hello this is warning for fiddler ferry

[unplugged]

Not only is it three days but they had to make any grievance to the solicitor within 48h. That part I can't see in the public copies but I can certainly get a copy of it.

And yeah a lot have joked about it, I hadn't heard of most of them and I had to look them up but one basically called it a "certificate", another asked if anyone had had a present from fiddlers, another I saw said they were going to use it as toilet paper. One just said they outright didn't give a shit.

 

[Urbex g00n]

The only travesty here is that Urbex_Untold, Walking_Exploring_Urbex fella and their balloon mate Kevin weren't hauled over this lot as they were most certainly the original bait fuckwits at this place.

Someone should point Peel NRE in their direction

 

[EOA]

Not only is it three days but they had to make any grievance to the solicitor within 48h. That part I can't see in the public copies but I can certainly get a copy of it.

And yeah a lot have joked about it, I hadn't heard of most of them and I had to look them up but one basically called it a "certificate", another asked if anyone had had a present from fiddlers, another I saw said they were going to use it as toilet paper. One just said they outright didn't give a shit.

Aye, with applications like this and what the claimant's solicitor is arguing for, is that there is a sufficiently real and imminent risk of a wrong being committed... that's why they've cited the more recent incidents of trespassing, to try and demonstrate the immediacy of the purported risk. We will have to see what the Court makes of it... the hearing for the application may not even have gone ahead on the 27th! Three days is not typical notice in civil procedure.

Maybe outwardly they're full of bravado and inside not so much. To be fair, if they steer clear of Fiddlers Ferry in future and manage to avoid paying costs - it might not mean much to them.

 

[Bikin Glynn]

Not only is it three days but they had to make any grievance to the solicitor within 48h. That part I can't see in the public copies but I can certainly get a copy of it.

And yeah a lot have joked about it, I hadn't heard of most of them and I had to look them up but one basically called it a "certificate", another asked if anyone had had a present from fiddlers, another I saw said they were going to use it as toilet paper. One just said they outright didn't give a shit.

Its a real shame they dont slap them with the court costs, they would give a shit then.

 

[Exploring with Andy]

Its a real shame they dont slap them with the court costs, they would give a shit then.

They might do. One of the defendants had asked about costs, and this was the response from the claimants solicitor -

 

[EOA]

It’s possibly already been all over social media, but since I’m not… looks like they got the interim injunction they wanted - although, Faith Abbot rocked up, didn’t oppose the application, but hasn’t been included in the Order.

 

[deebow]

Was only a matter of time.

Two of those people have been caught there multiple times and only got caught the last time because they decided it was a belter of an idea to shine a laser pen at security baiting out not only them but the others that were there also.
They then posted a video of them pissing themselves laughing at the police that made the 50 min walk up the chimney to clear them out.

It's an interesting read though and pretty entertaining in places.


A good point to note is Page 62 of the Final Hearing Bundle.

160 Finally, it is our position that damages would not be an adequate remedy as
our major concern is prevent possible health and safety risks occurring and
injury being caused to anyone.

161 In the circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that we now require
the assistance of the Court to prevent further unlawful trespass, to protect
the security of the Site, and to prevent what I believe will sooner or later result
in the death or serious injury of those who are undertaking these acts of
trespass and related damage and theft. Peel NRE therefore seeks an interim
injunction in order to assist in preventing future e incidents as soon as
possible.


So it sounds like some individuals (for now) may have dodged a bullet and some are probably are unaware of that fact. A lot of the evidence is also circumstantial and assumed to be fact based purely on WHEN it was posted (and not necessarily when it was taken)/ There's some "evidence" there that's clearly taken when it was owned by SSE (and not long after closure) so claiming damages from that individual for damages based on the last 6 months would be an interesting challenges.

Interestingly enough the court details of the trail don't seem to be public 🤔 anyone know the outcome of the trial?

Hi I suppose you actually know that trespass isn't unlawful, its civil and only becomes unlawful with intent, that will be why they keep getting released with no charges, not just the list on here, maybe a hundred more, however I understand that the numerous holes in the fencing are being used by everyone entering and a hole in the actual chimney, I should hope the owners take action to secure the site more carefully, as dog walkers have apparently entered the site also.

 

[Urbex g00n]

Hi I suppose you actually know that trespass isn't unlawful, its civil and only becomes unlawful with intent, that will be why they keep getting released with no charges, not just the list on here, maybe a hundred more, however I understand that the numerous holes in the fencing are being used by everyone entering and a hole in the actual chimney, I should hope the owners take action to secure the site more carefully, as dog walkers have apparently entered the site also.

