Locked in car park

[Alphageek]

No he never admitted causing criminal damage. He always insisted he only carefully raised the barrier. Anyone who has seen the unedited cctv footage can see the truth of that.

 

I think that goes without saying Patma.

 

I would simply do as I suggested above and invite LD to save costs and gather their evidence from the police.

 

Fred is not being unhelpful (not that he needs to be) and is trying to assist the claimant

[Patma]

So even if you agree to be cautioned, that might get turned down a short time later & it gets referred to the CPS, or the caution is delivered, or the senior guy realises that its a load of rubbish & the person is let out without realising that everything was dropped and the caution never given

One possibility must be that after the caution was delivered someone in a senior position saw it was a load of rubbish and deleted it, but if that's so they have a lot to answer for letting Fred think for over 3 years that he had a caution against him.

 

One big outstanding question is who has carefully removed all the evidence of the incident and who edited the cctv?

[Patma]

I think that goes without saying Patma.

 

I would simply do as I suggested above and invite LD to save costs and gather their evidence from the police.

 

Fred is not being unhelpful (not that he needs to be) and is trying to assist the claimant

That's an excellent suggestion Alphageek .

[foolishgirl]

Fred allegedly received a Simple Caution, but the conditions were certainly not complied with by the police.

 

 

Hmm- is this why the police are dragging their feet over the info. you are currently awaiting I wonder.

[Patma]

Hmm- is this why the police are dragging their feet over the info. you are currently awaiting I wonder.

 

My suspicion is that they are trying to work out how to limit the damage to themselves and there may be internal investigations going on which they're not telling us about.

[dhoyle]

I'd like to invite Plymouth College of Art and LD round for a game of poker!

 

They should have folded ages ago, but just keep raising the stakes in a game they can only lose.

 

All the best Fred and well done Patma and CAG!

[389shell]

Wow! I remember reading a bit of this thread when it first started, it has now taken me a good few hours to get through 113 pages of twists and turns.

 

You could call this thread 'CAG does Erin Brockovich', not quite a global giant but untruths have been uncovered and it will be a fantastic win with the possibility of someone doing a bit of porridge.

 

Well done, it just goes to show what a fantastic website this is.

 

There have been quite a few guests in and out whilst I've been reading this too.

 

Good luck Patma and Fred, I wish you the very best of luck.

[cab1ne]

interesting read on the police website

 

A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence. If the person refuses the caution then they will normally be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence.

Although it is not technically classed as a conviction it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence.

Cautions are now covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 so will become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). This means that if you are asked on an application form if you have a caution you can reply 'no'. For conditional cautions it would be after 3 months since the caution was issued, up until that time you would have to reply 'yes'.

 

 

This applies retrospectively so applies to anyone who has ever had a caution, irrelevant of when it was given.

 

 

 

If the application form says that the post is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 then the caution must be disclosed, no matter how long ago it was given.

However, this does not mean that it will not be disclosed on a CRB check. It will not normally be disclosed on a standard check but maybe disclosed on an enhanced check and on a subject access request - see below for more information.

Depending on the type of offence cautions are 'stepped down' after a set period of time (5 or 10 years). This basically means that they will only be visible to police staff and not other agencies who do checks. The exception to this is if a person is the subject of an Enhanced Disclosure and then if relevant it will be disclosed.

Even after five/ten years the caution can still be disclosed if you apply for certain types of jobs, i.e. police, teacher, or jobs working with children and vulnerable adults. It will be disclosed if it is relevant to the job you are applying for.

Cautions will always remain on a person's record but as explained above will be stepped down after 5 or 10 years. There are only exceptional circumstances when a caution could be removed from a person's record and it is anticipated that such incidents will be rare. Examples of such possible circumstances are that it was found that the original arrest or sample was unlawful or where it was found beyond all doubt that no offence existed. Any requests that fit the above criteria should be directed to the Chief Constable of the force concerned.

 

 

 

cab

[noomill060]

"Examples of such possible circumstances are that it was found that the original arrest or sample was unlawful or where it was found beyond all doubt that no offence existed. Any requests that fit the above criteria should be directed to the Chief Constable of the force concerned"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............

[Helford]

Hi,

 

Just to clarify, Hays DX (Document Exchange) is NOT like fax. DX allows original documents to be transferred from one designated point (i.e. A local bank, insurance broker etc. acts as a local collection point in the community) and then they are transferred overnight (By road, rail, aircraft etc.) to another designated point from where they are collected. Depending on your volume of mail, you might be a designated point yourself!

 

See here:- DX exchange

 

H

[Yorky2008]

A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence. If the person refuses the caution then they will normally be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence.

 

So we have no caution and no prosecution....now I may not be a high flying lawyer like LD but that to me says no case to answer....

 

Count me in on the poker game, I can clean up

[Patma]

I'd like to invite Plymouth College of Art and LD round for a game of poker!

 

They should have folded ages ago, but just keep raising the stakes in a game they can only lose.

 

All the best Fred and well done Patma and CAG!

Thanks for your good wishes,dhoyle.

We'll keep going till we win too

[Patma]

Wow! I remember reading a bit of this thread when it first started, it has now taken me a good few hours to get through 113 pages of twists and turns.

 

You could call this thread 'CAG does Erin Brockovich', not quite a global giant but untruths have been uncovered and it will be a fantastic win with the possibility of someone doing a bit of porridge.

 

Well done, it just goes to show what a fantastic website this is.

 

There have been quite a few guests in and out whilst I've been reading this too.

 

Good luck Patma and Fred, I wish you the very best of luck.

 

Thanks for your support 389shell.

I noticed the guests were dropping a fair bit today too.

