Quatloos!

He can't help it, he just likes to fight. It's a psychological disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). Probably had a difficult birth.

exiledscouser wrote:He'll be appealing to the crown court.

Which is a automatic privilege, so not really an achievement to be crowed about. All it means is that he's managed to fill the form in correctly and within the applicable time.

aesmith wrote:

exiledscouser wrote:He'll be appealing to the crown court.

Which is a automatic privilege, so not really an achievement to be crowed about. All it means is that he's managed to fill the form in correctly and within the applicable time.

True, but does he know that, doubtful, and I suspect he had help with the form.

aesmith wrote:

exiledscouser wrote:He'll be appealing to the crown court.

Which is a automatic privilege, so not really an achievement to be crowed about. All it means is that he's managed to fill the form in correctly and within the applicable time.

Don't discount the value of being able to handle the basics. I'm working on a post of an idiot who appealed a few weeks out of time. Apparently the concept of a deadline was beyond him.

Burnaby49 wrote:

aesmith wrote:

exiledscouser wrote:He'll be appealing to the crown court.

Which is a automatic privilege, so not really an achievement to be crowed about. All it means is that he's managed to fill the form in correctly and within the applicable time.

Don't discount the value of being able to handle the basics. I'm working on a post of an idiot who appealed a few weeks out of time. Apparently the concept of a deadline was beyond him.

He hasn't been granted permission to appeal though, someone over on Freeman on the land fails contacted the court and incredibly he has been granted a full retrial by jury starting 30th November Manchester Crown Court.

Then I really hope the Jury lays in to him, as they are not going to be too happy to be wasting their time on his drivel.

30th November? That's two days after Princess Shoutypants case on 28th November at Stockport Magistrates. Amazing how much these freetards love being in courts. Not that far apart too, so they can go and support each other (assuming they don't get banged up)

daltontrumbno wrote:He hasn't been granted permission to appeal though, someone over on Freeman on the land fails contacted the court and incredibly he has been granted a full retrial by jury starting 30th November Manchester Crown Court.

Does not make sense to me. To get a retrial he surely must have appealed and been given a retrial. I think this is just an appeal against the Magistrates Court conviction which, as has been said, is automatically at Crown Court. Also, whether he gets a jury is a doubt in my mind, I think a Magistrates Court appeal at Crown Court is heard by a judge and no jury is involved.
EDIT: some Googleing says it is a "rehearing" so not a retrial except in the minds of FMOTLs. It is heard by a Judge and two Magistrates who were not party to the previous trial.

ArthurWankspittle wrote:Does not make sense to me. To get a retrial he surely must have appealed and been given a retrial.

If he appealed and the appeal was successful the conviction would be quashed. It would be the CPS who would be seeking a retrial which I doubt they would bother to do in this particular case.
I think Chrisy has secured an appeal which will be heard on 30th November.

ArthurWankspittle wrote:

daltontrumbno wrote:He hasn't been granted permission to appeal though, someone over on Freeman on the land fails contacted the court and incredibly he has been granted a full retrial by jury starting 30th November Manchester Crown Court.

Does not make sense to me. To get a retrial he surely must have appealed and been given a retrial. I think this is just an appeal against the Magistrates Court conviction which, as has been said, is automatically at Crown Court. Also, whether he gets a jury is a doubt in my mind, I think a Magistrates Court appeal at Crown Court is heard by a judge and no jury is involved.
EDIT: some Googleing says it is a "rehearing" so not a retrial except in the minds of FMOTLs. It is heard by a Judge and two Magistrates who were not party to the previous trial.

Above is correct. There is no adminstrative process to set aside a conviction in mags and elect jury trial at crown. Some charges have that option at the start, but having elected mode of trial you can't discard a result you don't like. Something fishy or mistaken here...

In Canada an appeals court can order that a trial court decision be quashed and the defendant be given a new trial as if the first had not occured. Happens all the time when there are iregularities or errors by a judge.

Obstructing a bailiff is a summary only offence so any retrial would be at the Mags. The cc appeal brought up from the lower court, the type beloved of the likes of TC and Guy wouldn't have a jury, just a judge and probably two beaks.

See paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which I can't be arsed to link to because, frankly it bores me to death.

Chrisy isn't too familiar with telling the actual truth, just the version we'd spell troof.

exiledscouser wrote:See paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which I can't be arsed to link to because, frankly it bores me to death.

Fortunately, I am not easily bored (or slightly drunk, maybe), and I believe you mean this paragraph.

Silly Footles who like to gamble with Magistrate Court decisions and who 'demand a fair trial' can quite easily jump out of the frying pan into the fire. It's not unknown for Crown Courts to increase a fine for obstructing a court enforcement officer, on appeal, up to £2,500 (level 4 on the Standard Scale) or to impose a custodial of up to 51 weeks. There is no jury, it's a judge and two magistrates. Anyone in Manchester on 30th November?

Not heard much from the charming Mr. Morris lately, here he is giving some poor call centre worker a hard and pointless time.

It's a sort of bullying, in my opinion. The call centre workers are not really at liberty to deal with frivolous and vaxatious callers in the same way a court can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0BxMFeRfA

'This Charming Man' has decided to home educate his kid. From his FB:

Sorry to worry any parents out there. I'm told by worried health professionals that this is a massive problem that the schools are desperate to play down and cover up.

It is considered fashionable to self harm by some pupils (especially girls) who are known to meet up to do this. Very sad.

This was one of many reasons why I'm home educating my little girl. I can't, in good conscience put my wonderful daughter into a depressive environment where she will be stifled, or worse, unless she conforms.

Let's hope the poor kid isn't gonna spend more of her precious learning time sitting on doorsteps of evicted families as depicted on his film-whoring Ch 4 platform 'Battling The Bailiffs'. Neither would it be a useful education to drag her off to the Odeon cinema and witness her dad stuff a Sun newspaper down the bog. And I really hope she doesn't have to watch her teacher father smearing dog poo on a bailiff's car door handle. Keep her at school Mozza, and give the poor kid a chance in life.

If I had this wanker for a father, I'd cut myself too.

He Who Knows wrote:'This Charming Man' has decided to home educate his kid. From his FB:

Sorry to worry any parents out there. I'm told by worried health professionals that this is a massive problem that the schools are desperate to play down and cover up.

It is considered fashionable to self harm by some pupils (especially girls) who are known to meet up to do this. Very sad.

This was one of many reasons why I'm home educating my little girl. I can't, in good conscience put my wonderful daughter into a depressive environment where she will be stifled, or worse, unless she conforms.

Let's hope the poor kid isn't gonna spend more of her precious learning time sitting on doorsteps of evicted families as depicted on his film-whoring Ch 4 platform 'Battling The Bailiffs'. Neither would it be a useful education to drag her off to the Odeon cinema and witness her dad stuff a Sun newspaper down the bog. And I really hope she doesn't have to watch her teacher father smearing dog poo on a bailiff's car door handle. Keep her at school Mozza, and give the poor kid a chance in life.

It also seems to be linked to the free man/ new world order and conspiracy of everything lot. Personally I have worked in education for nearly all my life from primary up to secondary and now university level and I would never dream of home schooling any of my children. There is so much more to early years schooling and a few books from WHSmith just will not cut it.
That’s not to say that it does not work for the better in some circumstances, it just takes a huge amount of time and self-discipline. Something I fear is lacking in this guy.

Interim Moderator note , pending review from the other Arthur.

General discussion of home schooling is likely to lead to flame wars (it does so in real life among relatively sane people), so is banned from the board.