Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 22:25:18 GMT
I always get their home adresses from 192.com, which also gives You access to the electoral role. You just need to know the area they live, which is usually simple enough to find elsewhere. Chantelle seaborn is an easy one to find, she's all over Google. Thanks, Steve, but we don't need home addresses for service of Court papers. All the prosecution paperwork that was laid before the Court gave the work addresses for service for the four people being prosecuted - Seaborn at C&RT's Wigan Office, Goudie at C&RT's Albert Dock address, Nomvete at C&RT's Milton Keynes Office, and Clark at the CBS (Bithell Boats) Chester address. The question of home addresses was only introduced into this by Shoosmiths in yesterdays e-mail. Nomvete, of course, no longer works for C&RT, but we have got her new work address - now, apparently, a 'legal adviser' at Middlesex University, . . . God help them ! Ah, ok π
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 29, 2017 9:36:43 GMT
I always get their home adresses from 192.com, which also gives You access to the electoral role. You just need to know the area they live, which is usually simple enough to find elsewhere. Chantelle seaborn is an easy one to find, Β she's all over Google. Thanks, Steve, but we don't needΒ home addresses for service of Court papers. All the prosecution paperwork that was laid before the Court gave the work addresses for service for the four people being prosecuted - Seaborn at C&RT's Wigan Office, Goudie at C&RT's Albert Dock address, Nomvete at C&RT's Milton Keynes Office, and Clark at the CBS (Bithell Boats) Chester address. The question of home addresses was only introduced into this by Shoosmiths in yesterdays e-mail. Nomvete, of course, no longer works for C&RT, but we have got her new work address - now, apparently, a 'legal adviser' at Middlesex University, . . . God help them ! I might allowing my imagination a little too much free rein, but I can't help wondering if the apparent ease with which C&RT/Shoosmiths were able to lie and bullshit their way out of the hole they were in over the criminal misuse of Section 8 in distraint in Leigh Ravenscroft's Claim has prompted and encouraged them to try something similar over their fictitious Warrant and bogus Bailiffs in Liverpool ? i think you have hit the nail on the head here Tony.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jul 29, 2017 14:47:57 GMT
Make sure a file of these peoples misdeeds reaches their new employer.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 30, 2017 21:56:49 GMT
So if I deliberately run over people in my bus, the courts and Police will go after my boss and not me? It all looks murky and I bet there is a brown envelope with Β£1.50 in it marked for a(nother) bent judge. According to cart. On a slightly different note. Only if they instruct you to do it. If they haven't told you not to, it must be ok Edited to make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 31, 2017 5:49:56 GMT
Seriously though, this just isn't true, that employees under orders are exempt. Is there some body that this can be taken to, as professional misconduct?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 31, 2017 10:59:21 GMT
Seriously though, this just isn't true, that employees under orders are exempt. Is there some body that this can be taken to, as professional misconduct? I think your right. I may be wrong, but do even soldiers get that kind of protection. I would add the boss on the summons as you now have it in writing that he has instructed them to act (allegedly) illegally. So knew full well what his team was doing.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 31, 2017 12:12:36 GMT
Seriously though, this just isn't true, that employees under orders are exempt. Is there some body that this can be taken to, as professional misconduct? I think your right. I may be wrong, but do even soldiers get that kind of protection. I would add the boss on the summons as you now have it in writing that he has instructed them to act (allegedly) illegally. So knew full well what his team was doing. I meant shoosmiths, not CART, is there no-one who deals with solicitors who offer advice contrary to the law?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2017 12:16:42 GMT
I think your right. I may be wrong, but do even soldiers get that kind of protection. I would add the boss on the summons as you now have it in writing that he has instructed them to act (allegedly) illegally. So knew full well what his team was doing. I meant shoosmiths, not CART, is there no-one who deals with solicitors who offer advice contrary to the law? www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/enforcement/solicitor-report/providing-information-policy.page
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 31, 2017 12:22:05 GMT
"We are concerned by behaviour by law firms that indicates serious risk to the public such as financial wrongdoing or dishonesty. We welcome reports about these matters." The advice they are offering is dishonest, but would they close ranks and say there is no serious risk to the public.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2017 12:33:43 GMT
I know one boater who reported a barrister to their special oversight body, for misrepresenting facts before a tribunal in which he was involved. It seemed fairly open and shut to me, but the regulators deemed otherwise. I think in part, that was because the judge accepted the evidence as meaning what was argued without reference to who argued it, so that the decision had been based ostensibly on his own analysis and discretion. He was wrong, but that was not the point [and the oversight body would not make any determination - given the evidence before them - as to it being right or wrong.
It did, however, put the barrister to considerable work and worry in devoting his energies to refutation of the charge. Perhaps if sufficient numbers of similar complaints were lodged, that would have an accumulative effect. [The barrister concerned is not involved in the Lightship saga].
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Aug 1, 2017 20:47:37 GMT
Everything is always carefully worded so that CaRT or their legal representatives have wriggle room to claim it was not what they meant, just a mistake, or an unfortunate error.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 20:53:25 GMT
Everything is always carefully worded so that CaRT or their legal representatives have wriggle room to claim it was not what they meant, just a mistake, or an unfortunate error. Yes, new uses of words that mean lying. They have become very adept with using such memes.
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Sept 4, 2017 16:34:09 GMT
Has there been any update on the lightship or is it still languishing and unresolved.
|
|
|
Post by alex on Sept 28, 2017 12:20:46 GMT
Just heard on roger phillips show radio Merseyside !.05 pm ex river pilot saying new owner is owner of the docks where she is now berthed , sale contract says if he does not preserve planet the contract is voided so he cant scrap it , new owner is named and price paid etc.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 28, 2017 18:32:25 GMT
so they nicked it and gave it to a mate.
no conflict of interest there.
if he scrapped it what would/could crt actually do?
|
|