Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[notorial dissent]

Likely??? Likely??? And ultimate homelessness.

Would share your hilarity, except that I suspect that when this freeloader says "...in my house for 4hrs..." what he actually means is "...in my parents house, which they worked hard for, where they allow me to live ..." I fear he's so determined to play the sovcit woo game that he's pressuring his parents to risk their home.

If however it's his own house, then I look forward to munching popcorn and laughing at the repo video in due course*.

(* Thinking about that, we haven't had any good ones recently. Maybe the dark, cold UK weather keeps the resistance down, or maybe the bailiffs are better organised now. I used to enjoy those - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR6cYkdXFSE is a old favourite. Good wages for bailiffs, entertainment for the neighbours, it would be sad to see them fade away)

FWIW I agree on all points. Sad, just sad.

[Siegfried Shrink]

An oldie but a goodie.
Foul Mouthed Harridans - 0
Legal Process - 1.

There do seem to have been few of these lately. The tactic of arresting and marching off everyone who gets in the way seems to deter active participation, even if they get de-arrested once the fun is over.

[mufc1959]

Another brilliant smackdown from the FOS.

Full decision here.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=171062

Selected highlights below.

[Wakeman52]

Just a brief request to moderators - this thread is on p115 - perhaps it needs closing and a new one started.

[SteveUK]

Another brilliant smackdown from the FOS.

Full decision here.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=171062

Selected highlights below.

another brilliant FoS hammering.

I particularly like the closing statement

I’d strongly suggest he takes advice from a solicitor, rather than from internet forums and videos.

[HardyW]

Just a brief request to moderators - this thread is on p115 - perhaps it needs closing and a new one started.

Why? Please explain what harm it does having a thread of 116 or more pages.

To close the thread would make it far more difficult for any visitor, whether new to Quatloos! or a regular, to trace back previous mentions of any of the starring characters/incidents. It's in the nature of the people featured here, that each one will re-surface after perhaps a few months of non-mention, and the story picks up from maybe quite a few pages back. So no, it wouldn't (at least in my opinion) be helpful to do that.

[hucknallred]

Just a brief request to moderators - this thread is on p115 - perhaps it needs closing and a new one started.

Why? Please explain what harm it does having a thread of 116 or more pages.

Maybe have a read of this, it used to be a sticky on the UK board, but historically threads on here have been closed at around 100 pages, hence Wakeman52 making the request.

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=10655

Tom Crawford & Peter Of England have several 100 page threads, along with the PLD bunch who are on their 2nd century.

[Burnaby49]

If I recall the entirely arbitrary limit used to be fifty pages but that was before Tidal Wave Tom hit Quatloos and blasted away all old records. British discussion consistently blast through old limits for, I think, two reasons;

1 - The enthusiasm of UK posters, particularly when Tom Crawford was at his peak.

2 - The fact that your stories never seem to end. Tom is still in there struggling to stay in the spotlight and Neelu never left. POE will be back with something eventually. Rheka, however, seems to have gone off-radar.

[HardyW]

Just a brief request to moderators - this thread is on p115 - perhaps it needs closing and a new one started.

Why? Please explain what harm it does having a thread of 116 or more pages.

Maybe have a read of this, it used to be a sticky on the UK board, but historically threads on here have been closed at around 100 pages, hence Wakeman52 making the request.

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=10655

Tom Crawford & Peter Of England have several 100 page threads, along with the PLD bunch who are on their 2nd century.

Thank you for the link, which just confirms that there is no identified benefit in closing-and-restarting. The justifications suggested being (a) technical issues long since gone, and (b) threads being too long to read in full. But (b) kicks in nearer to 100 posts than 100 pages, and the main cause of long threads is too many replies that add nothing to the discussion. If there was a case for closing a thread, it should be on the basis that no posts have been added for say 6 weeks, then the issue is considered dead. But of course in practice that isn't true, take some of Burnaby's Canadian court cases where a ruling is made out of the blue some years after the last airing of the case, or take the various NESARA/dinar threads which are presumably still here but either nothing notable has occurred, or no-one is still monitoring the sites and reporting on what's said. In the case of the Crawford threads, the close-and-restart took place, not much discussion beforehand, but it wasn't very helpful for anyone looking to understand the recent happenings which were spread between threads. Furthermore, the Crawford Timeline thread was created to give an overview of the history, but that has not been touched since and most regulars seem to have forgotten it ever existed. And more of the same with PoE. This "random babblings" piece perhaps should never have been created and each incident involving a different player have its own thread - which I think is what happens in those Canadian cases and probably other sections of Q as well.

