Mark "Ceylon" Haining, Goofy GOODFer

[Pox]

It seems he may have another alias

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-860577

For the lawyers amongst us (which isn't me) would it be a leading question to ask - 'please supply the names of the police officers who attempted to kill them'? Something that is frowned upon?
Or maybe I have watched too many bad TV shows?
Or maybe this is Mr Haining's cunning plan? Get them to supply the names and by default it is an admission of attempted murder?


Buster whatever his name is may be the real author of this request but clearly Notts Police think
not , so who was it?

No evidence that it was Mr Haining though and on this site, of course, we rely on evidence!

Those who make these requests should not hide behind a pseudonym unless of course, they are worried about being labeled vexatious, just like our George Tsigarides

[Tuco]

It is impossible to prove a negative.

How can you provide names of attempted murderers when no attempted murder has taken place?

It is a ridiculous request and straight away alerts the person responding that the request has been made by a moron. hence no time and effort will be wasted in the response.

The bombarding of councils with FOI's is nothing new. I know of one person a few years back who not only hid behind a pseudonym but also hid behind a mailing address to relentlessly harass councils.

[TheNewSaint]

What Health & Safety, Duty of Care & Risk Assessment did Nottinghamshire Police carry out on 24/07/2015 @ 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham where police used spiked weapons to attempt to kill 6 people that had climbed on to the roof of Tom & Sur Crawfords house.

Yours faithfully,
Bob Bloomer

Dear Mr Bloomer:

On 24/07/2015, Tom & Sue Crawford did not own a house.

Sincerely,
Nottinghamshire Police

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect the proper answer is that the question is not a proper FOI question which can be answered by that office.

Parenthetically I would refer them to the Nottingham police with a reminder of the penalties for making a false police complaint.

[Pox]

I would suspect the proper answer is that the question is not a proper FOI question which can be answered by that office.



Parenthetically I would refer them to the Nottingham police with a reminder of the penalties for making a false police complaint.

It would not surprise me to learn that he has already made a formal complaint but got nowhere.

Do you know of any instances where a penalty for making a false police complaint has been made?

[Tuco]

One Cell:

i wonder what crap they will reply.

Priceless. Fuck me Jimmy lad-It would be hard to out crap the original request.


Ceylon:

well i will be pushing this one to the end

Well that will rock the country. I've known entire Governments collapse for less. You keep pushing Ceylon, your name will go down in history.

[Tuco]

Surprised that this weapon hasn't had his own thread yet. He's a bit of a sheep, not a leader but he's always there or thereabouts at these silly gatherings:

Daveiron1:

Just wondering, does anyone know if section 26 has ever been used yet ?

You are right jimmy ,whatever their response it will not be a clear and concise reply .
or in any way deal with the questions put.

No Dave Section 26 has never been used yet and it is hardly likely to be either. You people sadly fail to understand it's meaning, so a bit of advice pal: Don't attempt to arrest a copper on a S26 because you'll end up getting arresd yourself.

Here's something clear and concise for you: If there were attempts on other peoples lives, how many of them sustained injuries? Or at a push, how many of them even sustained a scratch off one of these lethal sticks with spikes?

[wanglepin]

I don't think he gives talks as such.

He has given a few talks. Indeed he gave an hilarious one telling his audience that bailiffs cannot break their way into your house, and this talk was after the Port Talbot eviction where he got sat on his arse and they completely destroyed a glass door to gain entry.
20:25.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvEXjs_oJd0

[Tuco]

Sorry, we were at crossed purposes. I was on about Ceylon's lunatic, slap head mate, not Ceylon.

Yes, I've seen Ceylon's "talks". I assumed he paid the audience to sit there and listen to such drivel, without falling asleep.

[Bones]

How can you provide names of attempted murderers when no attempted murder has taken place?

Under the FOI, they don't have to provide the names of any individuals

By the way Tuco, I appreciated the pm. However, didn't your Mother ever tell you that if you have nothing nice to say, better to say nothing.

I hope the applicable case law that I sent you, helps to expand your limited and highly questionable knowledge on the topic

[Skeleton]

How can you provide names of attempted murderers when no attempted murder has taken place?

Under the FOI they don't have to provide the names of any individuals.

Which Haining already knows because he has been told it several times in replies to other ridiculous FOI requests he has made.

[Tuco]

How can you provide names of attempted murderers when no attempted murder has taken place?

Under the FOI, they don't have to provide the names of any individuals

By the way Tuco, I appreciated the pm. However, didn't your Mother ever tell you that if you have nothing nice to say, better to say nothing.

I hope the applicable case law that I sent you, helps to expand your limited and highly questionable knowledge on the topic

Thanks Bones, much appreciated. However, you are still failing to understand the issue. The case law that you provided is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with S77. My issue connected to failure of disclosure and breaches of the DPA.

I actually think it is an excellent topic of debate but the admin here, in their wisdom decided to lock the thread, despite it being very much connected to FMOTL ideals, if not fully understood by most of them. (just like it is not fully understood by you Bones).

