ChatterBank1 min ago
Housing Fraud M P Cleared...
Just noticed. Apologies if I missed a thread on the outcome.
https:/
https:/
Answers
He's innocent too. https://twit
08:31 Sun 01st Aug 2021
// It wasn't a council mistake, a fraud was perpetrated. The person who was accused said it wasn't me, somebody else did it. The Jury believed her.//
It wasn't a council mistake, ----- well something was wrong
it wd be interesting to know if they have enforced a repayment
a fraud was perpetrated. - I am not sure if we can say that. not all mistakes are frauds.
The person who was accused said it wasn't me, somebody else did it. - - - - I am ashamed to say I have said it wasnt me, - - - and then didnt say someone else must've (er it wasnt me honest) because I knew who had and was so irritated with the attitude of the investigators that I thought they should find out themselves. I dont care if they did or not
another time, I said (X), so they went and asked the frenz of the fella who had done (X) whether I was telling the troof or not. How we laughed. I have to say I adjusted my attitudes after that !
It wasn't a council mistake, ----- well something was wrong
it wd be interesting to know if they have enforced a repayment
a fraud was perpetrated. - I am not sure if we can say that. not all mistakes are frauds.
The person who was accused said it wasn't me, somebody else did it. - - - - I am ashamed to say I have said it wasnt me, - - - and then didnt say someone else must've (er it wasnt me honest) because I knew who had and was so irritated with the attitude of the investigators that I thought they should find out themselves. I dont care if they did or not
another time, I said (X), so they went and asked the frenz of the fella who had done (X) whether I was telling the troof or not. How we laughed. I have to say I adjusted my attitudes after that !
// It wasn't a council mistake, ----- //
I had a letter saying the council was going to claw back lots ( £3000) I think under reg 100. and I wrote back quicko saying that they should send me all the papers with all the reference no -
and they wrote back latterly and said - there is a mistake - we shouldnt have written that as it is nothing to do with you !
I had a letter saying the council was going to claw back lots ( £3000) I think under reg 100. and I wrote back quicko saying that they should send me all the papers with all the reference no -
and they wrote back latterly and said - there is a mistake - we shouldnt have written that as it is nothing to do with you !
Malicious prosecution - - not a hope
you have to show bad faith - any one who is sane wont admit that.
"I did it because I wanted to get them into trouble" - even the stephen kischko girls - SK didnt kill a small girl but there was the matter of two ( "brave little girls to come forward" as per Judgey babay) girls who has seen him do things in his car. Even THEY admitted they had made it up ( as a joke ) and nothing was done
you have to show bad faith - any one who is sane wont admit that.
"I did it because I wanted to get them into trouble" - even the stephen kischko girls - SK didnt kill a small girl but there was the matter of two ( "brave little girls to come forward" as per Judgey babay) girls who has seen him do things in his car. Even THEY admitted they had made it up ( as a joke ) and nothing was done
Peter Pedant
//a fraud was perpetrated. - I am not sure if we can say that. not all mistakes are frauds.//
It's very nice of you to come on all my threads and give me the benefit of your first class education to point out all my mistakes.
Don't think I don't appreciate it but if I might explain something courtesy of my alma mater;
Our Lady of the Angels
RC Junior School
On the first day of the Trial, Apsana admitted she'd made some mistakes. She was muddled because her father had died and she was receiving Islamist terror threats.
Mistakes = not fraud.
For the next few days of the trial when allegations of fraud were put to her, she said 'That wasn't me, that was my husband' When things are no longer mistakes they're what we call, and this is a legal term, on purposes.
On purpose = Fraud
There you are, I even chucked in some free legal advice from Judge Judy for you.
//a fraud was perpetrated. - I am not sure if we can say that. not all mistakes are frauds.//
It's very nice of you to come on all my threads and give me the benefit of your first class education to point out all my mistakes.
Don't think I don't appreciate it but if I might explain something courtesy of my alma mater;
Our Lady of the Angels
RC Junior School
On the first day of the Trial, Apsana admitted she'd made some mistakes. She was muddled because her father had died and she was receiving Islamist terror threats.
Mistakes = not fraud.
