oh and btw i am sorry for not telling my source
http://forums.petfinder.my/showthread.php?t=1988
oh look the same wording as you found must be very common then
Meet Swingers
Entertainment
Latest Members
Fun and Games
Information
Shopping
Site Stats
- Members:
- 1,389,800
- Online Now:
- 2,079
- Msgs Sent:
- 157,443,077
- Photo Ads:
- 745,630
- User Pics:
- 579,536
- Video Chat:
- 171
so you dont think the sun on sunday is coming out soon then?
oh and btw i am sorry for not telling my source
http://forums.petfinder.my/showthread.php?t=1988
oh look the same wording as you found must be very common then
oh and btw i am sorry for not telling my source
http://forums.petfinder.my/showthread.php?t=1988
oh look the same wording as you found must be very common then
starlightcouple wrote:
are they reely dave? well well i never knew that
are they reely dave? well well i never knew that
You stated that it was not a proper court. I can only take you at your word. If you are wrong then you are wrong, simple as.
starlightcouple wrote:
just in case any one else does not know the differance then have a look at this usefull bit of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28common_law%29
Civil law, as opposed to criminal law, is the branch of law dealing with disputes between individuals and/or organizations, in which compensation may be awarded to the victim. For instance, if a car crash victim claims damages against the driver for loss or injury sustained in an accident, this will be a civil law case.
just in case any one else does not know the differance then have a look at this usefull bit of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28common_law%29
Civil law, as opposed to criminal law, is the branch of law dealing with disputes between individuals and/or organizations, in which compensation may be awarded to the victim. For instance, if a car crash victim claims damages against the driver for loss or injury sustained in an accident, this will be a civil law case.
Does that prove it is not a proper court then
I just read it, and it backs up my point that it is a proper court
starlightcouple wrote:
i am lerning on here that anything you say gets taken out of all context and used against the poster.
i am lerning on here that anything you say gets taken out of all context and used against the poster.
So you never said it wasn't a proper court then? I am sorry Star. I must have misread "it was also done in a proper court with proper powers and not a civil court with no powers other than to hand out fines or compenssations."
Are you saying it is or is not a proper court? Show me where I took your post out of context Star.
starlightcouple wrote:
i reely need to start catching on a bit quicker.
i reely need to start catching on a bit quicker.
You know already Star
starlightcouple wrote:
no wonder so many peeple do not post on here any more and why so many peeple just cannot be bothered for feer of some one slapping them down if they dare to make the slightest mistake when posting some thing.
no wonder so many peeple do not post on here any more and why so many peeple just cannot be bothered for feer of some one slapping them down if they dare to make the slightest mistake when posting some thing.
People post something wrong, which gets pointed out by another member and they no longer want to post. Perhaps they do not want to make an arse of themselves again, or possibly do not know how to say they were wrong and move on
lots of reasons why people don't post anymore. Their life, their choice.
starlightcouple wrote:
i shall ask the question to GNV can you be sent to prison by a civil court for a civil law matter?
i shall ask the question to GNV can you be sent to prison by a civil court for a civil law matter?
No
But if you breach a Civil Court injunction it will then go to a criminal court to be dealt with.
Criminal and Civil are not seperate. They form part of the whole. If you read the whole link from Wikipedia that you posted it will show you how it all fits in......but you will need to press some of the connecting links to get the full story
I have to deal with something under Criminal Law, that then gets seen in a Civil Court, and if breached gets dealt with in a Criminal Court. Who said law was simple
Dave_Notts
Last edited by on 31st Jul 2011 - 7:06pm; edited 1 time in total
Dave__Notts wrote:
People post something wrong, which gets pointed out by another member and they no longer want to post. Perhaps they do not want to make an arse of themselves again, or possibly do not know how to say they were wrong and move on lots of reasons why people don't post anymore. Their life, their choice.
