70PC Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 14 hours ago, Man of Kent said: Looks like Ashford Council are applying to have Fergus Wilson committed to prison tomorrow, presumably for breaching their injunction against him. Trump lite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan Ap Word Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 36 minutes ago, 70PC said: Trump lite True. But I am pretty sure that even Trump hasn't sent letters to people suggesting they should end their own lives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orb Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 hour ago, Aidan Ap Word said: True. But I am pretty sure that even Trump hasn't sent letters to people suggesting they should end their own lives? Didn't Trump address the nation and advise that drinking bleach was a good alternative to taking a Covid vaccine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverGuy Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Damn - this thread revival isn't about what I hoped it might be about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wighty Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 4 hours ago, Aidan Ap Word said: Would this man be able to reach the floor: ... do you think? And reading the court records - would it be appropriate that he should have only a community service charge after he broke the injunction that he worked so hard to acheive? I know ASBOs were once seen as rite of passage for yoof ... but that wouldn't be a commensurate acheivement (IMO) following his determination to ruin people's lives? Reminder: he stalked someone's home address and then wrote several letters to them including suggestions they should end their own lives - which (amongst many other things) meant the courts saw recourse for a permanent injunction that - even futher - he many now have broken. Would a community service order really be appropriate for someone who rejects the rule of law to that extent? And it might be interesting to note that his insults wrt people's size and shape (and alleged inability to do theyir work on this basis) are also a matter of the public record now. Which means that community service will probably teach him nothing? Imagine that belly bouncing on Judith. No don't, you'll never get it out of your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huggy Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 19 minutes ago, wighty said: Imagine that belly bouncing on Judith. No don't, you'll never get it out of your head. Like an old style wardrobe toppling on you with the key still in the lock 22 minutes ago, VancouverGuy said: Damn - this thread revival isn't about what I hoped it might be about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 So is he banged up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan Ap Word Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 6 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: So is he banged up? Not sure the result of the hearing is public ... or if it will be public ... and/or when. Just found this on "Caseboard" https://caseboard.io/cases/1eb4768d-722c-4325-8877-314b6e3d7ddd Not sure if anyone else know the procedures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 On 12/03/2024 at 16:26, Aidan Ap Word said: Not sure the result of the hearing is public ... or if it will be public ... and/or when. Just found this on "Caseboard" https://caseboard.io/cases/1eb4768d-722c-4325-8877-314b6e3d7ddd Not sure if anyone else know the procedures? Looks like the judge will decide if there's enough evidence to bring him to trial. Don't know what the outcome is yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan Ap Word Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 (edited) 6 hours ago, Wurzel Of Highbridge said: Looks like the judge will decide if there's enough evidence to bring him to trial. Don't know what the outcome is yet. That evidence was in terms of him being served an injunction. This latest hearing is, I believe for contempt of court in breaking that injuntion (which would carry a custodial sentence). IANAL!!!! So I might be wrong. But this is, I believe why this is an "Application to commit" [to jail, I believe] EDIT: ooops, sorry - the Judge to check to see if there is enough evidence of him breaking the injunction ... ah yes ... sorry ... if there is enough evidence to warrant a trail. And this - https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/practice_directions/pd_rsc52.pdf - has a lot of legaliese in it ... though Part II implies it isn't time to clamp the door shut just yet. Edited March 14 by Aidan Ap Word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Looks like we'll get a decision next month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loving The Crash Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 10 hours ago, Man of Kent said: Looks like we'll get a decision next month. "The council's representative Adam Solomon QC previously handed over a staggering 454 pieces of correspondence sent by Mr Wilson to council officials in the space of just over four years – between February 2016 and July 2020." Crazy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan Ap Word Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, Loving The Crash said: "The council's representative Adam Solomon QC previously handed over a staggering 454 pieces of correspondence sent by Mr Wilson to council officials in the space of just over four years – between February 2016 and July 2020." Crazy... Yes, the 454 pieces of evidence (some of which was quoted directly in the original injunction) were evidence in the original injunction. This application to Commit is (though we haven't seen it yet) based on evidence of further actions by Mr Wilson since the injunction. So the craziness - it is alleged - did not stop there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blobsy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Don't fancy his chances in the nick. He'll be safe from rape mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Fury Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 More detailed reports. These don't really contain anything new, just brief reports of what happened last week, with accounts of the case from 2021. Statement from Ashford Borough Council: https://www.ashford.gov.uk/news/latest-news/ashford-borough-council-versus-fergus-wilson-in-the-high-court/ with a link to the full text of the judgment from 