uk.people.disability

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:26:50 +0100, pete wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:16:59 GMT, "Leeloominaï Lekatariba Lamina Tchaï
>Ekbat De Sebat" wrote:
>
>>
>>"pete" wrote in message
>>news:0utbd352gh0jsjea12ia28tdkme9m9gthi@ ...
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:07:51 GMT, "Leeloominaï Lekatariba Lamina Tchaï
>>> Ekbat De Sebat" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"pete" wrote in message
>>>>news:menad3t78t9ilgvo79caegjt7mksh5kv45@ ...
>>>>> >Quare
>>>>>>order On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:09:38 -0700, "Theo_Delight@ "
>>>>I think what is meant was a writ of quaere impedit
>>>
>>> Thank you. That does register a few hits on google but again I am
>>> afraid it is beyond me. Surely there is a straight forward way the
>>> Ipswich Docks Acts can be upheld?
>>> pete
>>
>>Getting Acts of Parliament upheld is difficult. Even if you were to
>>establish
>>a breach, you would still have to get past R v Metropolitan Police
>>Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118, although that case
>>concerned an attempt to order the police to enforce the criminal law.
>>
>>I suspect the IDA is a private Act of Parliament, however. You have the
>>following hurdles:
>>
>>1. Is the IDA still law?
>>2. Have its provisions been breached?
>>3. By whom?
>>4. Are they a legal entity within the jurisdiction?
>>5. Is the breach remediable?
>>
>>If all conditions are met, you need to write to them pointing out the breach
>>and asking
>>them to remedy it. If they refuse, you need to apply to the High Court for a
>>prerogative
>>order compelling them to remedy. This is expensive and discretionary.
>>
>>Oh, I forgot
>>
>>6. Do you feel lucky?
>
>Distinctly unlucky unfortunately.

Perhaps you could reflect on why it is you seem to have so much
"bad-luck". You don't just put it down to chance do you?