hairdresser fined 27k for breaches

Status
Not open for further replies.


Frijj said:
Stuck a sign in her window saying she had the right to ignore restrictions because of the Magna Carta 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...

Regrettably, there are a number of peddlers of legal woo who have misled people like this woman into believing all manner of gibberish.

One of the foundational propositions for these people is that only the common law is binding and that for statute law to be binding on a person requires their consent. There are a number of flaws to that argument and its relations, which were expertly demolished by Alberta Associate Chief Justice Brooke in the case of Meads -v- Meads, which has been cited across the English speaking world as an answer to this kind of nonsense. It is a long judgment, but worth a read if you are interested in that kind of thing.

The more fundamental problem with the woosters theories is that even if they are correct*, it doesn't matter. The legislative, executive and judicial branches of government believe that statute law is supreme, and they have the will and the resources to take away the liberty and possessions of people who think otherwise. There is no well-resourced protector of the common law's majesty who will rescue them from prison or return their stuff to them.

It is very sad. The fines could well destroy her business. And for what? A misguided notion and a few tenners from those brave enough to venture out for a blue rinse in one of England's current COVID hotspots.

I used to see this kind of stuff all the time early in my career. People who whose creditors would have given them all the breathing space they needed, instead were landed with court jugments where the costs far exceed the original debts. All because they'd run some stupid point about Admiralty jurisdiction or the "3-letter process"**. One bloke lost his house because he had stopped paying the mortgage, not because he couldn't pay. It was because he had been convinced that the mortgage wasn't valid if the Bank couldn't produce the original mortgage deed as signed on behalf of the Bank. The judge disagreed and booted him out.*** The guy had kids. He could afford to pay. He just wouldn't because he believed a stranger on the internet. Sigh.

* They are not correct. It is absolute bollocks
** The 3 letter process is along the following lines: You send a letter saying "give me this list of obviously non-existent things or I don't owe you anything". If the bank doesn't respond or doesn't give you the obviously non-existent things, you send a second letter "You haven't given me the list of obviously non-existent things I demended, so I don't owe you anything. If you don't respond, I definately don't owe you anything." The third letter repeats similar kinds of guff and ends with "Ha ha, you are now estopped!". None of them know what "estopped" means or (more importanly) that a debtor sending letters saying "I don't owe you anything" or "If you don't do X, I don't owe you anything" does not engage the doctrine of estoppel.
*** Hopefully for obvious reasons. Mortgage deeds are usually done in 2 documents. The one signed on behalf of the bank is given to the borrower. The one signed by the borrower is givent to the bank. It is hardly surprsing that the bank didn't have the original document signed on its behalf.
 
Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in RTGs privacy policy. I do not give @Roger or any entities associated with RTG permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to RTG it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: RTG is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste.
 
She will get her day in court and I will be interested to see how she gets on.

Some fines have ben thrown out but this seems pretty clear.
 
Frijj said:
Stuck a sign in her window saying she had the right to ignore restrictions because of the Magna Carta 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
Because of Magna Carta (no the).
chunkylover53 said:
I’m invoking the Magna Carta defence in future. Combine it with breaking the law in a specific and limited way, and doing what’s best for my family and I’m sorted
Click to expand...
No ‘the’, your defence will fail.
 
Last edited:
chunkylover53 said:
Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in RTGs privacy policy. I do not give @Roger or any entities associated with RTG permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to RTG it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: RTG is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste.
Click to expand...
Facebook?
 
chunkylover53 said:
Deadline tomorrow !!! Everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in RTGs privacy policy. I do not give @Roger or any entities associated with RTG permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to RTG it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute). NOTE: RTG is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste.
Click to expand...
You been on not606 again? ;)
 
Saw a video on Facebook of some daft twat on Facebook citing the same shite handing out pamphlets of his rights to two lasses from the council who'd come to ask what the fuck he thought he was doing.

"I don't have to tell you who I am, I don't have to give you my name" while these lasses are stood there thinking what a fuckin tit.
 
dangermows said:
@SAFCOldie reckons you can't enforce it.
Click to expand...
Albeit a different situation I said they don't want these things going to court. There umpteen challenges pending Or delayed waiting for a day in court. For all we know this lass has backing to get to this position for the court case, I suppose we will find out if she is not prosecuted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top