Really?

Post Reply
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#211 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Jul 2017 20:53

Michelle wrote:
27 Jul 2017 20:48
Who the heck is Phillip and what are those companies? :roll:
Couldn't care less who Phillip is. The companies are all ex-lairy mary companies.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#212 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 27 Jul 2017 21:01

Andy is like the little fat boy who has to take his ball home when things go against him - He always locks the thread but not before having the last word.

He now seems to think that he can present an I&E to the court and it must be taken in the same context as evidence but not classed as evidence. He's another Dodgeball in the making - Hasn't a fcukin clue.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#213 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Jul 2017 21:16

JimUk1 wrote:
27 Jul 2017 21:01
Andy is like the little fat boy who has to take his ball home when things go against him - He always locks the thread but not before having the last word.
When I was little, the fat boy never had the ball. Andy is more like the speccy twat who won't let you have a go with his RC car.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13241
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#214 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Jul 2017 21:25

Pote Snitkin wrote:
27 Jul 2017 20:47


"Phillip" is getting all giddy as one of the company check sites says "Confirmation statement overdue" in big red letters, and that you should expect a knock on the door from the fuzz anytime soon.
I'd better go hide under the bed.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#215 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 27 Jul 2017 22:14

Pote Snitkin wrote:
27 Jul 2017 21:16
JimUk1 wrote:
27 Jul 2017 21:01
Andy is like the little fat boy who has to take his ball home when things go against him - He always locks the thread but not before having the last word.
When I was little, the fat boy never had the ball. Andy is more like the speccy twat who won't let you have a go with his RC car.
Notice how he's quite happy to write you an essay about redetermination but as soon as you drag him away from his comfort zone and talk about a different area of CPR, he p%sses his pants and locks the thread?

:lol: :lol: :lol: --------------------------------------------------------------->Andyorch
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#216 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 27 Jul 2017 22:30

Oi Dodgeball

Start a discussion about how to submit applications

Let's finish Andy off completely.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#217 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jul 2017 10:30

Shifter:
Been a bit busy for a day or so.
I see the, same old same old.

Mark still trying to prove he is not an idiot, and everyone else saying, oh yes you are.

Jason trying vainly to hide all his cockups and evidence of his bad behavior, Amy watching and waiting for a typo so she can comment on something she understands and pote doing whatever it is pote does.
Tut... no comma needed between 'the' and 'same' in second sentence; 'behaviour' spelled without a 'u'; no qotation marks around 'oh yes you are'; 'Pote' not capitalised.

2 out of 10. Stay behind.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4087
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#218 Re: Really?

Post by Amy » 28 Jul 2017 10:56

No comma before and.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1986
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#219 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 28 Jul 2017 11:03

Pote Snitkin wrote:
28 Jul 2017 10:30
Tut... no comma needed between 'the' and 'same' in second sentence; 'behaviour' spelled without a 'u'; no qotation marks around 'oh yes you are'; 'Pote' not capitalised.

2 out of 10. Stay behind.
BEHAVIOR is spelled like this in American English, and many built-in spell checkers and auto corrects are based on US English, so will give you this option. Maybe we can make a concession for that... ;)

...and whilst we're at it, QUOTATION marks... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#220 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jul 2017 11:05

Michelle wrote:
28 Jul 2017 11:03
...and whilst we're at it, QUOTATION marks... :lol: :lol: :lol:
:xmas_redface: I'm so ashamed.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#221 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jul 2017 15:35

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

He really should check before making up some BS on the hoof.
I am sure we all remember the mass re writing of the legislation after he “discvered” sectionb75A.

I have rarely laughed so much in my life.

” I have just discovered this section which shows bailiffs can’t apply fees, them dinosaurs will never find, it but it has because I am so clever”. He said

BA had written a thread on the same section about 6 months earlier on CAG and described how it wasn’t applicable because it had not been introduced yet and was unlikely to be so.

