Inocent until proven guilty

[Hay hay]

Yes I am.do you want me to prove it to you?

[des8]

It is entirely you choice how much you reveal

[efpom]

I think you may be focusing on the wrong issue.

It would seem from your writing, that a premises licence has been applied for. With a premises licence there must be a person or persons who are Designated premises supervisor(DPS)

It would seem from your writing that you have been nominated as a DPS.

Anyone can make a representation to the licensing authority (LA) objecting to the grant of a new licence, variation of an existing licence and/or seeking a review of whether an existing licence should be revoked or make representations in support of the grant.

If a representation is made to the LA objecting, it must hold a hearing to determine whether a licence should be granted and if so, what conditions attach to it. The applicant is entitled to be present at, and make submissions at that hearing.

So that board members may properly give you some assistance, in preparing for that hearing, you may wish to post up a copy of a) the application for a licence and b) a copy of all representations made to the LA.

You also may wish to press the LA for an early date for that hearing.

You may also find the following useful.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...fings/sn03788/

[Hay hay]

I was unable to upload the files hear because they are too large and I was unable to resize them too! So I have uploaded them to we tranfere, please see link below. They are not in the correct order I uploaded them though.

Must worn you prio though, be seated!


https://we.tl/t-yKOWuiWfaL?src=dnl

[efpom]

I have read your documents Three of them seem to be signed oddly - "Freeman of the Land" twaddle?

It is also tolerably clear from your writing that you do not have the linguistic skill to make representations/submissions to the committee hearing on 17th June.

I therefore strongly advise you to obtain the services of a solicitor to represent you at that hearing.

As to the charge you are facing - common Assault, to which you have pleaded "not guilty", my view is that it is not something the committee can take into account, and the other two stale offences, a fine for breaching covid regulations and while doing so obstructing a police officer, and a fine for travelling on the railway without a ticket, seem to me to be quite minor offenses which, which contrary to the police deeming, are not relevant.

At the heart of the matter, however is a representation by police officer that the application be rejected on the grounds
a) that a "criminal investigation" is in progress and
b) that if a licence was granted the crime prevention objective could be undermined.

On a) the officer has made a mistake - there is no criminal investigation because that stopped when the CPS made a charging decision on which the applicant was charged, pleaded "not Guilty" and now awaits trial.
On b) That is simply speculation.

I again urge you to retain a solicitor to represent you before the committee.

[Hay hay]

But there is no legal aid for a solicitor hear (I think)

I think you are wrong though about the charge for common assault. As under the licencing act 2003 I think it is a relevent offence that would undermine the licencing objectives. But I still hold my common law and human rights right that I am inocent untill proven guilty.

As for the other offences I agree they are irelivent and sounds like bent copper and Co closing ranks with the mob to shut me down any reason they can weather inside or out of the law. So they can shut the bar down once and for all and be paid for turning it into a block of flats
as to the Freeman of the land rubbish. It is erelovent unless what is said can be proven wrong. It is how I was taught to write my letters so I will have enough practice when I go back to settle me trust

[efpom]

I regret I cannot assist further, but I wish you good luck with your committee and court hearings.

[R0b]

But there is no legal aid for a solicitor hear (I think)

I think you are wrong though about the charge for common assault. As under the licencing act 2003 I think it is a relevent offence that would undermine the licencing objectives. But I still hold my common law and human rights right that I am inocent untill proven guilty.

As for the other offences I agree they are irelivent and sounds like bent copper and Co closing ranks with the mob to shut me down any reason they can weather inside or out of the law. So they can shut the bar down once and for all and be paid for turning it into a block of flats
as to the Freeman of the land rubbish. It is erelovent unless what is said can be proven wrong. It is how I was taught to write my letters so I will have enough practice when I go back to settle me trust

People who follow the Freeman of the Land arguments don't believe in the law imposed by this country and government, so how can you rely on the Human Rights Act 1998 - which is a law enacted by parliament at the relevant time? It also begs the question, why are you even applying for an alcohol licence in the first place if, as a follower of FOTL, you consider yourself independent of the government and the laws of this country so why don't you just crack on selling alcohol as you please?

You can't have your own cake and eat it. This forum is really here to help people who believe in the rule of law, not FOTL types or equivalent.

Good luck

[Hay hay]

But law is only a guide line and it is for a judge to pass judgment basses upon the facts and laws passed upon him. I mean I use human rights act and magna carta to say I am inocent until proven guilty. But can bent copper and Co find legislation to state there claim that I must prove my inocence for the licence to be granted. I mean will the panel even even bother to consider legislation from there side if the decision has already be made
so from the rest of your later post. What is your opinion to this. They have the right to with hold before judgment has been passed or not?

[MIKE770]

try telling the judge that.

[Hay hay]

The problem hear Mike is that there is no judge! It's a panel of crooks made up of bent coppers and crypt people from the labor party

[Hay hay]

So is that it then?

[DE DOGS]

I hope I'm not going to appear to muddy the water, but my opinion is if you try quoting all that you are replying for as a grant in Court, sit down and take the advice you are offered, keep quiet and get a Lawler, it will cost money but well spent.

[Hay hay]

Well DE
to me it looks like in the hearing that they will make the rules up as go along to suit the agenda of protecting the criminals, getting me out and closing the place down for good

[R0b]

But law is only a guide line and it is for a judge to pass judgment basses upon the facts and laws passed upon him. I mean I use human rights act and magna carta to say I am inocent until proven guilty. But can bent copper and Co find legislation to state there claim that I must prove my inocence for the licence to be granted. I mean will the panel even even bother to consider legislation from there side if the decision has already be made
so from the rest of your later post. What is your opinion to this. They have the right to with hold before judgment has been passed or not?

Where in the correspondence that you have uploaded does it say that the authority/panel have required you to prove yourself innocent before they issue you with a licence? Equally, where does it say they have rejected rejected your application based on the CPS charging you for common assault, affray and possession of an offensive weapon? I've read the documents 3 times now and I can't find anything that suggests or otherwise indicates that your application has been rejected for these reasons.

I've found nothing in the law that says the authority can reject an application based on an alleged criminal offence where a trial has yet to take place and the outcome not determined. However, the reason why the hearing has been created is because of your other offences the police have listed which the panel needs to determine if it is a relevant offence or unspent conviction within the meaning of the legislation. Schedule 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 sets out the relevant offences applicable to your application.

Efpom already described the process to you when objections are raised in relation to an application and the letter also explains with reference to the legislation that process so I really don't understand what the issue is. You've resigned yourself to the fact that these people are bent and they won't give you are fair hearing so why the hell are you bothering at all as your mind is already made up.

Unless you give up your FOTL ways and come back to reality (which I am certain you will not), I'm not willing to help you any further and would suggest you go find a FOTL type forum who can spout out all the illogical reasons and arguments you can make at the hearing.