For the next few days of the trial when allegations of fraud were put to her, she said 'That wasn't me, that was my husband' When things are no longer mistakes they're what we call, and this is a legal term, on purposes.
On purpose = Fraud
There you are, I even chucked in some free legal advice from Judge Judy for you.
JD, Judges could and did give Directions to return a guilty verdict.
In April 2002, Mark Brown was found guilty of being in possession of a article with a blade or point after the Judge directed the Jury to find him guilty.
Brown appealed to the Court of Appeal who upheld the decision stating,
"Here the crucial factor is the absence of evidence from the appellant. In the absence of that evidence it could not be determined by any jury when and where he was intending to use the knife to self-harm. It was, therefore, going to be impossible for the appellant to establish the defence because the evidence did not go sufficiently far. The burden rests on the defence to establish that there is a good reason within section 139(4) and here it patently failed to discharge that. There was simply insufficient evidence to establish the defence to the degree of particularity which was requisite. In our judgment the Recorder was right to withdraw the issue from the jury, although for the subsidiary rather than the principal reason which led him to that conclusion, and in these unusual circumstances ***he was right to direct a conviction."*** [my emphasis]
However, in another case involving a Direction to return a guilty verdict, the matter went to the House of Lords.
It had previously gone to the Court of Appeal who had upheld the verdict and quoted amongst other cases, the Brown case to support their decision.
The House of Lords allowed the appeal stating,
"17. Had the learned judge left the present case to the jury and directed them in the ordinary way, it seems very likely that they would have convicted. There could then have been no effective appeal. As it is, the Court of Appeal's judgment highlights the dangers of judicial intervention. It may well have been "very far from clear" what the appellant's intentions were. The nature and extent of the appellant's religious motivation had been the subject of evidence. The appellant's evidence of not wanting to leave the weapons at home with no one to look after them may well have given rise to nuances (to adopt the language of Lord Keith in Stonehouse) not recognised by the judicial mind. These were pre-eminently matters for evaluation by the jury. Belief that the jury would probably, and rightly, have convicted does not in our judgment entitle us to consider this conviction to be other than unsafe when there were matters which could and should have been the subject of their consideration.
18. We would accordingly allow the appeal, quash the appellant's conviction and answer the certified question by saying that ***there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty."***[my emphasis]
In April 2002, Mark Brown was found guilty of being in possession of a article with a blade or point after the Judge directed the Jury to find him guilty.
Brown appealed to the Court of Appeal who upheld the decision stating,
"Here the crucial factor is the absence of evidence from the appellant. In the absence of that evidence it could not be determined by any jury when and where he was intending to use the knife to self-harm. It was, therefore, going to be impossible for the appellant to establish the defence because the evidence did not go sufficiently far. The burden rests on the defence to establish that there is a good reason within section 139(4) and here it patently failed to discharge that. There was simply insufficient evidence to establish the defence to the degree of particularity which was requisite. In our judgment the Recorder was right to withdraw the issue from the jury, although for the subsidiary rather than the principal reason which led him to that conclusion, and in these unusual circumstances ***he was right to direct a conviction."*** [my emphasis]
However, in another case involving a Direction to return a guilty verdict, the matter went to the House of Lords.
It had previously gone to the Court of Appeal who had upheld the verdict and quoted amongst other cases, the Brown case to support their decision.
The House of Lords allowed the appeal stating,
"17. Had the learned judge left the present case to the jury and directed them in the ordinary way, it seems very likely that they would have convicted. There could then have been no effective appeal. As it is, the Court of Appeal's judgment highlights the dangers of judicial intervention. It may well have been "very far from clear" what the appellant's intentions were. The nature and extent of the appellant's religious motivation had been the subject of evidence. The appellant's evidence of not wanting to leave the weapons at home with no one to look after them may well have given rise to nuances (to adopt the language of Lord Keith in Stonehouse) not recognised by the judicial mind. These were pre-eminently matters for evaluation by the jury. Belief that the jury would probably, and rightly, have convicted does not in our judgment entitle us to consider this conviction to be other than unsafe when there were matters which could and should have been the subject of their consideration.
18. We would accordingly allow the appeal, quash the appellant's conviction and answer the certified question by saying that ***there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty."***[my emphasis]
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.