Vindictive County Court Bailiff Falsely Claiming Assault !!!

[rocket1]

Anyone' s advice on this would be welcome.

 

But it is also important everyone knows how vicious, vindictive and nasty this government and it's small minded politically correct army of pompously smug bureaucrats are; and how they are poisoning daily life in this country with their strong arm tactics and abuse of law.

 

A court bailiff has made a false allegation of assault because he is miffed at me successfully preventing entry to my house and then humiliating him.

 

I was fined for speeding when a speed camera clocked me 8 mph over the 30 mph limit on a wide, open and completely vehicle free main A road in a rainstorm in the middle of the night, despite the fact I braked instantly i saw the speed limit sign.

 

I had braked as hard as possible instantly I first saw the speed limit sign. The sign was so close to the camera, the camera flashed the instant I braked anyway - hence the reason for being over the limit; it was quite simply impossible to slow down fast enough.

 

I was fined £500 for failing to disclose that I was the driver, despite informing the court on at least three separate occasions.

 

Because of this I managed to have the case set aside and reheard and I was told the fine for £500 for 'failing to disclose driver's name' would be dropped.

 

Despite this, a bailiff appeared at my house the day before the re-trial of the case.

 

The first I knew of the bailiff being on my premises was when I went into the kitchen and this man appeared outside the house and grabbed an open window and said he was going to enter my house. He did not say at that stage he was a bailiff.

 

I encouraged him to remove his fingers from the window by shutting the window. The window did not shut on his fingers or trap them in any way. He simply removed them when he saw I was determined to shut the window.

 

He then screamed like a stuck pig "That's assault assault, I'm calling the police".

 

The police arrived and insisted I open my front door so they could speak to me about the allegation of assault. I refused to open the door and told them to speak to me through the door.

 

The police threatened to break the door down and arrest me. I told them that would be an illegal act. They kept on making various threats and were obviously determined to assist the bailiff gain entry, despite the fact they expressly told me they would not do that.

 

I then passed the police a letter through the letter box from the court, together with a court order saying the case had been set aside and that there was a re-hearing the next day.

 

The bailiff insisted that the letter referred to another case and that the case number was different. He was entirely wrong. The police told him to 'phone the court, whereon he was told that I was right, the case had been set aside and as there was no fine to collect he should not have been there to harass me.

 

The bailiff then left at my insistence, but the police remained as they insisted they wanted to speak to me about the allegation of assault from the bailiff. When I was satisfied the bailiff had gone, I opened the door to the police who took my name and details and said they would come back after taking a statement from the bailiff and then take a statement from me.

 

The police later 'phoned and asked me to attend the police station today for an interview to be taped and a statement taken at the same time.

 

This interview with the police is this afternoon !

 

Help !

 

The Totalitarian POLICE STATE of Gormless Gordon Brown undermines British freedom yet again with state employed strong arm thugs to terrorise law abiding citizens with violence and criminal extortion (disguised as fines, charges and taxes to the State).

[spitfire650]

Are you sure it was a county court bailiff, and not a private one, not that this makes much difference as you got rid of him and the fine was set aside.

 

Unless there was another witness to the alleged assault, the only way you are going get convicted is if you make some kind of admission at the interview or there is medical evidence of physical damage.

 

At the start of the interview you will be cautioned under PACE and advised of your right to have solicitor present. You should advise the police officer to go and find you a solicitor before answering any questions.

 

Good luck!

[spamheed]

I would contact a solicitor immediately and arrange to have someone with you when you go into the police station. don't rely on the police to do you any favours

 

Without any evidence of harm befalling the bailiff there would be no possibility of a prosecution

 

Did you get the names and numbers of the policement who attended because they should bear witness to the fact that the bailiff was unharmed when he departed the scene

[BankFodder]

I think that the evidence is with you. It is entirely reasonable for anyone who is suddenly confronted with a strange man at the kitchen window and who is trying to keep the window open, to take steps to close the window.

 

If the man had been given entry it would have been peaceably through the door.

 

Stick to your story. Tell the truth. Insist that you did no more than was reasonable in the circumstances and that you only tried to shut the window to protect yourself and that you were acting in self-defence.

 

Don't agree with any questions or propositions which are put to you.

