Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

‘At Your Own Expense’

without comments

originally posted here

For your consideration when you see the annual Council Tax Demand Notice (or other demand from state agencies):

A couple of days ago We received an unsolicited email wherein an unknown someone declared the following:
“…Dear Mike,
I work on behalf of Xxxxxxxxxx and we’re looking to build up positive Google Reviews for his company.
I recognise that you have a Gmail account and I wondered if you could take just ONE MINUTE to complete a Review for us regarding the level of service that you’ve received from Xxxxxxxxxx and his team. [Mike has never heard of Xxxxxxxxxx or used his services].
It really does take less than a minute and we’d really appreciate your support!
Please find below a quick step by step guide as to how to do this:
Click on the link: https://goo.gl/mapsxxxxx…”

Our response was:
“…Thank you, Lxxxx.
Our fee for such engagements (including this response) is £50 per email. Invoice follows.
Kind regards
mike…”

“…Thank you Mike for your reply but this isn’t the arrangement we are looking for. I work with lots of clients and I’ve never paid for Google Review – I think it’s unethical! I could outsource fake reviews to India and could come up with 50 x 5 star reviews for £50!
Thank you for your time anyway!
All the best,
Lxxxx…”

So… Why is this here? It is very simple. Everything is contract and no-one may be compelled to complete any action at his own cost. There are at least two court cases in support of this assertion. However there is one historic piece of legislation and one extant piece of legislation of which We know that declares the opposite:

In the Copyright Act 1911, Publishers were required to deliver copies of books that they had printed to the British Library… At their own expense. That act has since been repealed by the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003. However…

We have also read that:
“…No statute apart from the ‘Copyright Act 1911’
either prevents or compels one to do something “at their own expense”.

Any Act which compels must specifically imply or state EXPRESSLY that you must comply AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE!

If it doesn’t imply or expressly state the removal of that particular right, then one’s private right is not curbed [not that it ever could be] and firmly remains intact!

The burden of proof is on “the authority” to prove conclusively [documented proof] using EXPRESS WORDS that you have to provide private personal information AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE. That is what the Law of the land dictates.

Supporting case law:

1. Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193

Lord Blackburn said, at p. 208: “It is clear that the burden lies on those who seek to establish that the legislature intended to take away the private rights of individuals, to show that by express words, or by necessary implication, such an intention appears.”

2 Regina -v- Dyment (1988) , 45 CCC (3d) 244

1988, CCC, La Forest J, Human Rights.

The court referred to “informational privacy” – “This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit.”

So, the next time that you are stopped by police or receive written demands (electoral rolls anyone?), and are told that you must do either this, that or other, you have a perfect right to charge them for it, unless or until they provide verifiable proof to the contrary that such Acts etc.,expressly states that it must be “AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE”

The phrase “AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE” is an extremely powerful phrase to use against any [alleged] representing authority.

Think about the many different situations whereby one may legitimately charge a fee to any [alleged] authority for you provide private personal information, such as to: Councils for the compilation of the annual Voters Register, Council Tax, Council Parking Tickets, Police allegations of speeding etc., etc., etc.

Written by anubis

January 29th, 2017 at 5:06 am