CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[pearlygeoff]

So Geoff, don't get mad get even. Do something about it. Even in this day and age there are routes by which you can achieve some semblance of justice.

 

I am afraid, even though I have enormous sympathy for your case and I am convinced CRT behaved despicably and illegally, it is no good just ranting, you either have to move on and let it go or do something about it. There are plenty of people out there who would be willing to help.

 

I don't know where those 'plenty of people' are. I am doing something which takes time and care. I have exposed their behaviour and provided evidence of what they do at considerable cost to myself. I have been challenging them for 8 years and have lots of correspondence and have posted evidence on various sites. I didn't notice much evidence of 'help'. Quite the reverse.

 

I am not 'just ranting'. I am doing something. The problem lies with other people's response - or lack of it - and their limited challenge to CRT not with me. Have you noticed any 'user groups' discussing the evidence I have provided? They only discuss the Judgment which is 'flawed' and inaccurate in most details and, importantly, the Judgment is actually the Draft Judgment as I was denied the opportunity to amend it. A Draft Judgment cannot be revealed in its draft form with penalty of imprisonment if it is. Yet, the final Judgment in my case is, in effect, that Draft Judgment. This Judgment was handed down at a hearing I was told had been cancelled. I was lucky to get a 'stay of execution' with 2 days to spare. I was deemed to be without legal aid as my solicitor's firm had been released from my representation so was landed with £80,000 costs in my absence. At that hearing I could have challenged the 'mistakes' in the Judgment as the Judge, according to the transcript, had expected. At a subsequent hearing I was denied that opportunity and the Judgment was handed down from that date. That's the important issue not the content of the flawed Judgment. My website gives the facts of the case not the Judgment. Do they refer to that? Have they agreed to not discuss it?

 

 

Use the evidence I provide and write letters and make FOI requests. Their responses can, usually, be used against them.

 

I am not wasting money in a futile attack using a 'flawed', to say the least, legal process where the response would be to run me out of money (which wouldn't take long). If you win a case against them they will appeal as they would have done in my case. By then legal aid had been withdrawn. There will be legal action but it must be, as far as possible, not 'futile'.

 

I am not aware of much support and don't rely on it. I don't see anyone else mounting such a vocal attack on CRT. Presumably they just talk to each other on Facebook.

 

I hear what you're saying but I am the last person you should criticise. There are plenty more on here to have a go at.

 

'Routes to achieve some semblance of justice'? Such as? I'm not in London where they might have some community law organisations. I'm in Cheshire. Note that no solicitor will take on CRT except the one in Birmingham that deals with travellers etc. and there is no legal aid available. And note my experiences with solicitors and barristers.

 

Also, I have had similar problems before i.e. experience of deception by solicitors and abuse of the legal process. One solicitor in particular. Guess who. With me as the innocent party as always.

 

I'm about to put details of my lengthy complaint to BW (as was) relating to their unlawful rules and abuses from 2007 onwards which led to the legal action. What I'm doing exposes them - which was my intention - and should help other people should they bother to read it.

 

The alternative to what I'm doing is a response that is not in my nature and would be 'revenge' when what is required is 'redress' for myself and others and an investigation/inquiry into how an 'agent of the state', public authority, public body, charitable trust gets away with such blatant criminal abuse.

 

So long as I 'keep taking the tablets' I don't need to resort to 'revenge' which is, in any case, 'best served cold'.

 

I appreciate your interest.

[Dave Clinton]

Trouble is Geoff, in your case, CRT acted illegally in blatant contempt of court but those concepts are only valid within the 'deeply flawed' legal system so if you don't act within that system then they will get away with it and you lose the recompense you are due for the loss of your home.

 

Leigh Ravenscroft should be your example and his network, I am sure, would be available to you also.

 

Unless you are prepared to take concrete action your website is only the rant of one man against an established corporation. A vocal attack can be, and is, ignored. The only way to stop CRT's current mindset is by repeated and sustained court action.

 

There is no other accountability.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[Tony Dunkley]

Ah yes, that reminds me of the apocryphal tale about two litigants meeting outside a court. One said to the other "I know the judge will find in my favour as I sent him a huge Christmas hamper and turkey".

