"Ceylon" the UK's top Goodfer nothing

[YiamCross]

He's got to be very brave or very foolish to attmpt an action for libel. Especially when the basis is so flimsy. Not only is it hard to hear but as far as I can tell all that was said was something along the lines of the stuff BK has on the net is shit. Not sure how defamarory that is. Not when BK has described himself as a dipstick and a retard on his own YT videos.

On the plus side, even if it doesn't get as far as court the preamble could be a great spectator event.

[#six]

He's got to be very brave or very foolish to attmpt an action for libel. Especially when the basis is so flimsy. Not only is it hard to hear but as far as I can tell all that was said was something along the lines of the stuff BK has on the net is shit. Not sure how defamarory that is. Not when BK has described himself as a dipstick and a retard on his own YT videos.

On the plus side, even if it doesn't get as far as court the preamble could be a great spectator event.

Even if BK was correctly named and called shit himself then I think that would be allowed under UK libel laws as fair opinion. In addition, you need to prove actual or probable serious harm and this is nothing like that.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Ceylon will have some issues if a court case is brought. First, will he recognise the court? If he doesn't defend himself and the claim has some merit he might only have to pay £1 in compensation but it will be complying with the removal of the offending post(s) and the costs. I'd get the bailiffs in to get £1 out of Ceylon just for the entertainment value. Plus not removing the post(s) would be contempt.

[Hercule Parrot]

He's got to be very brave or very foolish to attmpt an action for libel. Especially when the basis is so flimsy. Not only is it hard to hear but as far as I can tell all that was said was something along the lines of the stuff BK has on the net is shit. Not sure how defamarory that is. Not when BK has described himself as a dipstick and a retard on his own YT videos.

On the plus side, even if it doesn't get as far as court the preamble could be a great spectator event.

I suspect BK knows the (actual) legal system very well, and can easily put Ceylon to a lot of trouble. At a minimum Ceylon will have to prepare a response arguing for strikeout, and he'll have to either attend or pay a lawyer to represent him. So that's a day of preparation work and an day of travel to BK's local court.

BK will go through whatever Ceylon submits and find a dozen failures to comply with CPR, so Ceylon won't get the claim struck out. So that's another prep day and another travel day for the case management hearing in a few weeks. Again Ceylon will fail to prepare in accordance with the rules (because he doesn't understand them) and BK will generously agree to an adjournment for Ceylon to redraft and come back again in a few weeks.

Ceylon starts sulking and refusing to attend, the hearing goes ahead without him and the claim advances further. BK asks for an order that Ceylon pays a deposit into court because of his easily-evidenced contempt for judicial process. More hearings, more submissions, more travel.

Worst of all, BK team is videoing Ceylon's failures and mocking him on YT. The man who wants everyone to think he's some kind of legal genius is a laughing stock. BK archly taunts him in court and the judge stifles a giggle.

Patrick Cullinane and Ebert turn up to 'represent' Ceylon and it just gets funnier. A wasted costs order is made against Ceylon. BK commences recovery and applies for a freezing order or third party debt order against Ceylon's bank account. More hearings, more applications, more CPR failures and Ebertisms.

BK playing on home turf, within rules he knows well. BK has made sure the court staff know what a tosser Ceylon is, and he gets the quiet support of the clerks and listings office. Ceylon blunders around like a man who's come to play football in a scuba-diver's outfit.

This could be soooo funny, please do it Bradley!

[YiamCross]

I'd pay money to go to that show but unfortunately it just isn't going to happen. It really doesn't matter how well you know the legal system, and BK does admit he doesn't know much about the law, there has to be defamation before there can be an action. Calling what someone has written on the internet is unlikely to cut it. I imagine BK is as much at risk from costs as Ceylon would be.

Fingers crossed, though. It would be funny as hell.

As it happens, though, BK has sent the man who said the bad things some paperwork on the matter (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007198158767)-


Bradley Knight
Yesterday at 1:55pm ·
So this is Michael Sinclair response to my defamation complaint. Interesting how this does not correspond with Mark assertions, notwithstanding he does not realise two people in the room whom I have helped in criminal matters were present;
Thank you for your email, I look forward to recovering the paperwork for your
claim and just to add I am unable to find any one you have helped maybe you will
be able to name names? And cases??
By the way is it not your hand writing on
the applications?????
Thank you once again and I stand by every word I
said.
Yours.
Sent from M Grant-Sinclair

Maybe there's a lot more been said off camera. 30-love?

[PeanutGallery]

I'd pay money to go to that show but unfortunately it just isn't going to happen. It really doesn't matter how well you know the legal system, and BK does admit he doesn't know much about the law, there has to be defamation before there can be an action. Calling what someone has written on the internet is unlikely to cut it. I imagine BK is as much at risk from costs as Ceylon would be.

Technically what someone writes on the internet is as much fair game for defamation as anything else, remember the whole Lord McAlpine and twitter fiasco from a couple of years back, in that it was agreed that when Sally Bercow tweeted what I believe was the rhetorical question asking why Lord McAlpine was trending, and followed it with wink wink, it was defamatory. She had to pay damages.

The stumbling block for Bradley would be establishing that whatever it was that Ceylon had posted caused him to suffer very serious damage to his reputation. It depends on what Ceylon said that was so offensive, although an indicator that Ceylon thought it was offensive would be that Ceylon made a childish attempt to disguise the name - although left enough to let you know exactly who he meant.

However I would suspect that going after Ceylon for defamation could well turn out to be a pyrrhic victory, you might be technically correct, but would probably only get very limited damages (based on his audience not being that high, he may be considered a big fish, but lets be frank he's swimming in a very limited and very tiny pool) and even then you have the difficulty of recovery.

