Discount Offers

Farb Gel UK Legal Self Defence Spray Personal Security Protection, Legal CS alt

End Date: Monday Jun-26-2017 12:07:14 BST
Buy It Now for only: £8.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Armband ID SIA License Holder Bulk Buy x 100

End Date: Sunday Jul-2-2017 21:52:54 BST
Buy It Now for only: £144.00
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Personal Self Defence Spray UK's No1 Spray Legal Pepper Spray Clone UK Sale Only

End Date: Friday Jul-21-2017 10:46:38 BST
Buy It Now for only: £19.99
Buy It Now | Add to watch list

Tactical ID Arm Band Security ID Badge Card Holder Doorman Armband SIA New

End Date: Friday Jun-30-2017 11:47:24 BST
Buy It Now for only: £2.49
Buy It Now | Add to watch list
Visit Today : 1
Visit Yesterday : 1
This Month : 25
This Year : 176
Total Visit : 24265
Hits Today : 147
Total Hits : 2347333
Who's Online : 1


Security guard accused of breaking the jaw and knocking out the teeth of a Sydney man outside a Gold Coast hotel

  • Bouncer Dennis Faulkner has pleaded not guilty to breaking a man’s jaw
  • Alleged victim Dominic Beinke suffered fracture jaw, knocked out teeth
  • He denied provoking Faulkner before the attack on the Gold Coast in 2014
  • CCTV footage shows the men scuffling on the ground outside a hotel


A Sydney 2man has denied provoking a security guard before being punched and having his jaw broken outside a Gold Coast hotel over three years ago. Dennis Hecta Tipene Faulkner is on trial on one count of grievous bodily harm at Southport District Court after the incident outside the Grand Chancellor Hotel in Surfers Paradise on February 9, 2014. Alleged victim Dominic Beinke suffered a double fracture to his left jaw after being punched by Faulkner following a scuffle between the pair, Mr Beinke’s brother Patrick, and another guard. Bouncer Dennis Faulkner has pleaded not guilty to breaking a man’s jaw during a scuffle

Alleged victim Dominic Beinke shows the aftermath of his devastating injuries

Faulkner pleaded not guilty to the charge as the trial, set down for three days, began on Monday. The court heard the incident occurred shortly after Mr Beinke escorted Patrick from a friend’s engagement party back to the hotel where he was staying with another brother and his partner. After being let into the venue by security, the pair got into an argument with security when they were denied access to the hotel due to Patrick not having a key or identification. Mr Beinke told the court while his brother had got aggressive and demanded to be let into the hotel, he’d attempted to defuse an escalating situation.

CCTV footage played in court showed Mr Beinke and Patrick arguing with Faulkner. Mr Beinke claimed the guard said he was going to ‘knock out’ the pair. The alleged victim suffered a double fracture to his left jaw after being punched by Faulkner following a scuffle Further footage outside the hotel showed Patrick and the other guard scuffling on the ground when Faulkner swings a right fist into Mr Beinke’s jaw, felling him and leaving him momentarily unconscious. Faulkner’s barrister Chris Rosser said Mr Beinke and his brother had both been aggressive when they were denied access to the room, with Mr Beinke pushing his forehead against Faulkner’s. He said Mr Beinke’s claims Faulkner had promised to ‘knock out’ the pair was false and the pair had been constantly swearing and abusing the guard before the incident.

Mr Beinke denied provoking Faulkner before the attack on the Gold Coast in 2014 Mr Beinke denied Mr Rosser’s claims he’d called Faulkner a ‘dumb black c***’ and told him to ‘f*** off back to New Zealand’.

‘I do not agree with that at all,’ Mr Beinke said. ‘I was saying ‘I’m not going to fight you’.’ Mr Beinke admitted he and his brother were ‘somewhat’ intoxicated at the time of the incident but he ‘knew what was happening’.

The trial continues.

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

‘; $(node).before(taboola_node); window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push( mode: ‘thumbnails-b’, container: id, placement: “Stream Thumbnails ” + n); }; DM.has(‘infinite-list’, ‘InfiniteList’, url: ‘/api/infinite-list.html?channelShortName=news&pageSize=10’, total: 15.0, from: 0, onAfterAppend: function (container) var items = $(container).children(‘div’); if(!taboola_every_n) return; items.each(function () if (taboola_counter == 0) addTaboola(this); taboola_counter = taboola_every_n – 1; else taboola_counter–; }); } }); });


  1. ^ e-mail (
  2. ^ Sydney (

Form EX550 affidavit

Form EX550 AffidavitHi all, Does anyone have experience of the EX550 Affidavit form? I’ve been process serving for a good few months now but haven’t come across this little gem until today. A new client has asked me to serve papers and then complete the form but there are no guidelines that I can find online.