[Burnaby49]

take some of Burnaby's Canadian court cases where a ruling is made out of the blue some years after the last airing of the case

Good point. I'm working on a posting now about one of my Poriskyites who's conviction for income tax evasion was stayed for technical reasons at the end of 2016. The Crown's appeal was recently heard and the appeals court reversed the provincial court decision and upheld the conviction. So all he got was a year's reprieve.

[Siegfried Shrink]

A 2000-post thread is not much good to anyone visiting for the first time. No one is going to read it from scratch.

From wserra's initial post.

When I joined Quatloos, quite recently compared to many, I read the entireity of many very long threads to get up to speed with the runners and riders. Many shorter ones too. I may or may not be unusual but it is not true that no one is going to tackle a thread from scratch. I found it easy enough to simply skip anything that did not add to the narrative. At present I am working through 'Random Babblings' as too many of the people involved were ciphers to me at the time.
There is a tendency for threads to evolve in their prime focus over time, and starting new ones for rising stars may be justified, but in general I cannot see any real need to stop them at a specific point. It is up to users just how thorough they want to be, it is easy enough to go to a specific page and start from there.
Some of the length is due to digressions. Personally I find the occasional lurch into off topic nostalgia is good to clear the palate before getting back to the main fare.
I am not bothered one way or the other, as long as the new thread is linked back to the old one at the start it is easy enough to follow it into the past, so I would label such a move pointless but harmless.

Picking on another point, I do not think reposting stuff from wacky facebook groups and weird websites is a waste of time. So very many daft ha'perths, so little time.

[BoomerSooner17]

My $0.02 is that I don't see the point of limiting a thread that is effectively a collection of random, more-or-less unconnected bits of news about UK FMOTL/sovcit/PLD/whatever idiots. It will naturally tend to be more...organic, I guess is the best word, than a thread that focuses on the struggles of a single idiot over time. In the latter case, a thread that is 100+ pages becomes an impediment to getting caught up from the beginning of the case, whereas this thread doesn't really have that problem since it chronicles many different idiots.

[grixit]

Personally, i had been thinking of closing this topic soon and starting "Random Freemanesque Babblings 2". But i defer to
m'learned friend, Burnaby69 Esq.

I do reserve the right to revist this at page 150, though.

[Comrade Sharik]

Full decision here.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=171062

That really is an excellent piece of work. I wouldn't want to cross swords with the sharp and steely Ms O'Leary!

[Wakeman52]

I do reserve the right to revist this at page 150, though.

Fair enough!

[mufc1959]

Full decision here.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=171062

That really is an excellent piece of work. I wouldn't want to cross swords with the sharp and steely Ms O'Leary!

It's the same ombudsman who wrote The Annihilation of WeRe Bank.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=104875

[SteveUK]

Reminds me of some of our friends

[Hercule Parrot]

It's the same ombudsman who wrote The Annihilation of WeRe Bank.

And many more - we should have a whip-round and send her some flowers...

In 2017 Mr G decided to change the way in which he paid his mortgage. He provided Santander with what he claimed to be a promissory note to settle his mortgage. Mr G said that Santander could collect payment by sending a member of staff to his home to collect payment each month.

Santander didn’t agree that this was a valid method of payment and explained to Mr G that he needed to maintain his payments by direct debit. Mr G complained to us. He maintains that the promissory note is a valid form of payment.

Mr G didn’t accept the adjudicator’s findings. He considered the adjudicator to be biased and inexperienced and with little or no understanding of complex matters of this nature. So the complaint has been passed to me for a final decision.

Where a creditor agrees to accept a promissory note, the debtor is legally required to pay it. But a creditor isn’t obliged to accept it instead of actual payment. And Mr G isn’t able to change the terms of the existing contract unilaterally to suit himself. So Santander is under no obligation to agree to any terms Mr G may propose – including going round to his house
to collect payment in person.

My decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=168971

[Hercule Parrot]

Mr N’s business has debts, including an overdraft, with HSBC. He requested a redemption figure and sent HSBC a promissory note for the full outstanding balance, together with a letter explaining why he believed HSBC was obliged to accept it in full settlement and discharge his debts.

HSBC refused to accept the promissory note. So Mr N complained. He said HSBC should be required to accept the promissory note and should refund the payments it had taken off him since he presented it. Our investigator didn’t think HSBC had done anything wrong so Mr N asked for an ombudsman to make a decision on his case.

My decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=160134

Mr F tried to deposit two promissory notes, each for £10,000,000, to his business account with Yorkshire Bank. It refused to credit this amount because it said these weren’t legal tender. It said that the promissory notes only act as IOUs between Mr F and the party that gave them to him.

Mr F says that a promissory note is legal tender under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and the Bank Act 2009. So he thinks Yorkshire Bank should accept the ones he presented it.

Mr F has mentioned numerous laws and pieces of legislation that he feels support his arguments. I’ve considered each of the points he’s made, but I haven’t found anything in any of the legislation he’s mentioned to show that Yorkshire Bank should accept these promissory notes.

My decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=160134

Mr N has a mortgage with BoS. He requested a redemption statement and sent BoS a promissory note for the full outstanding balance, together with a letter explaining why he believed BoS was obliged to accept it in full settlement and discharge his mortgage.

BoS refused to accept the promissory note. So Mr N complained. He said BoS should be required to accept the promissory note and should refund the payments it had taken off him since he presented it. Our investigator didn’t think BoS had done anything wrong so Mr N asked for an ombudsman to make a decision on his case.

Mr N has referred to case and statute law on promissory notes. But I’m afraid they don’t say what he says they do. Where a creditor agrees to accept a promissory note, the debtor is legally required to pay it. But a creditor isn’t obliged to accept it instead of actual payment.

My decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=160152

Mr A sent Santander a promissory note to repay what he owed. This note told Santander that it could create £500 a month and then use this to pay what Mr A owed it. But Santander didn’t accept this and wanted to talk to Mr A about his financial situation to see what else it could do to help.

Mr A wasn’t happy about this and told Santander it was under a legal obligation to accept the promissory note

Like our investigator, I can’t see that Santander is under any obligation to accept the promissory note Mr A has given it. I realise that Mr A has done a lot of research around this subject and thinks that there are various arguments why Santander are legally obliged to accept this note as a form of payment. I’ve had regard for all the points Mr A has raised, but I haven’t seen anything that leads me to think this is the case.

My decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=160171

Mr N (probably same one as above) has a mortgage with NatWest. He requested a redemption statement and sent NatWest a promissory note for the full outstanding balance, together with a letter explaining why he believed NatWest was obliged to accept it in full settlement and discharge his mortgage.

NatWest refused to accept the promissory note. So Mr N complained. He said NatWest should be required to accept the promissory note and should refund the payments it had taken off him since he presented it. Our investigator didn’t think NatWest had done anything wrong so Mr N asked for an ombudsman to make a decision on his case.

Mr N has referred to case and statute law on promissory notes. But I’m afraid they don’t say what he says they do. Where a creditor agrees to accept a promissory note, the debtor is legally required to pay it. But a creditor isn’t obliged to accept it instead of actual payment.

My decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=160152

Must be great fun at the Financial Ombudsman's Office - the same stupid, greedy idiot arguments being presented again and again.

[mufc1959]

Must be great fun at the Financial Ombudsman's Office - the same stupid, greedy idiot arguments being presented again and again.

We get the same documents sent in over and over again too. The customers are always outraged when we tell them we won't accept their internet templates, which we've seen numerous times before. To a man (and it's 95% men) they try and argue that they came up with this all by themselves. So multiply that by all the major banks, building societies and mortgage lenders, and the FOS must be inundated with this muppetry.

I was also amused to see somewhere on t'internet - either the new GOODF forum or on Facebook - that someone was moaning he'd been tracked down by debt collectors. And how did they find him? He put himself on the Electoral Roll for the sole reason of casting his vote for Brexit. He was too thick to realise he was signposting his whereabouts to his creditors.