Dave_Notts
People post something wrong, which gets pointed out by another member and they no longer want to post. Perhaps they do not want to make an arse of themselves again, or possibly do not know how to say they were wrong and move on
lots of reasons why people don't post anymore. Their life, their choice.
Dave_Notts
yet you still come back for more dave
Lizaleanrob wrote:
yet you still come back for more dave
Dave__Notts wrote:
People post something wrong, which gets pointed out by another member and they no longer want to post. Perhaps they do not want to make an arse of themselves again, or possibly do not know how to say they were wrong and move on lots of reasons why people don't post anymore. Their life, their choice.
Dave_Notts
People post something wrong, which gets pointed out by another member and they no longer want to post. Perhaps they do not want to make an arse of themselves again, or possibly do not know how to say they were wrong and move on
lots of reasons why people don't post anymore. Their life, their choice.
Dave_Notts
yet you still come back for more dave
When I am wrong I admit it. When I am not I watch others cry, flounce and make silly remarks.
It shows their character, not mine Lizzy
Dave_Notts
starlightcouple wrote:
i shall ask the question to GNV can you be sent to prison by a civil court for a civil law matter?
i shall ask the question to GNV can you be sent to prison by a civil court for a civil law matter?
I think the answer provided by Dave is correct.
If you are say, held in contempt of Court - which is a criminal act, the judge may at his discretion call a Constable and have you detained whilst you face justice in a criminal court. Imprisonment is effectively taking away your right of freedom. Being arrested by a Constable (and being held in the precincts of the Court or a Police cell down the nick) has a similar effect but I don't see that and 'being sent to prison' as the same thing frankly.
It will be a different Judge to the one laying the complaint (but they are all brothers -eh
)who will hear the case and if you are sent to prison for the offence, it will be under criminal law, not civil.
So, in short, unless someone knows differently, there is no sanction of imprisonment in English Law per se for a purely civil matter AFAIK.
Dave wrote:
Who said law was simple
Who said law was simple
If it was that simple Dave, we'd have a whole load of lawyers being dumped on the scrapheap as well as useless bankers
Dave wrote:
People post something wrong, which gets pointed out by another member and they no longer want to post. Perhaps they do not want to make an arse of themselves again, or possibly do not know how to say they were wrong and move on dunno.gif lots of reasons why people don't post anymore. Their life, their choice.
People post something wrong, which gets pointed out by another member and they no longer want to post. Perhaps they do not want to make an arse of themselves again, or possibly do not know how to say they were wrong and move on dunno.gif lots of reasons why people don't post anymore. Their life, their choice.
...and some just post the same old tripe over and over again in the ever fervent hope that others will in the end just believe it and move on
GnV wrote:
So, in short, unless someone knows differently, there is no sanction of imprisonment in English Law per se for a purely civil matter AFAIK.
So, in short, unless someone knows differently, there is no sanction of imprisonment in English Law per se for a purely civil matter AFAIK.
There is some really old piece of legislation that we use that is all over the place. I'll have to dig the books out and do a bit of researching on this one.
It is such an all over the place bit of law that most avoid using it if possible.
It can remove a lot of things i.e. livelihood, possessions, buildings, etc, but I honestly do not know if it can take your freedom
GnV wrote:
If it was that simple Dave, we'd have a whole load of lawyers being dumped on the scrapheap as well as useless bankers
If it was that simple Dave, we'd have a whole load of lawyers being dumped on the scrapheap as well as useless bankers
So true G.........bankers are hated recently, lawyers have always been hated. I remember reading a French quote and a Greek quote from years gone by about lawyers, and they were both stating how they are a pain in the arse and only write laws that are complicated to keep them in a job
Dave_Notts
so nobody knows then?
seams it is a complicated issue.
seams it is a complicated issue.
starlightcouple wrote:
so nobody knows then?
seams it is a complicated issue.
so nobody knows then?
seams it is a complicated issue.
