Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 14:48:33 GMT
I'll ask my MI5 colleagues next week if I am allowed to publish the information they have on the case on this forum. I doubt it but its worth a try
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2018 18:56:16 GMT
The seizure of the ship, and the means by which it was accomplished, was reported as a crime to Merseyside Police shortly after the ship was taken by C&RT in September 2016, but due to the fact that they had neglected to check the credentials of C&RT's bogus 'Bailiffs', or ask to be shown the (fictitious) 'High Court Warrant' that C&RT lied about and claimed to be 'enforcing', the Merseyside Police sought to hide their embarrassing negligence and sweep everything under the carpet by dismissing the unlawful seizure as a 'civil matter' and refusing to record or investigate the incident as a crime. So, it was reported as a crime in 2016 but the police decided not to log it because they didn’t believe it was a crime. Now there is more evidence to show it might be a crime, the owner doesn’t want to take it any further. Yes, that does seem a bit odd. No, . . I'll explain in a bit more detail. When the initial crime report was made it was not that the Police didn't believe that criminal offences had been committed, they knew perfectly well that a crime had occurred but they were not prepared to log and investigate it as such because, having been asked to attend the seizure by C&RT they simply assumed that everything was in order and legitimate and so didn't bother to check the credentials of C&RT's nightclub bouncers (bogus Bailiffs) or to verify that they were in fact acting under the authority of a Court Order. Merseyside officers then stood by and watched while the offences were committed. There is no 'might be' about what happened in Liverpool's Canning Dock on the morning of 19 September 2016 being a crime, but it was a crime which the Merseyside Police stood by and witnessed whilst it was happening, . . . hardly surprising that they'd rather not investigate it. The unlawful seizure, and the Police contribution to it's success, was a prime example of what Nigel Moore so aptly describes as the 'presumption of probity' at work, and which BW/C&RT have enjoyed and put to such frequent and good use over the years to deprive people of their boats by means of their pseudo-legal shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jun 2, 2018 19:15:09 GMT
So, it was reported as a crime in 2016 but the police decided not to log it because they didn’t believe it was a crime. Now there is more evidence to show it might be a crime, the owner doesn’t want to take it any further. Yes, that does seem a bit odd. No, . . it seems I need to explain in more detail. When the initial crime report was made it was not that the Police didn't believe that criminal offences had been committed, they knew perfectly well that a crime had occurred but they were not prepared to log and investigate it as such because, having neglected to check the credentials of C&RT's nightclub bouncers (bogus Bailiffs) or to verify that they were in fact acting under the authority of a Court Order, their (Merseyside's) officers stood by and watched while the offences were committed. There is no 'might be' about what happened in Liverpool's Canning Dock on the morning of 19 September 2016 being a crime, but it was a crime which the Merseyside Police stood by and witnessed whilst it was happening, . . . hardly surprising that they'd rather not investigate it. The unlawful seizure, and the Police contribution to it's success, was a prime example of what Nigel Moore so aptly describes as the 'presumption of probity' which BW/C&RT have enjoyed and put to such frequent and good use over the years to deprive people of their boats by means of their pseudo-legal shenanigans.
It's unbelievable Tony, that it's so easy to abandon-or not even investigate because THEY made a huge mistake, to reduce the disgusting results of their (un) actions, they punished A.R. terribly badly.
