I have raised the issue of the authority not being qualified and have requested an OIA to establish the legal basis on which the authority claims to legitimately hold office no response has been received and it now appears that ” the authority ” is away on leave
The legislation states http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0115/latest/DLM1594620.html
No person may hold office as Licensing Authority unless he or she is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 5 years’ standing
I Checked the roll of lawyers and could not see Mr Gill’s name on it so I wrote to the law society and got the response that he had not had a practicing certificate since 30 June 2015
Mr Roger Bernard William GILL does not hold a current practising certificate.
His last certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society expired on 30 June 2015.
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY | DD: +64 4 463 2919 | PH: 0800 22 30 30 | F: +64 4 463 2989
26 Waring Taylor Street, Wellington 6011, New Zealand
DX SP20202 | PO Box 5041, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
I again consulted legislation
barrister means a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court under or by virtue of this Act and practising as a barrister, whether or not he or she also practises as a solicitor; and, in relation to any country outside New Zealand, includes, for the purposes of sections 49(3)(a) and 53, any person authorised to exercise in that country functions similar to those exercised by barristers in New Zealand
solicitor means a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court under, or by virtue of, this Act and practising as a solicitor, whether or not he or she also practises as a barrister; and, in relation to any country outside New Zealand, includes, for the purposes of sections 49(3)(a) and 53, any person authorised to exercise in that country functions similar to those exercised by solicitors in New Zealand
lawyer means a person who holds a current practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor
21 Provision of legal services
(1)A person commits an offence who, not being a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,—
(a)provides legal services in New Zealand; and
(b)describes himself, herself, or itself as—
(i)a lawyer; or
(ii)a law practitioner; or
(iii)a legal practitioner; or
(iv)a barrister; or
(v)a solicitor; or
(vi)a barrister and solicitor; or
(vii)an attorney-at-law; or
From the Law society web site
Who is a “lawyer”?
A lawyer is a person who holds a current practising certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society. Lawyers practise either as a barrister and solicitor or as a barrister (sometimes called a “barrister sole”).
Anyone providing certain legal services who describes themselves as a “lawyer”, a “barrister”, or a “barrister and solicitor” but who doesn’t hold a current practising certificate commits an offence against the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“the LCA”).
If you have been admitted as a barrister and solicitor but do not hold a current practising certificate, you may refer to yourself as an “enrolled barrister and solicitor of the High Court”.
Going back to the definition in the pspla act
No person may hold office as Licensing Authority unless he or she is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than 5 years’ standing.
Since Mr Gill is not a lawyer he is not a barrister he has no statutory obligations to the rule of law and is also not an officer of the court , statute states that he is to be a barrister or solicitor. so what implications does this have on the enforcement of the Private security personnel licensing act ?
can some one without the legal standing to be the authority make decisions on the suitability of Security guards and Private investigators suitability to hold their jobs ?
Are the decisions Roger Gill has made since 30 June 2015 a ultra vires ? and therefore void ?
Will we re write legislation to cover this glaring non compliance with statute ?
I Raised the issue with the ministers. I now note that Mr Gill is away until the end of the month. strange that when so many licences come up for renewal in August .
His deputy Stevan Cole was the deputy he has since become a community magistrate it would appear that no one has been appointed as deputy therefore it seems like there is no Legal “authority”
How the Authority is chosen
The Authority is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister of Justice. They must have at least 5 years’ experience as a barrister or solicitor of the High Court. Appointments to the position are for a term of 3 years, and a person may be reappointed.
The current Authority is Mr Roger Gill. source ( note how the justice dept gets their definition wrong the operative word IS is missing )
Mr Gill is a qualified lawyer and has 16 years experience as a Chief Executive of four national organisations, including the Investment Savings and Insurance Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Stock Exchange. For the past 12 years Mr Gill was a Registrar and Manager of the Wellington High Court.
