Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Michael Barrymore

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby preacherman » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:31 pm

y
shootist wrote:Simple question. How much of your version of events can you prove. I mean, prove, not to yourself, but to an independent third party, such as a court? If none, or even if not enough, then leave it, learn from it, and move on.


all of it is provable, but whether it was an unlawful arrest I dont know for sure. Apparently all arrests are deemed unlawful: 'every imprisonment is “prima facie” (on its face) unlawful. This was stated in Liversidge v Anderson (1942), so again is well-established law'

what annoys me is the fact that the police have (fairly recently) denied being present on both occasions when they evicted me from a business, but when I was arrested they clearly state on tape that they came down with an order that said I had to leave, and they did evict me. Their recent denial would be my point of realization that they might have in fact unlawfully arrested me. as far as I know you are allowed to issue court papers, and you can write what you like as it is privileged, even if a person finds its offensive. it was obviously a conspiracy by the people who complained, as I was witnessing on paper actual events that they had been involved with.

I suppose the question might be did the arresting officer think that an offence of harassment was being committed by another (me issuing court papers via the court).
(i) the arresting officer honestly suspected the arrested person was involved in the commission of a criminal offence (“the subjective test”)

(ii) the arresting officer held that suspicion on reasonable grounds (“the objective test”)
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby 3.14 » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:42 pm

Is there or were there any injunctions against you? Perhaps forbidding you from going to court without the permission of a Judge?
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2154
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby preacherman » Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:45 am

3.14 wrote:Is there or were there any injunctions against you? Perhaps forbidding you from going to court without the permission of a Judge?


no but i can see where your going. one of the complainants to police said he was harassed because I said 'hello' to him in the spar shop!.They were pulling on every string.

I think you already know they did later obtain an order where I had to seek permission from a judge.I wouldn't get caught up with confirmation bias though.These are separate things, and tactics to pervert justice.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby shootist » Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:09 am

To put it plainly, I suggest that you need to find a person who has the capability of putting together a concise account, based upon all the evidence you have, of what took place in the form of a well set out file. Perhaps a solicitor, or someone else with sufficient familiarity with legal processes. I mean no offence when I say that I can only suspect from your posts here that your own attempts have been sufficiently incoherent that the police and any other party involved that you are pissed off with feel confident enough to kick your complaints into touch.

Once you have a file put together, give it to a reasonably intelligent disinterested third party to read. If they think you have a case then the next stop might be the small claims court. But do not expect 'justice' even there. If you present a good case then the police will settle out of court while denying they have done anything wrong, on the basis that they are nobly saving public money because an out of court settlement will be cheaper than a full meat and two veg punch up in court.

If, OTOH, said third party concludes that you haven't a chance, then as I have said, move on. It is possible that you may pick up some tips from this site, albeit the site presents a somewhat individual perspective. It does have some worthwhile advice though:

http://crimebodge.com/

I would strongly recommend that you do not seek aid via any printed word. You need a face to face meeting, along with all your evidence, with someone sufficiently knowledgeable to prepare a case file, and you must be mature enough to accept an opinion that you don't stand a chance, if that is the case.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby shootist » Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:22 am

preacherman wrote:
3.14 wrote:Is there or were there any injunctions against you? Perhaps forbidding you from going to court without the permission of a Judge?


no but i can see where your going. one of the complainants to police said he was harassed because I said 'hello' to him in the spar shop!.They were pulling on every string.

I think you already know they did later obtain an order where I had to seek permission from a judge.I wouldn't get caught up with confirmation bias though.These are separate things, and tactics to pervert justice.


Oops! I missed this one. From what you say, it appears you have been anointed as a 'vexatious litigant' and require the permission of a judge before issuing proceedings. You appear to be saying that you have failed to comply with this condition when you say that you wouldn't get caught up in confirmation bias, whatever that is. If I have it right then by ignoring this requirement you have indulged in a level of knobheadery that is unhelpful to your case, to say the least. You really need to spend some serious time talking to a very patient, methodical, knowledgeable, organised, person, and then listen to what they tell you. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you appear to be in significant danger here.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby preacherman » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:06 pm

anointed, That`s one way of putting it. No that came much later than the arrest,(the vexatious litigant order), and its over. Confirmation bias in short is 'the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories'.

I just said it because 3.14 knows (I would imagine) as I have previously discussed it, that I did indeed get anointed once with a CRO.

There was no such thing when I was arrested.

as I have previously mentioned the police said I had pursued a course of conduct because I was implying a fireman of 19 years was a conspirator to arson. It was a statement of facts, written in a court document, correctly issued by the court. I am sure the truth of the statement did imply that.

I also said, 'was he dropped on his head when he was a baby' in another court document in respect to a landlord who drilled a sixteen year olds flat door, while she was in bed. The officer was implying these words in a court document caused the landlord anxiety, alarm and distress.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby Denning » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:06 pm

shootist wrote:Simple question. How much of your version of events can you prove. I mean, prove, not to yourself, but to an independent third party, such as a court? If none, or even if not enough, then leave it, learn from it, and move on.

I just see some contributions here extremely unkindly (not necessarily referring to the quoted post). No matter the overwhelming evidence justice in the UK, and within English legal system especially, is skewed towards the highest bidder.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby atticus » Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:06 pm

Den, the OP has been posting here for at least 7 years about his history of barking up the wrong tree and picking unwinnable fights. He has had an order made against him that he may not issue more court claims without permission of a judge.

Perhaps if you ask him nicely, he will set out the history for you, so that you can look at it with your fresh eyes.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20298
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby dls » Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:10 pm

his history of barking up the wrong tree and picking unwinnable fights.


I would add that we have some sympathy perhaps with what originally happened but at the same time, there is a strong belief that there comes a time (in this case probably a long ago) when someone needs to move on.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12394
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby preacherman » Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:18 pm

atticus wrote:Den, the OP has been posting here for at least 7 years about his history of barking up the wrong tree and picking unwinnable fights. He has had an order made against him that he may not issue more court claims without permission of a judge.

Perhaps if you ask him nicely, he will set out the history for you, so that you can look at it with your fresh eyes.


well I disagree with that. Edison took 1,000 tries to get to the light bulb. Its not really a case of cases being unwinnable,and seeking permission is also a past tense.

So it could be said I lost the last case regarding duty of care and Caparo, but at least it came out of that case that there was a misrepresentation made.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torts - Negligence, Defamation and others

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron