The Judge disagreed with me.
pete
but I just cannot justify the time it will take out of my life.
Unfortunately being disabled I cannot work long enough at a time to handle
an appeal to the Appeal Court and I believe that is an injustice. I had to
fire my legal team as they were stumped when an expert witness quoted the
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and my barrister admitted
to me she didn't know what it was.
Here is a link to the newspaper article;
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8vtgcx
Full story
I am always interested in constructive criticism. The truth is I suppose I
should be happy with the result as I established the gate is unlawful as are
the "Keep Out" signs. Suffolk County Council have now acknowledged my claim
there is a 30-40 foot wide Public Right of Way all around Ipswich Dock which
will be discussed at the RoW Committee in March. I have been fighting this
for years even since my mate only son was killed by riding into an unlawful
barrier placed across one of these RoW. The barrier had no lights or even
reflective strips and yet no criminal action followed the death of a young
man. At least the RoW will now be restored and I hope Lee Smith will be
remembered on Orwell Quay.
pete
Ian Rawlings
> I lost my appeal against conviction and I regret that as I know I can win
> but I just cannot justify the time it will take out of my life.
Well I don't know if the judge entirely disagreed with you, at least
it doesn't look like it from here, so if it's painted that way then at
least it's not looking too bad! Given the reduced costs and your new
title of "lonely fighter for the townsfolk of Ipswich", perhaps you need
to get an appropriate costume made up ;-)
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
soolie
Pete, I think if the Judge disagreed with you he would have been much
more severe. I note the newspaper article has an invitation to write
to eveningst...@eveningstar.co.uk and I for one have done so.
You do a great service to all of us as well as the people of Ipswich.
Brian
"pete" <tur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6rcst8...@mid.individual.net...
>I lost my appeal against conviction
You may well have lost your appeal but not your public rights of way case.
It's not just the people of Ipswich that owe you, the wider public do too.
We'll all be beneficiaries thanks to your tenacity.
Brian
pete
"Brian" <brianw...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:8sd4l.5832$m53....@newsfe04.ams2...
You are very kind. Yes I have won the RoW subject to a PI in which already
two barristers have already shown interest and we haven't even had the RoW
Committee meeting yet. Eventually this will be posted by SCC on their RoW
Committee Agenda and I will post the hyperlink here. I believe this could
even go as far as Strasbourg as the site is listed to have about a billion
pounds worth of luxury apartments built on it. Already two sites have
announced a slow down and partial abandonment of their site.
pete
pete
"soolie" <soo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:6tk2l4d0gn8cuooes...@4ax.com...
> Pete, I think if the Judge disagreed with you he would have been much
> more severe. I note the newspaper article has an invitation to write
> to eveningst...@eveningstar.co.uk and I for one have done so.
> You do a great service to all of us as well as the people of Ipswich.
Many thanks indeed. The more people writing in support the greater the
impact.
peet
pete
"Ian Rawlings" <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrngl2k4f...@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2008-12-23, pete <tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I lost my appeal against conviction and I regret that as I know I can win
>> but I just cannot justify the time it will take out of my life.
>
> Well I don't know if the judge entirely disagreed with you, at least
> it doesn't look like it from here, so if it's painted that way then at
> least it's not looking too bad! Given the reduced costs and your new
> title of "lonely fighter for the townsfolk of Ipswich", perhaps you need
> to get an appropriate costume made up ;-)
Well I already wear a stupid hat to attract attention:-) I also believe the
Judge could have been much more severe if he didn't believe me:-)
pete
Ian Rawlings
> Well I already wear a stupid hat to attract attention:-) I also believe the
> Judge could have been much more severe if he didn't believe me:-)
Indeed, that's what I mean, giving you what appears to be the minimum
of everything doesn't exactly smack of strong disapproval, more of
tied hands.
pete
> On 2008-12-23, pete <tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well I already wear a stupid hat to attract attention:-) I also believe
>> the
>> Judge could have been much more severe if he didn't believe me:-)
>
> Indeed, that's what I mean, giving you what appears to be the minimum
> of everything doesn't exactly smack of strong disapproval, more of
> tied hands.
Well yes. After all the original prosecution team asked for me to be made
the subject of a Criminal ABSO. As can be seen I was not penalised at all so
I assume that must show an element of disapproval of the prosecution or
approval of my actions. One side issue I believe will be the affect on the
Police and CPS. They wanted to just give me a caution originally and I
declined it. Now it has been announced it really is a 40 foot wide RoW I
think there will be a real reluctance to charge me if I break down the gate
again. As I understand the Judges ruling I would have been OK if I had asked
the security people to open the gate and release me. I believe that means if
I ask them to open the gate and admit me and they refuse I am entitled to
break in?
pete
Ian Rawlings
> Now it has been announced it really is a 40 foot wide RoW I
> think there will be a real reluctance to charge me if I break down the gate
> again.
