I'm facing trial for fraud. It involves a receipt I have for a cash
payment. It has been alleged that I tricked someone into signing it.
I'm happy with my legal team, but I wondered if anyone else has a
different perspective, or any insight into my situation.

The police have faked 2 seperate pieces of evidence.

The first piece of "evidence" is a copy of the receipt in question
"found" on my computer - dated 3 days after it was signed ! ! ! :
1. polices' own IT expert confirmed date & time on my computer were...

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:45:57 +0100, Grapet1 wrote:

Didn't he start off saying he was getting married 'this weekend', hence
the two weeks away would be his honeymoon - and possibly the last relaxed
time they get to spend together for a while...

This is a not-very hypothetical question from an academic rather than
practical view.

If a landlord advertises a property, and the tenant accepts the tenancy
on the basis of that advert (without inspecting first), does the tenant
have any comeback if the property is not as advertised but they don't
incur any real costs.

The example in question is a house advertised as detached but which
turned out to be semi-detached. The tenant is then stuck with a fixed
term lease for something that they didn't really want.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:00:17 +0100, The Todal wrote:

A large british telecommunications company has charged me some 200GBP
for work they carried out which I think should have been done at their
cost. About 3 months into the dispute (which I did raise here, but it
created little legal interest) they withdrew the price of this work from
my bank account by direct debit (which they hold for the purpose of
paying regular bills) without my permission. I have had several
conversations with their representatives, made difficult by their poor
English comprehension and my deafness. At one point I specifically
mentioned to them that not only did I dispute the fact I owed them money
but that they should not have implied to my bank that they had my
permission to take the money (presumably a breach of their contract with
the bank). About two months ago I had a letter from them promising to
pay me back the money but not addressing whether they were withdrawing
the claim or merely regularising their position with respect to the
direct debit guarantee the banks and user companies promise to abide by.
Needless to say (did I mention that they were a large b. t. company?) I
have not received the money. I do not want to bring the bank into this
dispute. Can I usefully sue for the return of my money on the grounds
the original debt was not valid? Does their breach of the direct debit
guarantee affect my case at all, or is it best to ignore this in my ...

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:15:12 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:

In message , Periander
<4rubbish@britwar.co.uk> writes

Your honour, I object!

First, no it does not mean that he *will* get a barrister to argue his
case. Apart from the fact that many solicitors do their own Crown Court
advocacy these days, we also have a growing number of barristers who are
not prepared to work for the fees on offer from legal aid. I remember
hearing of one from the provinces, when the current fee schemes came in,
who was most distressed that it would reduce his earnings from about
£200,000 a year to only £70,000.

Secondly, I have seen crap barristers, and I have seen excellent
solicitor advocates. And vice versa. I don't think there is anything
close to a general rule that barristers will be better.

Greetings all,

I have a question about how social clubs are regulated.

I am a member of a social club that meets up once or twice a month for
drinks and then several times a year organises an outing or day trip.
I have concerns about how it is run and the legal implication thereof.

I think it best to demonstrate my concerns in list form.

- Membership fees are £25 p.a.
- There are now over 500 members.
- We get nothing for our £25, bar an occasional email newsletter.
- All events and meetings are paid for by members as they attend, no
part...

In Ofcom's ruling on the `Great Global Warming Swindle' [1], they say
amongst other things that (pdf page 20 onwards) (paraphrased):

The view promulgated by parts 1-4 of the programme, that climate
change is not man-made, was settled as a falsehood by the time the
programme was made. In their view, because the question was settled,
it wasn't a matter of controversy.

This seems to lead to the absurd situation that an opinion which is
generally accepted as false is regarded by Ofcom as less
controversial, and more suitable for broadcasting in the form of an
allegedly factual polemic, as compared with an opinion on a subject
about which there are wide differences of opinion.

That is, it is more OK for C4 to broadcast something utterly wrong
than something doubtful.

Could this be a subject of a successful judicial review challenge ?

[1] http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114/issue114.pdf

"Norman Wells" myarl.co.uk> writes:

Is this situation not analogous to the one, often mentioned, of a
parked car being ticketed for not displaying a 'pay and display' ticket
when it has fallen off the windscreen or is on the dashboard etc? In
both situations a valid ticket is held but is not displayed/presented to
the official in the desired manner.