Cambridge Court case hoax phone call update

BenefitMaster

4consumerrights wrote: »

Any other news though BM updating as to the alleged arrest regarding the original post here?

I'm awaiting a phone call from She who must be annoyed...

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

BenefitMaster wrote: »

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:

I don't think that this is the forum to suggest that legal qualifications always outrank armchair lawyers

You made a sweeping assertion without qualification. I gave a clear uncontoversial example of statute and common law existing in parallel, when you stated that "Statute law always overrides common law". I was really targeting the casual reader who might take your assertion as gospel. I didn't need to read the cite, I have given a clear counter-example based on actual knowledge supported by the authoritative legal guide.

Someone was wrong on the Internet...

ffacoffipawb

enfield_freddy wrote: »

are you saying that you are just awaiting conformation of the charges?

£100 or £50 if paid in 14 days?

BenefitMaster

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I don't think that this is the forum to suggest that legal qualifications always outrank armchair lawyers

You made a sweeping assertion without qualification. I gave a clear uncontoversial example of statute and common law existing in parallel, when you stated that "Statute law always overrides common law". I was really targeting the casual reader who might take your assertion as gospel. I didn't need to read the cite, I have given a clear counter-example based on actual knowledge supported by the authoritative legal guide.

Someone was wrong on the Internet...

And Rimmington makes it clear that the Supreme court and the House of Lords agrees with that position. Statute Law overrides Common Law, and Common Law cannot be extended to fit the facts if it's not already a crime. :cool:

BTW, I don't practise law professionally, but I do win in court and Employment Tribunals. So I am technically an "Armchair Lawyer" too.

Anyway, I am waiting to hear from Defence Counsel about today's case. As soon as she gets home from Manchester... :beer:

Computersaysno

£57million was the fine I heard mentioned

BenefitMaster

Computersaysno wrote: »

£57million was the fine I heard mentioned

Well, Mrs BM isn't back yet...

peter_the_piper

Computersaysno wrote: »

£57million was the fine I heard mentioned

Is that the £57mill they will have to pay back to Crapita?

parkingpeople2

It has been confirmed that the 42 year old man arrested on Sunday was released without charge yesterday afternoon and will face no charges (NFA) in relation to this matter.

Lynnzer

parkingpeople2 wrote: »

It has been confirmed that the 42 year old man arrested on Sunday was released without charge yesterday afternoon and will face no charges (NFA) in relation to this matter.

I believe GMP may be too busy photographing and shredding truckloads of documents relating to their "past mistakes"

BenefitMaster

parkingpeople2 wrote: »

It has been confirmed that the 42 year old man arrested on Sunday was released without charge yesterday afternoon and will face no charges (NFA) in relation to this matter.

That doesn't concur with information I have. However, the information I have is now covered under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.