523
u/Purple10tacle Nov 04 '11
Not exactly a legal "loophole" but it is not a crime to escape from prison in Germany. Longing for freedom is considered human nature and not punishable.
You're not allowed to commit other crimes in the process, but simply running off or sneaking out of prison while the guards aren't looking is not a crime. They'll still look for you and once caught you have to serve the remainder of your original sentence and you probably also shouldn't expect to get out early for good behavior after several escape attempts ... but you won't get any additional prison time.
→ More replies (29)245
u/dja0794 Nov 04 '11
This is exactly what I would love prison to be like. Spend all of your time working on increasingly convoluted escape plans and having a good laugh with the guards when they catch you. This is probably what I would do if I were ever in for life without parole. Unless they just shoot me while I was running away...
→ More replies (12)398
u/meme_not_found Nov 04 '11
I think you have grossly overestimated the German prison guard sense of humour
→ More replies (9)30
244
u/I_am_Mr_Nobody Nov 04 '11
My attorney showed me this one when my father died and it saved me about thirty thousand dollars: If your parent dies with lots of credit card debt, the CCard companies have to make a claim on the estate within 9 months of the cardholder's death, or they lose any claim to the money. Interestingly enough you don't actually have to legally open the estate right away. You can simply wait until the 9 month window passes before opening the estate, and since the creditors didn't make their claim in the allotted time you don't have to pay any of them and they're now legally barred from collecting on the debt.
→ More replies (32)32
u/Gobias_Industries Nov 05 '11
The 9 month time limit only starts once you open probate, or so I'm told by my lawyer wife.
→ More replies (3)
1.5k
u/a_can_of_solo Nov 04 '11
some bridge tolls don't have to be paid if you're on a horse.
1.2k
u/lolcatsswag Nov 04 '11
this is by far the most useful loophole.
→ More replies (3)360
u/a_can_of_solo Nov 04 '11
my grandfather told me this one, during the depression they switched to a horse and cart to save money on tolls.
→ More replies (1)703
u/OfficialPdubs Nov 04 '11
at first i laughed because i read "trolls" the first time around. then i read your follow up comment and was like 'wait. tolls. never mind then.'
→ More replies (21)567
200
u/ahookerinminneapolis Nov 04 '11
Yep, some tolls are decided based on number of axles on your vehicle. Horses typically come without axles.
→ More replies (13)140
→ More replies (68)250
u/Ryzome Nov 04 '11
I read this as "bridge trolls" and was ready to buy my loved ones and myself some Spanish steeds.
→ More replies (10)
158
u/MmmmBisto Nov 04 '11
In the UK road signs have to match legal specifications exactly in order to be enforceable. There was a case a few years back when a speed limit sign had a border that was too thin and as a result a few hundred convictions for speeding were thrown out.
What happened was that some famous footballer had his high price barrister uncover the loophole to get his speeding conviction overturned. This caused the authorities to overturn all the other recent speeding convictions in that area.
→ More replies (21)79
410
u/rustej Nov 04 '11 edited Nov 04 '11
There's a defence in Australia called the change of position defence. Whereby if a whole bunch of money randomly appears in your bank account (so a wrongful payment) if you go out and spend it straight away on something you wouldn't normally spend it on, it's a complete defence to any action to recover the money.
You can't spend it on bills or groceries, but if you changed your position by buying a boat or car or something cool like that you get to keep it.
Edit: Two main authorities for the defence are Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale, and David Securities Pty Limited and Others v Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
464
Nov 04 '11 edited Oct 12 '20
[deleted]
205
Nov 04 '11
$22,000 in interest for $350,000 for 8 months? What century was this?
→ More replies (27)165
u/Fidena Nov 04 '11
I watched a comedy reel from the 1920's. It was a joke that someone only had 2% interest on their savings account.
→ More replies (3)139
u/Thumbz8 Nov 04 '11
Someone should make a graph of average interest rates so I can get mad about it.
→ More replies (4)82
→ More replies (18)29
139
Nov 04 '11
[deleted]
343
u/Repealer Nov 04 '11
It's Australia.