 

Be firm and convincing. remain certain in all of your answers. Say as little as possible and in the end tell them that you are feeling frightened by the interview and you want a lawyer with you.

 

Never agree that "well I suppose it might look that way" or that could be possible"

 

Simply repeat that you were worried. You acted without malice simply to protect yourself and that your actions were reasonable

[spitfire650]

You need to stick firmly with the explanation that he failed to identify himself or the purpose of his visit. In similar circumstances many people might could that they were faced with an intruder. If he had the same thug like appearance as most private bailiffs this will only add weight to that idea.

[WelshMam2009]

Let's be honest, you did no more than any of us would have done faced with a man trying to gain entry into our house through an open window!!

 

You employed reasonable force to prevent, what you believed to be a burglar, from gaining entry to your property.

 

Has the world gone mad?!!

 

At most he will have a few scratches/bruises on his fingers.

 

It's clear from your actions with the Police that you were avoiding contact with this guy and were not been confrontational.

 

Best of luck with this...let us know how you get on.

[noomill060]

I wonder what happened?

[rocket1]

Sorry to keep you all in suspense.

 

This is the first opportunity I've had to get back to the computer.

 

I am quite overwhelmed with your displays of obviously genuine concern.

 

Many thanks for everyone's advice ! It makes a huge difference even if you think you know all the answers anyway. It is always the way everyone's mind works. We all need support and reassurance with anything like this because we all build of imaginary doubts in a vacuum when we are on our own.

 

Spitfire, I think it was a county court bailiff as it was a magistrates fine. But I have yet to find out. I did ask the police but they didn't know.

 

Of course I failed to note the identity numbers of the police at the time, although I suppose I might be able to retrieve them later if required. When you become agitated with things like this you simply don't think of the blindingly obvious.

 

I did not make any admissions at the interview and there were no witnesses to the incident. And I did make an absolute point of saying as little as possible. But I was worried the little varmint might have used the camera on his mobile phone which might have shown me sort of vaguely prising his fingers off the window which might give rise to technical assault.

 

And, no there were absolutely no injuries caused, although I do not yet know if he has falsely claimed any.

 

Spamheed, it became clear at the police interview, as the police expressly informed me, that the bailiff had foolishly exaggerated the incident to include in his statement that I had pushed him backwards by the shoulder. It is foolish because it can easily be proven that it is a physical impossibility, what with the window being 7 foot off the ground and obstructions in front of it inside the house, the aperture awkwardly small making it impossible for hand or arm to protrude through it more than a few inches and therefore nowhere near any persons shoulder.

 

The police showed they were completely devious as they went fishing with me to try and persuade me to be daft enough to allow them to bend the facts just enough to enable them to have enough evidence to charge me. Equally, I am quite certain they would have facilitated the bailiff's entry had I opened the door. Also, they lied to me in saying that I was obliged to open the door to them and they would break it down and arrest me if I didn't open it. The police are absolutely not ever to be trusted in any circumstances.

 

But I have wised up to the way the police always seem so nice and kind and reasonable and friendly just to get you to say things to allow them to achieve their goal of prosecution and conviction. So, I stuck to the absolute minimum.

 

I decided not to be 'awkward' and insist on a solicitor, because I knew that the best a solicitor could do would be to advise not to answer any incriminating question. As it was my express intent to only communicate one tiny step above the 'no comment' level, a solicitor was unnecessary. If the questioning had become too ridiculous, I would have terminated the interview and demanded a solicitor.

 

But by appearing to 'co-operate fully' with the police I intended not to antagonise them and encourage them to 'get me' but rather to give a clear and simple story the police could believe, that the bailiff had not identified himself until after the window was shut and the police had arrived, and that I had absolutely not used any force or caused any harm or injury or even pushed the man. All I had done was simply closed the window when he thought I was dim enough to obey his squealing instructions to leave it alone and not shut it so he could climb in or probably then call in the police and claim he had entered the house by virtue of his hand being through the window.

 

He would then ask the police to prevent me from stopping the little bit of diseased humanity from climbing in through the window.

 

I once had a parking fine private bailiff (that nasty human detritus that featured on a tv programme about bailiff's working days !) put his foot in my front door and nothing could persuade him to move it. The boot was a really strong industrial injury prevention boot, obviously deliberately worn for this purpose. This nasty creature called the police (Haringey, North London) and they told me the bailiff was legally within my house by virtue of this foot in the door and that if I didn't open the door fully to allow him into the house the police would arrest me for causing a breach of the peace. Never mind the boot was clear evidence of a man forcing his way into a house which is illegal even for a bailiff.