 

The other bloke said "Oh you fool, he won't submit to blatant bribery like that, he's bound to find in my favour now!"

 

The first guy said "Oh I wouldn't be so sure, I put your name in the accompanying card."

 

I'd heard that story too. I thought it was so funny that I put your name on the card I sent to Garner.

[NigelMoore]

. . . your website is only the rant of one man against an established corporation. A vocal attack can be, and is, ignored.

 

Whilst not disagreeing with you, it can give them ulcers though; they have taken sufficient umbrage against at least 3 critical websites I know of, to threaten libel action if comments, content, and/or the website entire were not retracted/taken down.

 

They went so far as to put an outsourced solicitor on the job, in the case of KANDA’s comments re: Johnson; and Drifters, and even that “malicious unauthorised mockery of the Trust’s logo”.

 

So they may consider Geoff’s website lacking in power to publicly hurt them, but it will have them squirming a bit on their seats privately. That is something at least that Geoff can take comfort in.

 

For all the blustering threats of libel suits, by the way, when they are sufficiently provoked - I don’t know of any libel case being actually pursued by them, so far as the courts. The problem with the tactic as they well know, is that the court then requires the defendant to demonstrate that the allegations complained of are factual.

[Mike Todd]

returning to the case, and thanks to Nigel for the extensive quoting (and I am happy to accept that he has not done so in an especially biased way):

 

It seems to me that the criticism of the counsel is not entirely well founded:

 

The judge fairly early concluded that this was one of those cases where neither side has an overwhelming claim over the other and that pressing the matter to a judgement would be counter productive all round. There is just a hint that he might have edged towards setting criteria with which CaRT would be unhappy. By urging both sides very strongly to reach a settlement he was clearly of the view that this was in both of their interests (taking into account the risks). It allows the defendant to argue a special case and for the plaintiff to accept it without setting unwise precedent.

 

AW's counsel seems primarily - as she should be - concerned to get a satisfactory outcome for her client who, unlike Mayers was not hell bent on proving a matter of principle. As a result she was prepared to advise, for example, the confidentiality angle in order to further encourage CaRT to come to the negotiating table.

 

Negotiation is ultimately a much better process than judgement as it is interactive and only concludes when both parties are as satisfied as they can be in the circumstances. Taking it to a judgment is a one-shot process (saving the option of Appeal which the judge clearly felt would have been silly in the case).

 

From what Nigel has posted it seems to me that at least the court and AW's legal team come out of this looking pretty good. Good lawyers always want their clients to reach a settlement rather than a judgement. I'm in two minds about what I think about CaRT mainly because it appears that their counsel was not very experienced or clever. He certainly went a long way to test the judge's patience, not I would have thought terribly wise. Whether he will be retained again will be interesting . . .

 

Reading the transcript on its own is a bit selective as we do not have the benefit of the arguments submitted in advance as neither side completed them in this case. Hence we do not really know what CaRT were hoping to achieve. At first sight, the determination to press the houseboat angle seems very shortsighted. To gain anything of value would not only require them to win the argument about what action they could take but also when the houseboat classification could be applied. Since it has been so little used hitherto, they would have to gain a very large concession regarding their right to enforce it (as distinct from accepting an application) to make it worthwhile. The judge in this case looks as if he would have seen through this strategy and looked beyond it.

 

Overall it seems that the established principle that whenever possible courts should aim for justice rather than strict law was reached. A warning to CaRT that they should do all they can to negotiate before coming to court and a clear warning to litigious boaters that they will find themselves in extremely muddy waters it they try to repeat Mayers strategy.

 

In the absence of any useful implementation of legislation designed for the present context, all of this has to be good for most of us who would like to avoid courts like the plague!

[NigelMoore]

 

What I'm doing exposes them - which was my intention - and should help other people should they bother to read it.

 

Excerpts from and links to Geoff’s site were incorporated into Leigh Ravenscroft’s Statement of Case attacking any presumption of probity respecting CaRT.

 

The Defence threatened to apply to have that section struck out, so it did strike a chord where it hurt!

[NigelMoore]

Overall it seems that the established principle that whenever possible courts should aim for justice rather than strict law was reached.

 

A very fair assessment.

