Silly Question?

[pjdudley69]

This may sound silly, but I've been reading quite alot of the posts, faq's, etc, and noticed that these bank charges are unlawful, rather than illegal. Could someone possibly explain the difference, as I always thought they were the same thing? As I said, it probably sounds silly to most, but I'd really appreciate it.

 

Thanks

[Spiceskull]

As a layperson a judge would not expect most people to know the difference as they both effectively mean "against the law, or not allowed by law"

 

However, a judge will decide whether the charges are lawful or not, and as the banks don't want to go there (court) then it becomes an academic issue.

 

If you follow the wording in the library templates, you will get your money...

 

Good luck.

[rivendale0506]

Unlawful:

1 : not lawful : not authorized or justified by law

2 : acting contrary to or in defiance of the law

 

Illegal:

Prohibited by law.

 

In real terms, these are pretty much synonyms, but in perception, the difference is an assumed willfulness.

 

It could be argued that the banks allegedly are not aware that they're going against the law by imposing penalty charges (not an acceptable defence in court, by the way!), and that they are therefore guilty of ignorance rather than intent. It doesn't deter from their guilt, it just might make it a bit morally more acceptable to some.

 

Hope this helps

[BankFodder]

search on "unlawful" and "illegal"

 

this queston has come up many times. The only reason that it is a silly question is that it has been answered already so often

[John-JCs]

search on "unlawful" and "illegal"

 

this queston has come up many times. The only reason that it is a silly question is that it has been answered already so often

Well, aren't you just one happy banker?

 

The difference is all down to statutes and acts and the legality thereof.

The legal definition of a statute is "the legislative rule of a society" (society being defined as a group, or groups, of people giving consent to be governed).

Policing by consent is a powerful thing. Don't let acquiescence of tacit consent rule your life

 

Two questions I love to wind police up with:

1 - Am I under arrest?

2 - Am I free to go?

 

If no is answered to both of the above questions, you're a slave according to any laws you subscribe to (UCC, statutes, common law et al).

[Gick]

John-Jcs,

 

It is good to see you on the thread 'Re Silly Question?' as you have posted many.

 

In other threads you have admitted that your 5 years 'studying law' amounts to simply reading legal books. To study law requires a structured course at University, College or by Correspondence, set by those who know more than you. The point is that reading on your own fails to put the content into context and consequently miss rebuttals of argument. It can be likened to shotgun vs rifle.

 

Two questions I love to wind police up with:1 - Am I under arrest? 2 - Am I free to go? It would not wind up the Police as they would know their powers and would not be taken in by such a puerile attempt.

Had you read adequately, you would know that legislation permits an officer to detain someone for various reasons and purposes (PACE - drug search is one) whereas arrest also permits the officer to remove a person to another location. It also permits physical restraint which is not available when being detained for any of the purposes noted.

 

Policing by consent is a powerful thing. Don't let acquiescence of tacit consent rule your life Perhaps you meant acquiescence to tacit consent.

 

I too know the difference between the words illegal and unlawful, which again out of context, is a matter of semantics, but then I have had some formal training.

[pjdudley69]

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group