Paul Gartley I did have respect but I never trust no one that is my moto NEVER TRUST NO ONE .
I can't even trust my own dog as I once got myself a kebab with all the trimmings and left it on the coffee table all excited ready to eat when I realised I forgot my drink in the kitchen when I came back NO KEBAB.
TRUST NO .
THE END.
Anyone follow texts from my dog or whatever it's called. I just imagine the dog texting: "ALIENS JUST BEAMED UP YOUR KEBAB OFF THE COFFEE TABLE"
Entirely to brag but both the dogs I've had have been so well trained that I can leave Pizza in front of them and they won't touch it. The current one will even wait for me to tell her when she can eat a slice I put on the floor specifically for her.
NICE...THE WIFE IS THE SAME, SEE WILL SIT THERE DRIBBLING TILL I LET HER HAVE A SLICE, (OFF THE FLOOR)
.?? That's Taking Control of Goods, does a Possession Order come under the heading of Goods ? I don't think this applies to a Possession Order / Warrant.
So it doesn't apply anyway. This section is for taking control of goods re debts, nothing to do with possession of premises. Nice try Tom but wrong rules - unless you were just complaining about them taking the goods and the repossession was perfectly OK. Edited to add: PeanutGallery's point would still stand. The agent has to give the information when request before or during entering the premises. Afterwards is both too late and not required.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
The problem Tom has is that he didn't ask the enforcement agent for these while he was on the premises.
The bigger problem for Tom is that para 26 applies only (see para 23) where "an enforcement agent has power to enter premises under paragraph 14 or 16 or under a warrant under paragraph 15."
Paras 14, 15 and 16 are for entering premises "to search for and take control of goods." As this entry wasn't about goods, but the property itself, para 26 doesn't help Tom at all.
EDIT: While I was researching and typing, everyone else got there first. Note to self: must read and write more quickly.
Last edited by littleFred on Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
letissier14 wrote:So what's the best way for me to post links up in here?
1. go to the page you want to link.
2. copy the address from the address bar.
3. come to quatloos
4. start your post
5. click on the "url" button above the text box.
6. paste the address between the tags.
AndyPandy wrote:
It took me about 10 seconds of reading to see it couldn't possibly apply
But it won't stop Team Crawford from claiming it does apply.
One thing I have learned from being on Quatloos is that when a SovCit or FMOTL quotes something, they found it somewhere on the internet. All you need to do is find it, then see if it really applies. Or, more commonly, why it doesn't apply.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
AndyPandy wrote:
It took me about 10 seconds of reading to see it couldn't possibly apply
But it won't stop Team Crawford from claiming it does apply.
Seriously, I've realised the problem, we've stumbled into the Twilight Zone, they believe one set of rules apply and we perceive something quite different. So which one is the 'real' world !! Now i'm scared !!
AndyPandy wrote:
It took me about 10 seconds of reading to see it couldn't possibly apply
But it won't stop Team Crawford from claiming it does apply.
One thing I have learned from being on Quatloos is that when a SovCit or FMOTL quotes something, they found it somewhere on the internet. All you need to do is find it, then see if it really applies. Or, more commonly, why it doesn't apply.
Book early, only a limited number of spaces remain. I thought the courts were public, didn't realise the defendent could say who he does & doesn't want in court...
YiamCross wrote:Book early, only a limited number of spaces remain. I thought the courts were public, didn't realise the defendent could say who he does & doesn't want in court...
I suspect it is more an organisational thing and being nice to the defendant. Given they don't want 50 morons in court chanting show us your oath or similar, they have allocated his case to a smaller court. To balance this they will give priority to relatives of the defendant. Also, it might be for security reasons, the court may be easier to secure and police, and the court will know who they are dealing with.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
ArthurWankspittle wrote: Also, it might be for security reasons, the court may be easier to secure and police, and the court will know who they are dealing with.
Mark Gillards recent photography will have influenced this decision I think.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
So it doesn't apply anyway. This section is for taking control of goods re debts, nothing to do with possession of premises.
Correct. Sad to see Mark swallowing the guff.
Mark is showing his lack of knowledge in other matters in other areas. He really needs to wise up or he's quickly going to become another non entity. Sad to say that but one has to be realistic.
littleFred wrote:
At 11m, Brian Gerrish has noticed that the High Court order merely "requests" that the court show the warrant to Tom. Tom brushes the wording aside, "They've got to do it."
This reminds me of the freeman May = Must, bollocks.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:We have assumed that young Craig has followed in his father's footsteps but maybe it was Craig who introduced Tom to the woo.
I have wondered the same thing. After all, Craig made his millions through internet scam marketing so it's quite possible that he found Simon Spaniard and GOODF and showed his Dad.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Now i'm scared !!
