Did any of the bank employees know you where abroad? Cos if so its not beyond the realms of possibility that some bad penny bank employee has filched your account. Its happened before where customers have knowingly been abroad for some time

AND take the 1st born:rolleyes:

PLEASE PLEASE SAY your friend has that threat to 'revoke her licence' in writing & if so PLEASE post it here so we can send it to the OFT, TS & the police

When you say "police fine" I assume you mean an FPN (fixed penalty notice) if so please note that if RLP quote "your guilty cos you wos fined by the police etc" remind them an FPN is NOT an admission of guilt nor does it in anyway cast aspersions on your character cos the Appeal Court says so

They are not going to make a full & final offer because whilst they can make an offer now they could change their minds later. Suggest if you want to accept their offer you make it clear its to be full & final & that for the avoidance of doubt no further claims can be made in relation to this matter. Also it wouldn't be a bad idea to refer to the 'consideration' as being an early settlement, in their favour, of the disputed debt

As the cost has greatly reduced some are using facial recognition & others are rolling it out. As to its reliability who knows until its been tried. In the meantime I look forward to the inevitable result of its use namely a retailer being sued for mistaken identity(s) resulting in amongst others false arrest, assault, kidnap, false imprisonment, defamation

My advice is as your already in litigation that you ALWAYS PM the mods before posting in order that they might determine whether or not your remarks could jeopardize your court case AND always consult your legal advisors before disclosing yours or your legal advisors thoughts on an open forum Sorry to be so pedantic but they do read these forums & in particular CAG as its the biggest & if they see you revealing matters here they WILL use it to try & discredit your case

You did nothing wrong (& don't let anyone say you did) the media does it all the time However before you can use it you MUST allow them the opportunity to respond. Then again if the recording reveals illegal or unlawful conduct they haven't got a hope in hell of stopping you disclosing it AND if 'illegal' you have a requirement to report it

TD some companies are well known for their 'illegal' intimidation methods, following critics from their home or place of work etc I sometimes think it would be an idea to have them try it on with me The result would be interesting as the cops around here are my friends not theirs

Correct. As for a civil claim for damages it would depend on how the vehicle was blocking access. If it was obvious to any reasonable person that an emergency vehicle would have access problems then I suspect that the claimant would be considered the author of his own misfortune & contrib neg of 100%

Could this be made a sticky please Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235 CA: Thomas LJ, Treacy, Saunders JJ: 17 August 2010 A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) so held when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Gareth Hamer, against his conviction on 12 January 2010 by the Crown Court at Harrow, before Judge Holt and a jury, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had assaulted the complainant taxi driver after an evening out. The defendant pleaded self defence. He had no previous convictions or cautions, but had received a fixed penalty notice under s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for a minor public disorder matter, two months after the instant offence. After discussion between counsel and the judge regarding whether a good character direction should be given, the judge ruled that the jury should be told about the defendant’s penalty notice, but directed the jury that they might think it fairer to disregard it and treat him as of good character, and he gave the defendant a full good character direction. The defendant appealed on the ground that the judge had erred in admitting the fixed penalty notice, since it was not a criminal conviction and involved no admission of guilt. THOMAS LJ, delivering the judgment of the court, said that the fixed penalty notice scheme was a method of dealing with low level crime without the need to prove the offence and commission of it by the person to whom it was issued. It involved no admission of guilt, nor did it create a criminal record. The scheme went no further than that. If the notice was accepted, payment of the penalty provided that no further action could be taken. The notice was distinct from a caution, where commission of a crime was acknowledged. Its issue was not a form of justice, as justice normally included guilt. It was not a conviction, admission of guilt, any proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the persons character. It therefore followed that it was not admissible as an admission of an offence or of bad character in the sense of impugning the defendant’s character. It might be that in some cases the Crown might wish to adduce evidence regarding matters in respect of which the notice had been issued. Counsel for the Crown had not wished the issue of the notice to go before the jury, and it was only at the insistence of the judge that it had done. It was unfair to mention the notice without an attempt to call evidence regarding the circumstances of it. The notice was entirely irrelevant and ought to have been kept from the jury. However, since the defendant had no plausible explanation for the injuries caused to the complainant, in all the circumstances the conviction could not be regarded as unsafe. Appearances: James McCrindell (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Simon Gladwell (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Harrow) for the Crown. Reported by: Sharene Dewan-Leeson, Barrister

The 2006 Act gives ALL of the Emergency Services considerable powers to ensure they can fulfill their task(s) Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act. 2006. 2006 CHAPTER 39. An Act to make it an offence to obstruct or hinder persons who provide emergency services

Please remember this cat was in the wheely bin for many hours before the owner heard it crying out. Personally I hope the silly cow has to move mainly because she works in a bank. Maybe the bank will sack her for bringing them into disrepute, ironic or what

