Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[Firthy2002]

We will be then taken to crown court for alleged assault by you bailiff and we will put your bailiff on the stand and make him tell us where his authority came from that allows him to be at the property in the first place.

Would this even be allowed? If it is I would imagine there'd be a swift objection from the prosecution.

[hucknallred]

What a complete and utter bell end - this is the same guy who video'd Tom Whos eviction and told the BBC he was an expert in facial expressions.

Come on get your facts right, it was 'micro expressions'.

twat

You got that one right.

[letissier14]

What a complete and utter bell end - this is the same guy who video'd Tom Whos eviction and told the BBC he was an expert in facial expressions.

Come on get your facts right, it was 'micro expressions'.

twat

You got that one right.

I couldn't remember the right word for it - sorry

[Tuco]

Too funny lol

He actually said this on the call.

We don't accept your liability order. If you turn up again we will give you 3 times to leave (everything will be recorded on video) if you turn up again we will physically remove your bailiffs from the property, using about 16 different pieces of valid case law in common law and criminal court.

Your man will call the police and we will put ourselves up for voluntary arrest. We will be then taken to crown court for alleged assault by you bailiff and we will put your bailiff on the stand and make him tell us where his authority came from that allows him to be at the property in the first place.

At this point your bailiff will fold because his statutory instrument is false because we have failed to distinguish which court of record or judge has passed down an order allowing a warrant to be issued. Do we have an accord.


What a complete and utter bell end - this is the same guy who video'd Tom Whos eviction and told the BBC he was an expert in facial expressions. Twat

I'm actually crying here with laughter at this idiot lol

https://youtu.be/8uKJkBYrDA4

I thought this fat fuck had given all this nonsense up. He's been quiet for over a year now.

He has his own thread on here somewhere. Who is he on GOODF?

He's a strange one. He appears to have more between his ears than the likes of Ceylon etc yet he keeps coming out with this crap. He still either can not or will not comprehend the Tom Crawford situation.

I'm convinced that the majority of these fuckwits have nothing better to do in their sorry lives, so they take to posting these pointless videos on YT. This particular prat has posted many but he's never posted one that shows the final outcome in any particular matter.

[longdog]

Another story circulating is that the Council hires the court privately for these hearings.

Even if that's true it wouldn't make the orders invalid. To certain extent all civil cases which go through the courts are as a result of people 'hiring' the court.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Another story circulating is that the Council hires the court privately for these hearings.

Even if that's true it wouldn't make the orders invalid. To certain extent all civil cases which go through the courts are as a result of people 'hiring' the court.

Also, if you think about the timeline, you will get a whole load of summonses around the same time. Tax demands issued April, reminders x 2 or 3 and then summonses which will be going out by the crate full about July/August.

[Arthur Rubin]

Do you have things like Judge Judy in the UK (I mean, England and Wales; Scotland has its own laws).

I know it looks like a reality show, but it really is a "private" court; a retired judge can hear a civil case with the permission of both parties.

[mufc1959]

Do you have things like Judge Judy in the UK (I mean, England and Wales; Scotland has its own laws).

I know it looks like a reality show, but it really is a "private" court; a retired judge can hear a civil case with the permission of both parties.

We get Judge Judy here, feisty old bird isn't she? The UK equivalent is Judge Rinder, who's a practising barrister and a TV Judge on the side.

[hucknallred]

Do you have things like Judge Judy in the UK .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Rinder

[katiHWB]

Do you have things like Judge Judy in the UK (I mean, England and Wales; Scotland has its own laws).

I know it looks like a reality show, but it really is a "private" court; a retired judge can hear a civil case with the permission of both parties.

We get Judge Judy here, feisty old bird isn't she? The UK equivalent is Judge Rinder, who's a practising barrister and a TV Judge on the side.

Yea ... the TV company often ask on LB if there's anyone wanting to go on the show (it'd be a cold day in Hell before I suggested anyone did tho', there's no 'law' involved)

[aesmith]

Even if that's true it wouldn't make the orders invalid. To certain extent all civil cases which go through the courts are as a result of people 'hiring' the court.

Is Council Tax default a Civil matter? I believe the liability orders are raised in Magistrate's Court. Council matters have always seems to have a foot in each camp, for example decriminalised parking and traffic enforcement.

[aesmith]

He actually said this on the call.
...
Your man will call the police and we will put ourselves up for voluntary arrest. We will be then taken to crown court for alleged assault ..

Unless it was a particularly serious assault I think they'll be disappointed to find themselves in a Magistrates court rather than Crown Court, so no jury for them to preach to.

[Tuco]

Another story circulating is that the Council hires the court privately for these hearings.

Even if that's true it wouldn't make the orders invalid. To certain extent all civil cases which go through the courts are as a result of people 'hiring' the court.

Also, if you think about the timeline, you will get a whole load of summonses around the same time. Tax demands issued April, reminders x 2 or 3 and then summonses which will be going out by the crate full about July/August.

