Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[rumpelstilzchen]

Right.....so.........threatening to kill someone is not an offence if you make a video in which you explain that you are going to threaten to kill someone but you are only pretending.......have I got that about right?

[letissier14]

Right.....so.........threatening to kill someone is not an offence if you make a video in which you explain that you are going to threaten to kill someone but you are only pretending.......have I got that about right?

Apparently so

[ArthurWankspittle]

Right.....so.........threatening to kill someone is not an offence if you make a video in which you explain that you are going to threaten to kill someone but you are only pretending.......have I got that about right?

Wouldn't it be difficult to read the warrant while you have 50kv going through you?

[notorial dissent]

The above is just about as stupid and self destructive as anything I have seen lately, and certainly seems to be meme with that crowd. We're in deep and we're stupid so let's see how much worse we can make it for ourselves, should be their motto.

[longdog]

How completely detached from reality do you have to be to think making a video beforehand saying you don't mean it is going to get you off a charge of making threats to kill? Does it not occur to these morons that what matters is the fact you made the threat and the intent is irrelevant?

That has to be one of the most spectacularly idiotic things I've seen on the interwebs in 15 years.

[PeanutGallery]

Actually the intent is rather an important part of the law, however it's not quite as clear as he thinks it is the intent is only that you intend the threats to be believed, the confession that you were doing this to get the warrant shown would actually prove that you intended them to be believed.

Of course that is assuming the bailiff would report the matter to the police, they get threatened quite frequently in their line of work after all, people generally aren't happy to see them. I would suggest that in order to actually get a threat like that taken seriously you'd need to attempt to make good on it with some gusto. Which would open up a whole new can of worms.

[#six]

FFS. Proof that stupidity has no bounds.

[SteveUK]

SteveUK, could you please expand/expound a bit more on the Swissindo currentest scam, we seem to be behind the times over here as none of our crazies seem to have gotten wind of it yet. Or else I just haven;'t been looking in the right dung heaps.

A traditional 'hidden gold' scam
viewtopic.php?t=9956

[notorial dissent]

Wasn't it Einstein who said something about the universe and stupidity being infinite and he wasn't sure about the universe?

[littleFred]

I'm sure we are all delighted that Assassin is sufficiently recovered from his beating to resume his usual helpful essays in GOODF.

In the latest, he gives more information about contracts. I had always thought that a "consideration" was "something of value", that has to be provided by each side to form a contract. I note that Wikipedia and many GOOFies share my view.

But I'm happy to be corrected by Assassin, who informs us that:

Consideration is the period of no less then 72 hours as a minimum, but can be longer if both parties agree, for the recipient of the contract to study the terms and conditions and accept or reject them [...]

(For avoidance of doubt, I should remove my sarcasm hat and declare that, sadly, Assassin has "consideration" and a few other aspects wrong. But I'm looking forward to a GOOFy debate on the subject.)

EDIT: I might add that we can apply the sanity test to Assassin's assertion. If he is correct, than when I go to my corner shop and offer to buy a newspaper, I'm obliged to give the shopkeeper 3 days to decide whether to accept or reject my offer. Only then can we exchange newspaper and money.

This is clearly garbage. The law mandates no such minimum period.

[SteveUK]

So much BS in such a short goodfy thread.
That battering has really affected his mind. Practically every statement is wrong.

[Bungle]

Normally I would agree with you, but the poster before me called Neelu "batcrazy" and no mention of it was made.

Maybe I am seeing too much into it, but it just feels like the odd snipe here and there at me at the moment.

You are very welcome, appreciated and admired in my corner of this place. You have walked among the crazies and come back, you are the prodigal son of Quatloos...

I would agree with you.

[Hercule Parrot]

But I'm happy to be corrected by Assassin, who informs us that:

Consideration is the period of no less then 72 hours as a minimum, but can be longer if both parties agree, for the recipient of the contract to study the terms and conditions and accept or reject them [...]

