Rekha Patel loses her house

[ceylon2]

Just popped over quickly and there is no bluebells in the forum just chatting about her or him. Whoever bluebells is he/she has rattled their cage big time. I guess they would attack due to the book. My book has pissed a few off don't ya think?

Why don't you start a new thread and stop trolling this one?

Here's one my book has pissed off. lmfao you fmotl stand out like a sore thumb.

For your info i was on topic until you the pissed off freeman got in

[ceylon2]

Keep on track, sorry guys.

So what is everyone's thought on Rekha being successful in selling her home for £2, do you think she will be successful and why?

[Burnaby49]

We locked up the Disinformation Spreaders discussion because it was turning into a pointless flame-war. We're not allowing that on this discussion. This is a legitimate ongoing topic unrelated to ceylon2 or his book so stop the squabbling and keep to topic. This discussion won't be locked if you carry the locked flame-war here but we can start giving moderated time-outs.

[arayder]

Just popped over quickly and there is no bluebells in the forum just chatting about her or him. Whoever bluebells is he/she has rattled their cage big time. I guess they would attack due to the book. My book has pissed a few off don't ya think?

Why don't you start a new thread and stop trolling this one?

Here's one my book has pissed off. lmfao you fmotl stand out like a sore thumb.

For your info i was on topic until you the pissed off freeman got in

You're trying to derail the thread. That's troll behavior. Patel is the subject here.

[AndyPandy]

Keep on track, sorry guys.

So what is everyone's thought on Rekha being successful in selling her home for £2, do you think she will be successful and why?

No, she wasn't successful.

[ceylon2]

We locked up the Disinformation Spreaders discussion because it was turning into a pointless flame-war. We're not allowing that on this discussion. This is a legitimate ongoing topic unrelated to ceylon2 or his book so stop the squabbling and keep to topic. This discussion won't be locked if you carry the locked flame-war here but we can start giving moderated time-outs.

Totally agree, although i am simply responding to who i think are infiltrators keeping an eye out for the real king of disaster.

[arayder]

Keep on track, sorry guys.

So what is everyone's thought on Rekha being successful in selling her home for £2, do you think she will be successful and why?

No, she wasn't successful.

My understanding is that it isn't anymore her house to sell.

[ceylon2]

Keep on track, sorry guys.

So what is everyone's thought on Rekha being successful in selling her home for £2, do you think she will be successful and why?

No, she wasn't successful.

Is the house still sold to her parents?

[Footloose52]

You've really not read this thread have you - no, it isn't her parents nor the subsequent alleged 'owner', the courts have, it appears, annulled those transactions.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Really the only way to get up to speed on various topics of interest is to read through the whole thread and links to court transcripts if provided. This does take quite a while and needs a bit of mental organising but it does make understanding ongoing events easier and also provides an overview of the pattern of events and makes it possible to relate the various outcomes of different applications of pseudo-legal quackery.

Threads are generally not a tedious read because most posters write quite well, giving information, questions and analysis concisely and often humourously.
In general if a topic is not very interesting it simply does not get many posts.


PS anyone else having trouble getting post to post? I keep having to retry, other internet stuff is OK.

[Burnaby49]

Really the only way to get up to speed on various topics of interest is to read through the whole thread and links to court transcripts if provided. This does take quite a while and needs a bit of mental organising but it does make understanding ongoing events easier and also provides an overview of the pattern of events and makes it possible to relate the various outcomes of different applications of pseudo-legal quackery.

Threads are generally not a tedious read because most posters write quite well, giving information, questions and analysis concisely and often humourously.
In general if a topic is not very interesting it simply does not get many posts.


PS anyone else having trouble getting post to post? I keep having to retry, other internet stuff is OK.

I assume that you mean that when you hit 'Submit' on a post it doesn't submit but instead kicks you out and your post is lost and has to be redone. If so, yes, this is a frequent problem. I find it most common at late at night for some (non-alcohol related) reason.

I respond to this in two ways. For long, complex postings like this one;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11538#p252112

I first do it in Microsoft Word. Word has spellcheck and is much easier to review for errors and proofread than Quatloos. After it's written I cut and paste it here and format with quotes, images and urls. I then copy this finished post back to Word before hitting 'Submit'. So nothing lost if posting screws up. For simple posts like this I just type it on Quatloos then do a highlight and copy before posting without transcribing to Word. I learned this lesson years ago when I spent hours on a post and lost it.

[ceylon2]

You've really not read this thread have you - no, it isn't her parents nor the subsequent alleged 'owner', the courts have, it appears, annulled those transactions.

Yes probably using s423 insolvency act

[Hercule Parrot]

We locked up the Disinformation Spreaders discussion because it was turning into a pointless flame-war. We're not allowing that on this discussion. This is a legitimate ongoing topic unrelated to ceylon2 or his book so stop the squabbling and keep to topic. This discussion won't be locked if you carry the locked flame-war here but we can start giving moderated time-outs.

Totally agree, although i am simply responding to who i think are infiltrators keeping an eye out for the real king of disaster.

Assuming good faith again*, you really don't need to concern yourself with that ceylon2. Most of us are regular posters, and we would recognise disruptive infiltrators much more quickly than you could. In fact, when you start accusing our most senior and respected members of being FMOTL, it could easily be thought that you are a disruptive infiltrator yourself.

If you want to be part of this community, my advice is to be a little more cautious in your posting style. Personal jibes are not a thing here, and we don't need you to police the group. Just relax and merge into the flow, read the history of the main topics, and in a few months it will feel like you've been here forever.

(* The other possibility is that you're some kind of malcontent who just wants to stir things up a bit, see how far you can go before being banned. We get people like that pretty regularly, we just shrug them off and carry on winning.)

