|I complained to Trading
Standards about 1&1 Internet locking my account for no
valid reason and following intervention from them they
unlocked my account
On February 24 2011 (See below). Note that 1&1 also admit
that it was indeed the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) site that Mr Arthur was
complaining about and not the
site. I had suspected.
I did not alter the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site but
on September 6
2011 (See below)1&1 Internet threatened to shut down my
for the second time if I did not agree to put it off-line. I agreed to take
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) off line (and it remains off line
on my 1&1 account). I have uploaded several "updated" copy
sites to other hosts (such as this one).
Note that 1&1 Internet's
September 6 2011 email (below) makes it apparent that
Mr Arthur has said that the
case was found in his favour which of course is not true. It
was found in our (the Defendant's) favour and we were awarded
costs against Mr and Mrs Arthur.
So far in this case Mr Arthur has
1. He won his original
"valuation dispute" Claim - Not true as the shop was sold at
the Defendant's valuation (Over twice the Claimant's
2. He won the Counterclaim -
Not true - He lost the Counterclaim - It was found in the
Defendant's favour and not dismissed as he tells everyone.
3. He won the second
"damages" Claim - Not true - He lost the main Claim in
November 2005 and the Defendants were awarded costs against
4. His appeal against
conviction for drink driving at Tesco car park was allowed -
Not true - It
was not allowed.
For the record he also lost his appeal
against conviction for assault and he has been convicted of
drink driving on two further occasions since the Tesco car
To hide, destroy or falsify evidence is
to pervert the course of Justice.
Mr Arthur told the Court he had not been
served a document (First Defendant's bill of costs) or if he
admitted receiving something then that "something" was
"something" other than the document served (bill of costs).
Mr Arthur's problem was the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site contradicted his claims to
the Court in that it lists what had been served,
when it was served, how it was served and what
it was. Even if Mr Arthur's claims that a document had
been lost in the post were true then the web site allowed him
to download another copy.
Mr Arthur wanted to
shut down the
web site and hide / destroy the evidence against him but he
could not complain directly to 1&1 Internet about the site
since that would be admitting that he knew about it and would be acknowledging its
existence and the fact that he could download another copy of any
document he claimed he had not been served at any time.
To get around the problem that he could not
complain directly (or more to the point openly) about the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site he openly complained to 1
and 1 Internet about another one of my sites hosted by them
www.poolmarket.net web site). Mr Arthur claimed poolmarket.net
was defamatory in that it included a link to a site that
linked to another that linked to a West Briton
site that reported that Mr Arthur had been convicted of drink
driving at Tesco Extra car park but that he had appealed the
conviction. Mr Arthur told 1&1 Internet that his
appeal against conviction had been allowed. 1&1
believed him and locked my entire account (not just the
poolmarket.net web site but all the 30 others including the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site). In fact Mr Arthur had lied
to 1&1 Internet, his appeal against conviction had not
been allowed, the consequence of this lie was that the
evidence against Mr Arthur contained in the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site was hidden and I maintain
that to hide or destroy or falsify evidence is to pervert the
course of Justice and is a crime.
Was Mr Arthur alone in his "dislike" of the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site? Maybe not.
1. The Court were aware of the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site and the evidence it
contained. The evidence contradicts Judge (HHJ) Griggs'
statement that "J.Layte did not comply with Judge Wainwright's
10 September 2007 Order in that he did not serve or file his bill
of costs in compliance of this Order" (Yes he did and the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site lists when, how and what he
served and filed).
2. Mr J Djanogly (Under Secretary of state
for Justice) made the same statement as HHJ Griggs in his
30 November 2011 letter so he too would not want a web
site to exist that contradicts his statement.
3. The Police. At the time the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site was shut down DI Strickland
was investigating our allegation made in
our 30 July 2010 letter that Mr Arthur had perverted the
course of Justice.
DI Strickland's 26 January 2011 letter states there is no
evidence that Mr Arthur had perverted the course of Justice.
On the date DI Strickland wrote the letter the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site was shut down so the
evidence against Mr Arthur (that DI Strickland states "does
not exist" did exist but was hidden. DI Strickland had been
told about the
arthur-v-layte (co.uk) web site (before it was shut down)
but it would seem did not want to know about evidence that he
states "does not exist".