Wednesday, 17 June 2015

Same old story - lies and denial


Ever since my run in with Rundles bailiffs I've had a steady drip of correspondence from people whose lives have been disrupted and derailed by the breathtaking malpractice of bailiffs and the police. While my attempts to get justice have failed, it has become a matter of duty to get it into the pubic record that there is a whole strata of criminal activity which is not only ignored, but enabled by the police.

To that end, I've just had the pleasure of speaking with a gentleman (Mr W.) who had our friends Rundles bailiffs call at his home over the matter of a parking ticket. They were told that the ticket was incurred by his wife who was not in at the time. Unsurprisingly they then became aggressive and began shouting, to which he then replied he would call the police and slammed the door. From inside the house the bailiffs were then heard shouting in the front garden. Moments later the two white males returned to their van. There are witnesses to that effect.

After some time, Mr W. began to clear out items from a disused car in the driveway, used for storage, while noticing the bailiffs were still waiting in their car. This is a typical behaviour from Rundles as I have experienced when said bailiffs attempted to prevent me leaving my own property. Waiting at a property is a known Rundles intimidation tactic.

Said bailiffs witnessed Mr W. removing various items from his car, including an ornamental sword with cord for wall hanging (purchased by his nine year old), placing said items in the house by the side door.

It as at this point this point Rundles had called the police and made a false allegation that he was "waving it around like a madman and stabbing it into the earth" in the back garden. It has been since confirmed by a police officer that from that vantage it would be impossible to see into the back garden.

Some time later, Mr W then heard shouting, assuming the bailiffs had called for back up. As there is a large hedge outside, it was difficult to ascertain where the disturbances were coming from. He then left the house by the side door to investigate to be confronted with a squad of armed officers pointing assault rifles and a taser at him.

It was explained to the police that a sword had been removed from the the car and taken into the house. Mr W. was subsequently arrested and detained by a local officer and taken to Southmead police station for the day. The officer at no time engaged with the bailiffs and later admitted there was no correspondence with the bailiffs- nor was their vehicle approached. There was no possible way the officer could have identified the ethnicity of the bailiffs and has admitted as much.

Mr W. answering charges at North Avon Magistrates of being in possession of an offensive weapon, pleaded not guilty - where it then went on to the Crown Court, and was subsequently dismissed. Bizarrely, it was then sent back to the magistrates for a public order offence - when it should have been thrown out.

When it came to court, the first bailiff, the leader of the two white bailiffs gave evidence, followed by what was expected to be the the younger of the two white males witnessed at the scene. Except of course, in walks a large black male, a man known very well to me - a Mr James Cohen, board member of CIVEA and MD of Rundles - hitherto not witnessed at the scene.

This is consistent with Rundles tactics, in that Cohen's name appears on most paperwork regardless of who is actually executing a liability order or summons visit. It then follows that he would be the man requested to give evidence in court - and will present evidence whether he was present or not. That is very much the Rundles modus operandi.

After several adjournments (as is typical), Mr W. went to Patchway Police station to enquire as to why statements were not taken from the bailiffs. This was met with hostility and defensiveness from the desk officer who categorically refused to instigate an investigation into the false reporting of a crime. The officer herself has since been reprimanded for being rude and abrupt, having neglected to properly carry out her duties in ascertaining whether a crime has been committed.

This is entirely consistent with my own experiences on both occasions when police were quick off the mark to act on the behalf of the bailiffs, but will persistently stonewall the victim. The last thing Avon and Somerset Police ever want to do is investigate crime. Eventually the officer in question was reported to the Police Complaints Commission for failing to carry out her duty.

There is more than a passing ring of familiarity to this, having spoken with other victims of Rundles in the past. The police cannot be compelled to lift so much as a finger without persistent and resolute attempts by the victims to get justice. Each time, the experience is hostility, defensiveness and denial. It should also be noted this is the same experience noted by the Rotherham report where routinely abused young girls were ignored by the police. Mr W. was finally contacted by a sergeant who then assured him statements would be taken.

There is more to this account yet to come. Having spoken with Mr W. we have elected to develop this post into a full account and so the sequence of events will be completed in the coming days. Check back for updates.

As we've seen, the police failed to take witness statements, failed to investigate, and failed to bring charges of perjury or perverting the course of justice. There is a pattern of behaviour from Rundles that seeks to exploit the disarray in the courts, the ineptitude of the police and the vulnerability of their victims. Why the police are not yet wise to it escapes me.

Adding insult to injury, the gentleman in question's wife had actually paid the parking fine previously, and had a receipt for it, but South Gloucestershire council had lost the money somewhere in the system. There's a surprise!

We see all the same culprits, all the same denials, all the same inaction and once again, a good man is dragged through the courts while these criminals and pathological liars walk free.

In any case, an armed response unit storming the property is grossly irresponsible on the part of Avon and Somerset Police, especially when it's far from the first time Rundles have made bogus crime reports to the police, not least reporting my own car as stolen leading to a pursuit up the M42. If this is how operations are now conducted then something is very wrong indeed.

Mr W. is far too genuine to be making any of this up and his experience with the police, the council and the bailiffs chimes very much with my own experience. Inaction and denial. This cannot possibly be coincidence.

As it happens, I may be up for a little more fun myself this year. While I tried my best to highlight this gross injustice, I've elected to pay my council tax on demand ever since, leaving me free to fight other battles, but this year, having been made redundant, I'm having to pay what I can, when I can. I've missed a couple of payments by a couple of days but have, up to press, met each monthly payment. This has prompted South Gloucestershire Council to demand the full annual sum up front having added the standard £85 fees which were recently ruled unlawful.

This brings into question their bogus claims of only using bailiffs as a last resort, and similarly shows that their summons process is still run by computer without any human intervention, (prompting the council to set bailiffs on me for the sum of nine pence last year). 

Since Rundles passed on taking my business last time and the equally crooked Bristow & Sutor were caught red handed, it will be interesting which gang of thieves South Gloucestershire Council set on me this time. I'll be waiting.

Thursday, 15 January 2015

I couldn't possibly comment

The Terrorism Act 2006 contains the following passage:
Encouragement of terrorism (section 1): Prohibits the publishing of "a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences." Indirect encouragement statements include every statement which glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances."[3] In England and Wales, a person guilty of this offence is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, a person guilty of this offence is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
It is for this reason I am unable to offer comment on this.