G24 Ltd using debt recovery agency

Axles

Sirdan what a cynical negative fellow you are. I bet your a bundle of fun for your wife

esmerobbo

TPUC must be true then!

I think I will stick with the way it is! End of discussion going nowhere, I think you're on the wrong forum!

Bye!:wave::wave::wave:

Sirdan

"we feel that it isnt in the publics interest to take this matter further."

So the case was dropped by the prosecutor as not in the public interest..that's not at all the same as dismissed by the court because the case has no merit.

So basically he knew he cant win and a jury means press and press means people get to know the truth, so they avoided the issue totally.

Just the posters entirely biased interpretation of what happened ..so basically meaningless.

Sirdan

Axles wrote: »

Sirdan what a cynical negative fellow you are. I bet your a bundle of fun for your wife

If you had a strong case to argue you would not need to post insults now would you ?

Sirdan

That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void…Quite clearly states that all fines given without first being tried in a court of law are void and subsequently so are all forfeitures. So why are many people paying fixed penalty fines and allowing forfeitures of their property before conviction?"

Bill of Rights 1689

"

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

Magna Carta 1215

So the Magna Carta would allow for removal of posessions (seizure or forefeiture) "by the law of the land" ..that'll be the statute law that you referred to then ?

So this allows for forfeitures (but not fines) without conviction does it not ?

PS In the real world such forfeitures occur all the time using civil procedures not criminal i.e. the action is not against the person (conviction or acquittal) but against the property ..what I understand is known as action "in rem".

Oopsadaisy

esmerobbo wrote: »

I remember a poster on CAG using this argument over car tax and the related fines. He got off with the fines and the clamping fees!

Mind you he didn't get his £15K car back when they sold it!

ROFPML!!!!!

Brilliant.

Oopsadaisy

Axles, you are the best thing to hit this forum in months!!!!!!!!!!

No more 'I parked in ASDA....but I'm different, my car was red' idiots; instead we have you....the mega-idiot [no offence intended].

Welcome, and please don't let all the posters on here stop you amusing us all.

In my eyes you're special....very special.

notts_phil

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Axles, you are the best thing to hit this forum in months!!!!!!!!!!

No more 'I parked in ASDA....but I'm different, my car was red' idiots; instead we have you....the mega-idiot [no offence intended].

Welcome, and please don't let all the posters on here stop you amusing us all.

In my eyes you're special....very special.

I couldnt agree with you more...

Sirdan

Originally Posted by Axles
I meant to say this on my other thread.

If I ever did get a letter from this G24 I would write to the DVLA CEO and complain that the DVLA was giving out personal information of me to a third party. I might even threaten him with court action.

Imagine if ...

Mayhem ensued today in the High Court as the case of "Axles" vs CEO of DVLA was finally heard.

Readers will recall that "Axels" had asserted that because he did not individually and specifically consent to the statute that allows the DVLA to release data
(The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002)

then they (DVLA) were in breach of the Data Protection Act 1988 and had also breached Article 8 of the ECHR ,the right to respect for private and family life.

There was uproar (and cheers from those of sound mind) as counsel for DVLA asserted that likewise the CEO on behalf of DVLA did not consent to the statutes of the Data Protection Act !!

His Honour Lord Francis effing-Effingham held that either both statutes were valid or neither were and in either case there was no case to answer with regard to a DPA breach.
He retired (in fits of hysterics) to consider the Article 8 matter ......

Sirdan

My last post on this ,as it is going grossly off topic, but for the unwary or dimwitted a warning

do not listen to any advice the poster AXLES gives on law.

Here is an explanation of which planet he is living on (you are free to join him but please don't ever be tempted to try this !!!! in court !!):-


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land