-driving methods had really worked 100% then I really doubt that they could have broadcast it. If eating onions (100% legal) actually did fool the breathalyser then do you think the police would have allowed the transmission?

Can you imagine the all-new onion dispensing machines in the pub car parks all over the world? :-D

Its all nothing more than a hypothetical exercise I know.... but very interesting!

Anyway....I have some questions and observations on some actual myths from the shows so am off to look for threads in the relevant groups! Thanks again

Rick

They did that... as a matter of fact they did use an onion.

IF that hypothetical instance where onions altered the breathalyser results - I have no doubt that something would have aired.

Granted, there is absolutely no way to fool the breathalyser so that's not something we need to worry about.

There was a news story a while back about a guy literally eating his underwear because someone told him cotton fabric would help you beat the breathalyser. I don't want to know how long he'd been wearing them....

MythMod

[quote]do you think the police would have allowed the transmission?[/quote]

The police have precisely zero authority to prevent such a broadcast. Even if they wanted to suppress it, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. And if they thought they could, they would have to take it up with the courts to seek an injunction against broadcast - a forum which is, by law, open to the public, and where the details of the injunction are made available for all to see - including what it is you're trying to suppress.

The more common and reasonable response on the part of the police would be to publicize such information as rapidly and widely as possible to ensure that anyone administering such tests knew about the problem and could take steps to guard against it - this is one reason why subjects are not permitted to eat or drink anything for 20 minutes prior to have a Breathalyzer test administered, as this keeps oral contaminants from hosing the test. Keeping things secret, while an interesting plot device in fiction, is rarely in anyone's best interest.

[quote]I take the point about something illegal to do something else illegal.... but supposing there was something legal that could help you get away with something illegal?[/quote]

While I see a general answer of no it would be aired anyway, I seriously doubt that with the right set of circumstances the network or show lawyers would let something air that was reasonably sure to bring them grief legally.

As mythmod put it "something would air", now the question is what that something would be and if it would coantin enough detail to be able to be replicated by viewers, to that I think the answer would be no just as we have seen, sometime they leave out out key details or steps.

[quote]I think I found one...beat the breathalyser! If one of the post-drinking-pre-driving methods had really worked 100% then I really doubt that they could have broadcast it. If eating onions (100% legal) actually did fool the breathalyser then do you think the police would have allowed the transmission?[/quote]

Performing an otherwise 'legal' action with the express intention of hiding an illegal action could be considered a criminal offence.

In the example you gave eating an onion to beat the breath test (if it worked) could be considered attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[quote] As mythmod put it "something would air", now the question is what that something would be and if it would coantin enough detail to be able to be replicated by viewers, to that I think the answer would be no just as we have seen, sometime they leave out out key details or steps.[/quote]

Or if you want to put it another way. They work on the assumption that anyone smart enough to know the steps they don't show is also smart enough not to try and duplicate the tests.

The warnings about not trying to do the tests at home are directed at those people to stupid to realise quite how dangerous some of the stuff MB does really is - or too young to know better. MB, and Discovery, are trying to stop people from being hurt, arrested or killed by attempting to duplicate their tests both for legal (They don't want to get sued) and moral reasons.

[quote]I take the point about something illegal to do something else illegal.... but supposing there was something legal that could help you get away with something illegal?[/quote]

Then you would be doing something legal with the intention of preventing yourself from being caught doing something illegal. This instantly makes that thing ILLEGAL under the "Attempt to pervert the course of justice or correct application of the law" section of the penal code.

The "Course of justice" begins when an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
proceedings have started or are about to start.

Perverting the course of justice is when an individual, multiple individuals or an organisation does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.

The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done. The words "attempting to" should not appear in the charge. It is charged contrary to common law, not the Criminal Attempts Act 1981: (R v Williams 92 Cr. App. R. 158 CA).

[quote]Then you would be doing something legal with the intention of preventing yourself from being caught doing something illegal. This instantly makes that thing ILLEGAL under the "Attempt to pervert the course of justice or correct application of the law" section of the penal code.[/quote]

For those of us outside the USA the same law still applies. In fact perverting the course of justice applies to all criminal justice systems I'm aware of.

Consider this. It is not illegal to buy a bottle of someone's urine. However if you then used that urine to pass a drugs test it becomes an illegal act.

By the same token its not illegal to buy a carving knife. It becomes illegal if you then use that knife to commit a crime.

Perverting the course of justice is part of the common law held by both the European Union and United Nations.

I myself live in england Cyber, and I have seen court cases involving perverting the course of justice.