Knows what Star? Whether it is a proper court has been answered. Whether you can be jailed ina civil court.........then I do not know if there is any old pieces of law but the usual civil stuff is no. Not that complicated Star
Dave_Notts
Nothing to add on the nature of innocence then ???
Wont answer ? can't answer ?
Not had my mail from admin about my bullying yet
Wont answer ? can't answer ?
Not had my mail from admin about my bullying yet
If we are discussing getting 'justice' I should tell you about my favourite legal recourse. The Small Claims court.
For a reasonable fee you produce the evidence that YYY Ltd has screwed you over and they have to answer it or be found responsible. The requirements for evidence are based on 'within reasonable understanding' as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It is (I think) always about getting money back or getting money for being inconvenienced and is remarkably effective. Many larger companies don't bother contesting claims as it gets bad publicity and costs money in resources. Great when a garage does a bad job or a building society deprives you on spurious grounds of, say, shares when they convert to a bank.
Needless to say i wasn't going to accept shares in a bank I considered to be bordering on criminal so I took the cash equivalent.
For a reasonable fee you produce the evidence that YYY Ltd has screwed you over and they have to answer it or be found responsible. The requirements for evidence are based on 'within reasonable understanding' as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It is (I think) always about getting money back or getting money for being inconvenienced and is remarkably effective. Many larger companies don't bother contesting claims as it gets bad publicity and costs money in resources. Great when a garage does a bad job or a building society deprives you on spurious grounds of, say, shares when they convert to a bank.
Needless to say i wasn't going to accept shares in a bank I considered to be bordering on criminal so I took the cash equivalent.
foxylady2209 wrote:
If we are discussing getting 'justice' I should tell you about my favourite legal recourse. The Small Claims court.
For a reasonable fee you produce the evidence that YYY Ltd has screwed you over and they have to answer it or be found responsible. The requirements for evidence are based on 'within reasonable understanding' as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It is (I think) always about getting money back or getting money for being inconvenienced and is remarkably effective. Many larger companies don't bother contesting claims as it gets bad publicity and costs money in resources. Great when a garage does a bad job or a building society deprives you on spurious grounds of, say, shares when they convert to a bank.
Needless to say i wasn't going to accept shares in a bank I considered to be bordering on criminal so I took the cash equivalent.
If we are discussing getting 'justice' I should tell you about my favourite legal recourse. The Small Claims court.
For a reasonable fee you produce the evidence that YYY Ltd has screwed you over and they have to answer it or be found responsible. The requirements for evidence are based on 'within reasonable understanding' as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It is (I think) always about getting money back or getting money for being inconvenienced and is remarkably effective. Many larger companies don't bother contesting claims as it gets bad publicity and costs money in resources. Great when a garage does a bad job or a building society deprives you on spurious grounds of, say, shares when they convert to a bank.
Needless to say i wasn't going to accept shares in a bank I considered to be bordering on criminal so I took the cash equivalent.
just a shame that the county court is nearly always bias towards the claimant
but saying that i`ve used that fact to my own advantage on more than one occasion
Lizaleanrob wrote:
just a shame that the county court is nearly always bias towards the claimant
just a shame that the county court is nearly always bias towards the claimant
The one time someone sued me (my firm), basically trying it on, I defended the action vigorously in front of the District Judge having researched my case thoroughly and just stuck to the facts, following the rules of evidence without showing any emotion.
The claimant in this case had done no research at all just expecting everyone to fall at his feet and after a shouting match with the DJ (when he was told to sit down and shut up) he lost the case in spectacular fashion - even at the end storming out of the Court with a string of expletives which caused the lady District Judge some amusement but no surprise.
At the end of the day rob, I don't think there is a bias TBH. If one side (either side) goes in without any preparation just expecting to be treated more favourably than the other, they will receive very little sympathy from the DJ. Neither side in a small claims Court is allowed legal representation so it really is a contest of equals.