Summonses are issued in great numbers throughout the year. It is not exclusive to those who don't pay from day one. The vast majority of debtors start the tax year intending to pay and indeed do begin instalments. Many summonses are issued for sums under 3 or even 2 hundred pounds, as Christmas takes a bite on many struggling households.

There are also a lot of unanswered questions regarding these hearings and the manner in which the liability orders are rubber stamped.

The costs for obtaining liability orders are also wholly unlawful, as local authorities make huge profits from the process, despite it being crystal clear in legislation that profit should not be made from the liability order process.

Still, I don't suppose that is what you lot want to hear is it?

[Tuco]

Even if that's true it wouldn't make the orders invalid. To certain extent all civil cases which go through the courts are as a result of people 'hiring' the court.

Is Council Tax default a Civil matter? I believe the liability orders are raised in Magistrate's Court. Council matters have always seems to have a foot in each camp, for example decriminalised parking and traffic enforcement.

Council tax default is and remains at all times a civil matter. Even when debtors are imprisoned, the action is civil, NOT criminal.

[NYGman]

Many summonses are issued for sums under 3 or even 2 hundred pounds, as Christmas takes a bite on many struggling households.

Sorry, need to call you out on this one, and remind you that there is a thing called responsibility and that people should be living within ones means. Your comment above is just obscene. You are basically saying that after working out a payment plan of a few hundred pounds a month, come Christmas time, buying presents is more important than paying off your debts.
Seriously?? Not only do you denigrate the holidays meaning by focusing on the gift giving aspect, but your quote exemplifies the lack of money management and financial immaturity, selfishness, and self entitlement that get people into these problems.

I have no sympathy for someone who misses payments around Christmas time, because they spent the bill money of prezzies. People like that deserve what they get in my view. Provide for your family first, pay your bills/debts before buying more crap (Which is what many gifts are anyway), and when you have saved up enough, only then should you splurge.

Me thinks this is the problem, not the Bailiffs.

edit: you can always buy token gifts, make a gift, or if you have children and are struggling, many charities have toy drives that time of year. No need to spend the rent/bill money. That is just WRONG! No need to buy an XBOX, a big TV, etc...

[Tuco]

I'm not entirely sure why you think not paying council tax is connected to buying presents but I'm sure you have your reasons.

Council tax affects millions throughout the UK all year round, not just one particular period. I just used Xmas as an example.

I find your comments obscene, the fact that you look down your nose at debtors and assume they have neglected their debts to buy presents.

A large percentage of workers in the UK are employed on a false self employment basis. It enables greedy bosses to evade the responsibility of affording workers their basic rights. Many workers on basic wage are simply laid off over the Xmas period with no holiday pay. Many others are on zero hours contracts and end up in the same boat. Those who have to support young families find themselves with 3 or 4 weeks without any income-Something has to give and invariably it is council tax.

It has nothing to do with buying presents and nobody suggested that it was.

[NYGman]

Your comment implied that it is more important to spend money on Christmas than it is is to pay your bills. That sir, is morally wrong, and counter top the very purpose of Christmas, embracing the commercialization rather than the spiritual, shows poor prioritization. Somehow, because it's Christmas, I can justify not paying my bills. Bad form Tuco, shows your true self. Self gratification over responsible money management. The fact you used Christmas to justify being short on bills is quite telling to me.

[Tuco]

Your comment implied that it is more important to spend money on Christmas than it is is to pay your bills. That sir, is morally wrong, and counter top the very purpose of Christmas, embracing the commercialization rather than the spiritual, shows poor prioritization. Somehow, because it's Christmas, I can justify not paying my bills. Bad form Tuco, shows your true self. Self gratification over responsible money management. The fact you used Christmas to justify being short on bills is quite telling to me.

It implied no such thing. Your inability to read, coupled with your reprehensible outlook on debtors was enough to trigger you off.

[grixit]

https://news.uci.edu/research/surveyed- ... cy-theory/

The link takes you to an article written by those know-nothings at UCI (University of California).

One of their spokesmen said;

“We don’t imagine that we’re going to sway the beliefs of hardcore adherents to the chemtrails conspiracy theory with this study. But we thought it was important to go on the record with fundamental scientific facts to refute claims that the government is deliberately spreading harmful chemicals from aircraft.”

Would you trust a school whose team mascot is an anteater? Now, a beaver is perfectly respectable....

I'm a graduate of UCI. It's a very young university, so to hit the ground running they spent, as as far as i know, continue to spend, a lot on research facilities and on getting nobel winners to join their faculty.

[Kay Powell]

NYGman is right. I have known countless people who behave in this irresponsible way. I've been trying to help a young couple with mental health issues and no common sense. Last month, after I explained to them how their inability to budget was at the root of their financial problems, they went out and rented a £2,000 TV from BrightHouse on the never-never! They explained that they did it because it was so cheap - it wasn't, it was £17.50 per week that they couldn't afford. Then they'd had it for less than a month when one of their debtors came around and removed it, and they refuse to report the burglary to the police. I have yet to meet anyone on welfare benefits who genuinely couldn't manage if they had common sense. I lived on benefits in the early eighties, and I managed all right.
Edit: just noticed that I typed debtors, when I meant creditors.