Regarding the obtaining of the names of the individuals, Haining had ample, lawful opportunity to do so before and during his trial. He isn't really interested in their names as deep down, he knows his silly little game is pointless. It is just another pathetic attempt of his to grab a bit of limelight, being the annoying little attention seeking drama queen that he is.

[Worzel Gummidge]

Thanks Bones, much appreciated. However, you are still failing to understand the issue. The case law that you provided is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with S77. My issue connected to failure of disclosure and breaches of the DPA.

I actually think it is an excellent topic of debate but the admin here, in their wisdom decided to lock the thread, despite it being very much connected to FMOTL ideals, if not fully understood by most of them. (just like it is not fully understood by you Bones).

If you are taking about section 77, 78, 79 of the consumer credit act and the requirement for copy agreements I am afraid it is you that does not understand. A request under these provisions only needs a copy of the original terms and does not have to be the original signed copy, it can be reconstructed.

You need to look at McGuffic and Carey, and read the requirements of the act. Oh and please stop using the term " disclosure", it is inappropriate in this context You are talking about failure to provide a copy agrement .
Also there is no requirement to provide an agreement under the DPA, just data related to the data subject.

Sorry for the off topic response and will not continue, at lest on this thread any further.

It seems to me that, for someone who says that he is not FMoTL you seem to have a lot of their silly misconceptions.

[Tuco]

Oh great-Just what the world needs, the most idiotic fool on the WWW to comment.

Peter please. We have had this discussion elsewhere and despite great effort, I was still unable to get the situation explained into that thick skull of yours.

Bones is talking about S77, I am not. I'm not sure which part of the following from my post that you failed to understand but why change the habit of a lifetime eh?

It has nothing to do with S77.

Now if admin decide the topic is worthy of debate, they will allow it and/or re-open the locked thread. What they clearly do not want is another squabble on this thread so please stop stalking me in the meantime?

[Bones]

Thanks Bones, much appreciated. However, you are still failing to understand the issue. The case law that you provided is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with S77. My issue connected to failure of disclosure and breaches of the DPA.

I actually think it is an excellent topic of debate but the admin here, in their wisdom decided to lock the thread, despite it being very much connected to FMOTL ideals, if not fully understood by most of them. (just like it is not fully understood by you Bones).

Regarding the obtaining of the names of the individuals, Haining had ample, lawful opportunity to do so before and during his trial. He isn't really interested in their names as deep down, he knows his silly little game is pointless. It is just another pathetic attempt of his to grab a bit of limelight, being the annoying little attention seeking drama queen that he is.

In an attempt to stop your sad attempt to derail yet another thread, I have replied to your second pm further correcting your misunderstanding - please keep posts related to the topics of each thread.

If you don't like the way this site is run, by all means stick to what you do at BHF

Have a good day now

[Tuco]

Thanks Bones, much appreciated. However, you are still failing to understand the issue. The case law that you provided is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with S77. My issue connected to failure of disclosure and breaches of the DPA.

I actually think it is an excellent topic of debate but the admin here, in their wisdom decided to lock the thread, despite it being very much connected to FMOTL ideals, if not fully understood by most of them. (just like it is not fully understood by you Bones).

Regarding the obtaining of the names of the individuals, Haining had ample, lawful opportunity to do so before and during his trial. He isn't really interested in their names as deep down, he knows his silly little game is pointless. It is just another pathetic attempt of his to grab a bit of limelight, being the annoying little attention seeking drama queen that he is.

In an attempt to stop your sad attempt to derail yet another thread, I have replied to your second pm further correcting your misunderstanding - please keep posts related to the topics of each thread.

If you don't like the way this site is run, by all means stick to what you do at BHF

Have a good day now

Thanks Bones

I have just replied, correcting your misunderstanding of my misunderstanding.

Why don't you start a new thread? They'll probably allow yours. Mine always get locked for some reason.

I am not derailing the thread-You are the one who hijacked it to advertise your silly, misconceived PM's.

[Bones]

Ignoring Tuco's inability to understand the law and returning to the topic of the thread

Good old Colon isn't sure but his gut is telling him that a video delaring the russians have reached saturn is a fake

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 8lmVK1BqjI

[ArthurWankspittle]

Keep it on topic please. Any drifting off again and action will be taken.

[Skeleton]

Ignoring Tuco's inability to understand the law and returning to the topic of the thread

Good old Colon isn't sure but his gut is telling him that a video delaring the russians have reached saturn is a fake

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 8lmVK1BqjI

Colon being an idiot. Seen the guys YT work before and its all similar stuff, he is very good at the editing/GCI game.

[aesmith]

Here's something clear and concise for you: If there were attempts on other peoples lives, how many of them sustained injuries? Or at a push, how many of them even sustained a scratch off one of these lethal sticks with spikes?

Maybe he should be complaining about Police incompetence, if their "attempted murder" didn't manage to kill even one person.