Maurice is looking for help on cyberspace as each solicitor he has approached, over the past twenty five years in South Wales, appears to  get nobbled each time.

You cannot be convicted under the 1997 Prevention of Harassment Act if your conduct is reasonable.

1. What is ‘reasonable’?
2. Why has ‘the state’ repeatedly withheld public court records?
3. Why has the state repeatedly withheld Maurice’s specific medical records?
4. Why did the South Wales Police not simply ask Maurice for the whereabouts of his once owned decommissioned WW1 Lewis machine gun bolted to an ex Farnborough Air Show DH2 replica fighter aircraft?
5. Why, instead, did it need over twenty policemen and with so many armed, to have to surround Maurice and his young family on a 2009 Summer’s day while enjoying afternoon tea with the spaniels in the garden?
6. 

Why did it require a specialist police ‘child-snatch’ team from Vale of Glamorgan Council to also be in attendance in an attempt to confiscate 10 year old Genevieve ?

This trial in Cardiff Crown Court, next week, will reveal to what lengths an ‘authority’, as we currently clearly have in Cardiff, is prepared to go  at the tax payer’s expense simply  to preserve their pensions.

As Voltaire once said, “when the state gets it wrong……..

If the United Kingdom finally obtains a Brexit, of what ever denomination, then let there be no doubt this current ‘tale of woe’, back in court again for at least the hundredth time, will pall into mere insignificance as to what is about to be unleashed on you without protection from our current European law and its improvements envisaged in the near future.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

THE LAW

Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(1A)A person must not pursue a course of conduct —

(a)which involves harassment of two or more persons, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and

(c)by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—

(i)not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or

(ii)to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.]

(2)For the purposes of this section [or section 2A(2)(c)], the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [ or involves] harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)Subsection (1) [or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

This criminal trial before the Recorder of Cardiff is based fundamentally on  particular welsh authorities all appearing to have both incessantly harassed and bullied an Englishman who, to no fault of his own, needed to defend himself in no less than fifty odd failed police malicious prosecutions when simply only wishing to practice veterinary surgery in the Vale of Glamorgan.

The Prosecution’s Case and Defendant’s Rebuttal for Tuesday’s hearing

17 03 02 4th RO mag

to be continued