Common Law versus Statues – an answer to S24?

Definitely we need to think creatively. And there is no need for abuse from anyone.

I think that this is the sort of thing that will only work if you try it. Ignore the doomsters.

I am personally rather keen to avoid risking getting a criminal record, but if you are prepared to give it a go, I will definitely attend the trial to lend my support.

Thank you again Dr Beck.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I wonder what Karl Lentz would have to say about the comments made here. He fought for years to get his Down Syndrome son back from the authorities and he won through his own relentless research into the Common Law and the use of the Queen's Bench. He had something worth fighting for and I greatly admire his courage to stand up to the legal system. I think landlords have something worth fighting for too; their livelihood and keeping people housed and off the streets.

Maybe I'm a cynic but I have no faith in the those we put in Office. The tactics and reasons for implementing this change of accounting principle are discriminatory and unjustified. I see it is as foolhardy and defeatist to dismiss ANY idea that could be the answer to reversing Section 24 without thorough research ESPECIALLY when it comes to the rules and regs that are dished out by the government willy-nilly to paste over the cracks of their own failings.

A couple of years back the government tried to target the home-schooling community to use as scapegoats for the rising child abuse statistics and the government's failure to put an effective strategy in place to address it. The home schooling community stood up to the government and they backed down. It's no different to what is happening here - targeting a minority group with a large dollop of disrespect and discrimination backed up by the negative attitude towards landlords that we see being reported in the media, wanting to be seen to be whipping us back into line with some trumped up regulation to make them (the government) look like they are tackling major economic issues that are not of our doing and which prevent us from earning a reasonable living and providing society with a much-needed service. I think not! With determination, persistence and much thinking outside the box we can win this round too. I refer back to my Chinese proverb......

(It's amazing how a good rant can improve flu symptoms.)

Dr. Beck, it is good to hear that all avenues are being looked into. It sounds like you will be leaving no stone unturned. Many thanks and good luck.

Jane.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "13/10/2016 - 22:24":

It is not 'pooh-poohing', it is a reasoned assessment of the linked article by a respected legal practitioner.

I would not have put it so politely (but then I have not had legal training).

"Can a landlord refuse to consent to Section 24 on the grounds that the Statute is preventing him/her from earn a living in his/her chosen field of business?"
No.. Parliament is sovreign (including over over common law).

"As you will read, the Jury has the highest authority in the land (unless government has changed this since 2011!). "
It does not, Parliament is the highest authority in the land. This is long established, long before 2011. As to european law, it binds us and our courts because parliament says it does. (Parliamentary sovreignty has been under much debate since european law became applicable in the UK.)
--
PPM, you may be correct, but your manner is unprofessional. I would not want to be your client or in business with a person of that approach.

Reply to the comment left by "Jay James" at "16/10/2016 - 18:46":

Hi Jay, I apologise if the composition of the post came across as unprofessional. I should have slept on my reply then edited and posted in the light of a new day. It would likely to have had a more gentle approach.
Jane

Reply to the comment left by " " at "16/10/2016 - 23:56":

What a silly mistake I have made.
Sorry PPM, I inserted your name instead of "Giles Peaker", ay my 16-10-16, 18.46 post.
Sorry again.

In fact your original post on this thread is an approach we could all do with taking, never mind any errors in the detail.

Reply to the comment left by "Jay James" at "16/10/2016 - 18:46":

Penultimate sentence should start "Giles Peaker" and not PPM

Reply to the comment left by "Jay James" at "18/10/2016 - 19:05":

Perhaps some words by a judge would be more professional? He quotes Dante's Inferno, and how Dante cast:

"evil counsellors – those who used their position to advise others to engage in fraud, and “the falsifiers” – alchemists, counterfeiters, perjurers, and imposters, into the inner canyons of the eighth circle of hell."

The Judge then goes on - talking specifically about those who promote Freeman style, or 'statute as contract you can opt out of' arguments in this way:

"Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse."

The Judge went on to close on these arguments with

"You cannot identify one instance where a court has rolled over and behaved as told. Not one. Your spells, when cast, fail."

You can read more on this here. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/

And again, as people seem to be unable to tell the difference, I was dismissive of what is proven legal nonsense. That seems reasonably professional to me. I was not rude to any individual. I leave that to Judges.

Reply to the comment left by "Jay James" at "18/10/2016 - 19:05":

That's what the 'reply' button is for.

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Barnes" at "19/10/2016 - 16:14":

Think I am being slow today as I do not quite know what you are referring to.