Roger Gill of Kapiti has also been reappointed as the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority for a term of three years. The Authority considers applications for licences and certificates for people working in the security and private investigators industries. source
more info on Roger Gill
Roger Gill of Kapiti has also been reappointed as the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority for a term of three years. The Authority considers applications for licences and certificates for people working in the security and private investigators industries.
Ultra Vires Latin for “beyond powers,” in the law of corporations, referring to acts of a corporation and/or its officers outside the powers and/or authority allowed a corporation by law.
This post is prompted by the Editorial: NZ needs to assure world of trust scrutiny.
It is one which I will forward along with other blogs to international agencies who may wish to question how one of the worlds least corrupt countries can make this claim and I wish to reveal how trusts work in New Zealand
In 2006 I questioned the lack of existence of trust , this trust just happened to be one of two private law enforcement agencies, this trust the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) taught me all you need to know about NZ trusts and how loosely they operate
AWINZ operated as an equivalent to the RNZSPCA and enforced animal welfare law , It had powers of search and the ability to seize some ones prized pet .
I was asked the simple question , who is AWINZ ? when I discovered that it was nothing but a sham and questioned the existence of a sham trust being a law enforcement authority I was immediately sued, denied a defence and was told to pay some $100,000 dollars to the person who wrote the animal welfare bill and was independent adviser to the select committee in the process of making his business plan , law .
He then made an application , which in my days as a police officer would have been considered fraud . ( this is due to the fact that the claim that AWINZ was a trust was totally false the application made 22 November 1999 predated he formation of any organisation by that name the earliest trust deed and one which Mr Wells relies upon was dated 1.3.2000 and even those persons never met or passed a resolution )
I have for years been beaten up for blowing this whistle. Below I have a list of links of how I have beaten my head against a brick wall for many years but for now I will reveal how New Zealand trusts work
- You need a trust deed .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it or who signs it as long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
- you can have various copies of the deed they can all conflict and no one cares see here and here
- no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust complies with its deed
- If you want a new deed you simply write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed , Ird does not care I rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons being involved in a trust .
- there is more information on the deed with regards to the identity of the witnesses than with regards to the the trustees. you can use generic names and who could ever identify the trustees
- if a trust does not meet or hold any assets or pass any resolutions it is still considered a trust and its identity can be used to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
- the charities commission are happy to grant charity status to anything whihc meets their criteria , the fact that there are no resolutions for the trust and big gaping holes in their existence is but a technicality
Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ trust
As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed
No executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together or passed any resolution
Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells
in 2006 Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked the existence of AWINZ
when I proved that AWINZ did not exist ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000 whihc brings about the question how can you make an application before a trust is formed. ?
I was to get evidence that these people had never met never held any assets , never passed a resolution.
By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was reappointed.
Wells sought charitable status in 2006 when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed so he simply wrote a new one and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust
this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and MAF ( and later the government )
AWINZ was finally removed as approved Organisation in 2010 . the fictional law enforcemnt organisation operated for 10 years re branding council property and using the Council staff under Neil Wells control as AWINZ officers .
Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions strange that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ
this is how what I considered to be a fraud worked
I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council and again here , here , here, again here , here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here and here , here, here.
Maf and now the ministry of primary Industries repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was working for crown law so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence complaints to Maf Here , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here
attorney general here
notable blogs of the past touching on the corruption which exist in New Zealand
Conclusion : Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust administration was .
more to come Court is used to silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts
The reason that our company and trust structure is so well liked is because THERE IS NO DUE DILIGENCE DONE BY THE REGISTRARS OF NEW ZEALAND COMPANIES AND TRUSTS ARE NOT RECORDED.
Few realize that our trust and company structure is actually most abused through lawyers who in turn are protected by our courts .
I am a whistle blower on the corrupt use of trusts , I thought that in this country which at the time prided itself to be the least corrupt that I could say ” hey guess what the law enforcement agency The animal welfare institute of New Zealand does not exist at all ” what happened? lawyers got together sued me for a ridiculous sum tried to bankrupt me and tried to put my company out of business. they were protected by their own society and the judges who were once members of that very society.
