UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[Tuco]

Post any evidence you have..... Convince people that you are right and I will be first inline to apologise and say that I was wrong.

Tell me what you think my claims are.

Tell me which part requires evidence and why.

[Bones]

Simple yes or no answer - are you going to post any actual evidence ?

If not, there is little point in this debate continuing, as without evidence you lost the first time you posted.

Clearly you can't as you keep dodging the requirement of evidence with silly questions as above.

[Tuco]

Simple yes or no answer - are you going to post any actual evidence ?

If not, there is little point in this debate continuing, as without evidence you lost the first time you posted.

Clearly you can't as you keep dodging the requirement of evidence with silly questions as above.

A simple answer to my question would help.

Evidence of what love? What is it you think I'm claiming that requires evidence?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco, I am willing to accept that you are claiming nothing. Nothing at all. Obviously the upshot of that would be that you have proved nothing. So shall we go with that? You are claiming nothing.

[Tuco]

Tuco, I am willing to accept that you are claiming nothing. Nothing at all. Obviously the upshot of that would be that you have proved nothing. So shall we go with that? You are claiming nothing.

It all depends Rumps.

Are you claiming that agreements are sold, are you claiming that agreements are not sold or are (which appears more likely), are you claiming both?

[Bones]

I will take that as a No then, you can't provide any actual evidence to support your fanciful claims.

A simple no, would have been enough, instead of your feeble attempts to deflect.

Remember this is not BHF, where people just accept what you say without question -

Tuco, never forget



Have a nice weekend Tuco - I know I will

[longdog]

Summary of the last few days in BASIC...

10 Tuco: "I have proof"

20 Everybody else: "Let's see it then"

30 Tuco: "I don't have to prove anything".

40 Everybody else: <facepalm>

50 GOTO 10

[wserra]

Admin have been deleting my posts all morning.

You have had three posts removed today. All of them contained personal attacks, none contained proof of any kind.

Would you like to see them?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Summary of the last few days in BASIC...

10 Tuco: "I have proof"

20 Everybody else: "Let's see it then"

30 Tuco: "I don't have to prove anything".

40 Everybody else: <facepalm>

50 GOTO 10

You missed out one step.
It comes between 40 and 50:
Tuco: What do you think I am claiming?
It is an attempt to divert.

[littleFred]

Go back and read the thread. One third of the idiots didn't even understand the argument (yourself included) One third did and accepted that agreements were sold but that there was nothing wrong with this. The final third understood the argument but claimed that agreements were not sold.

Tuco, you have shfted your claim. You now claim that agreements are sold. Well, duh. Yes, of course they are. This is also called "assignment". Debtors are generally told when that occurs.

Earlier in the thread, you claimed that the pieces of paper were also sold, independently of the agreements they represented. Can I assume you have abandoned that claim?

[longdog]

Summary of the last few days in BASIC...

10 Tuco: "I have proof"

20 Everybody else: "Let's see it then"

30 Tuco: "I don't have to prove anything".

40 Everybody else: <facepalm>

50 GOTO 10

You missed out one step.
It comes between 40 and 50:
Tuco: What do you think I am claiming?
It is an attempt to divert.

Wouldn't that be a LOOP UNTIL command? It's a long while since I did any programming

[Tuco]

Go back and read the thread. One third of the idiots didn't even understand the argument (yourself included) One third did and accepted that agreements were sold but that there was nothing wrong with this. The final third understood the argument but claimed that agreements were not sold.

Tuco, you have shfted your claim. You now claim that agreements are sold. Well, duh. Yes, of course they are. This is also called "assignment". Debtors are generally told when that occurs.

Earlier in the thread, you claimed that the pieces of paper were also sold, independently of the agreements they represented. Can I assume you have abandoned that claim?

No Fred-My claim is the same, ie agreements (the signed piece of paper) are sold.

I have always accepted that a debt can be assigned and that by doing so, it does not breach either the original contract or the DPA.

[longdog]

No Fred-My claim is the same, ie agreements (the signed piece of paper) are sold.

I have always accepted that a debt can be assigned and that by doing so, it does not breach either the original contract or the DPA.

So what are you whining about then?

[Tuco]

Admin have been deleting my posts all morning.

You have had three posts removed today. All of them contained personal attacks, none contained proof of any kind.

Would you like to see them?

Wes-I had one post deleted whereby I suggested someone was mental because they store posts on their computer from people over a 4 year period. This behaviour is both creepy and scary and I would venture to suggest is not the normal, rational behaviour of a sane person.