 

And you are right: it highlights the value of rational identification of desired outcomes, with serious engagement between parties.

 

There is even a hint that CaRT may be inclining towards such an improved approach to disputes. Time will tell. Targeted boaters will need to have presented a compelling argument in order to drive things in that direction though.

 

I would like to express my own appreciation of all those who made this publication possible; it has been a very profitable exercise.

[NigelMoore]

A warning to CaRT that they should do all they can to negotiate before coming to court . . .

 

On CaRT’s argument to the Court, they HAD done all the negotiating they felt was reasonable.

 

Pertinent to other topics over the “sightings” system failures, their prime complaint in this regard was that Andy had declined to provide them with details of his movements. On that basis, they felt justified in assuming non-compliance with the ‘Guidelines’ based on the little evidence they had from the sightings record.

[nicknorman]

Remind me please: Leigh's case has yet to be heard? Is there a date set?

[NigelMoore]

Remind me please: Leigh's case has yet to be heard? Is there a date set?

 

No date has yet been set for hearing Leigh’s case.

 

Currently, both parties have agreed to a stay of proceedings in order to explore the possibility of settling out of court. Should that not prove possible within the next few weeks, then the next step is filing a Response to Defence along with various forms from both parties [including agreed issues and so forth], to enable the Court to allocate dates etc.

 

It is to the credit of both Leigh and CaRT, that such an attempt at alternative dispute resolution is even being agreed to, regardless of how it turns out.

 

It is just conceivable that the Wingfield experience has had an ongoing effect; I am giving them the benefit of the doubt over that.

[pearlygeoff]

Trouble is Geoff, in your case, CRT acted illegally in blatant contempt of court but those concepts are only valid within the 'deeply flawed' legal system so if you don't act within that system then they will get away with it and you lose the recompense you are due for the loss of your home.

 

Leigh Ravenscroft should be your example and his network, I am sure, would be available to you also.

 

Unless you are prepared to take concrete action your website is only the rant of one man against an established corporation. A vocal attack can be, and is, ignored. The only way to stop CRT's current mindset is by repeated and sustained court action.

 

There is no other accountability.

 

There will be action 'within that system' in due course. Meanwhile what I do is useful and more than most are doing.

 

What are you doing?

 

There was a request from Tony Dunkley about the witness evidence of an enforcement officer. I responded to that and directed him/you to such evidence on my website. Leigh Ravenscroft is not my example. His case is benefitting from the information on my site.

[The Lockie]

And the link to to your website is??

[Dave Clinton]

And the link to to your website is??

 

I quite like this page;

 

http://www.canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/pearl-and-me-and-caggy-s-yard

 

(An easy google would have found it for you)

 

 

it adds an interesting slice to the story of an interesting character and his boatyard.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[Phil.]

And the link to to your website is??

 

 

Try 'canal and river tyranny'

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by GoodGurl
edited out quote

[Steilsteven]

 

 

Try 'canal and river tyranny'

 

 

It may have been a genuine request. Not the best response to win friends and supporters to your cause.

It may have been genuine, but not how I would have asked.

 

Keith

[pearlygeoff]

 

Geoff as I said to you last we met in Northwich you do your cause no good by these type of posts. Not difficult just to put up a link, people on mobile phones for example it is a pain to have to google

 

Are you sure you've met me? Check the photo on my website. I'm sure you're wrong.

 

My posts are reasonable and justified and not meant to 'win friends' or be 'liked'. I have no expectations of the people who read them.

[MtB]

The opinion is mutual!

[cotswoldsman]

 

Are you sure you've met me? Check the photo on my website. I'm sure you're wrong.

 

My posts are reasonable and justified and not meant to 'win friends' or be 'liked'. I have no expectations of the people who read them.

Yes Geoff plenty of times even moored a few times next to you one time when you were blacking Pearl I cruise with another boater. Last time we met was walking round Northwich not long after you lost your boat.

[pearlygeoff]

Yes Geoff plenty of times even moored a few times next to you one time when you were blacking Pearl I cruise with another boater. Last time we met was walking round Northwich not long after you lost your boat.

 

Were you from Norbury Junction?

[cotswoldsman]

 

Were you from Norbury Junction?