I have come to realize that the biggest gang in town are the lawyers. Its like complaining about a gang member and then being told to speak to the gang leaders if you feel there is a problem . If it is some one they want to dispose of it will be useful to them but if the person is in the ” in crowd ” and their activities make the gang look bad then there is a huge cover up. I have even had instances where he judges have gone way out on a limb to silence the entire matter one of those instances was with regards to a well published Russian lawyer who was up to his neck in trust companies such as those refereed to in the panama papers.
Just recently I assisted a young man who had had all of his shares fraudulently transferred from him and into the name of his business partner the minority share holder .Effectively he had his business stolen from him . We managed to get a lawyer appointed for the company who was taking instructions from the very person who was involved in the theft of the shares. I told the lawyer for the company that he had a duty to be independent ie act for the company and to act according to the rules and could not condone the illegal activities of the company. The result :-the lawyer made false complaint alleging that I was in contempt of court and had committed blackmail when I wrote to him and pointed out this section of the law I was promptly taken to court for harassment In Wellington when I lived in Auckland . The date of the hearing was conveniently left off the papers I was served and the evidence is such that I am convinced that the court, the registrars and the lawyers all conspire together to ensure that lawyers make a healthy living and no one dares question their activities.
As a result I now have a legal bill.. yes their fees of over $6,000 . I have a solution I will be selling an e book exposing their tactics of winning and every cent that I raise will go settling this ” debt” if there is interest I will simply sell more copies . I suspect that with the publication of the panama papers this e book could be quite popular as the companies legislation abuse and the manner in which some law firms condone unlawful transactions is central to makign the company structure in NZ a mockery
New Zealand is far more corrupt than you can imagine.
any one wishing to receive a copy of the e book can pre order shortly
Hot off the press we have an article in the herald
the story comes from the international consortium of investigative journalists
they publish a video as below
You will note that the video mentions “MOSSACK FONSECA”
New Zealand appears to have its very own branch of this company see here
the share holder of this company is
3 Centaur Close, Albany, Auckland, 0632 , New Zealand
260 Victoria Avenue, Remuera, Auckland, 1050 , New Zealand
- DAVID LOVE LIMITED (3350190) – Shareholder
- MOSSACK FONSECA & CO. (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED (4852039) – Shareholder
There are 101 companies registered to the address of Bentley accountants see here many appear to be trust companies held on behalf of foreigners.
The Benley group of companies is not the only group involved in international trusts the journalists at naked capitalism identified NZ’s role in UnaEnergy Trustees Limited
Naked Capatalism raised the point that
New Zealand-based “foreign trusts” have been actively marketed overseas for benefits including their exemption from New Zealand tax on foreign sourced income, minimal compliance and reporting requirements, and no requirement for public disclosure of the beneficial owners.
As Transparency NZ has noted the apparent lack of requirement to comply with he companies act must also be a benefit s illustrated with the Muse on Allen Saga
more on Mossack Fonseca
Giant leak exposes global array of crime, corruption https://panamapapers.icij.org/
The transition is mainly due to the fact that the shareholding in Muse on Allen Limited was unlawfully obtained by Samuel North by simply accessing the the company register and transferring the shares to himself and again here the law is quite specific about this process but Samuel simply ignored the law and used a computer to unlawfully transfer the shares.
Samuel is quite aware of what he has done , there have been many admissions including repeatedly telling the court that the shares were transferred “in error’ despite the claim of ” error ” nothing has been done to correct it in 3 years and the accounts continue to show that Samuel has no equity in the company despite claiming to be the majority share holder
Muse eatery is now trying to get a liquor licence for the new premises at 56 VICTORIA STREET. the web site has been linked to the new domain name museeatery.co.nz which opens to the url http://museonallen.co.nz/.
The content of the web site is that of Muse on Allen and the content is the same Muse Eatery media.