We let him carry on for weeks, then one of their posters said, hey Mark this section you have been going on about hant even been brought into force.
OOPs/EEK

There followed mass deletions post re writing, lots of backtracking it was hilarious.
Obviously the spellcheck that wrote liable instead of libel has given up on this post, but I digress.

Yes, a mistake was made on 75A, but his BS is piled high if he thinks he and Mary knew about it at the time. 75A was first mentioned on here in August 2016. Nothing was said. It was raised again on 2nd October, again nothing said - in fact Shifter and Mary began trying to pick holes in it without ever once mentioning that it not in force. They tried to find every counter-argument as to why it didn't affect bailiff fees. This was the first time Mary ever mentioned 75A. It wasn't until 6th October that Mary suddenly discovered (or more likely was told) it wasn't yet in use.

So Shifter, not exactly '6 months earlier' is it? Does he actually live in a different dimension to the rest of us where everything he says is correct?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#222 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 28 Jul 2017 16:29

Not only does it show what an angry, bitter, jealous old small timer he is but it also highlights what a liar he is.

He had no idea that the legislation had not yet come into force (as demonstrated by the reference to 75A when it is actually 25A). His party piece is to act like he knew all along, as he did the other day regarding Andy's howler over CPR14. But the biggest pointer to what a bull sh%tter he is comes by way of his claim that the dinosaurs did not know about bailiffs not being able to apply fees. This has never been claimed. In fact the exact opposite has been stated time and time again, that is that paying a fine over the counter does not get rid of fees.

I'm pleased to see that he's so angry & jealous over there - It is further proof that he knows deep down that some people have forgotten more than he will ever know.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#223 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 28 Jul 2017 16:35

We let him carry on for weeks
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Is he really trying to claim that a housebound nutter who eats, breathes and sleeps "Mark" was able to contain himself for weeks? I think not - He'd have been on it straight away if he knew.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#224 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 28 Jul 2017 17:01

It wasn't until 6th October that Mary suddenly discovered (or more likely was told) it wasn't yet in use.
She was told but even then she didn't understand what she was being told. She said worde to the effect "it is not generally used yet", not that it wasn't in force yet. It was only when Droca picked up on it that the chimp started wetting his already p&ss stained Y fronts.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#225 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jul 2017 17:28

Northern Y-fronts are indeed the most p!ss stained.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#226 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jul 2017 17:52

JimUk1 wrote:
28 Jul 2017 16:29
He had no idea that the legislation had not yet come into force (as demonstrated by the reference to 75A when it is actually 25A)
Eh? Do you mean s26 of the CCA2013?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#227 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 28 Jul 2017 18:31

Yes, that's what I mean. I presume that's what he's on about?

I don't think the drivel that he posts over there is worthy of my time so I'm not really up to speed with his latest nonsense.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#228 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jul 2017 20:48

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, it took him 4 days but he's come up with an excuse... get ready to laugh.....
I have given this much thought, as it is, as you say a weighty matter, deserving of much debate.

I spelled libel wrong, is probably the answer. Though this is not the full picture.

I mean, if you are interested, and it seems that for some reason you are, I actually typed the word label.
My spell checker interpreted it as liable,
First thing that springs to mind is why would any spellchecker change the word 'label'? It's a perfectly proper word, spelled properly - a spellchecker would have no reason to change 'label' into 'liable'.

Take into account that he wrote 'liable' not once but twice, it is crystal clear that this is exactly what he meant to write. He honestly thought the two words were 'slander' and 'liable'.

Finally, how does he explain this magnificent spellchecker allowing such recent abominations as 'proceedure', 'ammount', 'vulnerabi8ty' and the king of them all - 'Guidkunbes'.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4087
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#229 Re: Really?

Post by Amy » 29 Jul 2017 20:54

Legislature was a good one too. I liked that one.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#230 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jul 2017 21:12

There are truly too many to mention. The best ones are when the entire sentence seems to make the spellchecker simply give up and go home.
I think sosts may have been dejeted, I dont know what happened in the end, I went to bed
If he had said that they were injunctd against continuing the sr would have had to be returned to the owner
H and the instrument,(note) ,does not say, the EA cannot etc.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4087
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#231 Re: Really?

