Jump to content

caledfwlch

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,922
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

caledfwlch last won the day on June 27 2012

caledfwlch had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

412 Excellent

About caledfwlch

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. The arrogance of Channel 5 is astounding. In the BBC article I read summing this up, The C5 Producer claimed in Court that Mr Ali DID provide consent.. because he "talked to the production team" erm, yes, saying "what the hell are you doing in my house, please stop filming!" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43155289 From the wording, it also appears that Channel 5 believes talking to the Enforcement Agent who has turned up to evict you somehow constitutes consent to not only film you, but to then transmit it on a nationwide channel, at prime time to 10 million viewers.... I woul
  2. Out of interest, which part of the law allows the filming, even by BWV on private property without the permission of the property owner/tenant or the people on site? And of course, which part of the law allows commercial film crews to attend enforcements with Enforcement Officers? I don't see the bits that allow an EA to have "assistance" would cover it - any sane mind reading that regulation would read it as assistance to enforce - the presence of a commercial film crew, making a tv show for profit is not in any way assisting the EA. It would just be nice if it turns out that film cr
  3. the thing that shocked me, is Dublin City Council appears to have re-established the post of Bailiff - people must be up in arms over it, there is a lot of baggage attached to both the Role/Name, Hence the Republic never having had them before. it's ironic that they have brought them in, thinking they are going to be Safe (Bailiffs were considered valid targets in the North by the IRA, no reason why they wouldnt in the South) Given all the problems and scandals in the UK over it, i am amazed they decided this was the right solution. New York City also has bailiffs now too - called "New Y
  4. This is an interesting thread. And it has shown up that the rights, both real, imagined, and "nice to have" of the citizen have not been crushed by the Law, but simply ignored in favour of Profit primarily to private companies, and secondarily to LA's etc. It's why we wont get a Northern Irish style system, because NI's is efficient, and works. Efficient & Works does not = private profit.
  5. Its the arrogance that still gets me!! Bohill was so sure he would not face sanction for illegal entry he was happy to have it shown primetime. If an EA acts beyond his powers/warrant then he surely commits a criminal offence? Assault and criminal trespass or something
  6. No, they would have your name, address, any previous addresses, date of birth and any other information to hand! You cannot easily trace someone if all you have is "John Smith" and an old address. And it is logical that they would have to show where they received any information from, Credit Reference Agencies have to show where the data on you came from, the names of debt collectors, creditors etc. What if you suspected the Company of getting your info using unlawful means, or is selling your data to marketing companies without your permission? Only way to prove it is to demand the
  7. For some reason, despite the fact that Judges are railing against, and are livid about them, the massive unjustifiable Fee Increases in the Civil Court System are not setting the media on fire like the Criminal Court Charge! And these increases need to be made as public as possible, as they are basically removing the ability of people on low, and real average incomes to get Civil Justice on things such as debt, making the County Courts the purview of the well off, and companies. I don't recall the specific figures, but 1 Judge has said the old fee of something like £250 for a simple uncon
  8. As far as I know, you are entitled to SAR any Company or Organisation that holds or has held your data, so Ace1 would break the law and risk fines if they refused to comply with a SAR, any and every organisation is liable to the Data Protection Legislation and must disclose Data, no matter if gathering that data will cost more than £10, only the NHS and GP Surgery's have a fee exemption that allows them to charge £50. Ace1 would of course be very, very silly if they tried to wing it and for whatever reason denied they have the details of the OP since he has a card from them! It occu
  9. This needs to be taken to the Supreme Court, it is totally unreasonable to expect people already having debt and payment problems to be the only people responsible for covering pension issues - if they added a similar figure to council tax for everyone, there would be absolute uproar. It would be like the MOJ decreeing that Magistrates add a £10 "MOJ Pension Deficit" Charge to anyone convicted of a crime, since expecting the poor to pick up the tab seems the new thing.
  10. WHat is the legality of the "4th party" Ace1 passing private information such as phone numbers to Newlyns? And under what part of the DPA etc allows these tracing companies to accept private personal information and trace? What is stopping these tracing companies from selling the data they receive on behalf of the likes of Newlyn to other companies?
  11. So basically, under the new regulations, there is absolutely no such thing as a "vulnerable" debtor anymore... That, no matter how vulnerable you are, or what health problems, it stays with the bullies. Er I mean Bailiffs...
  12. This is extraordinary! Why should only debtors be, or at all responsible for Pension issues the Council is having? It's like when Banks tried to justify their Penalty Charges by claiming "shoe leather" for staff walking from their computer to the office printer, and "light bulbs" Clearly another member of the Judiciary has sadly been bought, or quietly encouraged to give the "right" judgement, regardless.
  13. It is possible that the CPS simply could not prove "Mens Rea" - Guilty Mind, that the Defendants claimed they didn't believe they were committing a theft, as they believed they still lawfully owned the car, therefore were not intending to deprive a lawful owner of his or her property, its possible. It's why specific legislation like "Taking without Consent" was introduced, in the 60's people would often "borrow" a car to get home and claim they were only borrowing and intended to return the vehicle, and thus under the existing legislation of the time, Guilty Mind/Intent to permanently de
  14. The EA Firm presumably became aware very quickly that the matter had become a Police issue, they should be done for disposing evidence of a crime if the footage has been deleted. The Police Non Help and indeed refusal to even investigate as is standard when a Bailiff is involved means that I think anyone in a similar situation should covertly record their attempts at reporting the alleged crime, and hopefully the Constable, Sgt or Inspector claiming its a "civil matter" when it is clearly not, and imediately try and escalate it to a higher authority at the Station, and also straight in co
×
×
  • Create New...