Cambridge Court case hoax phone call update

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

BenefitMaster wrote: »

Statute law always overrides common law. See R and Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63.

Just to be a pedant, statute law will only override common law if it is so written to do so. Being well versed in rights of way, i can say both common law and statute law apply - they deliberately retained common law for walking, yet withdrew common law for motor vehicles (you can't create a right of way in a car however often you drive a route - I won an opposed right of way Inquiry based on common law for usage over 6 years while also arguing under statute law for a 20 year usage which failed due to it being considered the route varied. I was able to use the agreed evidence of the route changing to support the common law argument).

BenefitMaster

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Just to be a pedant, statute law will only override common law if it is so written to do so.

Have you bothered to read the cited case? If not, then I politely suggest you do.

If you have then I less politely advise you to go back to law school.

:beer:

The_Deep

This is all getting rather silly.

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

This is all getting rather silly.

I concur.

The thing that bugs me is people who don't know what they are talking about trying to use big Latin words to censor others.

Apart from anything else, it's "sub judice" not "sub justice" - a schoolboy errer from someone.

When more info is available, it will be published, I'm sure.

4consumerrights

parkingpeople2 wrote: »

I thought everyone would like to know that yesterday evening Greater Manchester Police arrested a 42 year old man in the Manchester area on suspicion of sending a malicious communication contrary to the Communications Act 2003 which resulted in PE's barrister not attending the court hearing

Will give more information if and when we get it

parkingpeople2;64994422].

I work for a parking company, but will say no more on the matter until the are new developments.

I do hope for your sake that what you have reported here is both accurate and true as you may also be subject to being questioned by the police if false........

BenefitMaster wrote: »

I'm aware of a 42 year old in Manchester who works for an estate agency but claims in statements to work for a parking company...

The wheels of justice may be closing in here then.........

Originally Posted by BenefitMaster
Statute law always overrides common law. See R and Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63.

As I haven't read this particular case - cannot specifically comment here BenefitMaster;)

spacey2012 wrote: »

The people on here that know me, know who I am and what I did for 33 years.

Care to enlighten some of us who don't know what you did here?

da_rule wrote: »

Well GMP aren't reporting it on their Facebook page or their news page, but it may be that they suspect there are offenders outstanding so they may not 'go public' with it.

do you think that Greater Manchester Police report every arrest they make? - you really are out of touch with reality in that case..and naive.

Or even indeed if any person was publicly named based on a mere suspicion of an alleged offence being committed then if a false arrest was made - this would open up a claim for libel and damages against the police being raised.



IMHO this thread has now degenerated from an unsubstantiated arrest into suddenly an arena for certain un-named forum members becoming experts in law where there is no evidence to support that.

BenefitMaster

4consumerrights wrote: »

As I haven't read this particular case - cannot specifically comment here BenefitMaster;)

Broadly the defendants were prosecuted under common law nuisance when statute law existed to deal with the same facts. The House of Lords decided that statute law must override common law, and using common law to try to seek or enforce heavier punishment was a breach of article 7.

Since it's HoL, it binds all lower courts. But not noisy vessels :rotfl:

Lazos

BenefitMaster wrote: »

Apart from anything else, it's "sub judice" not "sub justice" - a schoolboy errer from someone.

error*


Sorry BM, had to. I, for one, appreciate everyones input and the debate! (To the exception of CM making Man United comments but lets not go off topic)

BenefitMaster

Lazos wrote: »

Error*

:T

Sorry BM, had to. I, for one, appreciate everyones input and the debate! (To the exception of CM making Man United comments but lets not go off topic)

Come on - you can't have a spilling errer thread without making your own mistook as well

Stroma

Can this thread be closed? Really this is just an unsubstantiated pile of garbage, and I am surprised that prankster has even blogged about it!

BenefitMaster

Stroma wrote: »

Can this thread be closed? Really this is just an unsubstantiated pile of garbage, and I am surprised that prankster has even blogged about it!

I'm currently awaiting information from a police station in Manchester as to what this person has been charged with.

Clearly until we know what's happening, it makes sense to keep the thread open.