Whatever you do Pete, get a cape and a mask, that'll get the papers salivating ;-)
Good luck with it, and don't let the rabble of whiners drag you down.
Don't overstep the boundaries too far though or you might get stopped
from carrying on and that'll help no-one!
Bye for now and good luck.
Paul - xxx
> I lost my appeal against conviction
> I am always interested in constructive criticism.
For a long while I thought you were just an ignorant do-gooder who
actually moaned more than did, and really didn't have a clue what you
were on about.I wish to take it all back and I sincerely applaud you.
The manner in which you posted and wrote about what was happening was
somewhat disjointed and really didn't paint you in a good light, but
now it's beeen written about less passionately and condensed into a
'bite-size' newspaper article it makes complete sense.
I wish you well and wish there were more like you to harass, complain
and gain (even minor) victories against the corporations who think that
might is right.
Well done ... ;)
--
Paul - xxx
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
Nigel
> As I understand the Judges ruling I would have been OK if I had asked
>the security people to open the gate and release me. I believe that means if
>I ask them to open the gate and admit me and they refuse I am entitled to
>break in?
If you find a way in without damaging the barrier then yes otherwise
you would knowingly be committing criminal damage (again) and it would
be difficult, imo, for you to show that committing the damage was
necessary.
If you are refused entry then you can take civil proceedings against
them or if you are sure this is a highway issue a summons against them
for obstruction in a magistrates court.
Nigel
replace SPAMHATER with n and t*sc*li with totalise
pete
> On 2008-12-25, pete <tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now it has been announced it really is a 40 foot wide RoW I
>> think there will be a real reluctance to charge me if I break down the
>> gate
>> again.
>
> Whatever you do Pete, get a cape and a mask, that'll get the papers
> salivating ;-)
>
> Good luck with it, and don't let the rabble of whiners drag you down.
> Don't overstep the boundaries too far though or you might get stopped
> from carrying on and that'll help no-one!
>
> Bye for now and good luck.
Thanks for your good wishes. I believe this issue maybe over now unless I
decide to appeal again which is a possibility still. However that would take
up much of my time which could be used better on other cases. I have two
S.137 HA 1980 being heard in the new year and another 3 are on 28 days
notice. The RoW around the dock are now accepted by Suffolk County Council
in writing as well as in court and will be before the RoW Committee in March
but I expect the issue to continue to Public Inquiry.
I shall not stop while my health allows me to continue and that is my
biggest worry.
pete
Ian.
p> Well yes. After all the original prosecution team asked for me to be made
p> the subject of a Criminal ABSO. As can be seen I was not penalised at all so
p> I assume that must show an element of disapproval of the prosecution or
p> approval of my actions. One side issue I believe will be the affect on the
p> Police and CPS. They wanted to just give me a caution originally and I
p> declined it. Now it has been announced it really is a 40 foot wide RoW I
p> think there will be a real reluctance to charge me if I break down the gate
p> again. As I understand the Judges ruling I would have been OK if I had asked
p> the security people to open the gate and release me. I believe that means if
p> I ask them to open the gate and admit me and they refuse I am entitled to
p> break in?
Not a good idea to go to the gate with that idea in mind. Theres
always something the cops can do you for, breach of the peace,
is a favorite. Good idea, would be to gather your supporting
paperwork and arguments before you go and take some local press
with you. Theyre usually eager for copy.
Ian.
--
pete
"Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6rkeh4F...@mid.individual.net...
> pete wrote:
>
>> I lost my appeal against conviction
>
>> I am always interested in constructive criticism.
>
> For a long while I thought you were just an ignorant do-gooder who
> actually moaned more than did, and really didn't have a clue what you
> were on about.I wish to take it all back and I sincerely applaud you.
>
> The manner in which you posted and wrote about what was happening was
> somewhat disjointed and really didn't paint you in a good light, but
> now it's beeen written about less passionately and condensed into a
> 'bite-size' newspaper article it makes complete sense.
>
> I wish you well and wish there were more like you to harass, complain
> and gain (even minor) victories against the corporations who think that
> might is right.
>
> Well done ... ;)
Many thanks. I will continue as long as I can but I believe I have started
something in Ipswich now.
pete
pete
"Nigel" <SPAMHAT...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8h1al4djrk1749eqe...@4ax.com...
