Jump to content

Weird Al Yankovic

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Weird Al Yankovic

  1. I do not intend to respond to both your abuses, Rob S & legalpickle, but report them instead. It is quite clear this abuse stems from a simple desire to just ignore certain facts in order to be disruptive to a thread. I'm not playing these games I'm afraid.
  2. All very well but why is there a distinction in this topic between one medium and another ie an African and Gypsy? As far as I can see both seem to offer some kind of service, though both differing but similar I guess, yet one appears legal and the other should have the whack of TS put upon them. I'm not getting that part!
  3. Yes, as MrShed has put it, somewhat unthankful, but hey, who really cares? For your info your subject matter quite clearly needed debate on the legal points your initial post contained. If you believe that legal points raised and discussed in any situation can be quantified with a simple yes or no then you will find the reality very different. However, my answers to your specific question regarding your toddler are- No, there is not a chance that any charges whatsoever can be brought because- 1 Your toddler is not old enough to be considered legally responsible for a crime and you would not be held responsible in these particular circumstances anyway. 2 Opening mail with your correct address on it, despite a different addressee, is not an offence in any case. 3 Even if it were, (as per legalpickle), the likelihood of a successful prosecution would be hugely remote not least because the letters appear to contain very little info. 4 Any prosecution, even if it was possible, would not proceed as it would just be impossible to achieve a conviction with a lack of any real evidence whatsoever. However, I would write to that bank and demand they investigate why your address is being used whilst also alerting the Information Commissioners Office of the bank's seemingly couldn't care less attitude.
  4. From the OP's initial post- And will I be prosecuted for my daughter opening the mail? Surely the input has to be of a legal basis to help the OP?
  5. I see that but surely these are offences of another kind, such as murder. What I can't see is why would an African peddling his wares be any different from a Gypsy peddling theirs, in the eyes of the law? Why would TS be concerned about an African telling me I will become very rich one day yet seemingly allow a Gypsy to do the same?
  6. Ahh, yes, but we are all subject to S84 of the Postal Services Act where simply opening a letter delivered correctly to your address, but with a different addressee, is not an offence with no intent to deprive. Privacy Law cannot override this.
  7. For you personally, as an individual? I doubt it very much as I could post anything and everything and you would still not be satisfied. You are doubting my accuracy so why don't you post up an abundance of cases involving S84 and the general public to prove me wrong? I can't find any. But a simple google of posties being charged with S83 does.
  8. Interference with mail - Postal Services Act 2000 Sections 83 and 84 The Postal Services Act 2000 sections 83 and 84, see Stones 8-24243 and 8-24244, create offences of interfering with mail. Section 83 is aimed at persons engaged in the business of a postal operator and creates an either way offence. Section 84 covers any person and creates a summary only imprisonable offence. Both sections cover intentional delaying or opening of a postal packet and intentional opening of a mail bag. Section 84, for any other person, has rarely been used other than in cases where, for example, a person in a block of flats intentionally opens mail meant for somebody and then commits a further crime resulting from that, as in removing a credit card from the letter and using it. Section 83 is by far the most used part of the legislation as Royal Mail will always prosecute a postie tampering with mail. Section 83, as it is now, has always appeared in the various Acts concerning Royal Mail from as far back as 1660 but S84 has not. So yes, my post is accurate.
  9. But what would be the offence of the African be as opposed to the Gypsy, which I assume is legal?
  10. As for opening up your parents mail while living at home then common decency shows you shouldn't. However, Mr Smith may open up a letter addressed to Mr Smith, yet there may be 2, 3, 4 + Mr Smiths living at that address! Hence why RM deliver to an address only. The offence of interfering with mail is actually aimed at postal workers and only very rarely has this crime been used against the general public. And it would be a non-starter for somebody to be charged with this offence when the letter is actually delivered to the correct address anyway, as in this thread!
  11. From Royal Mail's own website regarding their terms of service- ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/Royal_Mail_general_ts&cs_29_October_2007web.pdf 3.10 Our duty is to deliver items to the address and not the person whose name is written or printed on the item. This is what you posted and which I highlighted as incorrect- Legalpickle-It's not addressed to you, you aren't allowed to open it, whether or not it has your address on it. Again, if a letter is addressed to your actual address then no offence is committed if you, the addressee, open that letter, regardless of who it is addressed to. One may actually need to open the letter to discover who it is from should there be no return address on the envelope. And Royal Mail are not in the wrong either as they are only doing what they are duty bound to do-ie delivering a letter to an address as written. The only one at fault are the sender for using an incorrect address, as in this thread. And as a bank I'd suggest they may be breaching the Data Protection Act as they are clearly using the wrong address.
  12. Not so. Royal Mail deliver to an address not the person. And in this case Royal Mail must have used the OP's correct address as she obviously received it. It is a matter for the sender to correctly address a letter. The OP is simply the recipient (at their own address) and Royal Mail just delivered it.
  13. Your postman is being a bit lazy to be honest. Or it may be a delivery office manager who has decided this but it will not be official RM policy. Should a postie have no access to a vehicle then it would be a pain to carry around a parcel, or worse, parcels, of customers during their whole delivery if those customers are not in. So, no doubt, your postie gambles that you and others will not be in or just make an excuse that they did knock but had no reply but in reality they never took out the parcel/s in the first place.
  14. That's a little unfair. I understand your issue of pride and I agree with that kind of attitude with most things. However, I don't think you will get very far personally but I genuinely hope I am wrong. Good luck for the future in whatever you do.
  15. I'm sorry but I think you knew exactly what you were doing and that was to try and get a very expensive item a lot cheaper by using an element of dishonesty. Had you simply asked if the price tag inside was correct then fine but instead you used subterfuge in the hope to get a bargain as you, or your ma, appear to know who the designer Marc Jacobs is. Not sure of the criminal element but I think a ban from the store is appropriate and which they are entitled to enforce. However, the accusation of dishonest appropriation could well be accurate and no doubt they have your actions on camera which is why you were stopped. As a law student surely you must recognise you were asking for trouble?
  16. Checking a gear box would obviously require more work, and time, than just taking your car to a garage and asking them if your tyre tread is legal, for example. Has the mechanic you have used for years ever had to undertake timely diagnostics on your other cars and were you charged? And it does appear you have agreed to the gear box being checked and, no doubt, the mechanic would argue that a charge was reasonably implied as the contract was oral. An oral contract is as binding as a written one but just more difficult to prove. However, as you have used this mechanic for years I'm sure that a court would take the view you obviously trust the mechanic and it is entirely reasonable to pay a fee for work he has carried out in order to try and salvage your car and you actually agreed to that work despite you disputing that fee.
×
×
  • Create New...