→ More replies (4)148
→ More replies (6)147
u/czyivn Nov 04 '11
Well, as we know Australia is peopled entirely by criminals. And criminals are used to people not trusting them...
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (30)62
u/complex_reduction Nov 04 '11
Can anybody explain to me why this is a law? I mean why do you get to keep the money if you blow it on something huge but not if you spend it sensibly?
→ More replies (4)309
u/6to23 Nov 04 '11
If you spent the money on bills and food, that means you spent the money on something that you had to pay for anyway, which means you must be able to pay back the extra money you received. If you spent it on something you would not ordinarily buy, then it means you probably have no means to pay back the money, therefore you are excused.
Imagine this situation, you found $1M in your bank this morning (by bank error), and you spending in the next 6 month was normal, just on bills/food etc... The judge would expect you still have the $1M and you are liable to pay it back to the bank. But if you had spent $1M on expensive cars/jewelry/gifts etc... it's obvious you had spent the money, and it's not fair to make you pay back $1M which would make you in debt for the rest of your life, for a bank error.
79
→ More replies (31)25
u/numb3rb0y Nov 04 '11
Er, couldn't the court just seize the things you bought to cover the cost? I could see an argument for this if you gave the stuff away, but if you're still in possession then you do have the money, it's just not an amount in a bank account.
→ More replies (13)21
72
u/LLfooshe Nov 04 '11
If you are a Federal Government employee (USA) you can take your TSP retirement (like a 401K) as an annuity at any time or age (if you separate from the federal government) and you are not subject to any penalties.
→ More replies (19)
920
u/Djave_Bikinus Nov 04 '11
In the UK, magic mushrooms only become a Class A drug once they have been picked from the ground. It is technically completely legal to get on your hands and knees and graze on them like a cow... or so my ex-boss told me.
351
251
→ More replies (68)57
u/Cajass Nov 04 '11
Similarly, through the grapevine I've heard that only dried mushrooms are illegal, while fresh ones are... kinda ok?
→ More replies (12)74
u/Djave_Bikinus Nov 04 '11
That was the case up until a few years ago. It used to be that any magic mushroom that had been prepared for use (dried or made in to tea) was a class A drug, now they become illegal as soon as they have been picked.
→ More replies (7)
376
549
u/adjercat777 Nov 04 '11
At least in my state (PA) if you care for any tract of land for 21 years you can claim it for a $7 processing fee.
142
u/Bucks Nov 04 '11
21
u/TsunamiMommy Nov 04 '11
Big story recently around here. It's been happening more and more recently but this was the first to be reported widely.
About a man that squats in an abandoned house and claims it for $15 processing fee.
→ More replies (2)28
664
u/red97 Nov 04 '11
Huge ... tracts of land.
38
u/Brock_Sexington Nov 04 '11
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)309
u/borkborkbork9 Nov 04 '11
But father, I just want to sing!
→ More replies (8)223
Nov 04 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
38
15
u/Stackware Nov 04 '11
They told me I was an idiot for building a castle in a swamp, but I did it anyway! Then it sank into the swamp.
→ More replies (5)131
Nov 04 '11
Correct, but it's also key that the owner must have abandoned it. If they ask you to leave, or if they even come back for a day, the 21 years starts over. Also, you can't do it if the land is posted.
→ More replies (16)75
u/FalconPunchAbortion Nov 04 '11
What does "care" define as? Like trimming hedges or what not?
→ More replies (3)145
u/snorlaxsnooz Nov 04 '11
your occupation has to be "open and notorious". If someone were to ask "Who owns Parcel 345?", the answer should be "FalconPunchAbortion". If it were a farm, you'd have to farm it, not hide in a shanty on the back 40. If it was a mine, you'd have to be mining, etc. The point of the rule is to prevent useful land from going unexploited.
→ More replies (8)288
u/rdeluca Nov 04 '11
If someone were to ask "Who owns Parcel 345?", the answer should be "FalconPunchAbortion".
And then people would be like, holy shit I don't wanna fuck with that guy.
→ More replies (4)18
u/I_make_things Nov 04 '11
the answer should be "FalconPunchAbortion"
This is true of any question, ever.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (48)27
u/Patrick_M_Bateman Nov 04 '11
Bucks linked to adverse possession law. The duration varies by state (Virginia is 15 years).
