Really?

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

#316 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 09:52

This would be my reply to the ch1mp:

Dear Ch1mp

Further to your recent emails, I would point out that the members on this forum are simply responding to the constant harassment, defamation, lies and abuse carried out by yourself and your 3 cronies. At the last count, this amounted to more than 400 A4 pages and you, yourself have been responsible for making as many as 50 posts per day. This thread and others like it simply exists to give our members the opportunity to respond to your campaign of harassment.

With regards to your demands, please can you supply me with the following information in order to enable me to consider your request further:

•sufficient details to identify the publication which contained the words complained of;
•the words complained of and, if known, the date of publication; where possible, a copy or transcript of the words complained of;
•factual inaccuracies or unsupportable comment within the words complained of;
•the nature of the remedies sought (currently he has not made any sensible suggestion of a remedy)
•any facts or matters which make the Claimant identifiable from the words complained of;
•details of any special facts relevant to the interpretation of the words complained of and/or any particular damage caused by the words complained of.
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

#317 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 09:54

It is also noteworthy that the ch1mp's standard response to anyone who complained about the reprehensible comments on his blog was:

"If you don't like it - Don't read it"

I suggest that you take a leaf out of your own book ch1mp, you buffoon.
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

#318 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Aug 2017 12:14

I can't seem to find any reference to the words or phrases he wants removed, not even any of his forum usernames. He continues to refuse to point out any thread, page or post that offends him and why it offends him. I can't make him out - he seems to be completely paranoid.
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

#319 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 12:34

Pote Snitkin wrote:
20 Aug 2017 12:14
I can't seem to find any reference to the words or phrases he wants removed, not even any of his forum usernames. He continues to refuse to point out any thread, page or post that offends him and why it offends him. I can't make him out - he seems to be completely paranoid.
He's a buffoon with nowhere else to turn. He's never sought to cease this vendetta before he was given an ultimatum to do so from the police. He has no genuine desire for a "ceasefire", his whole life revolves around internet spats, he'll be lost without them. He regularly posted previous attempts to stop the bickering on his blog in order to gloat and mock the person who was offering him an olive branch and he flatly refused Jason's request in a recorded telephone conversation, boasting on his blog that he had told Jason to "shut his mouth"

Look at his latest pack of lies:
1. I have no idea what you are talking about, re being "banned", undoubtedly it has something t do with some other scheme, and it has no interest for me.
Allow me to remind you ch1mp: You boasted on your blog how you had succeeded in "getting Mark & Pote banned from LB but it also meant that you yourself had been banned but it was worth it". What actually happened was a vulnerable person was deprived of help and assistance. Fortunately, the person found his way to this forum and we were able to resolve his problem for him. Would you like me to link the post for you?

My only interest is to have all the outstanding abusive posts about me removed.
Yet you have never attempted to stop this before. Why is it your only interest now, after 3 years of bickering? Anything to do with the police intervention by any chance?

The purpose is to stop all the abusive posts.
Oh right - "Jason costs a debtor £4,000" will stop abusive posts will it?

Now may i suggest we stop all this sillyness and just get down to removing some posts
Yet for the past 8 months, you have persecuted a man who is extremely vulnerable - He has at least 2 pages dedicated to humiliating, abusing and victimising him yet he hasn't posted anywhere for the past 12 months, let alone posted abuse. Why have you not stopped your own "silliness" by removing the posts persecuting this man? As I recall, when he attempted to contact you to ask that you remove the lies you allowed to remain about him, you threatened to post his emails on your website if he dared ask you again.


You are truly amongst the most vile, disgusting human beings on this planet.
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

#320 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 13:26

I would like to give you the opportunity to comply with what I consider to be a very reasonable request, before escalating this further to a police complaint
:lol: :lol: :lol:

The buffoon actually thinks that it is reasonable to expect a forum owner to trawl through thousands of posts looking for things that the buffoon may not like or agree with.

Yes ch1mp you certainly are the most reasonable of people and it is of course very reasonable to expect Amy to do your dirty work for you.

You've been spending too much time with Lady Hardon. Not long back, she obtained information from Shazza from LB on how to request posts be removed. Shazza told Hardon of the need to list each individual post so that it was identifiable.

Unfortunately, Hardon was pencilled in for dinner with the Prime Minister that night, to discuss how the reform of bailiff law was panning out, so Hardon wasn't able to construct such a list, that would have been extremely monotonous and of course, time consuming.