Concrete evidence that the new company catering Limited has adopted the name Muse eatery is in the application for liquor licence Alcohol Application – Muse Restaurant, Ground Floor, 56 Victoria Street, Wellington Central which a number of persons have opposed .
so between the names Muse restaurant and Muse eatery the public are being asked to accept the new restaurant as a continuation of the old while Samuel North uses up the money from the sale to ensure that the person who put all his money in the restaurant is left totally out of pocket .
we can only appeal to the public that if they believe in fairness and honesty then they should give Muse Restaurant, Muse eatery& bar or what ever it is called this week , a wide berth .
Our view is yes to both depending on who you are
Please click on the link above or here to make a submission prior to Monday 1 feb http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/0SCHE_SCF_51DBHOH_PET63268_1/petition-of-hon-maryan-street-and-8974-others
Submission of Grace Haden
I am a former police officer and work as a private investigator. I have been sued for speaking the truth on corruption. My marriage was attacked and all sorts of cruel legal tactics came into play.
Things became so bad that at one stage I considered suicide and therefore believe that I am qualified.
Legal tactics include attacking a person’s character and reputation , I considered myself as a strong person but the years erode your strength and you are repeatedly portrayed as a sinister being when in reality you are the opposite.
I have often wondered how many people who are involved in litigation ae pushed over the edge , there are no apparent surveys done on this , no public money is made available. Yet for those who drown we have bucket loads of research and we actively strive to reduce the road toll and enforce all sorts of measure and throw tons of money at prevention.
The annual road toll and he drownings are far smaller than the annual suicide rate. And let’s not forget that some of the figures in the road toll and drownings will be suicides .
On the one hand our society is reckless with regards to suicide and encourages those who are healthy but stressed commit suicide because of the apparent lack of justice while those who have no hope of ever living a life without pain and suffering are denied this right due to lack of physical capacity.
In our current civil litigation system there is “a win at all cost mentality” this takes no consideration of a person’s mental health and wellbeing and is aimed to ensure their entire life collapse around their ears and isolate them from support and loved ones , even he very strong will eventually feel that they are just a very bad person .. these are mind games
For the past 10 years I have studies the tactical methods which seek to bully and undermine good people involved in the judicial system part of this is giving them an appearance in the eyes of others to be sinister and when the court supports the opposition few will believe that this person is a victim of a screwed up justice system which relies on ancient protocols instead of evidence.
If we were to interview the relatives and friends of a suicide victim I believe that a disproportionate number of incidents would show some kind of legal issue in the background.
Our primitive justice system does not consider emotions and the civil jurisdiction does not have to comply with the rules of fairness like our criminal jurisdiction does.
On the other hand those who live life without hope and lack the capacity to take their own life but have the mental capacity to know that future life is futile and will not improve must sit and wait till nature takes over.
If you have a pet and allow it to continue to live in those circumstances you would be prosecuted under the animal welfare act
If you have a pet and bully and torment it so that it shys away from others and finds itself unworthy you could also face prosecution but these tactics are totally acceptable if the victim is a human.
The reality is that we would have far more rights and protection if the animal welfare act was to apply to us
Those with a terminal illness have a right to die, those facing litigation should not be pushed into it
We need proper research into the causes of suicide and we need to have as much money spent on suicide prevention as we spend on the reducing drownings and road toll and if the government will not fund lifesaving medication for those suffering illness or if no remedy is available they should not be forced to die a slow agonising death
Amazingly such an approach will actually reduce our suicide rate by keeping healthy people alive and allowing those terminally ill the right to die .
I wish to be heard on my submissions
The herald reported in an article headlined
Stonewalling and strange deals: Has NZ become more corrupt? that New Zealand’s public sector is the most corrupt it has been in almost 20 years
On the other hand we believe that the public sector is very corrupt but we are now getting more exposure on that which has previously been carefully concealed.
Transparency Intentional New Zealand published a Media Release Document in which Susan Snively states
“Our government must act immediately to reestablish New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector”. says Transparency International New Zealand Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its corruption free reputation.”
