Marstons/TV licence again...

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Some court staff need a good hard kick up the arse, BB. They cannot seem to accept the ECHRunderpins every piece of legislation enacted in the UK since 1953. It is no good Parliament enacting legislation that is incompatible with ECHR/HRA as judges can slap Certificates of Incompatibility on primary legislation and strike-down secondary legislation.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Some court staff need a good hard kick up the arse, BB. They cannot seem to accept the ECHRunderpins every piece of legislation enacted in the UK since 1953. It is no good Parliament enacting legislation that is incompatible with ECHR/HRA as judges can slap Certificates of Incompatibility on primary legislation and strike-down secondary legislation.

Well MOJ had better be afraid regarding the whole TCGA 2007 EA loving stitch up then, as it unravels in the fullness of time.

OP should have their stst dec accepted as it is now becoming obvious Crapita should not be allowed to initiate criminal prosecutions, too many dodgy summonses and bent goons.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

That is easily dealt with, BB. If Capita/TVL is sent copies of Section 6 and Article 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 each time they pull a stunt, they will soon realise they are being told something.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

That is easily dealt with, BB. If Capita/TVL is sent copies of Section 6 and Article 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 each time they pull a stunt, they will soon realise they are being told something.

Capita now regard themselves as Invincible and Untouchable unfortunately, too many fingers in too many pies. They even brainwash Magistrates with training courses on TV License enforcement

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Capita now regard themselves as Invincible and Untouchable unfortunately, too many fingers in too many pies.

They have become complacent. That is good. They will make blunders that people will notice and won't keep quiet about.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

They have become complacent. That is good. They will make blunders that people will notice and won't keep quiet about.

They will certainly mess up with Equita and Ross 'n Robbers and council tax, so hopefully TVL will be surplus and the TV Tax abolished killing one cash cow for them and marstons group. HMCS would miss the income also though as HM Treasury thinks it should turn a profit.

Hopefully after a Stat Dec Crapita will withdraw action on OP.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Having spoken to individual HMCTS staff, BB, there appears to be a consensus of view, privately, that there should be greater scrutiny of applications for summonses and warrants of entry. The most problematic are Warrants of Entry for energy providers as it is becoming clear many warrants are not authorised by the courts. Many are found to bear a smudged signature and court stamps. And when courts are questioned as to when the applications took place, they have no record. Doesn't take much to work out what is going on.

As far as hearings in absentia go, Capita/TV Licensing and DVLA are the biggest culprits. Strictly speaking, hearings in absentia are unlawful, even though Parliament has legitimised them for convenience. Section 6 and Article 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 refers. The ability of Capita/TV Licensing and DVLA to initiate prosecutions must cease. One solution might be to go back to the practice of magistrates courts issuing summonses and warrant after scrutiny by a DJ, DDJ or JP.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

That is easily dealt with, BB. If Capita/TVL is sent copies of Section 6 and Article 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 each time they pull a stunt, they will soon realise they are being told something.

Interesting tactic BB, and does this stop them in there tracks given that that their actions have been "parliament enacted" ?

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Interesting tactic BB, and does this stop them in there tracks given that that their actions have been "parliament enacted" ?

Are you suggesting that not informing people of hearings has been sanctioned by Parliament through the legislative process? I don't think so.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Are you suggesting that not informing people of hearings has been sanctioned by Parliament through the legislative process? I don't think so.

No I am suggesting that it has been found to be compatible and that legislation permits it, so if you are saying it dose not you are going to have to raise a case for the revision of the legislation.

I am also saying that the enforcement industry is likely to follow the legislation until this occurs and probably not take much notice of your referral to the HR legislation.
EDIT and yes people must be informed but this I believe is in the legislation.(statute)

[Guest]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Some court staff need a good hard kick up the arse, BB. They cannot seem to accept the ECHRunderpins every piece of legislation enacted in the UK since 1953. It is no good Parliament enacting legislation that is incompatible with ECHR/HRA as judges can slap Certificates of Incompatibility on primary legislation and strike-down secondary legislation.

Sorry this was the comment I was more interested in, particularity the remark abut it being"no good parliament enacting legislation", I wonder if you could elaborate further why it is you think that legislation is "no good" in this sense.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

It doesn't say that at all. It says, "It is no good Parliament enacting legislation that is incompatible with ECHR/HRA as judges can slap Certificates of Incompatibility on primary legislation and strike-down secondary legislation." In layman's terms, "What is the point of the politicians introducing laws that the courts are going to rule breach human rights and either make them more difficult to enforce or not at all." A government that passes laws which breach human rights is not a democratic government - it is a dictatorship.

[Guest]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

It doesn't say that at all. It says, "It is no good Parliament enacting legislation that is incompatible with ECHR/HRA as judges can slap Certificates of Incompatibility on primary legislation and strike-down secondary legislation." In layman's terms, "What is the point of the politicians introducing laws that the courts are going to rule breach human rights and either make them more difficult to enforce or not at all." A government that passes laws which breach human rights is not a democratic government - it is a dictatorship.

I see , so you are saying that "judges " have overruled legislation in this regard on the grounds that it contravenes HR rules.

I find this interesting as I have not heard of these cases, and I would have thought they would have been quite important decisions, as they would presumably resulted in the legislation being amended withdrawn or revoked, could you link to them for us.

EDIT Sorry for the edit, could you also link to show that judges at this level have the authority to over ride statute in this way.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

I see , so you are saying taht "judges " have overruled legislation in this regard on the grounds that it contravenes HR rules.

I find this interesting as I have not heard of these cases, and I would have thought they would have been quite important decisions, as they would presumably resulted in the legislation being amended withdrawn or revoked, could you link to them for us.

I am not going to waste my energy even trying to explain things to you because, clearly, you do not want to listen and, clearly, do not understand the issues. So what is the point of answering your questions?

[Guest]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

I only ask bout the judges authority to override statute on HR because I was under the impression that this could only be done at the highest level, in Wilson it was considered by the Lords for instance.

To me it seems a bit pointless having statute if a judge can just over rule it.