Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[rumpelstilzchen]

someone has suggested ordering pizza

Are the so stupid as to not realise it would be the pizza company that would lose out?

[ArthurWankspittle]

someone has suggested ordering pizza

Are the so stupid as to not realise it would be the pizza company that would lose out?

Also who pays on delivery these days? Everyone wants money up front on a card or through the internet. Though some of this lot may be that stupid.

[Pottapaug1938]

someone has suggested ordering pizza

Are the so stupid as to not realise it would be the pizza company that would lose out?

Also who pays on delivery these days? Everyone wants money up front on a card or through the internet. Though some of this lot may be that stupid.

Not necessarily. In years past, I had a second job delivering pizzas in a city just south of Boston; and while some did pay via credit card or via the Internet, plenty of people still paid with cash. My former colleagues tell me that many still do.

[Philistine]

Are the so stupid as to not realise it would be the pizza company that would lose out?

Also who pays on delivery these days? Everyone wants money up front on a card or through the internet. Though some of this lot may be that stupid.

Not necessarily. In years past, I had a second job delivering pizzas in a city just south of Boston; and while some did pay via credit card or via the Internet, plenty of people still paid with cash. My former colleagues tell me that many still do.

It's a moot point as the pizza guy is still out the cash when the door slams.
IOW the "Do no harm" idiots are harming an innocent party to get their jollies.

[littleFred]

And with one bound, he was free.

On today's UK Column, Guy relates a garbled story about his experience.

It seems Guy couldn't confirm his date of birth to the clerk. He didn't know what the case was about so couldn't enter a plea. They cleared the court and called the police. This went on for half an hour.

He was found guilty in his absence. Guilty of what? He doesn't say. He was also charged with contempt. Would he apologise to the court? No. Guy was concerned for his safety. He was fined for whatever he was found guilty of. He then had to plead to something else, but doesn't know what.

Why was the court cleared? Why were police called? Guy doesn't say. Perhaps the court simply decided the police might enjoy some time in the court. Or perhaps Guy and/or his supporters were kicking off.

[hucknallred]

He does come out with some shit doesn't he. Loads of letters from well wishers, yeah right, hands up who sends letters now.
Also the phone systems at the court & prison were jammed with calls from well wishers too.

I remember after one of the Fearn Chase sieges he trotted down to Carlton nick with about 3 other stragglers, knocked up some justice for Tom placards in biro, then did a piece to camera. During said piece a gay pride march went past with a couple of car horns going off, the spin on this was, "as you can see we've got lots of support today."

[guilty]

But according to Guy, the police were shocked and agreed with him, and the duty solicitor agreed with him, even the magistrates were sympathetic. They were all over-ruled by a drugged up court clerk.

Why didn't they have a Galbraith hearing, or a Turnbull hearing, asks Guy.
Well, probably because a Galbraith submission (the fmotls favourite 'no case to answer') is for criminal trials with juries and is made after the prosecution case has been presented, and a Turnbull submission is made when witnesses are unable to identify the defendant.

[afateworsethandeath]

They really haven't got a clue

[exiledscouser]

But according to Guy, the police were shocked and agreed with him, and the duty solicitor agreed with him, even the magistrates were sympathetic. They were all over-ruled by a drugged up court clerk.

Why didn't they have a Galbraith hearing, or a Turnbull hearing, asks Guy.
Well, probably because a Galbraith submission (the fmotls favourite 'no case to answer') is for criminal trials with juries and is made after the prosecution case has been presented, and a Turnbull submission is made when witnesses are unable to identify the defendant.

Some links to explanations to what are some quite long-standing bits of case law;

Galbraith falls from Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedi ... answer.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_case_to_answer

Turnbull falls from R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedi ... elines.htm#

and this from Wiki;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitnes ... directions

Turnbull directions
Where the identification of the defendant is in issue (not merely the honesty of the identifier or the fact that the defendant matched a particular description), and the prosecution rely substantially or wholly on the correctness of one or more identifications of the defendant, the judge should give a direction to the jury.

The judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification or identifications. In addition he should instruct them as to the reason for the need for such a warning and should make some reference to the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and that a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken.

The judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made and remind the jury of any specific weaknesses in the identification evidence. If the witnesses recognised a known defendant, the judge should remind the jury that mistakes even in the recognition of relatives or close friends are sometimes made.

When, in the judgment of the trial judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification.

The trial judge should identify to the jury the evidence which he adjudges is capable of supporting the evidence of identification. If there is any evidence or circumstances which the jury might think was supporting when it did not have this quality, the judge should say so...