Post by Amy » 29 Jul 2017 21:32

With regard to your signature and his words and of course ignoring the obvious about telling the truth, he is again wrong since 'verbal' comes from the Latin 'verbum' which means 'words' which can obviously mean either written or spoken. What he menans is 'oral'.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#232 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 29 Jul 2017 21:37

How would you know what you had typed if you thought you were typing the correct spelling of a word? He's claiming that he hit the "a" instead of the "I" yet they are at opposite ends of the keyboard.

Label
A small piece of paper, fabric etc attached to an object and giving information about it.

:lol:

One of the best things about the chimp is when he gets caught out bluffing or telling porkies, he attempts to move the goalposts or just tell another porky. I absolutely love watching him try to wriggle out of one of his disasters, only to end up looking an even bigger idiot than if he'd have just left it as it was and moved on. His FOI to Tameside regarding AOEs and claims that he knew what he was posting was wrong is my favourite but there have been many more.

It seems to me that the chimp's spellchecker is as thick as he is. Besides, he doesn't need one - We're always here to put him right. :twisted: I have to admit though that some of his more outlandish words and sentences are difficult to translate as demonstrated in Potes post above.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#233 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jul 2017 21:41

Whichever of the loons is posting under the name Francis fails to comprehend is that it's not about spelling (although a consistent mispelling of the same simple words does indicate a lack of education). It's about his utter inability to understand everyday phrases and what they mean and where they originate from. He hears a phrase then tries to insert that into a sentence to try to sound intelligent. He consistently fails. A few more examples:
Died in the wool
Setting a president
And of course
On Block.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#234 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jul 2017 21:44

Just remembered the time he was discussing the Pole Tax.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#235 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 29 Jul 2017 21:46

Amy wrote:
29 Jul 2017 21:32
With regard to your signature and his words and of course ignoring the obvious about telling the truth, he is again wrong since 'verbal' comes from the Latin 'verbum' which means 'words' which can obviously mean either written or spoken. What he menans is 'oral'.
The most important inaccuracy is that the chimp rarely "tells the truth", as demonstrated.

There are certainly many dishonest claims made about Jason that I have seen in the past that I know can easily be proven to be dishonest. Many in fairness, not made by the chimp but he still supports the claims because it suits him to do so.

One of the more reprehensible things about the chimp and his mistress is that they both regularly focus on things that they know are untrue. It is the tell tale sign of ignorant, stupid people who have no way of proving or winning an argument unless they distort the truth. Both are idiot, both know that they are idiots and both know that we know they are idiots. It must be really painful for them to have to live with this knowledge on a daily basis.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#236 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 29 Jul 2017 21:46

Pote Snitkin wrote:
29 Jul 2017 21:41
Whichever of the loons is posting under the name Francis fails to comprehend is that it's not about spelling (although a consistent mispelling of the same simple words does indicate a lack of education). It's about his utter inability to understand everyday phrases and what they mean and where they originate from. He hears a phrase then tries to insert that into a sentence to try to sound intelligent. He consistently fails. A few more examples:
Died in the wool
Setting a president
And of course
On Block.
Pole tax :lol:
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#237 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 30 Jul 2017 00:22

The chimp's finest hour:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... f-Earnings

Post #1, he pastes the response to a FOI that he sent to his local council. At this point, he is feeling very pleased with himself because he thinks that he has got one over BHF and it's members.

Post ~2, he triumphantly claims that the response to his FOI would upset some parties (meaning BHF)

Post #3, he pastes the legislation in the FOI response, just in case anyone had "difficulty" in locating it.

Post #5, he claims that he can see no reason why the opinion of Tameside cannot be applied universally.

