|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 3, 2018 12:36:59 GMT
Maybe they get away with this sort of thing because they know public opinion will be divided between those who say âwell he should have just paid his debtâ and those who will say âthis is a miscarriage of lawâ âitâs corporate bullyingâ. 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. Itâs that bloominâ divide and conquer thing again. I suppose thatâs why we have judges....  (assuming this case would never be big enough to warrant a jury!) Interesting video, that, . . thanks for posting it. The reference to S.6 of the 1977 Criminal Law Act is very useful, . . looks as if offences covered under that piece of legislation could be added to those that C&RT's goons are already in the frame for under the 2007 Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act. More's the pity that the Merseyside thickies weren't as conscientious and thorough as the WPC who examined the paperwork in the video. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 12:43:03 GMT
Maybe they get away with this sort of thing because they know public opinion will be divided between those who say âwell he should have just paid his debtâ and those who will say âthis is a miscarriage of lawâ âitâs corporate bullyingâ. 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. Itâs that bloominâ divide and conquer thing again. I suppose thatâs why we have judges.... (assuming this case would never be big enough to warrant a jury!) Interesting video, that, . . thanks for posting it. The reference to S.6 of the 1977 Criminal Law Act is very useful, . . looks as if offences covered under that piece of legislation could be added to those that C&RT's goons are already in the frame for under the 2007 Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act. More's the pity that the Merseyside thickies weren't as conscientious and thorough as the WPC who examined the paperwork in the video. Did you see how many views it got? The trouble is that far more houses are repossessed than boats, so public sympathy and interest might not be so high. Planet as far as I know had nobody living on it, if it had, Iâm sure it would be another story. |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 3, 2018 12:50:55 GMT
Interesting video, that, . . thanks for posting it. The reference to S.6 of the 1977 Criminal Law Act is very useful, . . looks as if offences covered under that piece of legislation could be added to those that C&RT's goons are already in the frame for under the 2007 Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act. More's the pity that the Merseyside thickies weren't as conscientious and thorough as the WPC who examined the paperwork in the video. Did you see how many views it got? The trouble is that far more houses are repossessed than boats, so public sympathy and interest might not be so high. Planet as far as I know had nobody living on it, if it had, Iâm sure it would be another story. I think the man I mentioned in the post above, responding to Foxy, was in fact living aboard. Alan Roberts described him as the ship's 'chef', but I think his main function was as caretaker/nightwatchman. I'm still in contact with him, so I'll get that confirmed. |
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 3, 2018 13:04:22 GMT
More's the pity that the Merseyside thickies weren't as conscientious and thorough as the WPC who examined the paperwork in the video. Why would you expect the police to appear at a random site andcheck their credentials? Youâve already stated They werenât called out on a complaint by mr Roberts on either days in question |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 3, 2018 13:39:14 GMT
More's the pity that the Merseyside thickies weren't as conscientious and thorough as the WPC who examined the paperwork in the video. Why would you expect the police to appear at a random site andcheck their credentials? Youâve already stated They werenât called out on a complaint by mr Roberts on either days in question Not quite sure what you're getting at here, . . the Police were asked to attend the ship 'seizure' by C&RT's so-called 'Harbour Manager', Andy Goudie, so they didn't have to 'appear', . . they were already there, having arrived in time to witness the criminal offences that they were later to dismiss as being a 'civil matter'. |
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 3, 2018 14:04:55 GMT
Why would you expect the police to appear at a random site andcheck their credentials? Youâve already stated They werenât called out on a complaint by mr Roberts on either days in question Not quite sure what you're getting at here, . . the Police were asked to attend the ship 'seizure' by C&RT's so-called 'Harbour Manager', Andy Goudie, so they didn't have to 'appear', . . they were already there, having arrived in time to witness the criminal offences that they were later to dismiss as being a 'civil matter'. But it WAS a civil matter at that time..Mr Roberts was having his vessel seized for 'non payment or whatever it was' and didnot make any complaints to the police to investigate otherwise at that time. Just WTF does everyone expect the police to do a thorough investigation into the situation when no one has made an official complaint? They were there to prevent a breach of the peace which they did completely! You seem to be a bit confused as to who the real'Merseyside Thickie' is in all this.... A certain Mr Roberts |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 14:54:18 GMT
If someone was living (eating shitting and sleeping) on the boat when the forced entry took place it would seem to me that it is a totally different subject to an unoccupied vessel with overdue mooring fees being boarded.
I would hope so anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 3, 2018 14:58:28 GMT
Why does a complaint have to be made for the Police to make basic checks? Night-club-thickie-gorillas purporting (that means falsely appearing to be) to be Court Bailiffs is a crime in itself. If I were the Murkeyside Police there, the matter would have stopped all of a sudden right then, with the apes being CaRTed off to the nick for punishment and the matter then getting a serious investigation. That was crime number 1. (although perhaps the first crime was the breaking and entering when Gary Anderton was aboard). Crime number 2 seems to have been when CRT towed the ship out of its berthing-agreement area and out to the sea. I If we don't have people standing up to bullies and pointing out the laws so that 'ordinary folk' can live in peace, then we shall be at the mercy of the whims of tyrants. As for that obnoxious and cocky piece of filth in the above video, I'm less tolerant and would have been be more inclined to reach for my axe and.. (sadly this post had to be cut due to shortage of space).Q If you werethere you would of done fuck all cos you are all piss n wind. They werent present to do any any checks on anything, with your analogy I suppose they should of checked everycar for roadtax /bald tyres..mebbee check all the boats for current licenses and check every passerby in a 500yd area just encase one of them hadnt paid thier TV license? On your laughable point last night about missing high tide making no difference, it obviously proves you have no experience of Anything you are commenting on...Just how the feck do you expect them to open the dock gates with no tide in? you really are a gobshite of the highest order at times! |
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 3, 2018 15:03:21 GMT
If someone was living (eating shitting and sleeping) on the boat when the forced entry took place it would seem to me that it is a totally different subject to an unoccupied vessel with overdue mooring fees being boarded. I would hope so anyway. Well I wouldnt want to cast aspersions, I was on the docks all that week taking an interest in the seizure and towing off...I never saw anyone on that ship apart from uniformed/overalled people welding/securing towing chains etc, nobody making any noise/complains/shouting ortelling folk to get off the ship.which Im sure anyone on this board would of done if a bunch of goons started clambering on their boat! Obviously said occupant could of been 'down below' throughout the week eating, sleeping and shitting! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 15:52:53 GMT
you really are a gobshite of the highest order at times! Go on my son ! You tell him !! |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 3, 2018 16:01:24 GMT
Not quite sure what you're getting at here, . . the Police were asked to attend the ship 'seizure' by C&RT's so-called 'Harbour Manager', Andy Goudie, so they didn't have to 'appear', . . they were already there, having arrived in time to witness the criminal offences that they were later to dismiss as being a 'civil matter'. But it WAS a civil matter at that time..Mr Roberts was having his vessel seized for 'non payment or whatever it was' and didnot make any complaints to the police to investigate otherwise at that time. Just WTF does everyone expect the police to do a thorough investigation into the situation when no one has made an official complaint? They were there to prevent a breach of the peace which they did completely! You seem to be a bit confused as to who the real'Merseyside Thickie' is in all this.... A certain Mr Roberts I've never been under any illusions as to Alan Roberts' many shortcomings, as you will see if you read back through this thread and everything I posted on Analworld at the time. Prior to the (criminally) illegal seizure of "Planet" the C&RT circulated a fictitious cover story via the media for no other purpose than to create a public perception that the ship was being taken in lieu of debt, and this outright lie was swallowed whole by almost everyone it reached, including Merseyside Police and, apparently, you too. If C&RT had obtained a Court Order in respect of a Judgment Debt prior to the seizure of "Planet" by Court authorized/certificated Enforcement agents (the MoJ's new name for Bailiffs) in the event that the (Judgment) debt remained unpaid then, disproportionate and crass as such action would have been given the relative values of the ship and the debt and the cost of such action, the 'seizure' would indeed have been lawful, and it would in fact have been a 'civil matter'. In the event, however, there was NO Judgment Debt, there was NO Court Order, and the ship was forcibly boarded, broken into, and taken by C&RT instructed personnel impersonating 'Bailiffs' - in itself, a criminal offence, and it is these three factors which made what the Merseyside thickies stupidly took to be and treated as a properly conducted Court authorized seizure, into several criminal offences carrying jail terms on conviction of between 6 months and 14 years, and/or a fine of up to ÂŁ5000.00. |
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 3, 2018 16:09:49 GMT
But it WAS a civil matter at that time..Mr Roberts was having his vessel seized for 'non payment or whatever it was' and didnot make any complaints to the police to investigate otherwise at that time. Just WTF does everyone expect the police to do a thorough investigation into the situation when no one has made an official complaint? They were there  to prevent a breach of the peace which they did completely! You seem to be a bit confused as to who the real'Merseyside Thickie' is in all this.... A certain Mr Roberts I've never been under any illusions as to Alan Roberts' many shortcomings, as you will see if you read back through this thread and everything I posted on Analworld at the time. Prior to the (criminally) illegal seizure of "Planet" the C&RT circulated a fictitious cover story via the media for no other purpose than to create a public perception that the ship was being taken in lieu of debt, and this outright