I then had a response deleted to "Potterpaug". This was a constructive response and I have no wish to insult him/her. He posted politely and my only wish was to respond in the same fashion.

Then there were a couple more to Bones that were deleted, again, there was no personal attack, merely a correction of her nonsense.

Finally, was a response to Greg, who has continually posted crap on this thread and appears to have taken the hump that I have pointed this out to him.

I make that 5, without even attempting to recall what I posted.

The thread has got silly because we have at least 3 separate interpretations of what is being discussed. As usual, when losing an argument, the usual suspects on here resort to playground drivel. I am quite happy to debate with anyone but if someone wants to play silly games, I will respond accordingly. I mean, fancy being asked to prove that a failure to adhere to a term in a contract is not a breach? Its pathetic and I will respond accordingly.

The subject in hand is quite an interesting one that could have provoked sensible debate. Instead, it was dragged into the gutter by idiots who blindly argue against anything that can be used by fmotl. Are fmotl really that bigger threat to anybody? We are always going to have these silly individuals in society, always have done and always will. What real harm are they causing? There are far more important things going on in the world today than directing attention onto a handful of troublemakers.

[Tuco]

No Fred-My claim is the same, ie agreements (the signed piece of paper) are sold.

I have always accepted that a debt can be assigned and that by doing so, it does not breach either the original contract or the DPA.

So what are you whining about then?

60: Longdog still doesn't understand

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco wrote:

Imean, fancy being asked to prove that a failure to adhere to a term in a contract is not a breach?

Hahaha. Stop twisting words. Do you think you are debating with the idiots on that stupid baliff site? For goodness sake.
No one has suggested that failing to adhere to a term in a contract is not a breach. What you have been asked to prove is that the behaviour you have described is failing to adhere to a term in a contract. There is a difference. Maybe you can't see that?

[longdog]

No Fred-My claim is the same, ie agreements (the signed piece of paper) are sold.

I have always accepted that a debt can be assigned and that by doing so, it does not breach either the original contract or the DPA.

So what are you whining about then?

60: Longdog still doesn't understand

So you know loans can be sold, you know this would inevitably involve the sharing of data and you know that this sharing of data is entirely permissible.

What are you moaning about?

If I don't understand what you are complaining about why not summarise it in one concise sentence? I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason I don't understand what it is you are complaining about is that YOU don't seem to know.

[TheNewSaint]

Code: Select all

Do While (thread.Pages <100 AND moderator.IrritationLevel < .5)
     Tuco.SaySomethingStupid();
     Posters.AttemptToDebunkLogically();
Loop

moderator.CloseThread();

[Tuco]

Code: Select all

Do While (thread.Pages <100 AND moderator.IrritationLevel < .5)
     Tuco.SaySomethingStupid();
     Posters.AttemptToDebunkLogically();
Loop

moderator.CloseThread();

Here is what really happened:

Tuco said that agreements are sold NOT assigned (the assignment takes place much further on and is not in dispute)

A few understood, the vast majority didn't.

Posters attempted to debunk logically whilst at the same time, not understanding what it is they were supposed to be debunking. Hence, the vast majority of debunking was the debunking of a negative, ie, something that never existed or was claimed in the first place.

Moderator closes thread, Tuco gets the blame, despite the vast majority of Quatloosers not having the intelligence to read & understand what had been written. It was the Quatloosers themselves who dragged the thread down by posting utter garbage that was irrelevant to the matter being discussed. If these idiots had gone and posted some drivel about Tom Crawford elsewhere, the topic had legs for a worthwhile debate.

[Tuco]

Tuco wrote:

Imean, fancy being asked to prove that a failure to adhere to a term in a contract is not a breach?

Hahaha. Stop twisting words. Do you think you are debating with the idiots on that stupid baliff site? For goodness sake.
No one has suggested that failing to adhere to a term in a contract is not a breach. What you have been asked to prove is that the behaviour you have described is failing to adhere to a term in a contract. There is a difference. Maybe you can't see that?

You know damn well that these agreements were systematically sold.

You didn't realize that the DPA was being breached, nor that the contract was being breached. In fact, when first responding to the claim that the agreements were sold, you stated "so what?"

Instead of entering into sensible debate, you reverted to muppet mode and your silly requests for "proof" every 10 minutes.

As far as I see, there is only one person twisting words. You also move the goalposts and for some reason seem reluctant to tell us exactly where you stand on this.

Regarding it being a failure to adhere to a term, the terms are usually worded so that the data may be revealed to certain parties, NOT any old party who just so happens to purchase the instrument.

You just don't like the fact that the scummy banks have been shown to be doing something so underhanded.