Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

direct and indirect contact

Case requests, comments, corrections, questions, answers. Just anything an everything about swarb.co.uk

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:59 am

Every now and then we have a poster who seeks confirmation rather than discussion.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19433
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:21 am

atticus wrote:Every now and then we have a poster who seeks confirmation rather than discussion.


Seeking confirmation I can understand. Refusing to accept that confirmation cannot be given seems pointless. I can quite understand that a person might seek explanation as to why a thing is, but not telling an expert why a thing is not. I think.

As an aside, how do lawyers cope with clients who are so determined to correct their lawyers on the law?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby veritas2409 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:42 am

I will forgive your arrogance as you don't know the facts of the situation and you seem to think this is to do with ex lovers. That most certainly isn't the case. I would dearly love to say more but obviously can't

While a full list might be unrealistc but nobody has put forward any argument why

a) A PIN shouldn't list all acts of alleged harassment at the time of the issuing the PIN
b) A more comprehensive definition of forbidden contact can't be provided. Although I do agree a definitive list might be unrealistic

If the whole idea is awareness of ones actions then surely the above would be sensible.

I do agree my opinion of solicitors is lower than any other profession
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:46 am

I advise. I discuss my advice, and sometimes it gets amended or refined.

In some cases clients who do not - or rather will not - accept my advice do not have the right lawyer for them.

Given the OP's moronic opinion of lawyers, what is she doing here?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19433
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby veritas2409 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:13 am

Its not moronic , it is fully justified
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:00 am

veritas2409 wrote:I will forgive your arrogance as you don't know the facts of the situation and you seem to think this is to do with ex lovers. That most certainly isn't the case. I would dearly love to say more but obviously can't


Then my conscience is clear, my spirit is lightened, and the world is looking good, for I am absolved.

veritas2409 wrote:While a full list might be unrealistc but nobody has put forward any argument why

a) A PIN shouldn't list all acts of alleged harassment at the time of the issuing the PIN


You do not give anyone a stick to beat you with. The purpose of the PIN is to advise the recipient that what they are doing may constitute harassment, not convict them of it. If one particular instance of alleged harassment is missing from the list then I suspect that someone such as you might argue (!) that the whole list was therefore invalid. A pointless argument in which you would no doubt excel. If a child is told it must not steal sweets from the corner shop you might be disappointed if he then felt it OK to steal a bike from outside it. Nobody mentioned bikes.

veritas2409 wrote:b) A more comprehensive definition of forbidden contact can't be provided. Although I do agree a definitive list might be unrealistic


Such definitions are largely down to common sense, which may be where your problem lies. You accept that a definitive list might be unrealistic but then seem to expect that every possible means of communication is covered. A definitive list would be impossible in any event, for a certain type of person would rupture their brain in an attempt to circumvent what is on that list.

veritas2409 wrote:If the whole idea is awareness of ones actions then surely the above would be sensible.


Sensible only if it was possible, which even you have admitted it isn't

You ask the opinions of people you admit you despise, and correct them when they offer advice. What, exactly, are you trying to achieve by all this? All that can be seen here is you attempting to obtain reassurance that you are correct in every aspect of your opinion which you are clearly not going to get.

Your choices here are stunningly, completely, obvious. If you are not happy with the PIN then ignore it. Continue as you wish and when court action approaches you will have your opportunity to knock the jury dead with a performance that would shame Perry Mason before your victory speech to the hordes of admiring journalists on the steps of the court.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.


The above is an extract from the Protection from Harassment Act. If you can demonstrate any of the above defences then the PIN becomes meaningless. From your ramblings I am forced to assume that you have at least one defence, if not all of them, so go for it. Do what you will, it is your right. I would feel confident in saying that while any charge against you must be proved beyond doubt, you only need to prove that your defence is probably correct, so the law may arguably be on your side already. Be as confident in the real world as you are on a legal forum where you happily correct lawyers. If you do end up in court, please notify the date and location. I believe it would be worth travelling some distance to observe.
Last edited by shootist on Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:05 am

atticus wrote:what is this "f4or (1A)" that you keep repeating?


It's a link contained in the text copied from the Legislation website. I should catch but in my enthusiasm sometimes fail to do. Apologies for any confusion caused (On this thread! :shock: )
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3462
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby DannyJP » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:48 am

Sometimes I wonder if the PIN is a good thing or a bad thing.

It evidently causes confusion and I know of cases where one has been sent quite unjustifiably and others where they have justifiable but not worked. I have yet to hear of one that was warranted and has had the desired effect.
User avatar
DannyJP
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 5:21 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby veritas2409 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:09 pm

That is my point , it causes confusion and fails to achieve its objective and this could be addressed with more clarification. Nothing more to add
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:35 pm

DannyJP wrote:Sometimes I wonder if the PIN is a good thing or a bad thing.

It evidently causes confusion and I know of cases where one has been sent quite unjustifiably and others where they have justifiable but not worked. I have yet to hear of one that was warranted and has had the desired effect.


Surely if it had the desired effect, you wouldn't hear of it?
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6280
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

PreviousNext

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron