Really?

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

#281 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Aug 2017 19:13

JimUk1 wrote:
08 Aug 2017 18:47
Where has he said that?
Who dx? My last post looks a bit unclear - they are both Madame quotes.
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:

#282 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 08 Aug 2017 19:17

JimUk1 wrote:
08 Aug 2017 18:20
All hail the saving grace though - She's been posting 10 years and doesn't need to be told what to do.
Even then, her advice was brought into question.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#283 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 08 Aug 2017 23:52

Pote Snitkin wrote:
08 Aug 2017 18:37
Please calm down. I have been posting here for over 10 years and I don't need a new visitor suggesting whether a subject should be moved to a 'discussion thread'.


So has DX - just look at the guff he comes out with.
DX has made over 100,000 posts, probably the highest pile of turds to be found anywhere on the planet! He always reminded me of a '60s robot, equipped with a handful of pre-programmed tracks he relies on for all his posts.
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.

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

#284 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 09 Aug 2017 08:26

Schedule 12 wrote:
08 Aug 2017 19:17
JimUk1 wrote:
08 Aug 2017 18:20
All hail the saving grace though - She's been posting 10 years and doesn't need to be told what to do.
Even then, her advice was brought into question.
One night last week, at around midnight, she was reading a thread started by you from 2007. :o

I know she is never going to drop this obsession but what the hell goes on inside that mind of hers?

What prompts all this bitterness, hatred, venom and anger? What have you ever done to her to provoke such feelings?

With all these mistakes and inaccurate pieces of information that she's coming out with, you'd think she'd want to spend her time reading up on bailiff law, not worrying herself over you.

I'm currently calling her "one a day Sheils" due to the frequency of her howlers
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

#285 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Aug 2017 08:52

It's strange that she doesn't highlight this LGO decision, as it's the same position Dave finds himself in, albeit for a PCN.
24. I have considered the actions taken by the enforcement agent. I consider that when the agent traced Mr D’s current address and noted that it had strong evidence of this, it should have written to that address. I have not seen evidence that it did. Shortly after this the agent received a letter returned marked “gone away”. It does not appear that the agent said it writing to the new address it had traced. However, in February 2016 the agent continued its action to the enforcement stage adding fees of £235 when it visited Mr D’s former address. In April 2016 the agent amended the address details to Mr D’s current address, the address that it had found in November 2015. There was no explanation in the agent’s notes why it changed the address at that point. I consider the agent’s apparent failure to pursue its own strong evidence was fault, which led to injustice in the form of the additional fees.

25. The Council responded to my draft decision and stated that its enforcement agent had not exhausted its recovery efforts using the original address given. However, I consider that in view of the strong evidence it had received, the enforcement agent should have followed this up by writing to the new address it found or calling the telephone number it traced. I consider that if it had done so Mr D would have paid or made an arrangement to pay following an explanation of the outstanding debt. This would have avoided the costs of £235.

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefit ... 16-008-217
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

#286 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 09 Aug 2017 09:14

Oh dear - The chimp is shown up to wrong again and madame's day has just started to go downhill and it's only just gone 9am.
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
Schedule 12
Posts: 13241
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#287 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Aug 2017 09:18

JimUk1 wrote:
09 Aug 2017 08:26


One night last week, at around midnight, she was reading a thread started by you from 2007. :o

I know she is never going to drop this obsession but what the hell goes on inside that mind of hers?

What prompts all this bitterness, hatred, venom and anger? What have you ever done to her to provoke such feelings?
I questioned her integrity on the CAG board and corrected her wrong advice.

She became ad-hominem after I started DWB.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#288 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Aug 2017 09:28

It's the feorcity of it though. Why didn't she just let you get on with it, let you sink or swim and just focus on her own clients? She was obviously rattled by something - I can't see this just a case of her ego so there must have been something else she was protecting, some sort of vested interest maybe.
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:

#289 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Aug 2017 10:25

She didn't have any clients. A CAG moderator of the day stopped her clandestinely sending private messages.

We both offered help with bailiff queries but my business model worked which drew away customers from her and the CAG forum.

She with the monkey took the law into her own hands because she could not deliver sucessful results I did.