How embarrassing. Asinine has previously boasted of managing major contracts for his employer (although that may just be more Walter Mitty nonsense), but now reveals that he doesn't understand the contractual meaning of 'consideration'. There must be a few GOOFy's reading that and cringing. Should they say something, or be charitable and assume it's a side-effect of brain trauma from his imaginary beating?

So far they're staying in rank, and nobody is calling him out. Even the spectacular schoolboy boast "I had levied charges against 5 members of staff and enforced one against the jobcentre manager who asked his union solicitor for advice and she told him to negotiate a settlement, which he did, I had his 8 month old BMW 3 series convertible..." Because it's perfectly believable that a jobcentre manager would give a £20,000 car to an aggrieved claimant, isn't it? And obviously there's no evidence because of the cover-up that followed these "charges" being "levied"...

I think the GOOFy's love him because he pretends to have the life they want. He claims that he has 'cracked the code' and can make the faceless bureaucrats jump to his commands, make the courts rule in his favour. He is such a powerful man you see, and if anyone crosses him they're soon sorry. This Walter Mitty fantasy is like catnip for the wretched GOOFy's. Even though he's full of sh1t and they know it, they are viscerally excited by the hope of attaining that status. The power to flout the law and to vindictively intimidate others, to be exempt from normal standards of behaviour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

[PeanutGallery]

That story is about as credible as Burnaby going into a pub which is offering free speciality ales to all old ex tax inspectors and just ordering a diet coke. It's not a conscionable proposal.

For one the manager wouldn't be personally liable for the decisions he made, even if they were wrong, his employer the DWP would be. It's called vicarious liability. Then again I suppose it's just another concept the great legal mind of Assassin doesn't have a proper grasp of.

[littleFred]

Ah, but he does. He explain vicarious liability in part 3 of his essay. As he got a BMW from the DWP manager, I expect the DWP itself also handed over something substantial.

[PeanutGallery]

And his explanation is wrong. Mostly because he doesn't understand what damages are, they aren't to enrich a winning claimant but to compensate them for the tort done. Damages are to make a person whole again and you can't be made whole twice. Assassin's understanding of law seems to be at about the level of someone who failed an A-level in the subject, sure he knows some of the big fancy words and phrases, but he does not comprehend them and has no idea of their use.

[littleFred]

Yes, indeed.

After a couple of tentative queries (louder queries would result in bans, of course), Assassin justifies his explanation of "consideration":

You need the specialised contracts law law books to confirm this minimum time, ...

Go on, Assassin. Name these specialised books, with author, publisher and date.

... often it doesn't apply as two or more parties are more fluid these days and generally agree to meet to discuss any contract.

Oh, right, so you mean it never applies? Consideration is required, it is one of the "3 main constituents" but it's not actually required? If there's no three-days grace for consideration, would a court uphold the contract or declare it void?

[notorial dissent]

Assassin has obvious seen some big words and he knows they are important, but he is either too lazy, or by all appearances too stupid to actually look them up to see what they mean. I think the word he is actually groping about for and confusing with "consideration" is "rescission" which does describe what he is going on about, and unless the law is different in UK, there are NO hard and fast rules. Certain of our consumer protection laws mandate that there is a mandatory period, usually 72 hours, of time during which the buyer can back out no harm no foul. Mortgages, certain types of loans and purchases, varies by state, but generally holds true. He's still an idiot.

[mufc1959]

I'm watching the documentary on Channel 4 about Ivan Massow and his brother, David, who's a crusty who lives in a van in Glasto. David is totally off the hat rack and borderline FOOTLer.

They were just in The King Arthur in Glasto where one of David's friends started talking Sov Cit bollocks, Magna Carta art 61, barons, etc. Ivan Massow's comment: "I didn't think it was possible for anyone to out-nutter David."

[Hercule Parrot]

After a couple of tentative queries (louder queries would result in bans, of course), Assassin justifies his explanation of "consideration":

You need the specialised contracts law law books to confirm this minimum time, ...

Interestingly, the GOOFy mob appear to have turned against Asinine on this point. There might be hope for some of them.