The circuit judges and recorders I have worked with over the years have to a man and woman followed the maxim "Who cares who wins". The majority were dispassionate and had a deep understanding of people and their foibles. In my experience the only tangible "bias" is that they recognise the limitations of an inexperienced litigant and endeavour to ensure the necessary facts are presented. That said we are all human and there are plenty of bad examples I am sure.
I think it is a District Judge rather than a Recorder or (as Rumpole used to say) 'circus' Judge who hears small claims cases.
The basic assumption must surely be that neither the defendant nor the plaintiff are experienced in litigation and AFAIK lawyers are not given audience in the SCC to make things all the more fair. The Judge will certainly ensure fair play and a proper hearing on both sides, guiding either side as necessary.
The basic assumption must surely be that neither the defendant nor the plaintiff are experienced in litigation and AFAIK lawyers are not given audience in the SCC to make things all the more fair. The Judge will certainly ensure fair play and a proper hearing on both sides, guiding either side as necessary.
Ben_Minx wrote:
Mebbe in France.
GnV wrote:
I think it is a District Judge rather than a Recorder or (as Rumpole used to say) 'circus' Judge who hears small claims cases.
I think it is a District Judge rather than a Recorder or (as Rumpole used to say) 'circus' Judge who hears small claims cases.
Mebbe in France.
Wikipedia wrote:
County Courts
County Courts are statutory courts with a purely civil jurisdiction. They are presided over by either a District or Circuit Judge and, except in a small minority of cases such as civil actions against the Police, the judge sits alone as trier of fact and law without assistance from a jury. County courts have divorce jurisdiction and undertake private family cases, care proceedings and adoptions.
County Courts
County Courts are statutory courts with a purely civil jurisdiction. They are presided over by either a District or Circuit Judge and, except in a small minority of cases such as civil actions against the Police, the judge sits alone as trier of fact and law without assistance from a jury. County courts have divorce jurisdiction and undertake private family cases, care proceedings and adoptions.
So, seems we are both right Ben. The French system involves a guillotine I understand
GnV wrote:
The one time someone sued me (my firm), basically trying it on, I defended the action vigorously in front of the District Judge having researched my case thoroughly and just stuck to the facts, following the rules of evidence without showing any emotion.
The claimant in this case had done no research at all just expecting everyone to fall at his feet and after a shouting match with the DJ (when he was told to sit down and shut up) he lost the case in spectacular fashion - even at the end storming out of the Court with a string of expletives which caused the lady District Judge some amusement but no surprise.
At the end of the day rob, I don't think there is a bias TBH. If one side (either side) goes in without any preparation just expecting to be treated more favourably than the other, they will receive very little sympathy from the DJ. Neither side in a small claims Court is allowed legal representation so it really is a contest of equals.
Lizaleanrob wrote:
just a shame that the county court is nearly always bias towards the claimant
just a shame that the county court is nearly always bias towards the claimant
The one time someone sued me (my firm), basically trying it on, I defended the action vigorously in front of the District Judge having researched my case thoroughly and just stuck to the facts, following the rules of evidence without showing any emotion.
The claimant in this case had done no research at all just expecting everyone to fall at his feet and after a shouting match with the DJ (when he was told to sit down and shut up) he lost the case in spectacular fashion - even at the end storming out of the Court with a string of expletives which caused the lady District Judge some amusement but no surprise.
At the end of the day rob, I don't think there is a bias TBH. If one side (either side) goes in without any preparation just expecting to be treated more favourably than the other, they will receive very little sympathy from the DJ. Neither side in a small claims Court is allowed legal representation so it really is a contest of equals.
i`ll answer this as its a real situation in real time in the real world
in taking advise from a good friend and solicitor over an issue with a council i was told based on the fact very few cases were lost by well or reasonable prepared claimant's , local councils rarely defended cases ........i found this on two occasions
in my considerable time spent in the company of barrister's it is considered a joke court by most barrister's
and one of the few places as foxy rightly states you can take on the big boys and win
