Thanks for the reply. I have just been offered the chance to go on a "Speed Awareness Course" and thereby avoid a £100 fine and 3 points (but will have to take the day-off and pay £60+ for the course). I am tempted to take this route as it's the easier option, however... I am adamant I wasn't speeding and that someone's made a cock-up. The question is, if I go to court, will the 'evidence' support my assertion that I wasn't speeding? As i've said before, I believe the cameras clocked the car that was overtaking me and that the speeding has been mis-attributed to my car. If this is indeed the case, will the evidence substantiate this? If I take it to court I am running the risk of incurring additional costs and additional penalty points. I can't run the risk of losing. Am I going to have a difficult time challenging the photographic evidence ( I am alleged to have been doing 73mph in a 60mph limit - I assert I was doing no more than 58mph) or will this 'live HQ video' be able to clearly vindicate me?

My speedo was registering 57mph or 58mph - but as we all know, speedos are calibrated to show a higher reading than the the real speed. On this particular car the speedo shows a reading which is 9% more than actual speed. Iam adamant I wasn't speeding, and that I wasn't even doing 61mph (let alone 73mph). I know this bit of road like the back of my hand and the speed camera traps en route and I remember this particular day very clearly. Someone has made a cock-up, and I know it's not me. So I have to fight to get to see the 'evidence' against me! Doesn't sound right. Sounds very arbitrary.

I was driving within the 60mph speed limit, I am 100% certain of this. I think my speed was around 56mph. However, i've just received a Speeding Ticket which says I was doing 73mph! Iam, of course, not very happy. I think the probable explanation is that I am getting the rap for a vehicle that was overtaking me at the time the speed camera (in the back of the Police Van) came into view, ie. a simple case of vehicle of misidentification. (The other possible explanation is that there was an error, either technical or human, in the way the camera was operated). Can anyone advise me how to proceed from here. I don't see myself being able to afford a solicitor. I would like to see the 'evidence' that the police have against me - can I phone them tomorrow and ask for this? Can someone give me the idea how to go on.

I dont understand your comments rebel11. A 16 year old can go into a pub and alcohol is accessible to him by this definition - but it's not illegal for a 16 year old to go into a pub! In the scenario we are talking about, a mother has come to the stall, been given a sample, turned their back, had a sip and said how lovely it is, and kiddo has dipped a finger in it. How can a vendor be responsible for this,commonsense says its the mothers' responsibility surely? And when you have a lot of customers its not possible to pour out a sample each time, you pour out 10 or 20 and lay them on the stall. I think the bobbies were wrong. More comments please.

My friend was selling bottles of a Bailey's style alcoholic drink at a big agricultural show. Part of his sales pitch is to offer free, thimble sized samples to prospective buyers. On a number of occasions the young child of a prospective buyer would dip a finger into this tasty caramel-flavored drink and this led to the police turning up to the stall three times (probably at the behest of a rival trader). The police told my friend that, as the vendor, he was responsible for this, and if it happened again the stall would be shut down and he would be prosecuted. How come? In my mind the parent is responsible, it's impossible for him to keep an eye on everything thats going on. Bear in mind these were free samples, he wasnt selling alcohol to the public to be drunk there and then. Were the bobbies right about this and if so how come? Or is it a simple case of an uneducated bobby thinking they know the law when they dont. Advice please.

Thanks Rachel. Its as I thought. I think you sum it up well. Shafted. Anyone else got anything to say about this matter?

Ok, so back to my original point. I am being messed around by the 'employer', there is no consideration for the impact this has on me (work might stop but bills keep coming). Am I entitled to redress and what form might this take?

You talk about 'contractural position' but im not aware of a contract as such. My understanding is that the email offer of work for 8 weeks starting the first of the month which I was required to accept or decline amounts to a contract or 'the contract'

I am a freelance employee. I was offered and accepted 8 weeks freelance work starting at the beginning of the month. But 2 days prior to commencement the work was put on hold for three weeks. This threw me completely, my bills kept coming through, but I was on my backside unable to earn. I have now started the work, its been underway for 28 days, but in that time the work has twice, at no notice, been put on hold for 3 days as the project is ahead of schedule. So long as im not working i'm not earning so every day counts. When I initially accepted the work offer I was advised that it was continuous from a certain date. I have this in writing. But the work is coming on a very ad hoc basis. I am now getting into financial difficulty. Do I have any redress?

Ive just had my first "Parking Charge Notice" from Parking Eye for parking in Aldi. If I don't pay this will this make for problems when I park in this particular car park in future?

I was notified in mid-January that my Driving Licence was due for renewal on the 25th March, so I renewed it straight away. However I was really p*ss*d off to see that my new licence commences (and thereby expires 10 years after) from the time they received my new application, the 20th January rather than the the 25th March. This is like some sort of fraud or theft. I dont believe government should be doing this. (With MOT's there's a 1 month crossover period). To think that when I got my paper licence as a teenager is was supposed to last for life. Now I have to pay £20+ every 10 years for the privilege of being ripped-off by the DVLA. Would appreciate any comments or advice on this, especially as to the legality of what they are doing. Did I miss the small-print?

Here's a clue - im fixed on two masts - one slightly north of Dublin, the other south !

Hi Buzby, you have a quote in your message - 'installation of a TV receiver capable of displaying licenced broadcasts'. Can you tell me where you got that quote from. On the TV licensing website it says "you do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console". This contradict that advice

I live in the UK but am not tuned and dont watch UK TV. I get my TV from southern Ireland, from their (terrestial analogue) network. In this situation am I required to have a UK TV licence?

Did I rephrase it badly or something?

I'll rephrase it then - "Are solicitors legally required to pass on the paperwork to their client if requested by the client to do so?"

Some great advice/ comments in this thread. For the time being would appreciate comment re the above question

I will check this out with my friend. I thought solicitors were legally required to pass on the paperwork to their client if requested by the client to do so.

No Commonsense tells me supermarket must be liable in some way to some degree, if not fully liable. I would like some clarification on this from the forum.

The lawyer is withdrawing. I dont know why. The more information, data and fact the better, for two reasons: (1) it will provide my friend with some much needed encouragement to go on and (2) it will be ammo to give the legal agent a kick up the backside

Iam writing this on behalf of a friend. His wife went into a supermarket and a heavy bottle fell from a top shelf onto her head. Whether or not she was knocked unconscious i'm not sure, but she certainly had concussion and has suffered serious memory loss ever since, that's for 18 months now. Well, the supermarket accepts the incident took place but they are disclaiming any responsibility. They are saying that the reason the item fell was because an earlier (unidentified) customer had removed the item from the packaging and then failed to put it back properly and it was as a result of this action the bottle toppled off the shelf - it was not the consequence of the negligence of a supermarket employee. Therefore, the supermarket says, they are absolved of any responsibility or liability. This sounds like a load of nonsense to me. But the 'no win, no fee' lawyer has decided to withdraw from the case. My friend is trying to care for someone with serious memory loss and at the same time in a very depressed and distressed state. Help please. What's the situation vis-a-vis the supremarket and responsibility? Can anyone cite any law or precedent. It would be helpful to have this to refer this to the lawyer.