It wouldn't be worth it and sometimes you have to consider if the risk of the Streisand affect is worth the litigation.

[YiamCross]

I'd pay money to go to that show but unfortunately it just isn't going to happen. It really doesn't matter how well you know the legal system, and BK does admit he doesn't know much about the law, there has to be defamation before there can be an action. Calling what someone has written on the internet is unlikely to cut it. I imagine BK is as much at risk from costs as Ceylon would be.

Technically what someone writes on the internet is as much fair game for defamation as anything else, remember the whole Lord McAlpine and twitter fiasco from a couple of years back, in that it was agreed that when Sally Bercow tweeted what I believe was the rhetorical question asking why Lord McAlpine was trending, and followed it with wink wink, it was defamatory. She had to pay damages.

The stumbling block for Bradley would be establishing that whatever it was that Ceylon had posted caused him to suffer very serious damage to his reputation. It depends on what Ceylon said that was so offensive, although an indicator that Ceylon thought it was offensive would be that Ceylon made a childish attempt to disguise the name - although left enough to let you know exactly who he meant.

However I would suspect that going after Ceylon for defamation could well turn out to be a pyrrhic victory, you might be technically correct, but would probably only get very limited damages (based on his audience not being that high, he may be considered a big fish, but lets be frank he's swimming in a very limited and very tiny pool) and even then you have the difficulty of recovery.

It wouldn't be worth it and sometimes you have to consider if the risk of the Streisand affect is worth the litigation.

Sorry, I didn't put that very clearly. From what I can see all that happened was someone (Michael Sinclair) stood up at the meeting and called BK's stuff on the internet "shit". Hardly defamatory as far as I can see. MS has history with BK when a case BK was helping him with went south. Sounds like it all went pear shaped because MS decided to go down another, more crazy, route but still blames BK. We may never know and we certainly won't care. Fro those who think they might, there are a couple of posts on BK's YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKzsYbUKSI0

[AiusLocutius]

It's just been reported here that Mark Ceylon has just been arrested at Tom Crawfords.

Also there is this video that was posted on YouTube yesterday to add to his woes.

[Bones]

With all that is going on, this is all he can find to say

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 98#p398451


Re: tom crawford evicted. daily mail article

Postby ceylon » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:04 pm
unfortunately chris ayres is a corrupt freemason that allows there evil actions


User avatar
ceylon
Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 29415
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:19 am
Location: nottingham

How about saying Tom, sorry for the rubbish I fed you. Try that Mark

[Losleones]

Dipstick can't even spell "their". Has he been released from police custody?

[Bones]

I doubt King Goofer was arrested. He would have seen the Police, shouted that he would arrest them and then done nothing.

Mark should change his name from Ceylon to Teflon as nothing sticks to him. I have downloaded the Tom Crawford Victory video's before Mark tells us that Mi5.1 deleted them

They have moved the TC baliff at the door thread out of breaking news already - not trying to distance themselves from this mess already are they.

[Syf]

The Guru stood me off, I am now grounded for daring to mention his name.


Board warning issued
Sent: Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:24 pm
From: ceylon
To: Defiance

The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.
This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=60&p=398399#p398399 .
User avatar
ceylon
Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 29415
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:19 am
Location: nottingham
Top

[Origen]

Talk about Nazi mods.

[letissier14]

I just had a pm from Ceylon on goodf because I blamed them all for Toms demise

It read ............

so stealing a house with NO paperwork works for you does it

well done you have disgusted me now now and i hope you go away for a long time you shameful shameful man gloating on a property being stolen with out ANY paperwork

letis i am ashamed of you


Not once Have I ever gloated at a man losing his home - how dare he insult me when all he has done is lied and abused people

[Jeffrey]

stealing a house with NO paperwork

Other than 2 court judgements and a warrant?

[Hercule Parrot]

Other than 2 court judgements and a warrant?

Absolutely. Haining is a dishonest blustering fool. He knows perfectly well that the legal grounds for repo were exhaustively tested in court, and the outcome was that the suspended warrant was re-activated.

Haining is welcome to say that was a cruel or unfair judgement, but to deny that it happened is pathetic.

[YiamCross]

Well he can't be in the cells, then, or he wouldn't be posting on goodf. I'm sure they don't let you take your phone into chokey, though I have no personal experience so I might be wrong. I'm certain they don't have computers in the cells, though.

[Tml69]

I just had a pm from Ceylon on goodf because I blamed them all for Toms demise

It read ............

so stealing a house with NO paperwork works for you does it

well done you have disgusted me now now and i hope you go away for a long time you shameful shameful man gloating on a property being stolen with out ANY paperwork

letis i am ashamed of you


Not once Have I ever gloated at a man losing his home - how dare he insult me when all he has done is lied and abused people

Typical Ceylon I'm afraid. I used to get some pretty horrible PMs when I was still posting there under tm169.

I think it's frustrating that if you believe Tom took the wrong advice and lost his case that somehow means you are on the side of the banks or happy to see someone be evicted.

Also is the paper work really their best argument? Let's say for a moment the warrant wasn't sealed or had errors on it or the wrong fee was paid etc etc.. The best case scenario is it goes back to Court to be amended and they are back to square one. It's literally a technicality has nothing to do with whether or not the lender is entitled to possession.

[Jeffrey]

All Tom Crawford threads on GOODF appear to be gone?

[NYGman]

All Tom Crawford threads on GOODF appear to be gone?

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... ZXaE_lViko

not gone, moved