Yes Stan was the other boat I cruise with

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

Can we get back to something useful now.

 

I have just been reading this page;

 

http://www.canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/the-trial

 

can you give me details of your complaint to the Law Society please Geoff.

Ps this is pretty difficult to read when there are lots of blocks of text;

 

Continuous Cruising. The creation of Sally Ash, in conjunction with her 'friends', in boat clubs and the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators, and the, then, Legal Director, Nigel Johnson.

Can you put it in a darker font color please.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[pearlygeoff]

Yes Stan was the other boat I cruise with

 

Don't recall you as being a BW/CRT 'challenger', not then anyway. You will know what a thoroughly decent person I am then, and that I know what I'm talking about and was challenging the abuses of other people in the area, such as, Bob on Themis. You will also know that I'm not a 'traveller' as many people think , and as CRT tried to portray, and I'm not an 'ill informed' 'ranter' but am an intelligent person trying to deal with serious abuse that most people can't 'fight' and have no choice but to succumb to the BW/CRT tyranny.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten those who see me as whatever hate figure they have in their heads. I don't like to be confused with someone I'm not.

[mayalld]

 

Are you sure you've met me? Check the photo on my website. I'm sure you're wrong.

 

My posts are reasonable and justified and not meant to 'win friends' or be 'liked'. I have no expectations of the people who read them.

 

Elsewhere in this thread, you say "I am not 'just ranting'. I am doing something.", and go on to paint yourself as being the one who has gone to enormouse effort and expense to deal with the problem that you perceive to exist (and I am sure you will come back and tell me that it isn't that you perceive it to exist, it is absolute fact that it does).

 

Yet, as soon as anybody tries to engage with you in any way other than by reading every word of your website, and accepting it as unimpeachable fact, your attitude is that you will speak to them how you like and you aren't there to win friends.

 

Until you can get your head round the fact that no matter how sure you are that you are right, you don't have a god-given right for people to accept your pronouncements, whatever time and money you expend is wasted, because all people see is you ranting at anybody and everybody.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Don't recall you as being a BW/CRT 'challenger', not then anyway. You will know what a thoroughly decent person I am then, and that I know what I'm talking about and was challenging the abuses of other people in the area, such as, Bob on Themis. You will also know that I'm not a 'traveller' as many people think , and as CRT tried to portray, and I'm not an 'ill informed' 'ranter' but am an intelligent person trying to deal with serious abuse that most people can't 'fight' and have no choice but to succumb to the BW/CRT tyranny.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten those who see me as whatever hate figure they have in their heads. I don't like to be confused with someone I'm not.

Geoff I have never had a problem with you and I know you are more than happy to help others. I also know it has been a long battle for you and you have my support. I would not class myself as a CRT Challenger but do speak up when I think they do things wrong, unfortunately it can be a bit difficult at present to find things they do right.

My point is that to get people to support you that do not know you it is best not to have a go at them. The more people that read your website the better for you so if asked I would suggest it might just be simpler to provide a link

[pearlygeoff]

 

 

I have just been reading this page;

 

http://www.canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/the-trial

 

can you give me details of your complaint to the Law Society please Geoff.

Ps this is pretty difficult to read when there are lots of blocks of text;

 

Continuous Cruising. The creation of Sally Ash, in conjunction with her 'friends', in boat clubs and the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators, and the, then, Legal Director, Nigel Johnson.

Can you put it in a darker font color please.

 

 

I didn't make a complaint to the Law Society. My complaint is about CRT. I would drive myself mad by, pointlessly, making complaints about the behaviour of other people in the process. I have no faith in any complaints procedure. I will deal with CRT and the rest is reported as an account of the easy, and routine, corruption of the legal process. The sort of things that I recount happen all the time and is a scandal on a par with the banking scandal and far worse than MP expenses scandals etc. I hope people who may have some influence or concern will read it.

Complaints lead to persecution in my experience and go nowhere. One complaint can lead to hundreds and destroy your life. Notice how the Court Office were also, increasingly, unhelpful. Not answering emails and being 'untruthful'.

 

I'll try to get the print density changed. I only know the basics of the site .Someone else does the tricky stuff. I have asked him before but I'll ask again.