ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Were The Police Involved In This...uk Law
3 weeks ago police( CID ) called at my house, wife gave them my phone number they called me, asked me to come see them " it is something to do with threats over facebook. this disturbed me as i never made any threats over facebook , maybe derogatory remarks about a page or something like that . anyway i went to see CID officer was very pleasant , he told me someone wanted my personal details ie address etc as they were launching a civil case against me, i asked police , why ? because of some kind of threats or something of that nature, i said surely if i isssued any threats to anyone it was a criminal case so please arrest , interview and charge me, he told me it was a civil case, i said if so then why police involved , surely a civil case the so called injured party would seek the advice and service of a solicitor, not the police . what is your advice on this and if you give me advise are you a lawyer or do you know the law ? i find it very strange. i will go to solicitor about this in new year as this is playing on my mind.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beezaneez. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My reading of this is that Beez has made some comments which have upset the person (BNP) on Facebook to such an extent that they have made an allegation to the Police of an offence sufficiently serious to be investigated by the CID.
They have decided, after 'having a word' with Beez that there are no grounds for a criminal prosecution but there may be sufficient for a civil action and he is therefor seeking authority to release Beez's correct details to the injured party so that such an action may be commenced.
I think I'm right in saying that those details could not be released by the Police under those circumstances these days.
They have decided, after 'having a word' with Beez that there are no grounds for a criminal prosecution but there may be sufficient for a civil action and he is therefor seeking authority to release Beez's correct details to the injured party so that such an action may be commenced.
I think I'm right in saying that those details could not be released by the Police under those circumstances these days.
-- answer removed --
LazyGun
Mark as Best Answer
The reason people are asking questions is because, on the face of it, it sounds absurd for CID to be involved in "derogatory remarks about a page on facebook".
So your definition of what you consider to be merely "derogatory remarks" might actually be considered threatening, or malicious or incitement to race hatred perhaps by others.
It all just seems very odd.And to me all that stuff about it being a civil or criminal matter and you challenging the police just sounds an irrelevance to the issue itself.
the very reason i asked on AB but since none of you are lawyers then i will seek proper legal advice, as for you eddies 1, the massage problem is none of your bloody business so stop coming on here and asking about it, i have had enough remarks about it so let it go . ok
"the very reason i asked on AB but since none of you are lawyers then i will seek proper legal advice"
Which you might have expected anyway - so stop being so churlish.
I think shootas analysis is probably closest to the mark - but since you will not share what those "derogatory remarks" consisted of, you can hardly expect a more detailed or helpful response, can you? Most of your post just sounded self-serving, to me.
Which you might have expected anyway - so stop being so churlish.
I think shootas analysis is probably closest to the mark - but since you will not share what those "derogatory remarks" consisted of, you can hardly expect a more detailed or helpful response, can you? Most of your post just sounded self-serving, to me.
right lazygun, since you know so much about law then please explian , why the CID were involved in this ? derogatory remark is a derogatory remark, not a threat ok . ive told the truth , why would i not lol .
LazyGun
Mark as Best Answer
The reason people are asking questions is because, on the face of it, it sounds absurd for CID to be involved in "derogatory remarks about a page on facebook".
LazyGun
Mark as Best Answer
The reason people are asking questions is because, on the face of it, it sounds absurd for CID to be involved in "derogatory remarks about a page on facebook".
My "proper legal advice" is don't bother with paying for a lawyer. If the advice is free ,well obviously feel free, but nothing has happened yet. If it does, and you start getting solicitors' letters, then get advice. If this person wants to sue they can't get legal aid; you never could for defamation actions. So they either have to find someone on a no win, no fee contract; not utterly unknown, but rare, since the scheme under which no win, no fee firms work is really intended for personal injuries; or pay for the action themselves or find someone (a union may in some circumstances, for example) who can legally pay for them. That's a very expensive business, which is why ordinary people aren't seen suing for libel in the courts. It's for the likes of millionaires
And to answer your other question, my opinion is that of shoota. That is how the CID got involved. They get involved when there is something which is reported to them could amount to a crime. It didn't , so they are bound to say that it is a civil matter only. That is the only way I can reconcile just what you say with what in fact has happened
Shoota, contrary to popular belief, injunctions aren't just handed out like sweets at a child's party. The applicant has, in such a case as this, to show that there is a grave risk of injustice if the threatened libel is published or further published, and that considerable harm to themselves will ensue if their name or the nature of the claim is made public. If they can't show that, which amounts to showing that there is a prima facie libel, they fail altogether or the injunction is granted temporarily pending further evidence to support it, in default of which the injunction ceases.