Talking shit! When will you thicko's understand not all trespassing is civil

 

[unplugged]

Hi I suppose you actually know that trespass isn't unlawful, its civil and only becomes unlawful with intent, that will be why they keep getting released with no charges, not just the list on here, maybe a hundred more, however I understand that the numerous holes in the fencing are being used by everyone entering and a hole in the actual chimney, I should hope the owners take action to secure the site more carefully, as dog walkers have apparently entered the site also.

If you honestly believe that then rock up their tommorow and jump the fence.

I have to advise you not to though as inciting tresspass there would be contempt of court but you believe that if you wish.

 

[unplugged]

It’s possibly already been all over social media, but since I’m not… looks like they got the interim injunction they wanted - although, Faith Abbot rocked up, didn’t oppose the application, but hasn’t been included in the Order.

Where did you see that?

The latest sealed order posted late last week said two people rocked up (her and that Marlie dude) but both their names are still all over the paperwork.

https://fiddlersferry.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Bundle-Sealed-Injunction-Order.pdf

No indication of a second hearing yet but it looks like they have until the 9th to respond to being served and the end of my the month to mount any defense so I expect next month.

They do seem to have the interim injunction though.

 

[EOA]

@deebow It’s still a civil wrong (in these circumstances), just breach of the order (which is contempt of court), can result in sanctions that result in fines or imprisonment.

@unplugged - if you read the Order, the 10th defendant, Faith Abbot isn’t mentioned in the Order. Could be administrative. It’s not explained and she apparently didn’t oppose it, so who knows.

Edit: actually, the 10th defendant is just not mentioned in the paragraphs regarding service of notice and the paragraph of the order relating to the injunction just mentions the defendants. So, it looks like she is covered by it.

The final hearing won’t be for some time!

 

[deebow]

If you honestly believe that then rock up their tommorow and jump the fence.

I have to advise you not to though as inciting tresspass there would be contempt of court but you believe that if you wish.

Ridiculous answer 🙄

 

[deebow]

@deebow It’s still a civil wrong (in these circumstances), just breach of the order (which is contempt of court), can result in sanctions that result in fines or imprisonment.

@unplugged - if you read the Order, the 10th defendant, Faith Abbot isn’t mentioned in the Order. Could be administrative. It’s not explained and she apparently didn’t oppose it, so who knows.

Edit: actually, the 10th defendant is just not mentioned in the paragraphs regarding service of notice and the paragraph of the order relating to the injunction just mentions the defendants. So, it looks like she is covered by it.

The final hearing won’t be for some time!

Actually your saying for a dig walker strolling onto the land, they will go to prison, oooh very interesting thankyou for your advice, I do hope the company fixes all the holes and makes the area safe 😉

 

[deebow]

@deebow It’s still a civil wrong (in these circumstances), just breach of the order (which is contempt of court), can result in sanctions that result in fines or imprisonment.

@unplugged - if you read the Order, the 10th defendant, Faith Abbot isn’t mentioned in the Order. Could be administrative. It’s not explained and she apparently didn’t oppose it, so who knows.

Edit: actually, the 10th defendant is just not mentioned in the paragraphs regarding service of notice and the paragraph of the order relating to the injunction just mentions the defendants. So, it looks like she is covered by it.

The final hearing won’t be for some time!

Administration error is actually naming someone who's never been to Liverpool let alone the site

 

[DKXC1036]

FYI - The 'goons' did not get the big folded of paper work 14 days prior. They received them on Thursday PM for court on the Monday AM
Which states any defence had to be submitted two clear working days prior to the hearing date.
Peel representatives dropped them off on the Thursday to their homes individually late on purpose.
They will not get far in trying for legal costs especially with half of them named. Yes some have posted on social media and bragged and videoed.
Some of them were at the site once end of January and got caught/arrested. Released with out charge. - as they had evidence it were their first time there and also a news paper article which showed the entry being open that they had used to gain access - there for no criminal dammage was done by these and they had proof of entry and the opening already there and they had also videoed privately on their phones footage of their duration there. Which again proves no dammage / unlawful entry.


Like I said above that is the case for some of them named however some others on that list have bragged previously on social media. Peel should not be taking some of these names to court at all it's ridiculous trying to tar normal private explorers with the same brush.

I have seen the entire court paper work and videos - the evidence they have is against half of those names, nothing on any of the others apart from them being caught on the premises end of January.
And solicitors that were called in advised them not to attend the hearing due to the short notice which wasn't acceptable with enough time to raise a defence which were brought to the attention of the court on the Friday afternoon prior to the case.

Some of the names also were not even arrested at that time and only got listed due to sharing Facebook videos on their wall publicly previously.