Whoops typo. Thanks BazzaS

How to deal with the 'sorry mate, data protection' fob off DPA1998 Section 32, subsection 2, para (a) and/or (b)

Try Ubuntu

An exclamation mark.

The CPS site quotes the Deegan case, BUT seems to forget the Point of Public Interest in the last paragraph. It's all a bit suspect.

Err, yeah. The prohibition (S139) applies to a folding pocket knife if over 3 inches. ss3 must be read in conjunction with ss2

Did you mean UNDER 3inches

When it comes to law, virtually nothing is for the local constabulary to decide. I seem to remember that we have a parliament to make the rules.

The final paragraph of the appeal case that the police always seem to miss out when this subject is raised. Reads as follows :- Application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused, but point of general public importance certified as follows: 'That the article 'a folding pocket knife' as mentioned in section 139(2) Criminal Justice Act 1988 as being an exemption subject to subsection (3) to the offence made by section 139(1) means a knife that has a blade that folds, whether or not it (the blade) is capable of being opened and locked into an open position and equally capable of being folded once the mechanism had been operated to unlock the blade.' Taken from the handed down judgement of the Appeal Court. Do not believe everything your government publishes on the internet.

The problem with this page is I'm not convinced its accurate, ref lock knives.

The Terry Martin case was not as clear as the media portrayed. That aside, the gel sprays would be as legal as the dye-packs in money transport containers.

Sounds like most local authorities

Signage may not. However, they are advertisements, which DO require planning permission. For further details http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/783/schedule/3/made

Local planning office can tell you all applications made for any plot of land.

Thanks Silverfox, I will be dealing with it asap. They are now the only black mark on my credit reference, and I was considering a mortgage

Its from an adjudicator. I think I'm going to reject her conclusion and pursue a more aggressive challenge. Starting with a SAR and find out if they have a copy of my original application that specifically stated there was never to be any credit facilities. And I guess I may as well put the Ombudsman on notice whilst I'm at it.

Total whitewash. Disregarded some points. Made up other points to reject complaint. Satan's bank can, apparently, decide to sign you up to a credit account AGAINST your express wishes. Its purely a commercial decision on their part. Then they can charge you when their system sends you over drawn with charges. And its all above board according to my complaint rejection today. Does anyone know if the Consumer Rights Act apples to bank accounts?

Title says it all!

Adverse possession is not an issue at all, so don't worry about that. Previous trespass on the land is also a non-starter. No damage = no claim. As to the issue of 'tresspass' into your airspace, see Laiqat v Majid [2005] EWHC 1305 I would suggest that a solictors letter to the effect be sent to the neighbour, and a letter to SKY removing any implied right of access.

This one was kept quite. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

Plus if you don't keep them you can't get the whole set ! I've nearly got 3 full sets from different companies

If the insurance company had not asked, the OP would not have declared it. He's only considering cancelling to stop being found out that he didn't declare. While I do not like the insurance companies practices, that is not a good reason to attempt to defraud them. Well maybe it is but its not legal.

Works contractor would have duty of care. Go after them, and whoever they were working for.

If it no longer applies, then no problem with disclosure. However if it does, then failure to disclose is attempted fraud. Is it now acceptable for CAG members to advise on ways to avoid getting caught for a crime?

Only just found this thread, How did you get on? Reference should be made to Section 143(3)© of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves— ©that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.