It may be too late now, but there is surely something above the Merseyside Police that should be informed about their neglect and unlawful behaviour, as this really sound as a much too easy escape for them.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 2, 2018 19:21:57 GMT
So why havent Gloucester police already investigated the offence of handling stolen goods? As far as I'm aware, Alan Roberts hasn't yet reported the offence to the Gloucestershire Police, and the initial crime report really should be made by the owner of the stolen goods. That will be because the boat hasn't been stolen. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, it is a civil matter, and your constant histrionic claims that there is a criminal offence involved here merely serves to flag up your stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2018 19:51:13 GMT
As far as I'm aware, Alan Roberts hasn't yet reported the offence to the Gloucestershire Police, and the initial crime report really should be made by the owner of the stolen goods. That will be because the boat hasn't been stolen. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, it is a civil matter, and your constant histrionic claims that there is a criminal offence involved here merely serves to flag up your stupidity. Sometime ago I referred to you on this forum as a fucking idiot, but I realize now that my opinion of you was in fact grossly over complimentary.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 2, 2018 19:53:02 GMT
Yet, as you see yourself, Manchester Police are pretty useless - they didn't come to your assistance in Failsworth. Liverpool Police made a basic mistake of not asking for I.D. from night-club bouncers pretending to be Court Bailiffs, and have simply shoved this under the carpet. A matter that could be cleared up very quickly if they could be bothered. Police werent there to check the credentials of everyone involved in the seizure, they were there to prevent any disturbance of the peace brought about by a 'threatening suicide AR' and his crew, who were going about the crowd shouting all sorts of horseshit about what was alledgedly happening! Why would the police halt proceedings forcing a miss in high tide & go round checking who exactly everyone was when no complaints were made at the time?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 2, 2018 20:02:25 GMT
That will be because the boat hasn't been stolen. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, it is a civil matter, and your constant histrionic claims that there is a criminal offence involved here merely serves to flag up your stupidity. Sometime ago I referred to you on this forum as a fucking idiot, but I realize now that my opinion of you was in fact grossly over complimentary. Alternatively, you could have made some attempt to rebut my argument. Your repeated suggestions that the person who has current title to the boat has committed a criminal offence is not simply erroneous, it is libellous. I would suggest that you think a little more carefully about what you post in future, and stop trying to give advice on matters you know nothing about.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2018 20:04:45 GMT
Yet, as you see yourself, Manchester Police are pretty useless - they didn't come to your assistance in Failsworth. Liverpool Police made a basic mistake of not asking for I.D. from night-club bouncers pretending to be Court Bailiffs, and have simply shoved this under the carpet. A matter that could be cleared up very quickly if they could be bothered. Police werent there to check the credentials of everyone involved in the seizure, they were there to prevent any disturbance of the peace brought about by a 'threatening suicide AR' and his crew, who were going about the crowd shouting all sorts of horseshit about what was alledgedly happening! Why would the police halt proceedings forcing a miss in high tide & go round checking who exactly everyone was when no complaints were made at the time? Utter nonsense, . . you're confusing events on the morning the ship was unlawfully seized - 0830 hrs on 19 September 2016 - with Alan Roberts' antics when she was towed out of Canning Dock into the Mersey on 21 September 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 2, 2018 20:11:38 GMT
Police werent there to check the credentials of everyone involved in the seizure, they were there to prevent any disturbance of the peace brought about by a 'threatening suicide AR' and his crew, who were going about the crowd shouting all sorts of horseshit about what was alledgedly happening! Why would the police halt proceedings forcing a miss in high tide & go round checking who exactly everyone was when no complaints were made at the time? Utter nonsense, . . you're confusing events on the morning the ship was unlawfully seized - 0830 hrs on 19 September 2016 - with Alan Roberts' antics when she was towed out of Canning Dock into the Mersey on 21 September 2016. so did mr Roberts report his boat as stolen before it left the docks then or did he go to the police station directly opposite the docks and within spitting distance of Planet on the 19th and report ‘the bailiffs’ for seizing his boat due to unpaid fees? Again why would the police check credentials when it was reported as a ‘civil case’?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2018 20:44:07 GMT
No, . . it seems I need to explain in more detail. When the initial crime report was made it was not that the Police didn't believe that criminal offences had been committed, they knew perfectly well that a crime had occurred but they were not prepared to log and investigate it as such because, having neglected to check the credentials of C&RT's nightclub bouncers (bogus Bailiffs) or to verify that they were in fact acting under the authority of a Court Order, their (Merseyside's) officers stood by and watched while the offences were committed. There is no 'might be' about what happened in Liverpool's Canning Dock on the morning of 19 September 2016 being a crime, but it was a crime which the Merseyside Police stood by and witnessed whilst it was happening, . . . hardly surprising that they'd rather not investigate it. The unlawful seizure, and the Police contribution to it's success, was a prime example of what Nigel Moore so aptly describes as the 'presumption of probity' which BW/C&RT have enjoyed and put to such frequent and good use over the years to deprive people of their boats by means of their pseudo-legal shenanigans.
It's unbelievable Tony, that it's so easy to abandon-or not even investigate because THEY made a huge mistake, to reduce the disgusting results of their (un) actions, they punished A.R. terribly badly.
It may be too late now, but there is surely something above the Merseyside Police that should be informed about their neglect and unlawful behaviour, as this really sound as a much too easy escape for them.
Peter.