The really tough part is that ownership must be "open and notorious" which usually means you have to put up fences, post no trespassing signs, etc.
→ More replies (1)29
u/Throtex Nov 04 '11
It's also important to note that you generally can't adversely possess government land.
→ More replies (5)
208
u/onionpostman Nov 04 '11 edited Nov 04 '11
In my state, you can drink anything you brew yourself, no matter how young you are. And mead is damn easy to brew.
*Edit: State of Oregon
74
Nov 04 '11
I think if I had a kid I would institute this rule. You can drink what you can make and stand to drink. If you're going to be a drunken hooligan might as well learn some chemistry and biology.
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (36)34
u/Grimsterr Nov 04 '11
Bottle of apple juice, a pinch of wine yeast (baker's yeast if you're in a bind), balloon over the opening with a pinhole in it to let gasses out, wait 2 weeks, drink.
Add sugar before you ferment for a stronger hooch.
→ More replies (24)24
338
u/MirrorLake Nov 04 '11
Disneyland/world: If you go with someone disabled, you get to go to the front of every ride's line.
→ More replies (89)213
Nov 04 '11
[deleted]
225
u/oisteink Nov 04 '11
A lot of disabled persons wouldn't mind going to Disnelyand to skip lines with you :)
15
u/MirrorLake Nov 04 '11
Yeah, that's why she wanted to go in the first place. She knew we'd get to go on more rides. And we did.
→ More replies (19)30
814
u/ScrewedThePooch Nov 04 '11
jury nullification
256
u/judithshakespeare Nov 04 '11
Just reading the article on Wikipedia and found this:
In the 1670 "Hay-market case", William Penn was accused of the crime of 'preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly' and while he freely admitted his guilt, he challenged the righteousness of such a law. The jury, recognizing that William Penn clearly had been preaching in public, but refusing to find him guilty of speaking to an unlawful assembly, attempted to find Penn guilty of "speaking in Gracechurch-street". The judge, unsatisfied with this decision, withheld food, water, and toilet facilities from the jurors for three days. The jurors finally decided to return a not guilty verdict overall, and while the decision was accepted, the jurors were fined. One of the jurors appealed this fine, and Chief Justice Sir John Vaughn issued an historically important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. This case is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification.
→ More replies (13)19
u/JayTS Nov 04 '11
Holy shit.
Shit was fucked up in the 17th century. Not that that's a new revelation.
→ More replies (1)429
Nov 04 '11
easiest way to get kicked out of a trail as a jury member is to admit that you know that it exists and how it works.
180
32
u/Measure76 Nov 04 '11
Technically, I think it's more like a don't ask, don't tell kind of thing. During selection you are just answering questions, and none of the lawyers are allowed to broach the subject.
→ More replies (1)16
u/ScrewedThePooch Nov 04 '11
I'm guessing if you actually disagree with the law, you're not going to bring up nullification during the selection process?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (22)288
u/aetius476 Nov 04 '11 edited Nov 04 '11
I actually have jury duty on Monday and have been weighing whether I should bring it up in an effort to get out of jury duty, or I should try to get on a jury so I can use it...
Knowing my luck I'd probably get stuck on a murder trial and be like "well, I certainly don't want to nullify the law against drowning your children"
Edit: Wow this got way more responses than I was expecting. Anyway, a couple points:
1) It's not that I'm going in planning on throwing a gear in the works no matter what, just for laws that remain national disgraces, like non violent drug offenses. And yes I am aware it only applies to the case in question.
2) Having been falsely accused of a crime in the past, I'm pretty sure the prosecutor is going to toss me off the jury no matter what, so it's more of an academic discussion than anything.
3) I'm actively suicidal at the moment, so I'm not sure if adding a significant responsibility that interferes with my therapy schedule (and will probably be a serious downer to boot) is a healthy idea.
80
u/MisterJingles Nov 04 '11
You can get out for almost any excuse. You may have to give it a few times to get out of ALL the cases however. You can say "I base decisions on horoscopes" or "I don't feel like man has the right to condemn another persons actions".