[Patma]

There are only exceptional circumstances when a caution could be removed from a person's record and it is anticipated that such incidents will be rare. Examples of such possible circumstances are that it was found that the original arrest or sample was unlawful or where it was found beyond all doubt that no offence existed. Any requests that fit the above criteria should be directed to the Chief Constable of the force concerned.

Both the above apply in this case.

Funny thing is Fred started out thinking he' might have an uphill struggle challenging the caution as it doesn't seem to happen too often.

Who'd have guessed it would have gone and disappeared all by itself

[Patma]

Well, well, well, we have an update!

 

Fred has been on the phone to say he's received a letter from Lyons Davidson this morning, together with a new witness statement from Mr Dexter saying this (drum roll:D:p:D)....

"The barrier in place at the time of the incident was manufactured by FAAC. This was later replaced by a barrier manufactured by RIB."

This is kindly signed with a statement of truth.

There's more...

They've also inluded a more detailed defence against the counterclaim and Fred read bits out to me....one of which admits that the barrier was already damaged when Fred lifted it. They are claiming that his action in lifting it damaged it further.

They are still sticking to the old line that classes finished at 12 and therefore Fred had no business being there, but we've already demolished that argument with proof from Plymouth College of Art staff themselves via FOI requests.

 

In the accompanying letter from Lyons Davidson they refer to having been informed that Fred has communicated directly with the College Principal and they state they are the College's legal representatives and he must communicate through them.

[Patma]

I have a wonderful quote from Lord Woolf ....

"They have to stand by their statements of truth signed by them, they sent them to the court, if they have lied, then the rest is a lie." Lord Woolf

 

I want to be able to give the reference for it, but so far haven't been able to track it down.

Does anyone know where I might find it please?

[electron99]

This is fast becoming a farce. If the barrier was already damaged, and fred caused further damage, why are they chasing him for many times the cost of a new barrier. Should not this be directed towards the person who first did the damage. Presumably CCTV exists of this, or does it?

[Patma]

This is fast becoming a farce. If the barrier was already damaged, and fred caused further damage, why are they chasing him for many times the cost of a new barrier. Should not this be directed towards the person who first did the damage. Presumably CCTV exists of this, or does it?

 

A farce it certainly is electron. We have a previous witness statement from Mr Dexter stating the barrier was definitely not a FAAC and we also have the fact that they have claimed no records exist, but now suddenly when the Principal has entered the equation a little bit of truth is trickling out.

I think these lates offerings give us a lot of scope even perhaps a strike out application in view of all the false statements.

[middenmess]

Arrowed is the latest work party on their way to continue digging this huge hole just outside their Bristol Office.

 

Despite repeated requests to lay down their tools,the proprietors of Lyons Davidson have stated that will not stop until they can dig no more!

 

[Patma]

:lol: Upsydaisy!

Priceless, middenmess!

[Yorky2008]

They've also inluded a more detailed defence against the counterclaim and Fred read bits out to me....one of which admits that the barrier was already damaged when Fred lifted it. They are claiming that his action in lifting it damaged it further.

 

They would have to prove what additional damage Fred has caused by his actions and then they would only be able to claim for that, the rest they would have to recover from the other 3rd parties.

 

As no maintenance records, or any records for that matter, seem to exist they are on a hiding to nowhere and just running up costs. Be interesting to see what the judge makes of the makes of the fact that they know they dont have the evidence and are still pushing on and just p1ssing money away now!!!!

[Patma]

They would have to prove what additional damage Fred has caused by his actions and then they would only be able to claim for that, the rest they would have to recover from the other 3rd parties.

 

As no maintenance records, or any records for that matter, seem to exist they are on a hiding to nowhere and just running up costs. Be interesting to see what the judge makes of the makes of the fact that they know they dont have the evidence and are still pushing on and just p1ssing money away now!!!!

Verty true Yorky!

And what will the court make of all the growing list of false statements they've made, under statements of truth? That in itself is an offence.

Again I quote Lord Woolf:-

"They have to stand by their statements of truth signed by them, they sent them to the court, if they have lied, then the rest is a lie." Lord Woolf

 

I really want to find the source of this quote if anyone has any ideas where I might track it down.

[pebsham]

A new law hits the statute books, "Criminal Damage Lite"!

This is when you cause criminal damage to something that's already broken but you pay for the whole repair. Wow infinite cash flow. Just bill anybody that passed throgh the barrier as contributors to the "damage".

 

Are LD really a bunch of qualified people or do they only exist as a software package called "random broken-law generator"?

 

Is the security guard responsible towards the costs because I'm guessing he raised and lowered the "arm" many times after it originally failed?

 

Are the college jointly responsible towards the cost of repair because they've admitted they knowingly allowed a broken security device to continue to be used without putting it out of action?

[Patma]

A new law hits the statute books, "Criminal Damage Lite"!

This is when you cause criminal damage to something that's already broken but you pay for the whole repair. Wow infinite cash flow. Just bill anybody that passed throgh the barrier as contributors to the "damage".

 

Are LD really a bunch of qualified people or do they only exist as a software package called "random broken-law generator"?

 

Is the security guard responsible towards the costs because I'm guessing he raised and lowered the "arm" many times after it originally failed?

 

Are the college jointly responsible towards the cost of repair because they've admitted they knowingly allowed a broken security device to continue to be used without putting it out of action?

All very good points pebsham.

I've just realised too that this admission also proves that the original complaint to the Police was fraudulent.oopsy daisy yet again.

[royboy68]

Was there a statement of truth stating that the barrier was in good working order. If so then how can they then amend the defence.

Be careful with this as they may have come up with a ploy that the damage was minor and Fred compounded it making it useless. Sureley they should be put to proof as to what the damage was.