2021-22: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/988.html Longer report in the Daily Mirror: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/millionaire-dubbed-britains-worst-landlord-32360436 Quote The court also heard that Mr Wilson subjected one of the council's legal representatives to a focused ordeal spanning years, much of which featured emails to her superiors, some of which were copied to as many as 44 people within the council. These would often see him make derogatory references to her weight and general appearance, as well as stating that she was not qualified to practise law. In support of an argument that his conduct was appropriate, one piece of evidence that Mr Wilson submitted to the court was a photo of himself taken with the hashtag "Fat ****" written underneath, presumably taken from social media, although this was not specified. Mr Solomon said: "The argument goes, insofar as it is coherent, is that if it is OK for people to call the defendant a 'fat ****', it is okay for him to refer to [the victim] in the way that he does". Of course that could not possibly have been taken from HPC, where we only discuss the Wilsons in a constructive and dispassionate way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 I'd argue given the evidence of harassment, it is quite reasonable to call him a Fat C*** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70PC Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 41 minutes ago, Wurzel Of Highbridge said: I'd argue given the evidence of harassment, it is quite reasonable to call him a Fat C*** And noting this: "The court also heard that Mr Wilson subjected one of the council's legal representatives to a focused ordeal spanning years, much of which featured emails to her superiors, some of which were copied to as many as 44 people within the council. These would often see him make derogatory references to her weight and general appearance, as well as stating that she was not qualified to practise law." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyson Fury Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 The link to the legal judgment I gave above is to the one deciding about the costs. The actual substantive judgment in the case is here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/2542.html Quote 21. I have not seen Ms Clarke [a member of Ashford Borough Council's legal department] and have no idea what her appearance or size are. Later correspondence shows the Defendant refer to Ms Clarke as "Michelin Man" and "Big Sam", the clear implication being that the Defendant considers her to be large and/or overweight. Whatever Ms Clarke's appearance or size, they have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to her competence as a lawyer or the issues purportedly raised in the Defendant's letter. Further, as Mr Solomon QC observed, the Defendant's "I am not going to make reference to your Appearance and Size …" does precisely that which the Defendant pretends to seek to avoid. I have no doubt that the Defendant intentionally and purposefully used those words to insult and/or upset Ms Clarke. There is no reasonable explanation for their inclusion in that letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan Ap Word Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 On 18/03/2024 at 09:42, Dyson Fury said: The link to the legal judgment I gave above is to the one deciding about the costs. The actual substantive judgment in the case is here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/2542.html Quote 21. I have not seen Ms Clarke [a member of Ashford Borough Council's legal department] and have no idea what her appearance or size are. Later correspondence shows the Defendant refer to Ms Clarke as "Michelin Man" and "Big Sam", the clear implication being that the Defendant considers her to be large and/or overweight. Whatever Ms Clarke's appearance or size, they have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to her competence as a lawyer or the issues purportedly raised in the Defendant's letter. Further, as Mr Solomon QC observed, the Defendant's "I am not going to make reference to your Appearance and Size …" does precisely that which the Defendant pretends to seek to avoid. I have no doubt that the Defendant intentionally and purposefully used those words to insult and/or upset Ms Clarke. There is no reasonable explanation for their inclusion in that letter. Whatever he called others (including these records in law) or we may wish to call him - interesting to see how no-one in the press has picked up on this discriminatory nonsense from his mouth ... there's the blind leading the blind ... but the clinically morbidly obese calling others fat ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 Judgement in Ashford's application to commit him to prison due tomorrow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 23 minutes ago, Man of Kent said: Judgement in Ashford's application to commit him to prison due tomorrow: Oh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70PC Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 He amassed all that property. Did it bring him contentment? "On occasion he has sent multiple letters in a day or over a short period of days." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 9 hours ago, 70PC said: He amassed all that property. Did it bring him contentment? "On occasion he has sent multiple letters in a day or over a short period of days." I suspect his obsessive symptoms may have been there prior and led to him randomly accidentally buying a sh#t tonne of houses owing to a neurological condition rather than investing criteria. And then instead of going bankrupt he just got extremely lucky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huggy Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 1 hour ago, Si1 said: And then instead of going bankrupt he just got extremely lucky Along with millions of others who now think it will happen again and again and again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70PC Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 2 hours ago, Si1 said: I suspect his obsessive symptoms may have been there prior and led to him randomly accidentally buying a sh#t tonne of houses owing to a neurological condition rather than investing criteria. And then instead of going bankrupt he just got extremely lucky Yes and not least because of a government bailout after 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.