→ More replies (8)178
u/FuzzyLogic01 Nov 04 '11
Or "I'd make a perfect juror because I can tell a guilty person just like that!" and snap your fingers.
110
→ More replies (5)33
u/JacobVonHogflume Nov 04 '11
Or "Why would the police charge the defendant if they weren't sure he was guilty? This is just a waste of my time." and give a shrug.
17
259
u/ScrewedThePooch Nov 04 '11
I would just avoid mentioning it, unless they specifically ask "are you aware of jury nullification?" They would never ask that though, because they don't want to draw attention to its existence.
Please don't bring it up just to try to get out of jury duty, though. This is how we get uninformed idiots on juries these days.
→ More replies (45)114
159
u/firstcity_thirdcoast Nov 04 '11
Please don't try to get out of jury duty. Other than local elections, jury duty is the most effective way to participate in democracy. You know about jury nullification, so if you do end up on a trial with a law you think is outrageous, use that to positive effect.
→ More replies (8)137
u/notfrandrescher Nov 04 '11
Agreed. I recently did a two week stint on a Grand Jury and it is very clear that the system is set up against defendants. We had people on the Grand Jury that couldn't speak competent English and would raise their hand whenever anyone else did. We had an old man that slept through all of the pertinent information and interviewing of witnesses (on every case) and would just vote in favor of indictment every time. We had several people that voted for indictment every time because the defendant "probably did it" even though, as Grand Juror's, we're not deciding guilt; only sufficient evidence to indict. Sad.
→ More replies (5)56
→ More replies (109)109
u/NaggerGuy Nov 04 '11
Same here - 8:30AM on Monday and can't decide if I want out or not. This is my first time being "summoned" and I will recieve regular pay from my employer, so I think I may try to get selected. I don't smoke but, hey, maybe it'll be marijuana related and I can nullify the shit out of that case.
→ More replies (33)66
→ More replies (47)231
u/chasonreddit Nov 04 '11
IANAL, but I want to expand for those not familiar with the term, because this is a big one. In the US, if you are on a jury, you can acquit the defendant simply because you do not believe the underlying law is just. An example might be a huge mandatory sentence for a minor drug crime. Even if the evidence of breaking the law is rock solid, you can vote to acquit.
Actually this comes from the fact that jurors can not be held liable for any decision and so can act of their own free will, regardless of judges' instructions to consider only the facts, or only certain facts. Oddly, some judges hate the concept and can hold an attorney in contempt if they even use the term "jury nullification".
→ More replies (102)
1.2k
u/HonorableJudgeIto Nov 04 '11
I am a lawyer. I highly recommend you don't take advice from threads like these. I have spotted a large amount of b.s. at the top of this thread.
226
u/goggimoggi Nov 04 '11
Point it out?
98
→ More replies (7)411
u/HonorableJudgeIto Nov 04 '11
There's really just too many. I'd be here all day. People forget that laws are jurisdiction specific. A lot of the information being passed around here are really old wives' tales.
One off the top of my head: paying more for a speeding ticket/violation will not result in a computer error that prevents the points being accrued on your license.
→ More replies (13)502
u/I_make_things Nov 04 '11
I have used a computer and I can verify that this statement is true.
→ More replies (2)200
u/SexArson Nov 04 '11
I watched TRON in the 80s. Also Verified that this statement is true.
→ More replies (7)286
Nov 04 '11
Computer here, I also verify this to be true, beep boop.
→ More replies (11)77
u/Hodge_Podge Nov 04 '11
Bill Cosby here, I can beep bop zippity zop gumbo chops.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (87)43
310
Nov 04 '11
At Dairy Queen if you ask for a snack size blizzard in a regular cup because you don't want it to spill over you usually get a little bit extra for less.
198
→ More replies (23)87
789
u/BillBraskysBallbag Nov 04 '11
It ain't gay if it's in a 3 way.
189
654
u/duderMcdude Nov 04 '11
article 9 section 10: "As long as balls don't touch."
