Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[Hercule Parrot]

Just looking at the peace keeper “Guide Lines”. posted by little Fred

12. At no time will a peace Keeper take part in a protest. We do not protest. We gather to make the local law enforcement (local company employees), and public servants (local crown company employees) do their jobs and/or make common law arrests. If the local law enforcement (local company employees) does not do their job, we will ask them to step aside and common law arrests will be implemented.

Hilarious. I eagerly await the day when a posse of self-appointed sheriffs attempts this strategy. Attempting to restrain, detain, search, handcuff or disarm a police officer in the middle of a turbulent public order situation is too stupid for words.

[notorial dissent]

I'm rather looking forward to the first time one of these tools actually "arrests" someone and gets busted for assault and kidnapping, and then the whole lot of them get sued in to bankruptcy, as they so rightly should, except that I doubt if the whole lot of them could form a syndicate to buy a lottery ticket, but as I recall Canada takes a very dim view of kidnapping, and kidnapping with a weapon should merit special circumstances, I should think.

[Hercule Parrot]

I'm rather looking forward to the first time one of these tools actually "arrests" someone and gets busted for assault and kidnapping, and then the whole lot of them get sued in to bankruptcy,

Don't see that happening in E&W. A self-declared Peace Marshal who attempts to arrest a Brit cop will be cheerily told to go on his way. If he persists, especially if he goes as far as to lay a hand upon a cop, then use of force will be proportionately escalated (we have rules about this, our cops can't just swagger around like Sheriff Buford T. Justice - example at http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/site ... olicy2.pdf).

So initially it will be drawn baton (a nasty metal "ASP" nowadays), maybe a cheeky drizzle of PAVA spray. The subdued bell-end would then be arrested and charged with obstructing police.

[PeanutGallery]

I think the problem for the Peacekeepers isn't going to be trying to arrest the police, but when they almost inevitably try to arrest a bailiff in front of the police.

It would of course be even more serious if they tried to arrest a high court enforcement officer as that carries a rather specific criminal charge on its own. However the Peacekeeper won't really be aware of this, I also doubt the Police will bother with charging on attempted kidnap, but will instead likely go down the assault road and give the Peacekeeper a tour of the police station with a special emphasis on what the cells look like.

[Hercule Parrot]

I think the problem for the Peacekeepers isn't going to be trying to arrest the police, but when they almost inevitably try to arrest a bailiff in front of the police.

I don't think the Police will be amused. They will arrest the arrestors, and I suspect the charge might be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (pleasingly, this is a common law offence in E&W). Bad news for 'response', if the authorities take that route. It's a serious charge, it will go to the Crown Court, and anyone convicted will very likely go to jail.

These people have assembled with the intention of obstructing the execution of court orders, which opens the first door. The use of unlawful* violence towards that obstruction will easily make out the requirements for a PCJ charge. And I could imagine a Judge taking a very dim view of an organised and blatant attempt to prevent the rule of law.

(* unlawful in the conventional sense, eg what the judges and laws say)

[Bones]

Does anyone have a court date and the name of the Court for Guy ?

[Normal Wisdom]

Does anyone have a court date and the name of the Court for Guy ?

I imagine that Guy will be appearing again at Hereford where all the previous hearings concerning the fate of Bodenham Manor have been held.

The two videos linked below are a refresher of the case (from Guy's point of view of course)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s3CDHM ... Ney7Cgkuag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWk__kk0sUc

The next hearing was due to be held in early February but was postponed and I've simply been told that it was rescheduled for June.

[notorial dissent]

I'm rather looking forward to the first time one of these tools actually "arrests" someone and gets busted for assault and kidnapping, and then the whole lot of them get sued in to bankruptcy,

Don't see that happening in E&W. A self-declared Peace Marshal who attempts to arrest a Brit cop will be cheerily told to go on his way. If he persists, especially if he goes as far as to lay a hand upon a cop, then use of force will be proportionately escalated (we have rules about this, our cops can't just swagger around like Sheriff Buford T. Justice - example at http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/site ... olicy2.pdf).

So initially it will be drawn baton (a nasty metal "ASP" nowadays), maybe a cheeky drizzle of PAVA spray. The subdued bell-end would then be arrested and charged with obstructing police.

I wasn't really thinking about the constabulary types, I figured they are big boys and can take care of themselves when push comes to shove, I was thinking more in the line of private citizens or as you mentioned bailiffs and the like. Although as stupid as this bunch is, there isn't much I'd put past them to do, and I know Bobby fantasizes about arresting real police officers, and probably judges.

[wanglepin]

I was thinking more in the line of private citizens or as you mentioned bailiffs and the like. Although as stupid as this bunch is, there isn't much I'd put past them to do, [/color][/b]

I wonder if they would arrest Tom Crawford if he ever accepts the fact that he has been evicted when he has been evicted?

[wanglepin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s3CDHM ... Ney7Cgkuag

Guy taylor 13:00.

The metropolitan police that were dealing with the court documents with us, as we suspected they got a call from someone higher up the food chain, some common purpose mason pulled them off it. They were told not to ask questions about the documents and if fact even documents that purported to be fraudulent documents. So the fight goes on.

Where do they get this stuff from? If the police have or had been “working with them” the there must be some sort of evidence that proves correspondence between the two parties that they should be proud to show their devoted goofer freeman sheep.These freemen must love having their intelligence insulted on a daily basis... but there again...