If anyone has experience of it, the bit that has me a little stuck is Part B1(b) where it says: I am the ????? of the judgment creditor and the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge (etc.). Should I say I am the “process server” , or maybe “contracted process server”? Any ideas?? Thanks in advance, Tom.

See more here:
Form EX550 affidavit

Brexit: Business and security risks of leaving EU data sharing scheme ‘not on Tories’ radar’, experts warn

Conservative ministers are failing to recognise the danger to businesses and the fight against terrorism from losing rights to share data with the EU after Brexit, experts have warned. Britain risks a wait of up to three years to be granted an adequacy decision from Brussels, threatening to stop the flow of data immediately once EU withdrawal is completed in March 2019. There are fears just two weeks after the Manchester bombing that the police and security services will lose a vital weapon to counter terrorism and organised crime.

At stake is access to information-sharing through the Europol law enforcement agency and to the Schengen information system, which holds an 8,000-name watchlist of potential terror suspects. Now technology experts have told The Independent they fear the danger of a cliff edge is not being given appropriate priority or is even properly understood by the Government. Without a temporary agreement, companies will have to move part of their operations to the EU or risk losing business to rival firms on the Continent.

Crucially, in the absence of an over-arching deal, separate agreements would have to be struck with individual police forces and intelligence services with the danger that vital information will fall between the cracks , one expert said.

Those organisations would need to be persuaded that Britain can be trusted with data . At the very least, it s likely to be disruptive and uncertain, said Ruth Boardman, a partner at the international law firm Bird & Bird.

The worry is that government simply doesn t have this issue on its radar as a high enough priority for both the economy and law enforcement. The warning was echoed by Antony Walker, the deputy chief executive of the trade association techUK, who said: The danger of an ad-hoc fix is that things fall between the cracks and, for security issues, that would be a significant risk.

Ministers say this is on their list of 10 priority issues, but I m not sure they understand the full significance of the threat. The British Bankers Association has also warned the flow of data could lapse overnight at the point of UK exit from the EU .

Transitional arrangements are needed to avoid a damaging cliff edge effect in the movement of data between the EU and UK, it advised, in a recent policy document.

Strikingly, a Home Office minister, Baroness Williams of Trafford, left a House of Lords committee in the dark when she gave evidence on the controversy in April. She was unable to say what the transition arrangements might look like , telling peers: I am not being unhelpful . It is just that I cannot. Asked whether Britain was willing to sign up to amendments to data transfer rules after Brexit, to ensure continued compliance, Baroness Williams replied: I literally do not know .

That is to be determined. The minister was also unable to say whether anyone from the Home Office would be represented at the Brexit negotiations, to ensure the issue was given prominence. The threat arises because, after Brexit, the UK will be treated as a third country requiring the European Commission to be satisfied it will protect data to the same degree as EU members.

Both Ms Boardman and Mr Walker warned that securing the adequacy decision would take at least two years, from March 2019, on the basis of such negotiations in the past making a temporary deal the only option. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that mass data retention of the kind allowed in the UK under the Investigatory Powers Act, or snoopers charter , is unlawful, throwing up a further hurdle. And Theresa May has insisted the ECJ will not have any legal authority in the UK after Brexit despite Sir Julian King, the European commissioner responsible for security, insisting that will be necessary.

Ms Boardman added: Anyone asked about the state of UK data law after Brexit would say they don t have a clue, because there is nothing there to tell us we simply don t know what they are going to do. Mr Walker said the alternatives to an adequacy decision don t give strong legal certainty and would be difficult and costly to put in place . Warning businesses need time to move data functions to within the EU, if necessary, he said: The cliff edge is not right at the end of the process for business the cliff edge is soon .

We need a solution soon. A Conservative spokeswoman said: We have been very clear that as part of the Brexit negotiations, we want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU to ensure continued cooperation on security . Theresa May is the best person to secure that arrangement.

Brexit: Business And Security Risks Of Leaving EU Data Sharing Scheme 'not On Tories' Radar', Experts WarnReuse content1


  1. ^ Reuse content (