I think I'm being sued...

JBuk said:
can they prove it was you who was operating the pc that downloaded it?

can they prove that you or anyone else actually used the downloaded data?

they cant prove anything
Click to expand...

haven't you heard??? this is the UK.... you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent now. we have our human rights friends to thank for that one.

as for £2000 settlement fee.... i'd have chucked the letter in the bin too. they're having a laugh.
 
helpimcrap said:
haven't you heard??? this is the UK.... you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent now. we have our human rights friends to thank for that one.
Click to expand...

I might regret asking but I don't suppose you'd like to offer some sort of evidence for this? It is just that many people seem to complain that the ECHR lets "them criminals away with murder" so a bit of consistency in the complaints against it wouldn't go amiss, you might be able to blame the ECHR for some ills but it isn't responsible for all that is currently wrong with the World.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I might regret asking but I don't suppose you'd like to offer some sort of evidence for this? It is just that many people seem to complain that the ECHR lets "them criminals away with murder" so a bit of consistency in the complaints against it wouldn't go amiss, you might be able to blame the ECHR for some ills but it isn't responsible for all that is currently wrong with the World.
Click to expand...

i'm happy to just sit and bitch about it with my rose tinted specs on thanks. :)

i'm pretty sure i could get evidence of it if i could be bothered to dig around though. but as i can't you'll just have to assume what i say is correct unless you can prove otherwise. :p
 
helpimcrap said:
i'm happy to just sit and bitch about it with my rose tinted specs on thanks. :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

helpimcrap said:
i'm pretty sure i could get evidence of it if i could be bothered to dig around though. but as i can't you'll just have to assume what i say is correct unless you can prove otherwise. :p
Click to expand...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan*. It is hard to prove a negative (that the ECHR hasn't altered the fundamental burden of proof and shifted the initial presumption from innocent to guilty) and given the above quote it is up to the claimant to prove that there is a basis for their claims. If you don't want to or can't be bothered then I won't be losing any sleep over it, just don't be surprised if I call you on it. :)

*nb before anyone starts this is different to religious matters as here there is a simple situation where you have a testable hypothesis.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Fair enough.



"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan*. It is hard to prove a negative (that the ECHR hasn't altered the fundamental burden of proof and shifted the initial presumption from innocent to guilty) and given the above quote it is up to the claimant to prove that there is a basis for their claims. If you don't want to or can't be bothered then I won't be losing any sleep over it, just don't be surprised if I call you on it. :)

*nb before anyone starts this is different to religious matters as here there is a simple situation where you have a testable hypothesis.
Click to expand...

thinking about it, speed cameras are one example of being guilty until proven innocent. they will prosecute you regardless unless you can prove it wasn't you. i believe they altered it in their favour by junking the right to silence?

there's a couple more i can think of but i can't find on google.

i realise this doesnt mean it's necesarily HR but my basis is that it's only come in since labour got to power and since Tony Blair signed us up to it so his HR lawyer wife could make a mint. :)
 
helpimcrap said:
thinking about it, speed cameras are one example of being guilty until proven innocent. they will prosecute you regardless unless you can prove it wasn't you. i believe they altered it in their favour by junking the right to silence?

there's a couple more i can think of but i can't find on google.
Click to expand...

It isn't down to HR though as you acknowledge below and it is a road traffic offence which has always been differently handled as far as I recall, the statutory burden of proof means that you have to admit to certain things in relation to driving offences.

helpimcrap said:
i realise this doesnt mean it's necesarily HR but my basis is that it's only come in since labour got to power and since Tony Blair signed us up to it so his HR lawyer wife could make a mint. :)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can argue about this, that reads like a whole new level of paranoia. Have you ever played the game "6 degrees of separation"?
 
semi-pro waster said:
It isn't down to HR though as you acknowledge below and it is a road traffic offence which has always been differently handled as far as I recall, the statutory burden of proof means that you have to admit to certain things in relation to driving offences.



I'm not sure I can argue about this, that reads like a whole new level of paranoia. Have you ever played the game "6 degrees of separation"?
Click to expand...

possibly. i don't spend my time studying the tabloids/law much to be honest so i only have a limited (i.e. my) view of how it works. :)

paranoid - possibly. i just tend to read between the lines and assume every politician is a liar. Tony Blair hasn't done anything different to warrant my trust in him. it is kind of convenient that we only signed up to this HR treaty voluntarily when the PM's missus happens to be a laywer in that field.
 
Theres a lot of legal rubbish going on here, none of which will help you one little bit. I don't know what all this McDonalds meal, speed camera, human rights tosh has to do with anything. You gotta think more practically about this. Whoever is suing you does NOT want to go to court. Ignoring the letter might be a safe option for now, although if you do get another then it might be worth putting together a letter explaining your situation. To what extent do you admit the accusation? So you copied a copyrighted product, meh. Someone somewhere lost a few quids and is paying multiples in legal fees in the distant hope of getting 100% of their costs back (which never happens). Some mug probably sent an apology letter enclosing a cheque for the full amount the very next day. So this sounds like a speculative letter expecting you to do the same.

Don't decieve, mislead or lie. Don't worry about how they got your details; the ISP is likely co-operating. Maybe contacting your ISP could offer some kinda reprieve, but I don't know what.

I recommend you do some research. This Devonpart Lanes is mailing lots of web users these days, and these users are looking to the online community for advice just like you. Check what everyone else is doing and whether any follow up letters/claim forms have followed.
 
Id go with:

Ignore it and chuck it in the bin.

You have not done anything wrong till the court says so, it will never get to court.
 
Right Skull, only found my notes (rough) but can't find my text books so here goes.

When buying food in a Restaurant you form a contract like any other contract, the 4 elements have to be met, offer, acceptance, consideration and intent to create legal relation.

In a restaurant, the menu is the "invitation to treat" but the offer is made when the waiter brings over the food, not when you ordered (this bit i'd never forget, remember a workshop on this bit very vividly). Acceptance comes usually when the waiter comes over to check is everything is okay with your food. Even if no one comes, an act can amount to implied acceptance (Brogden v Metropolitan Railway 1877 and also see G Percy Trentham v Archital Luxfer Ltd 1992).

So buy eating the food, you are actively accepting the terms of the contract, if it's not acceptable then you should reject the goods, where is this line? Like I said before, it's at the 50% mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom