stasi council

Need help and support? Post here and we will do our best.

stasi council

Postby pitano1 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:29 pm

hi all.
today is bin day..[recycling]..mine was not emptied.

phone council,to ask why....lady said bin had food,and bottles in it.
:puzz: so fuckin what,its rubbish,is it not.?

i have been using,this very convenient method,for the last
30.years,at this address.
anyway..i digress.

lady`at council`tries to instruct me`some trick ehh`,to rummage through the
bin,and seperate the food etc,as the bin men will not`or cannot be expected
to carry out this task.
[but the paymaster is.?]

confession...i pay c/tax,as it is deducted straight from my pension.

my answer to nice lady.
i pay for this service.
i have never agreed to work for the council..ie rubbish sorting
either you empty it,or it stays out ad infanitum.

storm in a teacup,i know,but would love to hear some thoughts.
regards.
pitano1
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: stasi council

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:57 pm

I agree with you. Eventually, if you leave the bin out 24/7, they'll try and charge you with some bullshit or other and you'll be expected to pay a fine.

If it was me i'd just put the "wrong" stuff at the bottom of the bin so the binmen can't see it. :giggle:
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: stasi council

Postby pitano1 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:03 pm

what i reasoned,is confirmed by this reply,from elsewhere.

There was a precedent on this, as the council are an employer and you pay for these services, if you cut or injure yourself while undertaking such tasks you are technically working for them in connection with one facet of their business, so they are liable for compensation to you.

Mothers local council wanted them to soak and wash all tins, take off all labels, place them along with bottles inside their respective bag, she cut herself on a sharp tin so the compensation claim went in. She won because of the previous precedent which says if you undertake duties for and on behalf of the local council, you are legally employed by them. £3580 is not bad for a cut finger.

looks like i have an employer..the first one,in 30 years.. :clap:
ps.any idea where this precedent may lay hidden.
as it would be,very handy negotiating my salary.
kind regards
pitano1
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: stasi council

Postby holy vehm » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:26 am

Ive not seen this precedent you speak of but i shall seek an answer thru the medium of facebook.

I could get quite used to being 'employed' by the corporate entity i own.

Take care to cut your fingers mate :wink:
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: stasi council

Postby knightron » Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:43 am

Flannigan, Robert (1987). "Enterprise Control: The Servant-Independent Contractor Distinction". The University of Toronto Law Journal (University of Toronto Press) 37 (1). (http://www.ucc.ie/law/odg/attachments/NEYERS_(Theory_of_VL).pdf)

Developments in establishing liability

An employer is strictly liable for torts committed by those under his command, when they are found to be his employees. To this end, the courts must find a sufficient relationship to this effect, where issues of vicarious liability are raised. It has been stated judicially that no one test can adequately cover all types and instances of employment;thus, generally, the tests used and ultimate determination rest upon the individual aspects of each case, looking at all the factors as a whole.For example, it need not matter that an employer classifies a relationship as one of independent contractor, if all the other factors represent a relationship of employee.

"...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."

The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.( Wash the Tins and remove the Labels Ect..ect...ect) This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the relationship would instead be one of employer and independent contractor.This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Slesser)

""It is well established as a general rule of English law that an employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor.""

So Basically if you are in the Employ of someone and they prescribe specific tasks and specific and distinct Modes of carrying out those tasks (i.e they describe what you have to do to make them happy like washing tins and removing the Labels and such)they are Liable for any harm caused...

The connection of torts to employment

For an act to not hold an employer vicariously liable, it must be completely outside an employee's duties, as in Beard v London General Omnibus Company.
Once it is established that the sufficient relationship of employer and employee exists, it is necessary that any tort be committed in the course of employment.[http://www.academia.edu/1914112/Legal_Impressionism_Vicarious_Liability_and_Agency_Laws_Tumultuous_Relationship] As with distinguishing an employer and employee relationship, there is no one test which adequately establishes which acts employers are vicariously liable for. Such determinations rest upon precedent, and the facts of each individual case. A preferred test of the courts was formulated by John William Salmond, some 100 years ago, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.

Source..(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law)


This is what I have found in the last few minutes..Looks like there is precedent, should be a simple case really with this amount of precedent already set..If they give instruction with specifics then they are liable for any harm caused.. :shake: May have to use this myself in a short while.. :thinks: Hope this helps some..:)
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: stasi council

Postby enegiss » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:12 pm

:grin:
i cant wait to give it to these social services with my tort action, not long now, i do remember sending them a bill for fulfilling their unlawful demands at a thousand pounds a day, almost four years worth of forced employment for me and my child, it should be interesting :grin:
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
enegiss
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: stasi council

Postby pitano1 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:30 pm

many thanks for the brilliant
reply`s

here is another facet,that they
conveniently overlook..http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/waste21.pdf
they like rules/regs...dont they.?

i think i`m changing into mutley`dick dastardly`s dog`
certainly starting to,devolop the same laugh... :giggle:

ps energis... :yes:
go burst there bubble,as well as there bank account.. :cheer:
uppity cunts
kind regards.
pitano1
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: stasi council

Postby pitano1 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:43 pm

is this taking the piss,or`what..?

Would you pay 20% more council tax for litter-free streets? Civil servants propose increase based on survey of just 500 people

Just who the fuck do these piss taking cunts think they are fooling?

What the following article means is that there is going to be a major hike in council tax bills as the raid on the middle classes begins.

I mean, are these cunts seriously telling me that a poll of 500 people, would be happy to accept a hike of 20 percent on their annual Council Tax Bill?

Where did they poll? Mayfair, Tatton and North Leamington?

Yet I don’t doubt for a minute that the no good cunts running Britain’s councils will be all happy to agree that the 500 people are representative of the fucking country… But only because the corrupt cunts are mostly useless, perverted nonce, robbing bastards.

The streets should be litter free without any fucking hike in council tax. As should your dustbins be emptied regularly and the grass verges cut.

article in full here....http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/?p=13588
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: stasi council

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:02 pm

Good. Let them squeeze. They are either very confident that they can defeat an enraged populace, or very stupid. I only wish they'd increase ALL taxes by 100%.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: stasi council

Postby holy vehm » Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:33 am

The sheep shape the world led by a corrupt shepherd who rather than keep them safe from the wolf actually hands one over now and again in order to protect the others.
The other sheep are happy so long as it isnt them being handed over.

They have no idea that this shepherd is in fact a wolf.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Next

Return to Help Wanted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests