Fun with common law

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by georggearless

I think it was prudent of me to explain the other two points, lest you accuse me of thinking that "going to court to seek legal redress is cheating" or "going to court to seek legal redress is misdirection". Your (deliberate ?) misinterpretation of my initial post testifies to that.

Again you are trying to twist words. I have never said there is a moral dilemma in making money out of minor infractions of the powers that be. It is completely reasonable that you should be compensated (and money is a good way to compensate people) if you have been wronged. But it is completely UN-reasonable and DIS-honourable to actively attempt to BE wronged with the intention of making money. Do you see the moral difference?

That is what the OP is about. A post very far from the supposedly honourable and peacfull philosophy that originaly founded the basis of fmotl ideology.

And no, it is not the same philosophy that the government uses on its citizens. While we may agree on many fines being either unreasonable or overzealous, even to the point of ridicule, there is a fundamental and inherent difference between a statutory law which intention is to protect the broad spectrum of citizinry, and then tripping up a cop for personal monetary gain. As philosophies go, they could hardly be more different.

But the PACE act is a statute which intention is to protect the broad spectrum of citizinry,. Im not sure its dilibrately tripping them either. you just allow them to over act there powers and then claim. you cant make them break the law if they dont want to, can you ?

[georggearless]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

But the PACE act is a statute which intention is to protect the broad spectrum of citizinry,. Im not sure its dilibrately tripping them either. you just allow them to over act there powers and then claim. you cant make them break the law if they dont want to, can you ?

You are drifting. On one side we have the act as a safeguard of rights. On the other we have the OP who sees the act as a public fishing pool for the daring, who can get their vacation paid to Ibiza, if they're clever enough.

Do you aknowledge the difference in these two mindsets?

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by georggearless

You are drifting. On one side we have the act as a safeguard of rights. On the other we have the OP who sees the act as a public fishing pool for the daring, who can get their vacation paid to Ibiza, if they're clever enough.

Do you aknowledge the difference in these two mindsets?

im not drifting at all, if they drive around looking for someone who is dropping litter,its a 2 and a half grand fine for those that they catch. if i walk round looking for a cop who wants to break PACE its a miserly `1200 quid

[msbpunk]

Quote: "but seriously there are no win no fee solicitors for this sort of thing, so if they will take you on your on good ground"

Really? You mean solicitors operating under statute law, by any chance?

[georggearless]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

im not drifting at all, if they drive around looking for someone who is dropping litter,its a 2 and a half grand fine for those that they catch. if i walk round looking for a cop who wants to break PACE its a miserly `1200 quid

For now, if you could just answer the question I posed.

Btw, the two (new ) scenarios you are now describing would only be comparable, if policemen drove around stopping people, giving them bags of litter, and then watched what people would do with the litter, hoping that they could get some money out of it. Since the police don't do that (I believe the technical term for this is entrapment), it's a moot point. The size of the fine is ofcourse debatable, but totaly irrelevant to the point I was making in my post. Another attempt to drift form the issue I raised?

So, lets try sticking to one question and one issue at a time: Do you aknowledge the difference in the two mindsets I described in my post above. I'm not asking if you agree with either of the two. Just aknowledgment of their difference.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by msbpunk

Quote: "but seriously there are no win no fee solicitors for this sort of thing, so if they will take you on your on good ground"

Really? You mean solicitors operating under statute law, by any chance?

I didnt know solicitors operate under statue law ?

[penfold9]

Another good one is if your the passenger in a car( best if its a legal car to be honest) pulled over by the police. Get out and make to walk off, when the copper says '' oye you get back here'', your unlawful detention starts and you can start planning your trip to Ibiza

Would you like to retract that one before it gets someone tazered or at worst shot.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by georggearless

For now, if you could just answer the question I posed.

Btw, the two (new ) scenarios you are now describing would only be comparable, if policemen drove around stopping people, giving them bags of litter, and then watched what people would do with the litter, hoping that they could get some money out of it. Since the police don't do that (I believe the technical term for this is entrapment), it's a moot point. The size of the fine is ofcourse debatable, but totaly irrelevant to the point I was making in my post. Another attempt to drift form the issue I raised?

So, lets try sticking to one question and one issue at a time: Do you aknowledge the difference in the two mindsets I described in my post above. I'm not asking if you agree with either of the two. Just aknowledgment of their difference.

i fail to see what the mindset of the victim has got to do with anything, have you got a whole new laws set that has mens rea of a victim as a test ?

strange you say that , ive know of people being given parking tickets getting a littering fpn when they throw it down in disgust

entrapment isnt really recognized under English law ? ( very limited circumstances)

[penfold9]

"swerve, dodge,duck,weave, now answer my question"

[penfold9]

entrapment isnt really recognized under English law

isnt really recognised?
What on earth does that mean?

Sorry forget that, I have just realised he's trying to steer the conversation away from the topic.

[georggearless]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

i fail to see what the mindset of the victim has got to do with anything, have you got a whole new laws set that has mens rea of a victim as a test ?

strange you say that , ive know of people being given parking tickets getting a littering fpn when they throw it down in disgust

entrapment isnt really recognized under English law ? ( very limited circumstances)

Well if you won't answer, I can't make you. We're done here.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by penfold9

isnt really recognised?
What on earth does that mean?

Sorry forget that, I have just realised he's trying to steer the conversation away from the topic.

They are BIG on entrapment in the States, Here however its only available as a defence under most peculiar circumstance. I could say not at all, but it wouldnt be totally accurate

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by georggearless

Well if you won't answer, I can't make you. We're done here.

I did answer, >

[penfold9]

I said forget it, Im not interested.
You may want to do the decent thing and answer Georges question though.

Do you aknowledge the difference in the two mindsets I described in my post above. I'm not asking if you agree with either of the two. Just aknowledgment of their difference.

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by penfold9

I said forget it, Im not interested.
You may want to do the decent thing and answer Georges question though.

clearly i dont

[trickygimp]

Originally Posted by penfold9

Would you like to retract that one before it gets someone tazered or at worst shot.

go one then, what statute or common law requires the passenger to stay

there is no Z said in taser

[penfold9]

go one then, what statute or common law requires the passenger to stay

there is no Z said in taser

Sentences start with a capital letter and end with a full stop and the word 'said' isnt required in that sentence.

I do love it when people pick up on spelling and then make a balls of the same post.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
Here do your own research.

[penfold9]

Come to think of it, looking at your first few posts on the forum and your more recent ones it looks like someone else's is posting on your behalf, its either that or you have totally unravelled.

[happy sheeple]

Originally Posted by trickygimp

`

Getting the police to pay out of court settlements isn't that hard, The met pays millions for unlawful arrest every year and there are enough successful cases to suggest its not impossible to win in court.

I dont normally evidence every point i make, but I will try if you genuinely have an issue with a specific point

My issue is with your figures, where are these millions? according to the met police's own figures the total paid out for ALL compensation claims was only around 1 million for each of the last 5 years and almost all these payouts were settled out of court. Thats all compensation claims not just unlawfull arrests.
You say you dont normally evidence your points and its not difficult to see why. May be you could be genuine in this case and supply the source you have quoted your figures from?

[penfold9]

May be you could be genuine in this case and supply the source you have quoted your figures from?

He will ask you a question now.