Guest Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) For a long time I, like millions of others, have been made to endure an endless stream of contradictions , twisted facts and more recently outright lies regarding cannabis and it's "medicinal value". I've often wondered how can those who perpetrate these untruths be made to publicly defend (OK, attempt) then recant their falsehoods based on the weight of evidence to the contrary. Until today I was unconvinced that Government could be held accountable for blatantly ignoring facts. Most of my negativity surrounding confrontation is based on the fact that Fraud etc require proof of a lie. We all know how good the government is at claiming to be "unaware" or "awaiting further evidence" thus avoiding being caught in an outright lie. However, there is something in UK law called "Torte of Deceit" , I have copied the explanation direct from a law book for the purposes of discussion. Below is the legal requirement to accuse / prove Torte of Deceit: Tort of deceit contains four ingredients: (1) Defendant makes a false representation to the Claimant; (2) Defendant knows that the representation is false or is reckless as to whether it is true or false; (3) Defendant intends that the Claimant should act in reliance on it; and (4) claimant does act in reliance on the representation and, in consequence, suffers loss. The phrase “intention to deceive” is merely another way of describing the mental element of the tort, set out in the second and third ingredients above, and is not a free-standing element. My question now is , can we the public (claimant) hold the Government (defendant) liable under this law? Peace Edited June 23, 2017 by Breezus No idea how to fix formatting sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenVision Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Ignorance is no defence... Until law makers need to use it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 @GreenVision Mate, nail - head! I'm just wondering, with the use of the phrase "reckless as to whether it's true or false" is in fact the magic phrase? I'm no lawyer, but, I know the best way to change a law is use their language since lawyers are nothing more than specialist linguists with their very own language . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catfish Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 from the moment you employ someone to represent you ,you are fucked in my opinion . a lawyer is a clerk of the court ,so that makes the court their master/who they actually represent . its a conflict of interests ,and your interests are at the bottom of the pile . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 @catfish I'm hoping someone with a good knowledge of their language and ways is here making their own meds and can shed light on this as a possibility. If it is I'm sure others will want to know if only as part of any defence should they be required to do so. It's not a head on collision that will change things, it's by broad siding everyone with an unexpected challenge . Art of War "keep your enemy confused, increase likelihood of error " (paraphrased but you get me ) Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Committed Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 15 minutes ago, catfish said: from the moment you employ someone to represent you ,you are fucked in my opinion . Wheres the thumbs up emojos? This deserves 2.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratdog Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, catfish said: from the moment you employ someone to represent you ,you are fucked in my opinion . I`ve seen some shit hot solicitors in the past, one got my mate off almost Scott free and he was holding class a`s the ones you need to avoid are duty solicitors, they just want you to say you are guilty and move you on asap. it also helps if your back ground is public school Edited June 23, 2017 by ratdog 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenVision Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 2 hours ago, catfish said: from the moment you employ someone to represent you ,you are fucked in my opinion . a lawyer is a clerk of the court ,so that makes the court their master/who they actually represent . its a conflict of interests ,and your interests are at the bottom of the pile . And then if you do choose to represent yourself you will branded a nut case and likely torn apart for not bending to the will of the system. Round and round we go... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratdog Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 37 minutes ago, GreenVision said: And then if you do choose to represent yourself you will branded a nut case and likely torn apart for not bending to the will of the system. Round and round we go... I represented my self last time I was in court, mainly because the legal aid didn`t turn up before the case (it turned up a day late) I did plead guilty but it was still quite liberating, got a small fine and a rap on the knuckles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catfish Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 thing is you need to be in the club to practice law . yes you can defend yourself but that is a minefield as they use legalise . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratdog Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 If it was crown I would have definitely got a lawyer, magistrates are chaired by local people, or used to be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now