I'm pleased to say it isn't too late, Peter. Bit by bit, since "Planet" was taken, I've gradually accumulated a substantial amount of indisputable and very damaging written evidence of their wrongdoings from C&RT themselves, Shoosmiths and C&RT's participating agents. Arrogance and over confidence, gained from all the instances when C&RT/Shoosmiths have succeeded in getting away with this sort of thing courtesy of the 'presumption of probity' they enjoy from such as the Courts and the Police, has, in addition to the revealing anomalies in their letter writing and invoicing, resulted in them becoming extremely careless and indiscreet in how they respond to written questions and/or allegations.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 2, 2018 21:13:19 GMT
Utter nonsense, . . you're confusing events on the morning the ship was unlawfully seized - 0830 hrs on 19 September 2016 - with Alan Roberts' antics when she was towed out of Canning Dock into the Mersey on 21 September 2016. so did mr Roberts report his boat as stolen before it left the docks then or did he go to the police station directly opposite the docks and within spitting distance of Planet on the 19th and report ‘the bailiffs’ for seizing his boat due to unpaid fees? Again why would the police check credentials when it was reported as a ‘civil case’? No, . . Alan Roberts didn't do anything, initially because he wasn't even present when the ship was seized, and over the subsequent few days, like everyone else who has been subjected to this sort of treatment by BW/C&RT, he was in a dazed and bewildered state having been completely overwhelmed by what was happening. I'm not sure what you mean by 'reported as a civil case'. At the time the ship was seized there was no 'case' as such. The seizure of anyone's assets/goods/property is a process which MUST, in law, be authorized and ordered by a Court, and to execute any form of seizure absent the authority of a Court IS a criminal offence. C&RT had neither obtained nor even applied for any such authority or Order from any Court when "Planet" was seized and one of the biggest headaches they've got now is that Shoosmiths have effectively pulled the rug from under them by stating this in writing while they were trying to explain away tampering with (written) evidence submitted to the Court in support of an application to lift the Injunction restraining them from selling "Planet" in December 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 2, 2018 21:19:56 GMT
Yet, as you see yourself, Manchester Police are pretty useless - they didn't come to your assistance in Failsworth. Liverpool Police made a basic mistake of not asking for I.D. from night-club bouncers pretending to be Court Bailiffs, and have simply shoved this under the carpet. A matter that could be cleared up very quickly if they could be bothered. Police werent there to check the credentials of everyone involved in the seizure, they were there to prevent any disturbance of the peace brought about by a 'threatening suicide AR' and his crew, who were going about the crowd shouting all sorts of horseshit about what was alledgedly happening! Why would the police halt proceedings forcing a miss in high tide & go round checking who exactly everyone was when no complaints were made at the time? I think you mean 'breach of the peace' rather than 'disturbance of the peace'. ... and the two foi requests I made to Merseyside Police would support Tony's 'presumption of probity' argument. Police forces should carry out basic checks to ensure that seizures they attend by request are legal. Most do not do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 7:08:56 GMT
Maybe they get away with this sort of thing because they know public opinion will be divided between those who say “well he should have just paid his debt” and those who will say “this is a miscarriage of law” “it’s corporate bullying”. The truth is that both sides of the argument can still be valid at the same time. I digress, but I was watching a YouTube of some guy fending off bailiffs who were trying to repossess his house. The bailiffs made a mistake by being threatening on camera. The owner called the police who actually came and told the bailiffs to leave. What is interesting is reading the divided comments in the the comments section. Very few balanced comments. It’s that bloomin’ divide and conquer thing again. I suppose that’s why we have judges.... (assuming this case would never be big enough to warrant a jury!)
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 3, 2018 12:17:12 GMT
Chain-smoking Gorilla in a waistcoat and his monkey. What a vile couple. Apart from having ID identifying them as genuine County Court Bailiffs, those two, in both appearance and the charm they exuded, were very much as the C&RT bogus 'Bailiffs' were described by the sole occupant of "Planet", Gary Anderton, on the morning the ship was forcibly boarded and broken into. The C&RT knuckle-draggers described themselves as 'Water Bailiffs' (sic), wore jackets with 'Enforcement Officer' emblazoned across the back, and carried/produced no form of authority or ID.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 12:26:12 GMT
Chain-smoking Gorilla in a waistcoat and his monkey. What a vile couple. What’s interesting about that video is how the police seem bamboozled by laws which prevent banks from using illegal tactics to gain repossession. They got there in the end but not without taking a lot of advice. I have no doubt that the supporters and camera footage had a bearing on the outcome too. What’s also interesting is that the bailiffs still tried it on and trespassed even after they were warned by the police. If any of us were warned by the police and went ahead, I’m sure we would be arrested.
|
|