The Beavis case

beamerguy

salmosalaris wrote: »

Another utterly pointless thread from the rabble rouser .

guess you don't want people to know then especially those who receive these threats .... I must admit I like people to know, each to their own

pappa_golf

people on this forum KNOW the facts , they can read all about the cases , HOWEVER its the general public with no access to MSE etc , that are being stung.




your preaching needs doing in other quarters , because the things you mention are well known here

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

people on this forum KNOW the facts , they can read all about the cases , HOWEVER its the general public with no access to MSE etc , that are being stung.

your preaching needs doing in other quarters , because the things you mention are well known here

I know, but here is the clue .... more and more newbies appearing, and just because you and I know its well known here, the newbies don't ,, as can be seen time after time, at least give them a chance

HO87

beamerguy wrote: »

Sums up in different words just what these letters are saying

... and your response in dismissing the point I was attempting to make demonstrates the point precisely. You cannot use "different words" as you so obviously believe. The law requires that you must fulfil the terms exactly as they are laid out not on some off the cuff interpretation.

The fact that PPC's manage to get away with similar interpretations doesn't mean that we can expect to see the same standards applied in the criminal prosecution system.

Rabble-rousing is all well and good but when the rabble that has been roused realise that they have been sucked in by so much nonsense they will disappear like smoke on the wind. Similarly, when the rousers run out of nonsense they too disappear.

bargepole

Sorry to say that the original post in this thread is completely misleading, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the law actually works.

Any newbies following that advice are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of a tongue-lashing from a District Judge, as well as possibly being ordered to pay the judgment plus full costs of the other side's solicitor for unreasonable behaviour.

This forum currently seems to be suffering from a surfeit of rubbish advice from relatively recently joined posters, who seem unable to grasp the reality of the situation as it stands today. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, better not to give any advice at all.

catfunt

bargepole wrote: »

This forum currently seems to be suffering from a surfeit of rubbish advice from relatively recently joined posters, who seem unable to grasp the reality of the situation as it stands today. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, better not to give any advice at all.

Indeed - at least one regular that I know of has stopped posting on here for this very reason.

beamerguy

HO87 wrote: »

... and your response in dismissing the point I was attempting to make demonstrates the point precisely. You cannot use "different words" as you so obviously believe. The law requires that you must fulfil the terms exactly as they are laid out not on some off the cuff interpretation.

The fact that PPC's manage to get away with similar interpretations doesn't mean that we can expect to see the same standards applied in the criminal prosecution system.

Rabble-rousing is all well and good but when the rabble that has been roused realise that they have been sucked in by so much nonsense they will disappear like smoke on the wind. Similarly, when the rousers run out of nonsense they too disappear.

just quoting the words you used, not mine

Under the Theft Act 1968 the criminal offence of blackmail consists of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to making a gain or causing a loss.

UNWARRANTED = The charges debt collectors apply
MENACES = The use of the Beavis case as a threat.

I am certain all the Rousers will await your reply

beamerguy

bargepole wrote: »

Sorry to say that the original post in this thread is completely misleading, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the law actually works.

Any newbies following that advice are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of a tongue-lashing from a District Judge, as well as possibly being ordered to pay the judgment plus full costs of the other side's solicitor for unreasonable behaviour.

This forum currently seems to be suffering from a surfeit of rubbish advice from relatively recently joined posters, who seem unable to grasp the reality of the situation as it stands today. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, better not to give any advice at all.

What advice ? My post simply stated it was blackmail and clearly showed the reason. I never said take it court. Interesting that you think a judge might think its unreasonable behaviour.
Do you think the action and letters from debt collectors are reasonable ? Maybe you do, but the majority do not, so please no more quoting things I never said, I dread to think what newbies think

catfunt

This is blackmail:

"Pay me some money or I will send your wife those pictures of you snogging that petite blonde university student from No. 28"

This is not:

"Please note that the Beavis ruling means that we have a claim against you, so please pay the invoice of £150 or we will take you to Court"

So far as the law is concerned, a company is entitled to take you to court if it believes it has a claim against you - the fact we believe they don't is neither here nor there.

And yes we know they try and twist words round to try and ascare people, but in the eyes of the law, that, in my opinion, is not blackmail and a far cry from the sort of case I outlined above.

If it was blackmail, then that would have been proved in a criminal court long before now. The only thing that may come close is the case in Aberdeen against CEL that is still in progress, and that is alleged fraud, so far as I know, and not blackmail.

beamerguy

catfunt wrote: »

Indeed - at least one regular that I know of has stopped posting on here for this very reason.

And I guess many newbies who needed help have vanished, maybe its the same person who stated how aggressive the forum was.