They would agree an npo if bbc could show reasonable proof that a specific IP address was illegally using iplayer. And then they would probably risk having to disclose how they obtained the reasonable proof at a later court hearing if they decided to prosecute based on that so that the defendant could challenge the accuracy of IP address etc

Been trying to find the actual legislation that has been passed closing the iplayer loophole. Hard to find

Don't think they could just apply to a court with just a list of Bt ip addresses so they can go on a fishing expedition as to what ip addresses have a to license or not so they can start an investment gathering on. No court would sanction that. If they had a list of ip addresses that they reasonably suspected of not having a tv license that they had somehow determined then a court would allow that. In any event using a vpn or ip changer would make it fruitless for them anyway.

I am appealing a case on same pp issue. I want to make the council enforce their obligations that these contractual signs are not informational or warning signs. Do you have any court cases references or judgements where it has been ruled that the signs breach pp? Thanks

The do have to show its "not unconscionable", not unreasonable AND commercially justifiable which is dependant on the situation in the specific car park in question. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 adds another hurdle to their claim which wasn't part of the UTCCR. Charges under the CRA "grey" list now have to be proportionate. 1. is the £100 proportionate to what the council charge for penalty charges in the nearby car parks eg is £100 proportionate to £50? - I don't think so 2. in a pay & display is the £100 proportionate to £3 that should have been paid by a driver and wasn't? - I don't think so definition of proportionate correct or suitable in size, amount, or degree when considered in relation to something else

It all depends. If the trader sold the vehicle in a non roadworthy condition I.e. Brakes and tyres not good enough to pass mot, then the trader has not met requirements under consumer rights legislation and must repair. It doesn't matter if he sold it for £1 or £100k, unless sold as parts, if sold as a vehicle to be driven on the highway it must be legal at point of sale.

really! And under what agreed contract between the courier and buyer is that?

No. That would actually be Bush, Obama, Blair, Brown that are the real traitors. Traitors to democracy and rule of law.

Just need to put 1 in the witnesses unless he plans to call other witnesses for any reason.

except that the CIA aspect cannot be ignored. who are these women's employers after all (highly likely the CIA)

nope sorry(or thankfully!). just a copy and paste.

Our registered office address is: Hermes Parcelnet Ltd Capitol House 1 Capitol Close Morley LS27 0WH

Sorry I don't agree. The fire drill policy, according to to OP, which is part of a requirement under statute under health and safety regs, states that to leave premises and do not take any belongings with you. This would override any contractual obligation the company set. Imo

Agree totally with bank fodder. The insurance company is totally in the wrong if as you state you have cbt.

IMO you need to submit a formal written complaint stating that you did not violate company policy and therefore they were incorrect in deducting the cost of the phone from your pay. Provide a copy of the company fire drill policy and ask them to show where in the policy it states that small items are not classed as personal items under the policy. Also, as the phone was left on company property ask them where in the company policies it shows that the company is not liable or responsible for the loss of the phone as you hold the company liable for the loss due to them not securing the office and allowing the theft of phone. Inform them that you require payment of the £300 within 14 days or you will consider your legal options.

Agreed. And at the time the chief constable or whoever implemented this WOULD HAVE known that he should obtain legal opinion as to whether this was legally valid and by not doing so he was either mistaken as to the legal grounds or he was totally wrong in his interpretation. Either way he is guilt of misfeasance by not obtaining the legal opinion as would be standard practice and which in his position he knew he should have obtained.

Firstly it wasn't googling for a definition. It's from Yorkshire council website. Secondly, the fact that the force have ADMITTED they were wrong and the tickets were issued unlawfully shows that whoever decided to instigate this without checking the legal standing Prior to them undertaking this unlawful enterprise, shows he was wrong. Nothing to prove, it's been admitted.

Don't think falsely obtaining details would hold. The person making the requests to the dvla for the details would not have been aware that the requests were being made on the back of an unlawful action.

And another form for misfeasance in public office is ‘Misfeasance in Public Office’ is a term frequently used when a public official does his job in a way that is not technically illegal, but nevertheless he is mistaken or wrong. So maybe someone should do his research properly before posting snotty jibes on a public forum.

The second actually. The public officer had a duty to act with good faith and perform his job in a reasonable manner. Based on his position, experience and skills he at a minimum should have got legal advise as to whether any proposed actions on behalf of the police would meet statutory and human rights law. His total ignorance and failure to do this, means he acted in bad faith, and that is misfeasance in public office. The only reason I can think of for him not doing this when it is normal practice is that he may have suspected that it was not on very solid legal footing. And if I was one of the people affected that's where I would start and I bet very quickly there would be some action by this force rather than them just brushing it under the table

Except the right to strike is protected as you say by statute and human rights, but so is the right of children to education and not to suffer harm. Why should the teachers rights to strike trump the children's rights to education also protected by statute and human rights? The DFE stated that even keeping children out of school for a short term is harmful. Therefore striking and school trips and tutor days where kids don't go in to school are all harmful to children, violate their rights and must be banned? See how ridiculous it gets.

FOI to the force as to who authorised this action without proper analysis and legal advise. Then a charge of misfeasance in public office against that person. Then seek damages for that misfeasance and violation under HRA or ECHR?

thanks. for your reading have a look at B v DPP (2000) and R v K (2001) I think parliament made an error in including wilful in 6(8) but its there.

thanks. that is interesting reading. In R V Blake, IMO the court may have ruled differently IF the s1(1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 stated: "No person shall WILFULLY establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy or install or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy" rather than what is does state which is "No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy or install or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy" the reason is that the court ruled that there was a strong presumption in favour of mens rea but this presumption was overridden by the social concerns. In the case of 6(8) the use of the word wilful does away with the presumption, it does require intent. In Gammon 1985 it again states that there is a presumption that mens rea is required but this presumption can be rebutted for the 4 reasons. again, in 6(8) there is not a presumption of mens rea, the wilful part of it requires mens rea. but it would be interesting to see if a court would think that Gammon would override the will of parliament in putting "wilful" in the legislation. In Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) the court interpreted the statue as creating an offence of strict liability because the specific section was silent as to the requirement of mens rea. 6(8) is not silent as to the mens rea , it requires mens rea through wilful actions on the part of the accused

I know but the definition may still be valid. I am looking for UK cases where it has been defined.