[Bones]

Can Guy complete a sentance without saying "fraudulent documents" - Guy acts like a guru but recently he has sounded like nothing more than Mr Eberts whipping boy.

I wonder how long it will be until they have a lovers tiff, like that other pathetic duo lentz and bali mann.

[wanglepin]

His hearing date has well passed. He has been rather quiet about it unless it was adjourned .

[Normal Wisdom]

I haven't been able to find out any information about Guy's court action. However, I have found the attached planning application for permission to demolish Bodenham Manor so that a new building can be developed. I suppose that's one way, albeit a rather drastic one, to prevent Guy trying to reoccupy it. I guess it is also a sign that there is no substantive query over ownership.

https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/planni ... rch=151607

[PeanutGallery]

Didn't they do that with Eberts? It's not as though the building no longer being there has stopped him from trying to get it back. Having said that I think it would be a shame to demolish the manor, from what I have seen it's quite striking, then again I do have a certain affinity for old manorial houses and would be interested in preserving the architecture, but I can imagine that the interior might be in quite a state of disrepair.

But I don't think it will do anything to prevent Guy from claiming foul and if anything will see him launching more court bids to have it rebuilt brick by brick.

[Hercule Parrot]

I haven't been able to find out any information about Guy's court action. However, I have found the attached planning application for permission to demolish Bodenham Manor
https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/planni ... rch=151607

"it has required the attention of the police on numerous occasions as a result of unlawful occupation of the buildings and grounds.."
https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docume ... 50569f00ad

[letissier14]

Apparently Guy is up in court 6/7 July for trespass at Boddenham Manor

[Hercule Parrot]

Apparently Guy is up in court 6/7 July for trespass at Boddenham Manor

Curious. Trespass is not normally an offence as such. Was he perhaps breaching an injunction or bail condition by entering that land?

[FatGambit]

If memory serves yes, the new owner got an injunction.

It could also be that I dreamed that, but I'm sure I remember one of them saying he was arrested for defying an injunction in one of their many 'TV' interviews.

[PeanutGallery]

I think it is a reference to section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This makes trespassing in a residential building, with the intent to live there an offence. Guy certainly entered as a trespasser and remained in the building as such, he should have known it wasn't his property, and his intent was made out by occupying the manor and continuing to try and claim it's title.

Guy may be able to argue that he didn't know he was a trespasser, in as much as Guy will claim to be operating under the belief that he owns the land, but it will fail if the Jury (and we know Guy's going to have a Jury trial) are directed to the argument that Guy should have known he was a trespasser - given that he knew someone else had bought the land.

Code: Select all

144 Offence of squatting in a residential building

(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as a trespasser,
(b)the person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser, and
(c)the person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.
(2)The offence is not committed by a person holding over after the end of a lease or licence (even if the person leaves and re-enters the building).
(3)For the purposes of this section—
(a)“building” includes any structure or part of a structure (including a temporary or moveable structure), and
(b)a building is “residential” if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live.
(4)For the purposes of this section the fact that a person derives title from a trespasser, or has the permission of a trespasser, does not prevent the person from being a trespasser.
(5)A person convicted of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).
(6)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (5) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
(7)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) it is irrelevant whether the person entered the building as a trespasser before or after the commencement of this section.
(8)In section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (entry for purpose of arrest etc)—
(a)in subsection (1)(c), after sub-paragraph (v) insert—
“(vi)section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (squatting in a residential building);”;
(b)in subsection (3), for “or (iv)” substitute “, (iv) or (vi)”.
(9)In Schedule 10 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 53(b).

Equally Guy might be being charged with a breach of section 73 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Code: Select all

73 Adverse occupation of residential premises.

For section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (trespassers failing to leave premises after being requested to do so by specified persons to be guilty of an offence) there shall be substituted the following section—
“7 Adverse occupation of residential premises.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section and to section 12A(9) below, any person who is on any premises as a trespasser after having entered as such is guilty of an offence if he fails to leave those premises on being required to do so by or on behalf of—
(a)a displaced residential occupier of the premises; or
(b)an individual who is a protected intending occupier of the premises.
(2)In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he believed that the person requiring him to leave the premises was not a displaced residential occupier or protected intending occupier of the premises or a person acting on behalf of a displaced residential occupier or protected intending occupier.
(3)In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that the premises in question are or form part of premises used mainly for non-residential purposes; and
(b)that he was not on any part of the premises used wholly or mainly for residential purposes.
(4)Any reference in the preceding provisions of this section to any premises includes a reference to any access to them, whether or not any such access itself constitutes premises, within the meaning of this Part of this Act.
(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(6)A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, guilty of an offence under this section.
(7)Section 12 below contains provisions which apply for determining when any person is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a displaced residential occupier of any premises or of any access to any premises and section 12A below contains provisions which apply for determining when any person is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a protected intending occupier of any premises or of any access to any premises.”.

However Guy might be able to come up with a defence against this, that is if he doesn't try the idiotic argument that the manor is really his, the question I have is if Guy displaced the occupier of Bodenham manor, from what I can recall, the owner was living in a caravan on site while they were renovating the property. They hadn't actually moved in. So it is questionable if Guy, by occupying a different though neighbouring building, actually displaced them.

But I don't think Guy will make that argument.

[Jeffrey]

Given that Guy, according to the last video, was kicked out by multiple cops out of the house, that should be a strong indicator that you don't own the house anymore.