All was not lost though and Hardon was able to designate the task of trawling through all of the old posts. The lucky volunteer then spent hours constructing a list of posts that he thought that Hardon would require removing.

I wonder how Hardon repaid such sterling work by the volunteer?
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

#321 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 13:58

Yesterday the ch1mp said:
Please remove all posts which refer to me as a “The ch1mp”,

Today the ch1mp said:
It seems that you have just substituted one abusive term for another. This is not what was required

Tough - Send a list in then, listing any post you find offensive, the reason why you find it offensive and the reason why you believe the post makes you identifiable.
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

#322 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Aug 2017 15:46

Hmmmm....
I just thought I would clear up tismissunderstandingby Mr Bowley

Please remove all posts which refer to me as a “The ch1mp”,

Today the ch1mp said:
It seems that you have just substituted one abusive term for another. This is not what was required

The key phrase here is: ” remove all POSTS” . NOT locate the posts and alter them.
I can't see any posts that refer to him as 'the c-h-i-m-p'. Perhaps he needs to explain where they are so they can be removed.
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

#323 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 16:11

Fcuk him - Who does he think he is? How is it possible to remove posts without first locating them? The man is a complete and utter buffoon. It is clearly one of his "may" means "may not" moments and exactly why it is pointless trying to negotiate or communicate with the cret1n.

Nobody is interested in his unwelcome and unwanted mail so he needs to save it for someone who gives a fcuk.
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
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4087
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#324 Re: Really?

Post by Amy » 20 Aug 2017 16:14

How can they possibly be removed without first locating them! Jesus, we don't all sit around with sod all to do all day and if he wants me to work for him, he'll need very deep pockets.

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

#325 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 16:45

The ch1mp & "very deep pockets"

The mind boggles.

As I said, it just shows how thick he is and just how pointless it is to get dragged down to his level by arguing with him.

"I didn't say locate the posts" FFS

Perhaps he thought you'd get an African witch doctor in to find them for you?
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

#326 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Aug 2017 17:31

In my response on here, i said:
“. NOT locate the posts and alter them” see below.”

Mark, you cannot, or should not just take the part of a sentence you wish to use and disregard the rest.

Leads you to wonder how he gets on in everyday life.

My request was, yet again, to remove posts.
Yes we fully understand what you said. Please point out the posts that refer to your good self as 'c-h-i-m-p', 'm-o-r-o-n', 'r-e-t-a-r-d', or whatever term is offending you.
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:

#327 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Aug 2017 18:36

I'm going to intervene here.

He has put my name all over his website. Submitted it to Google knowing what damage that causes. I ask Amy not to remove any material until my name and his website is permanently gone.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#328 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 18:39

I see no point in giving him the platform to turn this into another ch1mp argument.

At the end of the day he can provide a list of posts that he has issues with, detailing why he feels that they constitute harassment and why he considers they connect to him and his request will be considered OR he can leave it as it is and go crying to the police that people are calling him nasty names on the internet.

Makes no difference to me either way but I won't be supplying him with oxygen to indulge in his childishness
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

#329 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 19:17

Schedule 12 wrote:
20 Aug 2017 18:36
I'm going to intervene here.

He has put my name all over his website. Submitted it to Google knowing what damage that causes. I ask Amy not to remove any material until my name and his website is permanently gone.
Jason

The ch1mp has offered nothing. He has simply retaliated because he has been contacted by the police.

He seeks no end to anything and this has been shown time and time again by previous efforts to reason with him.

Unless you drive up there and bang his head against the wall, he will carry on.

I wouldn't even bother attempting to reason with him
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:

#330 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Aug 2017 19:26

I cannot visit him. It's in police hands now.

Let's give him an opportunity to remove everything and stop his vendetta. If he doesn't, the police can deal with him.

It would be easier to start civil proceedings. That gets him to London and we can have a chat. First, we must let the criminal aspect run its course.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#331 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 20:29

JimUk1 wrote:
20 Aug 2017 13:26
I would like to give you the opportunity to comply with what I consider to be a very reasonable request, before escalating this further to a police complaint
:lol: :lol: :lol:

The buffoon actually thinks that it is reasonable to expect a forum owner to trawl through thousands of posts looking for things that the buffoon may not like or agree with.

Yes ch1mp you certainly are the most reasonable of people and it is of course very reasonable to expect Amy to do your dirty work for you.