I am truly amazed she took her vendetta to such a level. She risks everything, even changing address and hiding behind other people even when she knew it is detrimental to them, in order to further her agenda.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#290 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Aug 2017 14:28

Shifter is becoming more and more rattled on his blog. Squeaky bum time is it? Has madame spilled the beans?
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

#291 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 10 Aug 2017 21:22

Any ideas on 'Clint Parsons'? For the record, not me. I'm sure the mods can check the IP.
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
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1986
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#292 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 10 Aug 2017 21:25

I thought it was you... :? :roll:

I find strange that they shouldn't have removed the thread nor banned the OP, they banned a lot of people for much less than that...

Maybe they're all on hols... where is DX? Surely he'd have closed the thread and banned the OP, maybe there's no WiFi in Merthyr Tidfyl...
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

#293 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 10 Aug 2017 21:29

That said, the chimp does only post to make snide comments at anyone who disagrees with himself or madame. Perhaps someone will take the time to find when he last made a post that was direct advice for a debtor.
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

#294 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 10 Aug 2017 21:35

It's funny how Shifter and madame are trying to turn it into a thread to attack 'alreadyexists'. They just can't help themselves. The spite and ego simply run too deep with them.
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

#295 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 10 Aug 2017 21:39

I became interested in the TCE in 2006 when Baroness Ashton placed the white paper for the TCE in the hands of the house of lords
You'd think he'd have some sort of understanding of it by now then. :lol:

I can see him coming out with some corkers if that thread is allowed to live.
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

#296 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 10 Aug 2017 21:51

Don't mean to be rude but when you say "your health" I presume you mean your mental health - because that's how most of your incoherent posts come across. So maybe chillax, take some time out and stop mashing your fists on the keyboard trying to recreate old memories?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

He'll probably think it's me now - "mashing your fists" is something I've often used. This person does seem to have either been watching or is someone well all know.
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

#297 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 10 Aug 2017 22:19

I would have also liked to enjoy the very same privilege of remaining anonymous on here but it was mainly you (and to a lesser degree, your two colleagues) who put paid to that.

:lol: :lol:

So nothing to do with her own reminders that she was 'tomtubby' who would make numerous reminders of her 'commercial business'? Nothing to do with her avatar being the banner from her website? Nothing to do with if being obvious that she's 'Bailiff Advice Online' on other sites with numerous mentions of her business - the same business that Herbie21 on MSE is always reminding everyone of?

She's beyond parody.
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

#298 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 10 Aug 2017 22:34

Or of course her "accidental" slips that she contributes to a "very well respected publication" or that she contributed to JBWs guidance for their bailffs.

I dare say that Jason would have liked to remain anonymous too but she decided that it was "in the public interest" for him to be named. As usual, she was judge and jury in Sheilalalaland.
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

#299 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 11 Aug 2017 07:41

Ah well, it didn't survive the night then.
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

#300 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 13 Aug 2017 12:22

It was revealed in court that the lad had two previous convictions for not paying a train fare so hopefully, after this 3rd occasion, he may change his behaviour !!! Here's hoping anyway.
Oh the irony :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
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6558
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#301 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 13 Aug 2017 16:52

How did she type that with a straight face?

On a side note, they don't half attract them over they don't they? Sgtbush.... another one who seems unable to actually read and understand. Twice he's ranted about the guy in the article having 6 previous fare evasion convictions despite the article saying this was not true.

Renegadeimp wants a three strikes rule - that really works in some U.S. states where someone can commit 3 misdemeanours and face a 50 year sentence.
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

#302 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Aug 2017 13:21

Why is Lairy Mary getting so wound up over on CAG?
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

#303 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 16 Aug 2017 18:50

Probably because she's been getting shown up to be posting clueless nonsense on an almost daily basis.

Or maybe it's because big seanamarts has got some of her own intellectual, non-hostile mates to help out with her bailiff issues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbxCrXlGNCw
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
Schedule 12
Posts: 13241
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#304 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Aug 2017 19:11

Seanamarts was once on this board throwing insults at me. I've just read her, rather aggressive CAG thread and she repeatedly contradicts herself , - not receiving a letter about a court fine, then says her son believed the fine is £80, her son's vulnerability etc.