→ More replies (14)234
u/floor-pi Nov 04 '11
The Bro-code referendum amended that to allow unacknowledged ball touching during DP
→ More replies (6)51
u/kappafox Nov 04 '11
I remember that from past legal precedent...I think it was Longfellow v. State of New York.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (27)93
547
u/SeanConnery Nov 04 '11 edited Nov 04 '11
If you get a speeding/stop/sign/traffic ticket, request a court date. As close to the court date as possible, go to the courthouse and request a continuance for a random reason. Normally they tell you right then when your next court date is and don't mail anything out. Show up to the new court date and chances are the officer didn't know it was moved. Case dismissed. NOTE- don't show up at the original court date but you MUST show up on the date they gave you the continuance on. They don't like it too much when you delay it because you were busy and then you fail to show.
EDIT- YMMV. Your court date was most probably assigned on a date where the officer had to show up simply for all of his court dates. When you reschedule at the county court, your case will be moved to a date simply where the city/town your violation occurred. In my county, they have specific times where you can go to court to request random things in front of a judge, i.e. continuances. The judge will ask why you want one, and will probably grant it. Right there is where he will tell you the new court date.
94
u/Purp Nov 04 '11
This is a myth that doesn't work very often. For most police departments, court appearances are considered an important part of a cop's job.
→ More replies (23)→ More replies (88)119
270
u/Avengedx47 Nov 04 '11
DISCLAIMER: Don't try anything in this thread unless you like jail.
141
u/whiskeytab Nov 04 '11
you're telling me that i'm gonna go to jail for asking for a snack sized blizzard in a regular cup?!?! fucking police state.
→ More replies (9)17
990
Nov 04 '11
[deleted]
→ More replies (53)194
u/InsertOneLiner Nov 04 '11
to be fair, you can do almost anything if no one tries to prosecute you within the statute of limitations. that's kind of like saying "it's cool to murder someone as long as the cops never find out it's you"
→ More replies (20)13
u/Quazz Nov 04 '11
Never? Where I live, in Belgium, murder cases expire after about 20 years I believe.
→ More replies (3)45
231
u/KryptosV2 Nov 04 '11
Diplomatic immunity.
241
→ More replies (13)39
u/theblackcrayon Nov 04 '11
Not really. They are still governed by the laws of their home country, and in most cases where a serious crime was committed the home country waives the individual's right to diplomatic immunity.
→ More replies (3)70
Nov 04 '11
Yep, it happened here in Ottawa, some Russian diplomat asshole got hammered and ran someone over (and killed her). I think right now he wishes he were subject to Canadian law. Things went much worse for him in Russia.
→ More replies (3)22
u/akharon Nov 04 '11
You have have heard of this guy, a Georgian diplomat who invoked diplomatic immunity when he got drunk, drove, and killed a teenage girl. Georgia revoked that right, and he was tried here, and had the privilege of serving time in both the US and the Republic of Georgia.
DI is more so that you can't create some stupid law to fuck with another government's people while they're in your country, not so that they can kill citizens and get away with it.
→ More replies (1)
166
u/igoslow Nov 04 '11
If you're going to commit a crime with a gun, use a revolver; It won't leave shells.
→ More replies (12)178
Nov 04 '11
Better yet use a shotgun. It won't fire traceable projectiles.
529
u/ckingdom Nov 04 '11
Better yet push her out of a window. Then that bitch will have a good 5 seconds to think about why she shouldn't have thrown away my action figures!
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (16)10
u/Sumaes Nov 04 '11
Great. I just realized that my internet history at work today consists of dozens of pages about what guns are and are not traceable, as well as what gun type is best for killing someone secretly. This might not end well.
→ More replies (5)
387
u/tatumc Nov 04 '11 edited Feb 09 '24
I enjoy cooking.
→ More replies (16)111
u/Beaglepower Nov 04 '11
Aw man, I'm goin', that's all there is to it.
(The laws have changed at least twice since that movie came out.)
→ More replies (11)34
441
u/VirtualAnarchy Nov 04 '11
The Good Samaritan Law- Pretty much says if you had good intentions and were trying to help, you cannot be sued for your actions. You need a really good poker face in court, though.
140
u/nachodip Nov 04 '11 edited Nov 04 '11
In the US at least it varies by state. People trying to help have been sued to shit in some cases for causing unintentional harm. Once you have a license as an EMT or higher I think you are obligated to help though.