Snively’s comment proves the short sighted focus of Transparency International New Zealand inc of keeping the corruption free appearance alive.
We can only hope that Transparency International NZ is encouraging our government to take a hard line and enforce the law against those who are corrupt rather than pretend it is not happening.
We support Transparency internationals statement that ” Not one single country anywhere in the world is corruption free ” so why does Susan Snively wish to give New Zealand the apparition of being corruption free? As an economist she apparently sees this as a good move for the economy. We see her efforts as encouraging the concealment of corruption there by making the country a very dangerous place to trade in .
There are two ways to improve the corruption perception index
- convince every one that there is no corruption by suing those who are whistle blowers or show any hint of exposing corruption .
- prosecute those who engage in corrupt practices so as to discourage others.
From and economist point of view it is much cheaper to conceal corruption and in New Zealand transparency International NZ incorporated in our opinion appears to play a vital role in the concealment of corruption as its members include the very Public sector agencies whose performance is being rated.
We encourage the truth and transparency when it comes to corruption but Transparency International NZ ‘s Susan Snively appears to have a severe conflict of interst see www.kiwisfirst.com
Thank you for your letter Malcolm alleging that I have been defaming you . I am communicating with you through this site as I have previously advised you that you are harassing and bullying us and that my only communication with you will be in an open transparent forum. I had no desire to communicate with you but your barrage of insulting emails and below the belt communications leave this as the only viable option. it is quite clear that you are ignoring the police warning email to muse restaurant 171115
Your dear son let it slip that he had been communicating with Neil Wells who years ago won a defamation case against me by having my defence of truth and honest opinions struck out when he ensured that so much shit was going down in my life that my marriage fell to bits and my family was torn apart. I was unable to come up with a payment of 19,000 due to the bank accounts being frozen for the divorce . Dirty tactics and desperation run deep
Neil had a secret one which I had stumbled on and I had to be silenced at all costs. He had written legislation for his own business plan and as ” independent adviser to the select committee he ensured that this legislation became law.
He then made a fraudulent application under the act to the minister , falsely stating that AWINZ was a trust when the reality is that no such trust existed and AWINZ was in reality a nothing . ( it is fraud to make a false statement which people then act upon.. this is fact )
AWINZ became a law enforcement authority, because no one checked that it existed , it had powers that equaled those of the RNZSPCA search seizure .
Neil Wells used the staff at Waitakere city as AWINZ animal welfare officers and as their council boss he wore two hats and made them prioritize animal welfare over their council paid duties.He rebranded the council premises so that no one knew where AWINZ began and council finished all in all AWINZ appeared to exist the reality it was funded through the public purse for private pecuniary gain. ( evidence is on this site and on anticorruption.co.nz )
If an animal welfare prosecution eventuated Neil Wells performed in his capacity as barrister and would offer diversion for a donation to the “charity”AWINZ which in reality did not exist other than the bank account which he had opened and was the sole operator of.
that was my first experience of civil litigation ,Neil has ensured that it would not be my last and has been stirring up any one who I mention on this site .
I was taken to court last year by the lawyers who represented Muse on Allen . Documents were filed which claimed that Jozsefs share holding had been removed in error . The lawyer representing he company did not like me telling him that if it was an error then the error should be corrected. I pointed out that when new annual reports are filed in the companies office then the error appears not to be an error. there have now been three annual returns filed since Jozsefs share holdings were claimed to have been transferred in error .