It's a spoof thread designed to provoke another flame war.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#305 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Aug 2017 19:37

Makes me laugh that she even spelled her username wrong.
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

#306 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Aug 2017 21:15

Is there a reason they don't want to name Iain Whipp?
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

#307 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Aug 2017 09:37

Did somebody hear a penny drop?
You have to remember also that national standards are not law, it is only guidelines and does not bind the action of the bailiffs or the authority.
It is nevertheless worth mentioning in any complaint as it serves to remind the parties of the acceptable standards of behavior.
Wasn't he arguing a few days ago that to complain about NS not being adhered to was ludicrous? It's strange how he doesn't remind madame of the same when she posted:
I would not hold out any hope of the council recalling the account. Mainly, this is because of Section 11 of the Taking Control of Goods National Standards that states the following:

11. Creditors agreeing the suspension of a warrant or making direct payment arrangements with debtors must give appropriate notification to and should pay appropriate fees due to the enforcement agent for the work they have undertaken.
As has been said many, many times, he'll use whatever fits his argument at the time. Perhaps he has shares in a flip-flop company?
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

#308 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 17 Aug 2017 10:42

It wouldn't be so bad if he actually knew what he was talking about but he just comes out with any old nonsense just to argue.

He then has the added dimension of accusing others of being argumentative. Funny how all these "argumentative" people just so happen to correct BAs constant misinformation.

In BAs crazy mixed up world, I'm sure that she genuinely believes that anyone who challenges her is argumentative. However the people who really matter (the debtors) are benefiting from BA being pulled for posting rubbish.
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
Schedule 12
Posts: 13241
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#309 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Aug 2017 11:36

That suits me fine. I just taken a new client from CAG ballsed up by that pair.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#310 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Aug 2017 11:52

Jeez - where did the OP dig that ancient template from?
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

#311 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Aug 2017 08:36

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

#312 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 19 Aug 2017 11:35

You'll be getting "unwelcome and unwanted" emails next.

Oh no - On second thoughts, the chimp wouldn't be such a hypocrite as to send unwelcome and unwanted emails would he?
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

#313 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 19 Aug 2017 13:17

Couldn't we change "Lady Marmalade" to "The Hillman Imp"?
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

#314 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 19 Aug 2017 18:23

"stop calling me a Hillman Imp"
"stop talking about chez Bard"
"stop calling me a cretin"
"stop talking about my benefits"

Awww didums. The big bad bully can't take it any more.

What's the matter bully boy? Is that all you've got left, you big crybaby?

:lol: :lol: :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.

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

#315 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 09:18

This is not what was required, nor is it what was stated in the complaint.
I don't think that you're in any position to make demands are you ch1mp? You are more guilty than anyone else of harassing others - You've done little else other than harass people for the last 5 years to my knowledge and probably longer than that. You do not have grounds to complain to anyone, either civil or criminal. You have persistently ignored requests from the police to desist (although the PIN served on you recently by South Wales police seems to have stopped you and your cronies from persecuting a vulnerable person with serious health issues)

As for your requests to "remove all references to my disability" Are you really that stupid? Nobody has mentioned your disability other than you. You always hide behind it like the coward that you are whenever it looks like someone might be making a personal visit to you. "Oh I had to change my phone number which has affected my hospital visits" Everyone get the violins out. Furthermore, there are 1000's of posts on this forum - Do you seriously think the onus is on someone else to trawl back through them all? It would take weeks and unlike you ch1mp, most of us all have jobs to do - We don't all have lives that revolve around this silly internet spat. If you want posts removed, you should submit a list of those you consider offensive and the reasons why you feel they are offensive. Simply being called a "ch1mp" may not be nice but I doubt the police or the court would be interested in a crybaby bleating about it. You've been a bully for years but you bit off more than you can chew this time didn't you ch1mp? Everyone now knows you are a semi-literate buffoon.

You have been asked by numerous people to stop your campaign of hatred over the past 8 or 9 months and stuck 2 fingers up to everyone, including police officers. It seems now that this time, you are being placed into a position where you can not do so, so in a last gasp attempt to retain face, you are making demands to Amy - A person that you have also regularly insulted and humiliated in the past.

You are not only disgusting but also pathetic.
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.

Post Reply