Post #6, Madame pipes up with one of her "multitasking" moments and posts some hopelessly inaccurate nonsense

At this point, the chimp reads recent posts made on this forum, one such post, directing him to the current legislation and the fact that the legislation that the chimp was relying on in post #3 had been repealed.

It seems that as usual, the only person having "difficulty" in locating current legislation was the chimp himself. His own exercise had been futile. The knowledgeable members of BHF were fully aware of the situation regarding the repealing of some older legislation in order to ensure that the Schedule 12 procedure was not compromised.

Any normal person would, at this point call it a day and try to minimise his/her embarrassment. Not the chimp though, oh no.

Post #7, he tried to make out that he was aware all along that his FOI response was not worth the paper it was printed on. Of course, if that were really the case, it would not have upset any party, contrary to his claim in post #2.

Instead of bowing out gracefully, the chimp tried to blag and bluff his way out of it, making himself look an even bigger idiot with each additional post.

Madame had previously also incorrectly stated that fees could be added to AOEs. Furthermore, she claimed that a barrister had told her this. The thread then descends into a further 6 odd pages of drivel, mainly madame and the chimp telling each other how knowledgeable they both are and/or how nasty their (much wiser) critics are. Madame then bizarrely claims that she is "awaiting confirmation" on whether AOEs may include bailiff fees but she won't know the answer until January. Unsurprisingly, Madame never did come back to confirm the correct process. Three Januarys have passed since she promised to let us know. Oh well, there's always next January I guess.

Moral of the story? Both the chimp and Madame know deep down that if they need correct and accurate information, their friends on BHF will be only too happy to explain any given situation to them. There is no need to send FOIs to ill informed local authorities, all they need do is ask one of us.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#238 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 30 Jul 2017 00:38

Madame's in fine form tonight:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost5048153

The OP has received a NoE relating to a vehicle he has never set eyes upon, let alone owed. Madame's advice:
Almost certainly, you should be submitting an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre

Even Soppy Bob knows this is nonsense and even he is now beginning to question her:
BA Op says not their motor, and not been there for years, so how can OOT help if not driver or keeper?

Madame then moves the goalposts a touch:
The OOT should be a last resort
Not quite sure why it should be any resort at all, given that it is irrelevant if the car doesn't belong to the OP nor has it ever belonged to the OP.


Even the OP knows this basic stuff and takes to correcting madame:
I read an out of time witness statement definition and its merit as to me not receiving any notices,

however as I was not responsible for the act what so ever I am not sure if it will serve me.

Finally the penny drops for madame:
The OOT will likely not be required

So we go from "almost certainly" needing to submit an OOT to one "likely not be required" in the space of an hour and a half. Just another day in the crazy, mixed up world of madame.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#239 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jul 2017 12:53

Mark banging the drum about something he believes I said re attachment of earnings.
How does that affect the misinterpreted legislation as illustrated in my last post.
Is that when he argued tooth and nail that bailiff fees should be included in an attachment? Then his rant about 'proceeds':
So “contentious” an issue, that there has never been one incidence of any case anywhere even mentioning it.

No reports from the MOJ , no recommendations for amendments, nothing in the press, In fact, no confusion at all.

Could it be, no one considered there was any issue at all, do you think?
Erm..... I don't seem to recall any of the new rules being subject to reports, amendments, press etc, and there are certainly much more contentious issues to debate. Perhaps he can direct us to such reports or amendments on beneficial interest, direct payments, fee levels, etc.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#240 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 30 Jul 2017 13:45

:lol:

I noticed that he was spending time this morning going over that calamity of a thread.
...something he believes I said re attachment of earnings
There is not any question about what is said, it is there in black and white. The chimp stated in bright lights that he could not see any reason why the opinion of Tameside could not be applied universally. It is not a case of "believing" that the chimp said that, he did say it and it is there in black and white. As usual, he was 100% incorrect. In order to try to save face, he attempted some childish bullsh%t that everyone would see through by claiming that he knew all along that Tameside were wrong and that when he wanted everyone to universally apply Tameside's opinion, he didn't actually mean it. His pathetic attempts to save face are similar to the type of story you would expect from a naughty 10 year old who has been naughty and is trying to deny it. It's laughable and as I said previously, one of the best things about the chimp's posts.