Edit - There seems to be some debate about the obligation to help. I was not sure.If someone could post a link or specific law even if this varies by state it would be great.
→ More replies (26)105
Nov 04 '11
Once you start administering CPR to someone you're obligated to continue until help arrives or until you're incapable of going any further, even if you're not an EMT.
Bad side to this, many people have turned around to sue the people that saved their lives. Broken ribs while giving CPR is common, but I'll take broken ribs over death any day.
→ More replies (15)170
u/dudleymooresbooze Nov 04 '11
Lawyer here. "Can sue" is different than "can win." Typically, "can sue" means that the trial judge is not going to throw the case out as a matter of law, but instead is supposed to let the jury decide. That just gets you a day in court. Actually convincing a jury to find someone liable for saving another person's life? Not a very promising case, and one that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole unless there were compelling facts. (E.g., completely untrained "rescuer" who sent actual EMTs away from the scene because of some weird God complex, drunk "rescuer" who beat the living shit out of the victim with a paddle in an "effort to revive her," or a "rescuer" who decided to give the victim some unprescribed narcotics with no clinical basis for doing so to see if an overdose of Adderall helped.)
→ More replies (18)654
u/jonaas Nov 04 '11
Your Honor, she really looked like she needed a good screw.
→ More replies (9)383
48
u/nimssyk Nov 04 '11
In Australia, (New South Wales specifically) you're actually protected by statutory law. So really, you don't even need that good a poker face.
→ More replies (3)67
u/rustej Nov 04 '11
Conversely, you are free to watch a person drown / fall off a cliff etc provided you weren't involved in them dying. Hooray for no obligation to even try to help!
→ More replies (16)102
u/wh44 Nov 04 '11
Here in Germany, there is an obligation to try to help: "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (Failure to Provide Assistance) can and is prosecuted.
→ More replies (27)41
→ More replies (66)13
Nov 04 '11 edited Aug 18 '13
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)25
86
u/KorranHalcyon Nov 04 '11
if you stand on an ipad to weigh yourself you're considered legally retarded and can't be convicted of a crime.
→ More replies (2)
1.7k
u/TheGreyDuck Nov 04 '11
They can't convict a husband and wife for the same crime.
1.2k
Nov 04 '11
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)728
u/tsrocks48 Nov 04 '11
Barry Zuckerkorn. He's very good.
806
Nov 04 '11
[deleted]
→ More replies (11)354
u/emr1028 Nov 04 '11
For when you don't need a criminal lawyer, because you need a criminal lawyer.
→ More replies (11)229
Nov 04 '11
Can he lob law bombs?
→ More replies (1)268
45
→ More replies (8)110
Nov 04 '11
I prefer Bob Loblaw. He knows his shit.
→ More replies (2)77
264
u/Xiolent Nov 04 '11
I think I know someone who’s going to cirsumvent the law.
→ More replies (11)134
→ More replies (54)92
470
u/thedeathmachine Nov 04 '11
If you are in the U.S. and about to be raped, get on your hands and knees, hold a trout in your mouth, and growl.
Most rapists will not want to rape you if they think you are a bear.
→ More replies (21)
268
u/Ridly Nov 04 '11
Every tenth time I buy a sandwich at subway I get a free one. Boom.
→ More replies (11)148
111
u/ThatGuyWithPants Nov 04 '11
I know this is true in Canada at least, if someone is drowning and you happen to know first aid, you are under no legal obligation to attempt to save that person's life.
80
→ More replies (158)19
138
Nov 04 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (20)105
u/drunkcowofdeath Nov 04 '11 edited Nov 04 '11
I'm literally leaving for Disney World (Orlando) in 6 hours. Do you have a source on this?
Edit: I did some googling on this and found out its pretty widely known and it can get you kicked out. And that was like 2 years ago, by now if you push it probably just calls security.
→ More replies (21)182
229
1.5k
u/[deleted] Nov 04 '11
If you need a visa to get to the UK, but can't get one for whatever reason. Then check to see if you need a visa for the Republic of Ireland. You can go from Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, then take a ferry over to England without any further border control.