 

I argued a lot, but the police were obviously intent on arresting me at that time. The police in London do have a habit of constantly flouting the law - even to the extent of illegally corralling thousands of people prisoner at G20 demonstrations and occasionally kicking them to death (Ian Tomlinson G20 demo) or even randomly shooting them dead in tube trains for no valid reason at all !

 

This might remind you Gormless Gordon and his devious predecessor have turned this country into a true totalitarian police state by stealth in the twelve years they have grabbed power and abused it. Their governance has been evil, dishonest and disgusting; causing immense and irreparable damage to this country.

 

Anyway, I am fairly confident the police won't be daft enough to even put the case before the Crown Prosecution Service, and if they did, it would be inconceivable the CPS would decide to prosecute. If they did, believe me, I would fight the b*****ds tooth and nail and use the nuclear weapon of publicity to cause them the most ridicule and damage.

 

I will pursue a complaint against the bailiff as a matter of principle, and if I am not charged and prosecuted I will demand the police explain why they don't prosecute the bailiff for wasting police time. Maybe I can make that prosecution if they don't.

 

Equally, I am not accepting the speeding fine lying down either. I spoke to someone at the court to ask if I could fax them a letter instead of being present in person (it's 120 odd miles away). They said they were a qualified solicitor and titled 'legal adviser' (implying they could 'advise' me, but their job is obviously to provide legal advice to the magistrates not me, and to generally assist with gaining convictions and scoring brownie points as they do the dirty work of the State and persecute perfectly innocent motorists to extort money from them for Gormless Gordon Brown to squander.

 

They 'advised' me I had to plead guilty to speeding on the assumption the camera was correct. It I was there doing 8 mph over the 30 mph limit I had to be guilty and there was no point in pleading not guilty; it was an absolute, they said.; black and white. Guilty or not guilty of 38 mph.

 

And, if I was guilty to 38 mph, then that meant a mandatory fine of £60 and three points on the licence, regardless of any extenuating circumstances as detailed by me (see MODERN TIMES IN MUDSHIRES for more details and copies of the letters etc).

 

This idea of mandatory penalties would make a nonsense of mitigating circumstances being relevant to the court. Further, I smell a rat and that I should be able to legally plead not guilty even if the camera correctly showed a speed of 38 mph.

 

The reason being, that I genuinely braked instantly I first saw a speed limit sign; that I had not been driving at excessive speed prior to that; that the sign was so close to the camera that it was clearly impossible to slow down in time as I genuinely discovered; and that if there had been other, previous, speed limit signs, I simply had not seen them by virtue of them being -

 

a) the small versions (almost certainly, or at least mostly) and,

 

b) visibility was so bad, there being a cloudburst of rain at the time, that it was almost impossible to see anything clearly out of the windscreen as even the windscreen wipers were failing to clear the windscreen - as commonly happens with excessive rainfall in storm conditions.

 

c) that no law can demand that anyone can prejudice their own safety and their lives and those of their passengers by giving a priority to peering at the side of the road to look for road signs of any kind at the expense of losing control of the vehicle by virtue of failing to concentrate exclusively on the exceptionally dangerous road conditions caused by a storm and almost zero visibility beyond the front the car.

 

To make it quite clear, the density of the rainfall made it impossible to see the road signs most of the time.

 

It is not the duty of the motorist to slavishly follow legal stupidities at all times, even to the extent of causing death or injury rather than 'disobey' the law. The law does not demand that citizens kill themselves in the pursuit of obeying legal statutes to the exclusion of safety and freedom from danger and injury or death.

 

If this isn't a defence it just shows how much this nasty government has corrupted the law.

 

So, if I am penalised, I will make every kind of fuss I can possibly muster. If possible, I will go to jail rather than pay a fine ( and ensure maximum publicity). But I suspect that will not be possible as there are devious ways the State can prevent this.

 

So, at present this 'legal adviser' told me the case would now be adjourned simply for the mutual convenience of me co-operating by pleading guilty, where-upon I was explicitly told the charge of failing to inform the thieves I was the driver ( when I actually already had) would be dropped, along with the amazing £500 fine.