You've been spending too much time with Lady Hardon. Not long back, she obtained information from Shazza from LB on how to request posts be removed. Shazza told Hardon of the need to list each individual post so that it was identifiable.

Unfortunately, Hardon was pencilled in for dinner with the Prime Minister that night, to discuss how the reform of bailiff law was panning out, so Hardon wasn't able to construct such a list, that would have been extremely monotonous and of course, time consuming.

All was not lost though and Hardon was able to designate the task of trawling through all of the old posts. The lucky volunteer then spent hours constructing a list of posts that he thought that Hardon would require removing.

I wonder how Hardon repaid such sterling work by the volunteer?
A little bird tells me that Lady Hardon is non too pleased by the above post.

I believe that she even had to leave a Sunday lunch date with the Queen earlier today in order to inform the lucky volunteer that they must stand in the corner with a dunces cap on for an hour because they revealed this information to me.

I'm heartbroken to have upset Lady Hardon. :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
Schedule 12
Posts: 13241
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#332 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Aug 2017 20:33

She has a data protection case to answer when the police are done. She took my personal data, gave it to Peter Bardsley, and look what he did with it?

Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#333 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 21:46

Testing, testing 1,2,3:

Peter Bardsley AKA Dodgeball (Stalybridge) is a semi-literate cretin who is fondly known as the chimp because he is as thick as two short planks
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

#334 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 21:53

Whey Hey!

It works

Thank God for that - All those codes were doing my head in.

Anyway, here's another little tale just to P madame off:

Shortly after Tony had his stroke, Lady Hardon was out painting the windows (if only we could have got a photo of that :lol: ) when she fell off the step ladders. She injured herself so badly that she was unable to work.

Now I'm not trying to put 2 + 2 together here to make 5 but it was around this time that all those convictions she claimed that she had got "overturned" for not paying car tax occurred.

I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions.
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

#335 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Aug 2017 22:13

So..... are the gloves now off?
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

#336 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 22:26

Looks like it to me - Let's make hay while the sun shines.

Here is the full content of Bardsley's unwanted and unwelcome email:
Dear Ms Sexy Legs

Re “Amy “ – Administrator, Owner and Operator of the Bailiff Help Forum.

I have recently been in conversation with a PC ##### ####### and, during
the course of this conversation, I mentioned my wish to complain about the
content of a large number of posts on the forum operated by yourself, which
are filled with personal abuse, insults, derogatory and defamatory remarks
about myself [and others]. I have been told that such content may be
actionable on a complaint to the police under various pieces of
legislation. The PC’s advice was to start by contacting the site owner and
give them the opportunity to remove the offending content before proceeding
with a complaint.

On talking to Mr Bennison, whom we considered to be the site owner, we were
surprised to hear that you were in charge of the site, which would mean any
complaints regarding content should be addressed to you in the first
instance. In your capacity as the Website Owner and Operator, I request the
following:

· Please remove all posts which refer to me as a “chimp”, or as
being mentally or physically disabled or to any illness or medical
condition I may suffer from.
· Please remove all posts that refer to my income, possessions,
pensionable status or benefits I may be claiming or allegedly claim.
· Please remove any posts where my home, place of residence or
family are mentioned.
· Please remove any posts where it is implied that I am handicapped
or suffer from some mental incapacity, for example, posts where word such
as “retardsley”, “screwball”, “halfwit”, “moron”, “cretin”, etc. are used
to refer to myself.
· Please remove any mention of information obtained from internet
searches on my name or anything connected with me.

I have no issues with anything related to legal arguments or discussions
about forum advice staying in place, however, where any of the above
content is present within the post, the whole post must be removed.

I would like to give you the opportunity to comply with what I consider to
be a very reasonable request, before escalating this further to a police
complaint, and I have said as much to PC ###### ########, who was in
agreement. To that effect, I am willing to give you until the 1st of
September 2017 to remove the objectionable content outlined above. This is
in line with the deadline given to Mr Bennison by PC ##### ######.

Kind regards

Peter F Bardsley
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

#337 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 20 Aug 2017 22:49

Bardsley's second unwanted and unwelcome email:
Amy.

It seems that you have just substituted one abusive term for another. This is not what was required, nor is it what was stated in the complaint.

The action will be regarding persistent abuse and harassment, trading one insult for another doesn't alter the frequency or the intent of the posts, only their removal can do that.