lie was swallowed whole by almost everyone it reached, including Merseyside Police and, apparently, you too. If C&RT had obtained a Court Order in respect of a Judgment Debt prior to the seizure of "Planet" by Court authorized/certificated Enforcement agents (the MoJ's new name for Bailiffs) in the event that the (Judgment) debt remained unpaid then, disproportionate and crass as such action would have been given the relative values of the ship and the debt and the cost of such action, the 'seizure' would indeed have been lawful, and it would in fact have been a 'civil matter'. In the event, however, there was NO Judgment Debt, there was NO Court Order, and the ship was forcibly boarded, broken into, and taken by C&RT instructed personnel impersonating 'Bailiffs' - in itself, a criminal offence, and it is these three factors which made what the Merseyside thickies stupidly took to be and treated as a properly conducted Court authorized seizure, into several criminal offences carrying jail terms on conviction of between 6 months and 14 years, and/or a fine of up to ÂŁ5000.00. Again... the police werenât there to ascertain anyoneâs credentials, they werenât there to do anything other than ensure there was no breach on the peace. Unfortunately they werent blessed with your âhindsightâ neither did these thickies do anything wrong in fact they did what they were there to do exceptionally well! |
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jun 3, 2018 16:17:13 GMT
I've never been under any illusions as to Alan Roberts' many shortcomings, as you will see if you read back through this thread and everything I posted on Analworld at the time. Prior to the (criminally) illegal seizure of "Planet" the C&RT circulated a fictitious cover story via the media for no other purpose than to create a public perception that the ship was being taken in lieu of debt, and this outright lie was swallowed whole by almost everyone it reached, including Merseyside Police and, apparently, you too. If C&RT had obtained a Court Order in respect of a Judgment Debt prior to the seizure of "Planet" by Court authorized/certificated Enforcement agents (the MoJ's new name for Bailiffs) in the event that the (Judgment) debt remained unpaid then, disproportionate and crass as such action would have been given the relative values of the ship and the debt and the cost of such action, the 'seizure' would indeed have been lawful, and it would in fact have been a 'civil matter'. In the event, however, there was NO Judgment Debt, there was NO Court Order, and the ship was forcibly boarded, broken into, and taken by C&RT instructed personnel impersonating 'Bailiffs' - in itself, a criminal offence, and it is these three factors which made what the Merseyside thickies stupidly took to be and treated as a properly conducted Court authorized seizure, into several criminal offences carrying jail terms on conviction of between 6 months and 14 years, and/or a fine of up to ÂŁ5000.00. Again... the police werenât there to ascertain anyoneâs credentials, they werenât there to do anything other than ensure there was no breach on the peace. Unfortunately they werent blessed with your âhindsightâ neither did these thickies do anything wrong in fact they did what they were there to do exceptionally well! You seem to be very set on brown-nosing Merseyside Police, . . are they after you for something ? |
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 3, 2018 16:25:20 GMT
Again... the police werenât there to ascertain anyoneâs credentials, they werenât there to do anything other than ensure there was no breach on the peace. Unfortunately they werent blessed with your âhindsightâ neither did these thickies do anything wrong in fact they did what they were there to do exceptionally well! You seem to be very set on brown-nosing Merseyside Police, . . are they after you for something ? Why would they be after me? I just donât agree with âeveryone in the whole world is against poor Mr Roberts because of CRTâ stance that you seem to have! If the dumb fucker would of paid his dues, berthed as agreed or whatever.... or even if he had one tiny bit of common sense and ask a policeman on duty to check exactly who the bailiffs/orders were then maybe he wouldnât find himself in the position he is in! Fortunately, you are in the position to have going on 2 years of hindsight to cast aspersions on what should/shouldnât have happened, so again... thereâs only one merseyside thickie in this sorry tale to blame here! |
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 3, 2018 16:31:17 GMT
Andy .... I think you are missing the important point.
CRT would have had the perfect right to seize the vessel.
If they had a writ against it and would indeed have been able to use court bailiffs to enforce it.
If they had waited a bit longer they would have been able to get a writ against the Planet as a court would have issued it believing whatever CRT put in front of them as evidence, after all CRT are a national charity and what they said would be believed, right or wrong.
If they had followed the correct procedures under the law this thread would not exist.
They didn't ...... they took the law into their own hands.
They asked Merseyside Police to attend the seizure by High Court bailiffs of the Planet which was patently untrue.
I believe, that as there was nobody there at the time to question the accuracy of their claim to have a high court writ that the police can not be really blamed as like courts have been shown to do when dealing with CRT there was a presumption of probity
CRT taking the law into their own hands is the crime, whether or not they would have come to that stage legally is neither here nor there.
They didn't proceed in the correct manner and they and their bogus bailiffs broke the law.
We should be able to "presume the probity" of an organisation such as CRT but there is a steadily building amount of evidence that we cannot.
This should deeply concern all who live on the canals because these are the people who have control over homes and lives
|
|
(assuming this case would never be big enough to warrant a jury!) 