 

It was interesting the 'legal adviser' informed me that failing to disclose the name of the driver was considered a more serious offence than speeding - hence the huge £500 fine. Curious that. It's more serious to thwart the government's money making scheme than speeding and possibly endangering people by virtue of dangerous driving !

 

 

 

Humn ?

 

What planet am I now living on ?

 

Clearly not the one I was born on !

Edited September 17, 2009 by rocket1

[spitfire650]

Good - sounds like you are off the hook.

 

On the previous occasion the police mislead you - there are plenty of reported cases where the courts have found that a bailiff forcing his foot in the door is not "peaceful entry".

 

Would I be right in thinking that you are not a strong supporter of the current government?

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

"b) visibility was so bad, there being a cloudburst of rain at the time, that it was almost impossible to see anything clearly out of the windscreen as even the windscreen wipers were failing to clear the windscreen - as commonly happens with excessive rainfall in storm conditions.

 

c) that no law can demand that anyone can prejudice their own safety and their lives and those of their passengers by giving a priority to peering at the side of the road to look for road signs of any kind at the expense of losing control of the vehicle by virtue of failing to concentrate exclusively on the exceptionally dangerous road conditions caused by a storm and almost zero visibility beyond the front the car."

 

Not that I would really wish to push your buttons any further but would even 10 mph be reasonable in the conditions such as you describe?

 

GK

[berrti]

I have full sympathy with you over the police and baliff fiasco, but as far as the speeding charge goes then I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on. Indeed the statement that you have made would indicate to me that had it been a police patrol car that saw you then you could have been facing a more serious charge instead.

[rocket1]

berrti & GamekeeperToPoacher

 

 

No, No, NO. Let's keep things in perspective here.

 

Rainfall varies from light to quite excessive where there is no choice but to cease driving completely (when your comments would be appropriate). I have usually experienced that in tropical countries only.

 

Typically in the UK storm conditions can start off with relatively light rainfall, then become very heavy, sometimes 'gusting' to rainfall similar to tropical conditions of extreme.

 

It is not possible or appropriate to stop the car every time it rains.

 

I can assure you it was quite appropriate to travel at 38 miles an hour in the conditions I experienced as I had considered the possibility of actually stopping and found it was hardly merited providing I drove carefully with my eyes riveted on the road ahead.

 

I had in fact already been driving at much slower speeds, possibly even as low as ten mph. That is the time I possibly failed to see any previous speeding signs and had started speeding up when I saw the 30 mph sign in question.

 

That is why it is quite ludicrous to penalise anyone in those circumstances.

 

On that subject, the idea the government should try and prevent people behaving badly by having billions of statutes in place to tell them precisely how to live every minute of their lives is perverted, pointless and completely ineffective.

 

Overall, people's moral standards of behaviour are vastly worse in today's control freakery by statute, than in past times decades ago when the population was taught morality and discipline and people were expected to behave in a civilised way with a tidal wave of laws which are mostly impossible to practicably comply with.

 

 

This meant drivers were trusted to travel at a sensible speed appropriate for conditions. This would mean travelling at, say 30 mph on an main road such as the one I was on in busy day time conditions, but with a completely empty wide road late at night with absolutely no traffic or people or even parked cars (it was basically still an empty country road) a low speed of 30 mph is often just plain silly - as any motorist will have experienced.

 

To bring every person down to the lowest common denominator of stupidity by enacting endless statutes is ludicrous and perverted.

 

You cannot live a life by tickbox form filling. It is the stuff of crazed nightmares.

 

This government is obsessed with doing just this.

[noomill060]

Rant over?

 

Good.

 

Just stick to your bailiff situation.

[rocket1]

Rant over ?

 

Not really.

 

Unlike most people, I'm not prepared to just lie down and let my rulers/the government slide into Stalinistic/Hitleresque/ Mugabe/Idi Amin style totalitarian dictatorship that wrecks my life as well as every one else's.

 

You can be pompously smug if you want to, but is doesn't say much for who you are, does it ?

[MRSWESTHAM]

I agree completely, this is a site to help people an recently I have seen a few posts that are completely unhelpful and downright nasty. Yes we should all obide by the speed limit and yes we could cause anaccident but if you say you have never gon slightly over your talking out the wrong side. Lets stick to the points and leave the holier than thou attitude out of it.

