Binding & Whackett Newlyn PLC

[westcunttree]

Has anyone had any bad dealings or been assaulted by ex police officers Binding and Whackett who collect unpaid council tax, if so would you let me know as they are a very bad bunch

Both work for Newlyns

[Righteous_Anger]

I sincerely hope that your choice of username is not representative of your inherent nature.

[patto]

Yes, I have, and all on video all unlawful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxTQnLbSqOo&t=35s

[John The Baptist]

Yes, I have, and all on video all unlawful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxTQnLbSqOo&t=35s

The only unlawful activity is carried out by the Worzel Gummidge lookalike, AKA Patterson

[John The Baptist]

Patterson said:

All this was being heard by my 13 year old Thomas from top of stairs, he became traumertised, and 5 times tried to phone my elder daughter to get help

So why not show evidence of your ID? Is your silly little bailiff vendetta worth more to you than your own son?

All you had to do was show them evidence of your ID. You chose not to because you wanted the confrontation to continue.

For those that don't know, Patterson is the latest in a long line of nutters who thinks he knows better than solicitors and barristers. He is in the same category as Jay Bradley, Ceylon & Chrissy Morris. They are all as thick as two short planks and all seek confrontation with bailiffs. I don't know why we entertain them and their crazy ideas on this forum.

[Syd Snitkin]

I'm not sure we do entertain them unless we respond......

That said, at least that goon Binding has turned in his certificate.

[zeke]

Had a look at the video and the bailiffs were confrontational and took a video camera being used by someone that could result in a Breach of the Peace.

The video could have been used in a private prosecution because force against a person is not allowed and the video showed such force being used and injuries there to prove it.

A bailiff should have backed away for his own safety but didn't and continued to confront the person in the video.

[John The Baptist]

Nigel - The bailiffs were not confrontational and all that Patterson needed to do was show evidence of ID. He refused to do this because he wanted to inflame the situation. He then had the added dimension to bring his son into the equation, claiming that it was upsetting for him. If it was so upsetting, why did Patterson continue the quarrel? Why not just show ID and put an end to the matter?

If a private prosecution was taken out in this case, it would be thrown out by the CPS and any money spent funding it would be lost.

Bailiffs should not back away every time some raving lunatic acts aggressively. If they did, there would be little point in having bailiffs.

The aggravator and culprit in all of this is Patterson. He is a fruitcake, doesn't understand the law and seems hell bent on confrontation.

[zeke]

I'm not saying Petterson is innocent, but the rules state bailiffs cannot use force against people. The line was crossed when the bailiff applied force to push the person with the camera out of the doorway. There is no excuse for bailiffs to turn off their body-cam, which is what it appears in the video.

[Syd Snitkin]

The CPS can't 'throw out' a private prosecution. They can take control of one then decide not to continue, but you don't need their consent to bring a case to court save for some extreme cases, eg terrorism, corporate manslaughter, etc.

[patto]

John The Baptist you are a prick and even looks like you are an agent. I made it clear right from the start if they got outside I would talk to them. So tell me where in the video was I aggressive. I was kicked in the stomach and strangled whilst on the phone to the police. Binding & Wackett are nothing but thugs, how many other times must they have done this to others? Ex coppers who have picked on the wrong person this time. Even if they had come to the right property for the right person, they acted unlawful right from the start.

[zeke]

JTB is not a bailiff. He is someone voicing very strong opinions.

Are you sure Binding & Wackett are ex-cop? Becoming a bailiff is a serious career downgrade as well as losing out on a gilt-edged police pension and perks.

A council tax bailiff is lucky to get away with £16,000 a year, its a pretty crappy job without pension going up tower blocks dealing with druggies and the dregs of society.

Your video shows the bailiff gained nothing from his attending, so he wasted his own time and is paid nothing. I agree if he was not confrontational and stood outside then he could have seen your ID and that would have been the end of it. Instead, the bailiff abused his position by pushing you around and ended up on YouTube.

I'm not sympathetic to bailiffs, There are plenty of organisations that come to their defence. This board helps the vulnerable and those on receiving end of abuse.