I think the whole thing is quite hilarious and the only loser here is the landlord at Guy's local who might have to wait a few more days before booking that foreign holiday. GT says in his piece to the obsequious and fawning Gerrish that the Governor who met him personally to shake his hand told him he was there as a 'civil' prisoner. Gerrish seems to be a valued member of the pitchfork and torch community, slyly referring to the fact that (their enemies and particularly the court clerk that is their new bete noir) have homes which can be found.

I read the Governor's remarks (if not a load of old Taylor bollocks) to mean that as Guy was there for contempt, that if he were to request to purge that contempt (basically say sorry) he'd be back in the pub by lunchtime. So hardly cast into the Chateau d'if or the Lubyanka.

littleFred wrote;
He was found guilty in his absence. Guilty of what? He doesn't say. He was also charged with contempt. Would he apologise to the court? No. Guy was concerned for his safety. He was fined for whatever he was found guilty of. He then had to plead to something else, but doesn't know what.

He knows full well what it's all about as he reported he was 'kidnapped' on a previous occasion about a month ago in connection with the same proceedings and will have been fully aware of the issues. I've read somewhere something to the effect that it was a scuffle or some public order matter a few months ago that he knows all about.

He's simply ( shock ) grandstanding.

[littleFred]

I enjoyed the innocence that Guy portrays. He had no idea what he was charged with or what was happening? But Guy has been in court more times than most of us have had hot dinners.

As one of his fans says:

His efforts are well documented, tongue in cheek and he treats the system with the contempt it deserves.

I have no doubt that this was another example of Guy treating the system with contempt. I'm sure he knew the inevitable consequence of doing that while in the dock: a few days of free B&B.

[afateworsethandeath]

Let's be fair to GT here. His home for the last few days is probably the first one he hasn't been evicted from

[FatGambit]

I enjoyed the innocence that Guy portrays. He had no idea what he was charged with or what was happening? But Guy has been in court more times than most of us have had hot dinners.

Perhaps that's the problem, he's got so many outstanding warrants he genuinely doesn't know which each one was for....

[Chaos]

Let's be fair to GT here. His home for the last few days is probably the first one he hasn't been evicted from

they gave him the boot today!

[mac]

Let's be fair to GT here. His home for the last few days is probably the first one he hasn't been evicted from

Will he try to retake it

[rumpelstilzchen]

Isn't it funny how these same kind of things keep happening to the same handful of people?

[Bungle]

And with one bound, he was free.

On today's UK Column, Guy relates a garbled story about his experience.

It seems Guy couldn't confirm his date of birth to the clerk.

Doesn't like giving his DoB. He did the same with the Insolvency Service when he was declared bankrupt.

https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk ... CaseType=B

[daveBeeston]

Surely you think he would learn from past experiences and do what most FMOTL/SOvCits do and that's say one thing to the followers/loonies/dumb asses and then cave in when in court(Just like dear old TC).

I cannot fathom what they actually think they are achieving by refusing to give details,it causes no issues for the courts as they just find you in contempt and send you to the worst B&B to think about your actions.

[longdog]

To the little mice inside their heads operating the levers it's a strike for freedom against TPTB. The fact TPTB really couldn't care less either way never occurs to them because they are too full of their own self-importance.

Every so often I strike back against my local council by putting a dog food tin in the landfill bin not the recycling bin... THAT'LL LEARN 'EM!!!!111!!

[littleFred]

Surely you think he would learn from past experiences and do what most FMOTL/SOvCits do and that's say one thing to the followers/loonies/dumb asses and then cave in when in court(Just like dear old TC).

Unlike TC, Guy has done porridge. Fairly serious porridge, for fraud, so he would have no problems doing a few days for contempt.

In my view, Guy deliberately expressed contempt, knowing the consequence. It adds to his credibility on the GOOFy speaking circuit. Guy increases his hero-martyr status.

As longdog says, it doesn't bother TPTB at all. The stunt is all about the GOOFy audience.

[AndyPandy]

Posted on Goofy at 14.15pm, how long before it's deleted

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... xD0P9R4WK0

This forum is really interesting but the bottom line that Guy deserved exactly what he got ! If you go around acting like a bunch of ******* then you deserve to be treated like one!. One thing you can be sure of is that idiots like you can't beet the system. Your happy to receive your benefit payments which by the way is the law and governed by statute but don't accept any other laws, strange that!!!
Rochie
New Recruit
New Recruit

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:15 pm