[spitfire650]

Unsubscribing - this post is now pointless

[MRSWESTHAM]

how is it pointless if you can help someone?

[ben1305]

this is a site to help people an recently I have seen a few posts that are completely unhelpful and downright nasty. I couldnt agree more!!!! I have seen a real increase in unhelpful advice

 

Lets stick to the points and leave the holier than thou attitude out of it. HERE HERE!!!!!!

Edited November 3, 2009 by ErikaPNP
bypass of the swear filter

[Rooster-UK]

Let's, please, concentrate on helping the OP rather than sinking to sparring with each other.

Sinking to the level of personal insults and sarcasm helps nobody.

I'm sure that we're all adult enough to conduct ourselves in a respectable fashion.

 

If not, then I will start moderating posts.

 

Rooster-UK.

[lets fight bailiffs]

Please do post the outcome of the whole police thing.

 

It is very easy to let these paople (Bailiffs) wind you up, but that is when things become very hard to deal with.

 

Mrs westham also had a temper when it came to bailiffs as did i, but have learnt, that is what they want.

 

Apart from the last bit the thread is good and shows what does go on with regards to police & Bailiffs.

 

LFB

[MRSWESTHAM]

A Temper? Me Whose Spreading Rumours

[rocket1]

Happy Contrails

 

I must be a bit thick or something; but I can't quite work out if your are taking the mickey in the weirdest way or actually being deadly serious.

 

Either way, I am unaware of being "dubbed as having learning difficulties" in my blog or anywhere else, so I can't quite understand what you are on about. It seems you have completely misread my blog or something.

 

Mind you, I was in Dubai in 1965 and I can imagine that spending too much time there could do some seriously strange things to your brain.

Edited November 3, 2009 by rocket1

[gezwee]

Just a quick update.

 

As expected, I still haven't heard from the police that they have anything to prosecute on behalf of the bailiff. So I guess the matter has evaporated.

 

But, I'd like to find the time to pursue that bailiff for wasting police time and frivolous allegations with no evidence or foundation in fact etc. Also whatever dim wit who wrongly allowed an incorrect demand for a fine that no longer existed.

 

Damages and publicity about this government turning this country into a Gestapo infested place spring to mind.

 

Did you not pursue for breach of the peace and trespass?

 

No court order, no lawful right to be on your property

[Guest Happy Contrails]

 

The police threatened to break the door down and arrest me. I told them that would be an illegal act. They kept on making various threats

 

 

Were there any witnesses? Did you capture this on your mobile?

 

You should make a complaint to the IPCC of threatening to make an arrest under false pretences.

 

The police officer needs a warrant signed by a magistrate before he can break in. The only exception is to prevent a crime taking place or rescue an injured person inside the property.

 

If the police or IPCC fob you off with excuses then quickly escalate your complaint to the Parliamantary Ombudsman and make an application for compensation.

[rocket1]

Happy Contrails & gezwee

 

Thank you for the advice. I certainly would like to persue as you suggest.

 

But I am finding time quite impossible.

 

Here is an example of how [EDIT] gobbles our lives with useless time consuming rubbish.

 

I 'irresponsibly' thought I'd quickly check my emails before having a shower at 10 30 am. I'd been up at 7 a.m. sorting out my eleven year old son for school, then doing mindless domestic chores as I was totally unfit for anything else. It takes me a long time for my brain to actually wake up for real.

 

Then I went to a website I hadn't had the time to go to yesterday in order to buy some school uniform. This harmless activity proved quite the opposite, giving me a minor nervous breakdown and leaving me totally abused by a typically ignorant time wasting call centre.

 

This necessitated me writing an email to the school uniform supply company and I thought I would post it on my [EDIT]

 

Writing the email didn't take very long, but all the faffing around with the computer did and it is now 1500. That's 3 p.m. in old fashioned plain English !

 

Isn't modern life such an improvement, what with computers and stuff ?

 

No ! They are actually a poisonous time wasting menace.

 

Doing precisely the same things in the old fashioned pre-computer and pre-call centre world would have taken just a few minutes - not about five hours.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Rooster-UK
Unauthorised links removed.