[John The Baptist]

The CPS can't 'throw out' a private prosecution. They can take control of one then decide not to continue, but you don't need their consent to bring a case to court save for some extreme cases, eg terrorism, corporate manslaughter, etc.

Once the case is in the hands of the CPS then they are at liberty to continue or not, based upon the strength of the case and public interest. Call it thrown out or call it not consenting - Either way, the case doesn't continue. I'm not entirely why Nigel has suggested a private prosecution in the first place.

Something as silly and trivial as the Patterson case would (presumably) need to be funded from central funds, meaning that the CPS would have total control over it. As I said, they would throw it out.

[patto]

I thought this forum was to help people with problems with bailiffs, yet John The Baptist here is clearly on the side of these scum bag bailiffs. Why shoud anyone give their name to debt collectors knocking on your door with no authority from any court. Sure we have to stand up to them, my problem was that I didn't use force against them. If you don't stand up to them they will tramply all over you. The only advice John The Baptist is giving on here is, give in to them and pay up.

[patto]

Schedule 12, Yes both are ex coppers from Hertford worked together. Binding was a DC here he is: https://leavingthepolice.co.uk/product/ ... w-v-bundle

[John The Baptist]

John The Baptist you are a prick and even looks like you are an agent. I made it clear right from the start if they got outside I would talk to them. So tell me where in the video was I aggressive. I was kicked in the stomach and strangled whilst on the phone to the police. Binding & Wackett are nothing but thugs, how many other times must they have done this to others? Ex coppers who have picked on the wrong person this time. Even if they had come to the right property for the right person, they acted unlawful right from the start.

Thank you. However, I hate to tell you that I've been called a lot worse.

I'm not interested in your fairy story - I'm only interested in the facts that can be shown from the video. You and your daughter both begin swearing at the agent and then you begin pushing and shoving him. The bailiff then made peaceful entry because YOU stupidly left the entry open for him to step in. Before that point, he would have needed to push past you to get in. You were then told by the police not to be confrontational and not to go near them. You ignored the request and wrongly stated that they were not bailiffs but private debt collectors. Finally, there is an unclear scuffle in which you make all sorts of silly claims.

Now who is the more likely to be believed? An ex-policeman or a complete head the ball who openly goads bailiffs and continually boasts and threatens to physically remove them if the enter his home.

There is no evidence that either bailiff acted unlawfully, only your claims, which are uncorroborated.

[John The Baptist]

I thought this forum was to help people with problems with bailiffs, yet John The Baptist here is clearly on the side of these scum bag bailiffs. Why shoud anyone give their name to debt collectors knocking on your door with no authority from any court. Sure we have to stand up to them, my problem was that I didn't use force against them. If you don't stand up to them they will tramply all over you. The only advice John The Baptist is giving on here is, give in to them and pay up.

I have helped many people. However, I no longer bother because I see most people as being like you or that other prat Morris.

The bailiffs had lawful authority to enter your premises as they had reasonable belief that Jamie lived there. You were under no obligation to provide evidence of your ID but by the same token, you cannot start crying that the bailiffs did not leave. They experience people denying themselves every single day and rightly need to satisfy themselves that the debtor does not live there.

The fact that you still, after all this time, cannot comprehend that the bailiffs had the authority to be there only serves to show what a cretin you are.

As for being on the side of the bailiffs, I think you will find that I am hated by the bailiff industry - I cost them £1000s every year. I would imagine they see you as some kind of harmless old crank who provides amunition for them.

[zeke]

Bailiffwithpolice markings.png

I didn't clock that, but one of the bailiffs is wearing police-like markings.


I doubt that is a coincidence it looks similar to this:








Section 90(2) of the Police Act states:

• (2)Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

[patto]

JohnThe Baptist, so why do you think Binding has turned his certificate in, he also reported me to the police for assaulting him, why has he not made a statement? Thames Valley Police have asked him to hand himself in to be interview otherwise D&C police will arrest him, and why has he not handed in his body camera? They had no lawful authority to enter the property. End of conversion with you as I'm wasting my time with you.