And that's all for millionaires too !
And that's all for millionaires too !
-- answer removed --
I agree with Methyl - we dont know that the CID IS involved in a civil case. all they have said so far is that this is a civil matter
and NOT we gonna sue the ar=e off you ! - get your cheque book out !!
and Freddie's - - - - Hi Freddie ! Happy Saturday ! - - - advice is as ever spot on and free. and BN you should say T Y Fred.
and also BN - have you thought in the long term that if you stop making derogatory remarks on FB then.... the CID will stop coming round ?
and NOT we gonna sue the ar=e off you ! - get your cheque book out !!
and Freddie's - - - - Hi Freddie ! Happy Saturday ! - - - advice is as ever spot on and free. and BN you should say T Y Fred.
and also BN - have you thought in the long term that if you stop making derogatory remarks on FB then.... the CID will stop coming round ?
"right lazygun, since you know so much about law then please explian , why the CID were involved in this ? derogatory remark is a derogatory remark, not a threat ok . ive told the truth , why would i not lol"
There seems to be a failure of comprehension on your part here, bn. Can you point to where in any of my posts I claimed knowledge of the law? What I did say was that Shootas analysis sounds the most plausible, and what you attempt to portray here as "derogatory remarks on a facebook page" was taken in a rather different way by the recipient of those remarks- and be able to persuade the coppers that this was the case too.
So - stop being so churlish, and if you do want some genuine advice from this site, repost what these "derogatory remarks" were - then you might get a more useful and helpful response.
There seems to be a failure of comprehension on your part here, bn. Can you point to where in any of my posts I claimed knowledge of the law? What I did say was that Shootas analysis sounds the most plausible, and what you attempt to portray here as "derogatory remarks on a facebook page" was taken in a rather different way by the recipient of those remarks- and be able to persuade the coppers that this was the case too.
So - stop being so churlish, and if you do want some genuine advice from this site, repost what these "derogatory remarks" were - then you might get a more useful and helpful response.
PP, Carter Ruck was a a mischievous old devil. He'd get an ex parte, [ where you apply for the injunction without the other side appearing or even knowing],which was meant to frighten the lay defendant. It never frightened their solicitors, who were inclined to reply with whatever 'f. o.' is the Latin abbreviation for, and then appear and have the injunction lifted.
Some solicitors delight in such practices. I knew one who would issue bankruptcy proceedings as soon as his ludicrous bill wasn't paid. This was a damn nuisance to the client. When I checked this , I found that there was a very old case which appeared as a footnote to the Solicitors' Code of Practice and which appeared to support it ! Of course, when I read the report of the case itself, I found that the case was a) decided on its own, very different, facts b) the bankruptcy proceeding was completely incidental to it c) the court had never said that the practice was correct; it had let it pass as irrelevant to the case itself.
The bane of lawyers. It's the Chinese whispers of law. Cases get cited but nobody bothers to read the original judgment, and constant repetition of what is meant to be a brief summary only results in each succesisve summary being further and further away from the original
Some solicitors delight in such practices. I knew one who would issue bankruptcy proceedings as soon as his ludicrous bill wasn't paid. This was a damn nuisance to the client. When I checked this , I found that there was a very old case which appeared as a footnote to the Solicitors' Code of Practice and which appeared to support it ! Of course, when I read the report of the case itself, I found that the case was a) decided on its own, very different, facts b) the bankruptcy proceeding was completely incidental to it c) the court had never said that the practice was correct; it had let it pass as irrelevant to the case itself.
The bane of lawyers. It's the Chinese whispers of law. Cases get cited but nobody bothers to read the original judgment, and constant repetition of what is meant to be a brief summary only results in each succesisve summary being further and further away from the original