[Hercule Parrot]

Yes probably using s423 insolvency act

That's more like it. Useful info, thanks -

Section 423 of Act provides a further, often misunderstood cause of action, under the heading of “Transactions defrauding creditors”. This heading is somewhat misleading, and has led to some confusion as to the operation of this provision. It is not in fact necessary to show a dishonest or fraudulent purpose in order to establish a claim under s423. Rather, two requirements must be met.

Firstly, the claimant must show that a person (a company or individual) has entered into a transaction at undervalue. This will include an outright gift, or a transaction in which the consideration received was significantly less than that given.

Secondly, the claimant must show that the transaction was entered into for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors or future creditors, or otherwise prejudicing their interests. ...

http://www.greenhalghkerr.com/articles/ ... -act-1986/

[Burnaby49]

The phrase 'moderated timeouts' in my prior posting meant temporary banning. If posters get to be too much of an issue this can be, and sometimes is, extended to a permanent ban. We don't ban for opinions, we ban for behavior when a poster gets too unruly and won't stop after frequent warnings. We've taken a much harder line on this than we used to after the nuclear warfare of 2012.

This recent little flurry is an example of what triggers warnings. Squabbling about ceylon2's book got out of hand on another discussion which, since it really had no other topic, was locked. Then the squabble was carried here to a long-standing discussion totally unrelated to ceylon2 or his book. Since we're not going to start locking down legitimate discussions to keep control of this the obvious solution if it continued is a temporary banning.

Note to siegfried - When I initially hit 'submit' on this I got kicked out with a timeout notice. However, as is my practice, I'd copied it so nothing lost except the minimal time to repost.

[ceylon2]

Yes probably using s423 insolvency act

That's more like it. Useful info, thanks -

Section 423 of Act provides a further, often misunderstood cause of action, under the heading of “Transactions defrauding creditors”. This heading is somewhat misleading, and has led to some confusion as to the operation of this provision. It is not in fact necessary to show a dishonest or fraudulent purpose in order to establish a claim under s423. Rather, two requirements must be met.

Firstly, the claimant must show that a person (a company or individual) has entered into a transaction at undervalue. This will include an outright gift, or a transaction in which the consideration received was significantly less than that given.

Secondly, the claimant must show that the transaction was entered into for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors or future creditors, or otherwise prejudicing their interests. ...

http://www.greenhalghkerr.com/articles/ ... -act-1986/

Your welcome.

Using 423 the judge would only put things back to how they were before the offence to place.

She may also be charged with s2 fraud Act 2006
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:
made a false representation
dishonestly
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

[SteveUK]

The phrase 'moderated timeouts' in my prior posting meant temporary banning. If posters get to be too much of an issue this can be, and sometimes is, extended to a permanent ban. We don't ban for opinions, we ban for behavior when a poster gets too unruly and won't stop after frequent warnings. We've taken a much harder line on this than we used to after the nuclear warfare of 2012.

This recent little flurry is an example of what triggers warnings. Squabbling about ceylon2's book got out of hand on another discussion which, since it really had no other topic, was locked. Then the squabble was carried here to a long-standing discussion totally unrelated to ceylon2 or his book. Since we're not going to start locking down legitimate discussions to keep control of this the obvious solution if it continued is a temporary banning.

Note to siegfried - When I initially hit 'submit' on this I got kicked out with a timeout notice. However, as is my practice, I'd copied it so nothing lost except the minimal time to repost.

Burnaby old bean. Why was this 2012 was and does any of it still exist on the forum ?

[Burnaby49]

The phrase 'moderated timeouts' in my prior posting meant temporary banning. If posters get to be too much of an issue this can be, and sometimes is, extended to a permanent ban. We don't ban for opinions, we ban for behavior when a poster gets too unruly and won't stop after frequent warnings. We've taken a much harder line on this than we used to after the nuclear warfare of 2012.

This recent little flurry is an example of what triggers warnings. Squabbling about ceylon2's book got out of hand on another discussion which, since it really had no other topic, was locked. Then the squabble was carried here to a long-standing discussion totally unrelated to ceylon2 or his book. Since we're not going to start locking down legitimate discussions to keep control of this the obvious solution if it continued is a temporary banning.

Note to siegfried - When I initially hit 'submit' on this I got kicked out with a timeout notice. However, as is my practice, I'd copied it so nothing lost except the minimal time to repost.

Burnaby old bean. Why was this 2012 was and does any of it still exist on the forum ?

The year 2012. The 2012 American federal election caused a virtual civil war on Quatloos. Pro and anti Obama arguments, religious arguments, flame wars. Things were much looser on Quatloos then and we didn't clamp down on flame wars. In fact we had a specific forum for them called 'Flame Wars and Other Pissing Contests' where discussion were moved when they got out of hand and they were allowed to continue there.

It almost destroyed Quatloos. Sooltauq, the website owner (he very rarely participates) stepped in and did a scorched-earth review banning posters and deleting masses of posts. You can read about it here, probably the only sooltauq postings you'll ever read;

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=8930&p=150093#p150093

Many posters voluntarily left because they couldn't argue anymore. The current Quatloos is built from that experience. So we now keep a very tight rein on political and religious topics and any incipient flame wars.

You can read about it in more detail here;

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11465&p=246896

[SteveUK]

Much obliged as always!

[TheNewSaint]

So what is everyone's thought on Rekha being successful in selling her home for £2, do you think she will be successful and why?

This is discussed at length earlier in this thread. This act by Rekha Patel muddied the title. The lower court referred the matter to Chancery Court, which rules on disputes of this type. Based on what happened next - the house was put up for sale - we can infer that the court ruled the sale moot.