Yes I have started using S.137 HA 1980 summons now. Unfortunately I have
quite a list to get through already and this issue after 2 years is finally
being heard by the RoW Committee in March. As two large construction sites
have slowed down also and other planning applications in this area are being
refused this may get sorted even sooner.
pete
pete
""Ian."" <ian.fre...@spamwonderland.yuk> wrote in message
news:20081225.22...@spamwonderland.yuk...
Yes the whole issue is a challenge. They can break the law by obstructing
the highway and not get charged but if I remove an unlawful obstruction I
can be done for breach of the peace. Now my argument is brought into play.
My argument from day one has been;
1. Why can a County Council not produce a legally required Definitive Map
just by claiming a lack of resources when a youngster who cannot find
resources to insure his car is immediately nicked.
2. Why can a landowner break the law and illegally obstruct a highway but
the person who abates this public nuisance also get nicked.
How does one expect young folks to respect such ridiculous behaviour by
authority is my point?
pete
Nigel
>My argument from day one has been;
>
>1. Why can a County Council not produce a legally required Definitive Map
>just by claiming a lack of resources when a youngster who cannot find
>resources to insure his car is immediately nicked.
>
That's a non sequiter
>2. Why can a landowner break the law and illegally obstruct a highway but
>the person who abates this public nuisance also get nicked.
because of the way you choose to deal with the nuisance. Two wrongs
don't make a right and you are using methods that exceed reasonable
assumptions.
Ian Rawlings
> because of the way you choose to deal with the nuisance. Two wrongs
> don't make a right and you are using methods that exceed reasonable
> assumptions.
"Two wrongs don't make a right" is one of those canned bits of wisdom
that people tend to trot out when they can't be arsed to think a bit
more. If the first wrong is never going to be corrected because it's
being done by those who make or enforce the rules, then by your
reckoning you just have to sit there and take it. Fine but don't
whine when someone else decides to make them pay attention in the only
way that works -- by breaking the precious rules that the authorities
don't abide by themselves.
Nigel
<new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:
>On 2008-12-27, Nigel <SPAMHAT...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> because of the way you choose to deal with the nuisance. Two wrongs
>> don't make a right and you are using methods that exceed reasonable
>> assumptions.
>
>"Two wrongs don't make a right" is one of those canned bits of wisdom
>that people tend to trot out when they can't be arsed to think a bit
>more. If the first wrong is never going to be corrected because it's
>being done by those who make or enforce the rules, then by your
>reckoning you just have to sit there and take it. Fine but don't
>whine when someone else decides to make them pay attention in the only
>way that works -- by breaking the precious rules that the authorities
>don't abide by themselves.
Crap and you know it. There are times when it can be the correct way
to go but here there are legitimate alternative routes to take which
are more effective. Why do you think Pete got charged in the first
place? Becasue his repsonse was disproportionate in the
circumstances. Also it didn't right the first wrong. It might bring
the wrong to peoples attention but it didn't correct anything.
pete
I really do not think I used unreasonable methods at all. I was locked
inside a gated area with no way of escape. It is alright for the Dock people
to claim I could have used the phone but I know from the evidence I have
presented to the CC that any call would have been ignored. See below
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/432693558_0096cd2bff_b.jpg
pete
Ian.
IR> Whatever you do Pete, get a cape and a mask, that'll get the papers salivating
IR> ;-)
Go on Ian, dont be coy, you know you want to say it,
"Ninja Turtil" :)
Ian.
--
pete
No I was charged because I wouldn't accept a caution. I understand your
point however but it just doesn't work like it should in Ipswich. The gate
in question has been a nuisance for many years now and until I took action
nothing happened. Now Suffolk County Council have admitted the route is a
RoW.
pete
Ian Rawlings
> Crap and you know it. There are times when it can be the correct way
> to go
And when that is, is not for *you* to decide, it's for those on the
spot with something to gain or lose, so get lost.
Stick to your canned knowledge, but read the label and look at the
"best before" date.
Ian Rawlings
> Go on Ian, dont be coy, you know you want to say it,
> "Ninja Turtil" :)
Hehe, didn't think of that, obvious now ennit! Hero in a half shell ;-)
Brian
council officers' recommendation will be to make one or more definitive map
modification orders. I find it refreshing to see that you have gained the
support of others on this newsgroup. Perhaps you can look forward to more
support from your borough and/or county councillors next year.
May I wish you a happy and successful New Year.
Regards, Brian
pete
Thanks Brian, I am hoping to have the hyperlink by mid February and I will
post it here then. The local situation is complicated by the surveying
authority likely being the loser in a Boundary Commission decision and a new
authority being formed. The CC do indeed accept 5 Demo's but some more are
still being negotiated. I have support here but not in Ipswich where many
people stand to lose extraordinary amounts of money from being denied
development prospects but that is their problem at not one for me to be
involved with.
pete