(Free) Advice for those employed in civil recovery:- read the following Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235 CA: Thomas LJ, Treacy, Saunders JJ: 17 August 2010 A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Divison) so held when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Gareth Hamer, against his conviction on 12 January 2010 by the Crown Court at Harrow, before Judge Holt and a jury, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had assaulted the complainant taxi driver after an evening out. The defendant pleaded self defence. He had no previous convictions or cautions, but had received a fixed penalty notice under s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for a minor public disorder matter, two months after the instant offence. After discussion between counsel and the judge regarding whether a good character direction should be given, the judge ruled that the jury should be told about the defendant’s penalty notice, but directed the jury that they might think it fairer to disregard it and treat him as of good character, and he gave the defendant a full good character direction. The defendant appealed on the ground that the judge had erred in admitting the fixed penalty notice, since it was not a criminal conviction and involved no admission of guilt. THOMAS LJ, delivering the judgment of the court, said that the fixed penalty notice scheme was a method of dealing with low level crime without the need to prove the offence and commission of it by the person to whom it was issued. It involved no admission of guilt, nor did it create a criminal record. The scheme went no further than that. If the notice was accepted, payment of the penalty provided that no further action could be taken. The notice was distinct from a caution, where commission of a crime was acknowledged. Its issue was not a form of justice, as justice normally included guilt. It was not a conviction, admission of guilt, any proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the persons character. It therefore followed that it was not admissible as an admission of an offence or of bad character in the sense of impugning the defendant’s character. It might be that in some cases the Crown might wish to adduce evidence regarding matters in respect of which the notice had been issued. Counsel for the Crown had not wished the issue of the notice to go before the jury, and it was only at the insistence of the judge that it had done. It was unfair to mention the notice without an attempt to call evidence regarding the circumstances of it. The notice was entirely irrelevant and ought to have been kept from the jury. However, since the defendant had no plausible explanation for the injuries caused to the complainant, in all the circumstances the conviction could not be regarded as unsafe. Appearances: James McCrindell (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Simon Gladwell (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Harrow) for the Crown. Reported by: Sharene Dewan-Leeson, Barrister

ADVICE FOR 'SECURITY' GUARDS ( those who employed in civil recovery) FPN's are NOT an admission of guilt & do NOT impugn on a persons character ..........period Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235 CA: Thomas LJ, Treacy, Saunders JJ: 17 August 2010 A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Divison) so held when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Gareth Hamer, against his conviction on 12 January 2010 by the Crown Court at Harrow, before Judge Holt and a jury, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had assaulted the complainant taxi driver after an evening out. The defendant pleaded self defence. He had no previous convictions or cautions, but had received a fixed penalty notice under s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for a minor public disorder matter, two months after the instant offence. After discussion between counsel and the judge regarding whether a good character direction should be given, the judge ruled that the jury should be told about the defendant’s penalty notice, but directed the jury that they might think it fairer to disregard it and treat him as of good character, and he gave the defendant a full good character direction. The defendant appealed on the ground that the judge had erred in admitting the fixed penalty notice, since it was not a criminal conviction and involved no admission of guilt. THOMAS LJ, delivering the judgment of the court, said that the fixed penalty notice scheme was a method of dealing with low level crime without the need to prove the offence and commission of it by the person to whom it was issued. It involved no admission of guilt, nor did it create a criminal record. The scheme went no further than that. If the notice was accepted, payment of the penalty provided that no further action could be taken. The notice was distinct from a caution, where commission of a crime was acknowledged. Its issue was not a form of justice, as justice normally included guilt. It was not a conviction, admission of guilt, any proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the persons character. It therefore followed that it was not admissible as an admission of an offence or of bad character in the sense of impugning the defendant’s character. It might be that in some cases the Crown might wish to adduce evidence regarding matters in respect of which the notice had been issued. Counsel for the Crown had not wished the issue of the notice to go before the jury, and it was only at the insistence of the judge that it had done. It was unfair to mention the notice without an attempt to call evidence regarding the circumstances of it. The notice was entirely irrelevant and ought to have been kept from the jury. However, since the defendant had no plausible explanation for the injuries caused to the complainant, in all the circumstances the conviction could not be regarded as unsafe. Appearances: James McCrindell (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Simon Gladwell (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Harrow) for the Crown. Reported by: Sharene Dewan-Leeson, Barrister

It was only a matter of time init!

SP Its probably you know who:lol:

I don't think so somehow

The message is clearly understood the problem is most don't understand whats being proposed. Some are proposing none payment of benefit if the claimants have more children therefore their solution, to follow its obvious outcome, is to neglect these kids to the point of starvation

Quite The problem is we have youngsters in government none of whom have fought a war to maintain democracy, most are 'researches' who have never even done a proper job in their lives

You are a tease TD

People rant about the 'cheats' but in order to control them they want to restrict all benefit claimants from doing things that most people take for granted Maybe we could start by having them doff their caps in public whilst repeating "thank you sir/madam" over & over again. Any kids over the 'allowed' quota should be left in the gutter just like they do in China For goodness sake has no one here any understanding of history. ALL of the suggestions being made have been tried resulting in millions of deaths in the last century alone Germany had serious debt problems inflation was rife so Hitler found someone to blame the infirm, the mentally handicapped, the gypsies and above all the Jews AND although most will not realize it or even accept it some of you are suggesting exactly the same sort of policies

Once again you make sweeping statements which demonstrate beyond doubt your lack of understanding. Also you didn't advise caution, I suggest you re-read your posts you made uninformed sweeping negative only statements whilst suggesting that I & others are plying for work. The OP will have to make up their own mind I just hope they haven't given any weight to your rubbish Incidentally (your) sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit

Overinsuring building costs serves no purpose whatsoever & is a complete waste of money as the ACTUAL building costs will only be met Contents are another matter also any high value item MUST be specified (usually supported by a receipt) before cover will be given & if it ain't it won't be paid

Whenever you deal with retailer, utility etc & are asked for personal details birthday, phone no' etc refuse telling them you have no intention of allowing them to data farm. I recently phone TS & they asked for me dob! I refused pointing it was against my principals to give such personal information to strangers a point she accepted & we continued with my complaint Also these help sites which purport to keep an eye on your credit file do just that but at a cost as when you apply on the grounds of 'security' they demand even more information & you being a trusting soul give it resulting in 'others' having access