The lawyer also did not like me telling him that he had a legal duty to act independently for his client which is the company and that the company is a separate legal entity from the directors who by all accounts had allowed Jozsefs shares to be transferred illegally
so the lawyers took me to court for harassment this is after having falsely accused me of contempt of court and blackmail . Apparently it is harassment to tell a lawyer that he should not be going round making false allegations and that he has a duty to be independent and act according to the rule of law.
when the lawyer made a song and dance about the unusualness of his name I contacted his father who I had served with in the Police, I stupidly thought that by speaking to the lawyers father who I had known very well I might be able to put an end to this madness but instead every innocent act gets turned into something sinister and I am made out to be a beast
Documents were withheld from me including the court hearing date . When the papers were served there was an initial court date given as usual . the matter was was set down for hearing and I thought it strange that I had not been advised of the date but this often happens near the end of the year. I discovered the true date after a bit of game play by the lawyers and at 9 am on the morning of the hearing I was told that I had to appear at 10. slight problem the hearing was in Wellington and I live in Auckland .
I was later to find out that there were other documents which the court had been given and which had conveniently not been served on me. These documents were submissions which alleged defamation of the lawyer .
So without any legal defamation process and without any right to defend myself or even knowing that I had been accused of defamation, I became a serial defamer and harasser seething which Malcolm North now uses to spout on about to defame me . In the mean time his son who has claimed the restaurant as his own but has no equity in the place slings below the belt emails at me at christmas time telling me that I am hated and alleging that my former husband and children are among those and that I don’t have any family to enjoy christmas with . I know this not to be true and I resent a kid younger than my children bullying me in such a manner.
It turns out that Neil Wells has been in the back ground following my every move and prompting every one I have contact with to make such allegations. The same happened with my former lawyer who was stuck off last year. the court stepped in and with a confidentiality clause all was dealt with minute Judge Sargisson.
Neil Wells was also on the scene when I conducted an investigation into Fresh prepared and he ensured that harassment proceeding were also commenced in that matter. The fact that one person Terry Hay had never seen me or been contacted by me was beside the point . Mr Terry Hay was later charged with 22 counts of fraud but skipped the country and paid his way out of a conviction
I’m getting a little bit over this use of he court by criminals to attack those who have no ability to get the government to act on criminal matters. In this case the Registrar of companies appears to do nothing to control the use of companies and the police are too busy reducing the road toll but driving more people to suicide .
Malcolm and Sam are no exception we have had repeated admissions from them of their crime
“Thanks for letting us know we have got away with theft fraud and a raft of companies act offences that is very reassuring “
Malcolm has stated openly that the police are not going to arrest them , he is grossly derogatory and totally gets his facts wrong as usual which his bosses at the MSD don’t appear to mind . But Attack is the best form of defence and attack is the only defence these people have
yet on the other hand he expresses in an email that he does not wish to spend the next christmas behind bars due to my fraud complaint and would like to negotiate a settlement with Jozsef. An innocent person would not have those worries
So far the settlement offers have been a total insult. Is this the way of the future a criminal rips you off breaks a raft of laws then says hey I will give you two and tuppence halfpenny so that it can all go away .
Malcolm has asked me to publish the following
I have amended the publication he has complained of accordingly but the other statement was made to the link broker who is selling the business Buy a Restaurant & Bar-too Good Opportunity To Miss For Sale, business for sale Wellington, New Zealand . We stand by our statements they are true and will defend the truth . the police fraud file is 151010/8943
Malcolm could you please clarify how you can take action against Jozsef for being a 63.2% share holder yet not consult him in the sale of the business your own accounts show that he is the only person with equity in the business see here . Samuel who unlawfully transferred all of Jozsefs shares to himself acted with the consent of the other directors of which you are one. You are all in it together .
Malcolm I will send a copy of this to the business broker to clarify the statements which you mistakenly think are defamatory
Happy to respond again to any further emails through this forum
Update continuing bullying and harassment
it would appear that Malcolm is incapable of seeing the alterations made despite the fact that they are highlighted
the latest abuse from these bullies and an admission that Neil Wells is behind it all
will soon put up a post with Trevor Morely who asked them not to divulge that they had contact him if they are on about laughs I can provide some good ones. when some one calls some one a name it usually means they are looking in a mirror .We are just after justice and did not subscribe to this on going crap .
It is well worth watching this U tube clip from fair go this was filmed in 2013 things are probably worse now