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

Michael Barrymore

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby preacherman » Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:23 pm

dls wrote:
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.


well I am moving on! before i thought the police might have been trying to help me, but now they are denying being present when they evicted me. The police even gave me a lift home, and said its only the criminals who dont get taken home, so they couldn't have thought my arrest was necessary.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby shootist » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:17 pm

preacherman wrote:well I am moving on! before i thought the police might have been trying to help me, but now they are denying being present when they evicted me. The police even gave me a lift home, and said its only the criminals who dont get taken home, so they couldn't have thought my arrest was necessary.


In view of other comments I will have to tread carefully here. All I can say to that is it would not be the first time that police officers have blown the proverbial smoke up the equally proverbial orifice to sooth a 'special' client. It proves nothing about what they thought or what they did.
"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: 3462
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby preacherman » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:20 pm

shootist wrote:
preacherman wrote:well I am moving on! before i thought the police might have been trying to help me, but now they are denying being present when they evicted me. The police even gave me a lift home, and said its only the criminals who dont get taken home, so they couldn't have thought my arrest was necessary.


In view of other comments I will have to tread carefully here. All I can say to that is it would not be the first time that police officers have blown the proverbial smoke up the equally proverbial orifice to sooth a 'special' client. It proves nothing about what they thought or what they did.


well i couldn't prove what they said anyway, outside of the taped interview.

is it standard practice for an officer to read the arrested person the statement of complaint made by the complainer?
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby shootist » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:37 pm

preacherman wrote:is it standard practice for an officer to read the arrested person the statement of complaint made by the complainer?


Well, it would certainly help explain what the complaint is about. Why might they not want to read it?
"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: 3462
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby preacherman » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:59 pm

shootist wrote:
preacherman wrote:is it standard practice for an officer to read the arrested person the statement of complaint made by the complainer?


Well, it would certainly help explain what the complaint is about. Why might they not want to read it?


I dont really know to be honest. It was a bit like 'here is what they are saying'. I guess I thought due to the data protection act, if a person made a complaint to the police then the police would look into it and ask questions but not necessarily read you the full statements of the complaints made.By reading me one statement I learnt that a person had committed perjury in civil court proceedings as he had denied threatening me (said it was all very quite when he came to my property). whereas he admitted to the police that he had in fact threatened me to rip my head from shoulders and xxxx down my neck.

that kind of puts things in a new light for me, this group of people were serious about what they were trying to do. I suppose the police never took it serious as the court date was dropped, I dont know why, think I will check.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby dls » Tue Dec 27, 2016 5:41 am

well I am moving on!


Moving on in this context means leaving it all behind you and looking ahead. That does not include trying six or more years later trying to unpick the possible motives of someone giving you a lift home.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby atticus » Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:26 am

By my reckoning, given how long the OP has been going on about this, it is probably 10 years or more. I wrote the original "swimming with sharks" post, trying to unpick something that happened later in the story, in 2009 or 2010.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby 3.14 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:43 am

Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby atticus » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:03 pm

That is not the original thread. It was on a previous incarnation of this forum.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Michael Barrymore

Postby 3.14 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:07 pm

Have you tried the wayback machine?
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2105
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torts - Negligence, Defamation and others

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron