Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

1689 BILL OF RIGHTS
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2214		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  McDeHack [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:23 pm ]
Post subject:  1689 BILL OF RIGHTS
Bill of rights 1689. Has anyone heard or know of them? What it simply is, that amongst these rights, there is a law that you cannot be forced to pay a ‘Penalty charge notice’ as under this bill, a person cannot be fined or payment demanded unless they have been convicted in a court of law.

I read about this some while ago. Last week I received a PCN for parking whist having a pee at the West Smithfield toilets. :shock:

Of course I am appealing and apart from other questions that I asked I have quoted the ‘Bill of rights 1689’ stating that the PCN is illegal. :twisted:

Bets are now being taken at good odds whether I get away with out paying. :lol:

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1689billofrights.html
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm not sure about that act, but if nothing else it will confuse the f*** out of them.

The lad in Edinburgh got off his fine when he was doing like-wise, but if you are trying to be complicated then why not try the Human Rights Act and/or Health and Safety legislation.

In that having a wee is a human right, and it would have been dangerous for your customers (and youself) if you hadn't done the deed at that time, at that place. :wink:
Author:  McDeHack [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have found the site where I first heard of this.

http://www.garbagegate/archive5/penalty2.htm

If they want my cash they will have to work for it as I had to.

P.S. The above link is not working.
Author:  TDO [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Isn't it the case that with a penalty notice you can go to court if you want, but most people don't?

Thus to that extent the Bill of Rights is irrelevant?
Author:  McDeHack [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Not on this PCN. It seems that if everyone did this the courts system would get fouled up.
By the way this was a camera that caught me.

I first heard of this on that 'garbagegate' site. where a guy has done this and after 2 years is still waiting.

www.garbagegate.co.uk
Archive 5 No more fines.
Author:  steptoe [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Did you also know that it is illegal for anyone, even an office clamper to clamp your car.

Your car is your own personal possesion which belongs to you, if anyone gets in it or does something to it then it is classed as trespassing.

To have your car clamped you need to be seen to be giving permission for the clamper to clamp. Usually there is a big sign in a no clamping area for all to see, with a sign like this then you are basically giving permission to be clamped in that area because the sign says so.

If there is no sign then the person/company that clamps you is breaking the law. There is said to be another way around this too in as such that if you put stickers on your car denying permission for your car to be clamped then regardless as to whether there is a big sign warning of clamping you still cannot be clamped as you have already denied permission to do so.

The law is a strange one...
Author:  GBC [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mac, Check out the report from Mike SON on the DAC cicuit.

http://www.dac-callsign.com/05/Jul05/page12.html
Author:  Guest [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
steptoe wrote:
If there is no sign then the person/company that clamps you is breaking the law.

i think the best way out is to just spray paint the sign out.
then they have no excuse.
but wash any residue off your hands first. :wink:
Author:  TDO [ Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:51 am ]
Post subject: 
McDeHack wrote:
Not on this PCN. It seems that if everyone did this the courts system would get fouled up.
By the way this was a camera that caught me.

I first heard of this on that 'garbagegate' site. where a guy has done this and after 2 years is still waiting.

www.garbagegate.co.uk
Archive 5 No more fines.


An article from the Independent basically anticipates the defence I mentioned above.

I suspect a court would rule that because a person has recourse to a tribunal, and can appeal to a higher court after that, then the penalty is legitimate.

It's a bit like our quasi-judicial council committees - they're clearly not independent, but because there's an appeal to a higher court, they're deemed OK and need not be indpependent.

But who knows :?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/