As demonstrated, he cannot even write a coherent sentence - There is absolutely zilch chance of him being able to read, follow and understand legislation, he is a buffoon of the highest degree.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#241 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Jul 2017 18:39

If more evidence was needed of his inability to understand what is written.....
To compound is silly nonesece he says this :
#1964 Re: Consumer Action Group WrongAgainby Mark1960 » 10 Feb 2016 17:31Dodgeball (cluless clown & general idiot):”The implied rights of access does not refer to bailiffs, so please do not dependon this, you mast make sure your doors are locked, otherwise the bailiff willwalk in(and quite legally)”
——————————-
Again with the crap spelling. It is interesting how Mark attributes his own traits to others, it illustrates severe self-loathing issues.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

He's berating Mark for 'crap spelling', yet he's reading from a quote that he himself made!!!! :lol: The thread is here - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2581&p=47630p47630#p47630

He compounds that by starting his post with the words 'is' and 'nonesece' - obvioulsy the spellchecker was on a tea-break. He also forgets to include the second part of that post:
John Kruse (widely acknowledged authority on enforcement):
  • It is accepted that in some circumstances, an individual on lawful business may imply a licence to enter premises-For example, a bailiff may enter if he finds a door unlocked or standing open. The occupier of the premises may terminate an express or implied licence if s/he chooses
Lord have mercy. Just when you think his incompetence has reached its nadir, he surpasses himself again.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#242 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 30 Jul 2017 18:49

The sad, pathetic, small timer must have spent his entire Sunday afternoon going through old posts, looking for spelling mistakes. :lol: What an exciting life he must lead.

Even if he was able to find a spelling mistake from 2016, it hardly compares to his average of between 10 and 20 a day does it? :lol:

His problem here was that he was not looking at the actual post but rather a PDF that madame has sent him. It wouldn't have been clear that it was a quote and the chimp being the chimp is too thick to work it out. hence him bulldozing in at 100mph without thinking (as per usual) :lol:
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#243 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 31 Jul 2017 19:31

Can you believe this clown is still trying to argue that his 'on block' twaddle was correct? I reckon he's spent the past few days looking for anything that says he's correct, resorting to some guff written on Quatloos from 7 months ago.
Just been looking on Quatloos to see how they deal with your en bloc nonsense. http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... oc#p238158

Re: UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg
Postby Hercule Parrot » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:44 am

“in blocks of” and “en bloc” basically mean the same thing. Tuco is confused, or attempting to confuse others.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Erm.... no Hercule, 'en bloc' means 'at the same time', 'all at once', 'altogether'. Why you felt the need to waste time in trying to defend such an ill-educated buffoon is beyond me. Unless of course you are one of the boresome foursome.

Still, seeing as Shifter has been so intent on trying (and failing) to prove he's correct, I guess we can look forward to his explanations for 'died in the wool', 'setting a president' and 'pole tax'. Shouldn't take him more than a fortnight I reckon.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#244 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 31 Jul 2017 20:02

Definition of block:
A large solid piece of hard material
So "on block" means that you are on a large solid piece of hard material.


Definition of en bloc:
All together or at the same time
So when the chimp stated that debts were sold on block, he either meant that they were all sold together at the same time or that they were sold whilst they were positioned on a large solid piece of hard material.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1986
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#245 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 31 Jul 2017 22:19

Pote Snitkin wrote:
31 Jul 2017 19:31
Still, seeing as Shifter has been so intent on trying (and failing) to prove he's correct, I guess we can look forward to his explanations for 'died in the wool', 'setting a president' and 'pole tax'.
This one may well come back after Brexit... ;)
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

Post Reply