[patto]

SCHEDULE 12 Thanks for that info, yes missed that.

[John The Baptist]

JohnThe Baptist, so why do you think Binding has turned his certificate in, he also reported me to the police for assaulting him, why has he not made a statement? Thames Valley Police have asked him to hand himself in to be interview otherwise D&C police will arrest him, and why has he not handed in his body camera? They had no lawful authority to enter the property. End of conversion with you as I'm wasting my time with you.

Well go away then - That's all I asked last night.

You don't even know what relevant premises are you utter, utter buffoon. You conveniently ignored all requests from others to clarify what you meant.

Nothing will happen to Binding and he had lawful reason to enter. Do you think he just said "Any old Patterson will do"? You live in a dream world, you crazy old fool. Stick to YT & all the nutters that it attracts - You'll be in good company.

[Syd Snitkin]

Once the case is in the hands of the CPS then they are at liberty to continue or not, based upon the strength of the case and public interest. Call it thrown out or call it not consenting - Either way, the case doesn't continue. I'm not entirely why Nigel has suggested a private prosecution in the first place.

But the CPS don't automatically take over a PP. Their consent is not needed to begin a PP. They have the power to take over the proceedings if they deem appropriate but they are not obliged to. Only if they take over do they fully control the case and can subsequently drop the proceedings. The original party is then at liberty to start again.

[Syd Snitkin]

You don't even know what relevant premises are you utter, utter buffoon. You conveniently ignored all requests from others to clarify what you meant.

Got a point Patto. This is the third time I've asked you to clarify what you meant by that. It's no good stating something as fact without backing it up.

[zeke]

But the CPS don't automatically take over a PP. Their consent is not needed to begin a PP.

That recently changed. The complaint must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions before it can be laid before the court.

Here is how to bring a private prosecution against a bailiff

[Syd Snitkin]

Where in legislation does it say the DPP needs to give permission for a PP? A PP doesn't even need to notify the CPS when starting proceedings.

[Syd Snitkin]

That link also says you have to inform the police first. Whilst it may be wise to do so, there is absolutely no obligation to do so. Nigel, the info on that link is riddled with errors.

[zeke]

I got it from a solicitor that does private prosecutions.

[zeke]

That link also says you have to inform the police first. Whilst it may be wise to do so, there is absolutely no obligation to do so.

Section 1(4)(A) of the Magistrates Courts Act. No warrant will be issued without the permission of the DPP.

That is why I recommend getting police on the side first before going the expense of instructing a solicitor.

Nigel, the info on that link is riddled with errors.

[John The Baptist]

Nigel - I really think that you've lost the plot.

You knew nothing about private prosecutions until a week ago, when Pote mentioned them.

Now you are encouraging people to take out prosecutions against bailiffs.

For what? When was the last time that a bailiff committed a criminal offence?

You're getting worse, not better. Conveniently, you tell people that they can't take out the prosecution themselves but need to pay for a solicitor to do it on their behalf.

I think you're mad Nigel. This stupidity has got to stop.

[zeke]

You knew nothing about private prosecutions until a week ago, when Pote mentioned them.

Its been there since 2012. Neither of you were around back then.

https://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/b ... olice.html

[Syd Snitkin]

FFS, that part of the MCA is for arrest warrants not PP.

[zeke]

Correct. That is how a suspect is brought before the court when he doesn't answer a summons.

[Syd Snitkin]

Nigel, we've been talking about starting a PP, and you've said that the DPP needs to consent. You've said the police must be informed. You've said a solicitor must be used. Now certainly the last 2 are prudent, but they are not a requirement. The first one is baloney.

[zeke]

I'll leave it as is until a solicitor says different, but that is what I was told to say in the approach page for anyone wanting to bring a prosecution.


It says the police must be informed of the crime to screen out timewasters wanting revenge on a bailiff. That also gives us the reason the police refused to investigate.

[Syd Snitkin]

And if they do 'screen out' the timewasters what's to stop the timewasters continuing a PP? I'm guessing this PP solicitor get clients passing through you. End of the day, you're happy to have an advice page that is misleading and incorrect. Can we call you Sheila?