The fact that you permitted this childish attempt to misinterpret the intent of the request merely implicates you further. The person the insults are intended for are clearly identified by the material they are quoting

Until the offending posts are removed the deadline stands. We will see if the police regard this action as reducing the incidence of events, as required by the harassment act.
:lol: :lol: :lol: He actually thought he was in a position to make demands.
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

#338 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Aug 2017 08:11

Up until gone 3am writing letters (which will of course be well drafted).

I wonder if she's thought of this though.....
SH-049.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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

#339 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 21 Aug 2017 10:22

Please remove any posts where my home, place of residence or
family are mentioned.
Whenever I look at that picture of his home, I imagine the chimp trudging up the drive, duffle bag over his shoulder, with this music playing in the background:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRaiiT3ZnJw
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:

#340 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Aug 2017 12:03

Sheila Harding. Peter Bardsley. You should take note of this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... roach.html

Hurling abuse online to be a criminal offence.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#341 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 21 Aug 2017 12:23

They don't hurl abuse as such, they seek to cause as much damage to your business as they possibly can.

Harding has always been extremely sly and crafty - She gets others to do her dirty work and controls what others post by manipulating weak individuals.

This is evident by reading how Sue Oddy and Peter Bardsley are in complete awe of her. They are the ones who do Harding's dirty work - Two very stupid and completely uneducated individuals who know no better than to allow themselves to be manipulated by Harding.

Hopefully Harding will have some more windows to paint soon.
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

#342 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Aug 2017 12:24

It must be very dark in her house if she keeps painting the windows.
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:

#343 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Aug 2017 12:38

DWB will be staying on the internet whether they like it or not.

We have a matter of a DPA breach to discuss.
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

#344 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Aug 2017 12:44

I'm still waiting for her to reveal who I am. Both she and fatty Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car claim to know - apprantly with a select few others. Funny how the chimp told the police the opposite and that it's of great frustration that they don't know. Perhaps he's not in the circle of trust.
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:

#345 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Aug 2017 12:55

It doesn't matter. All Sheila will do is put your name all over the internet, then accuse you of abusing HER over the internet. A hypocrite to the Nth degree.

It's just as well none of them know who you are.

Remember how the Oddys reacted when they were busted.

Susan Oddy put my name on the internet for the first time. When her name was exposed, she complained she was being abused. Another hypocrite.

For the record. I didn't expose her. She annoyed someone else on the internet and they exposed her. She was fighting Sheila's internet flame wars and got burned.

I telephoned Peter and asked him to remove my name from the internet, he wouldn't and look where it got him. A jobless nobody supported by the social sitting on a sofa with his laptop.

He can end it all today if he wanted to. But he has to end it by September 01 in any event.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#346 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 21 Aug 2017 13:38

Jason

You really have to understand the chimp and his mind set.

The man is a simpleton who craves acceptance and recognition by his peers. He seeks to gain this by singling out targets online such as yourself in order to make out that he is a man of knowledge and/or experience in law. He is neither, so all he has to fall back on is bluffs and cyber stalking.

He is severely disabled and I'd guess that he rarely leaves his house other than for doctors or hospital appointments. He clearly can't read, so reading books is not really an option for him and TV as we all know is a waste of time. This leaves the chimp with little else to do with his time other than to trawl the internet, which he does from the minute he gets up, to the minute he goes back to bed again.

He has always sought conflict online, choosing to pick on people who can't defend themselves, whilst placed nicely behind the safety of his keyboard. He has done it for years, ruining many genuine threads in the process. He will not close his blog because it is his life - He has become addicted to it.

If you want to stop him, you either need to go up there and growl at him or completely ignore him (like all intelligent people do) Just laugh at his attempts to look clever on CAG, they can be highly amusing. Let him write on his silly blog - Nobody reads it anyway other than a handful of retards whom you would not waste your breath speaking to in real life in any case. Look at him, he can't advise anyone online so he snipes at those who can, he can't even provide for himself yet tries to create this image of himself being a prosperous owner of a property empire. He is a pathetic, sad waste of space who is best ignored.
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:

#347 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Aug 2017 14:20

I don't want to look into his mindset. What he does with his life on the internet doesn't concern me. It only concerns me when he is affecting my business.

Sheila became embittered when I made a success with DWB and tried in vain to shut it down.

That was customers choice.

I don't go round clandestinely poaching customers from other peoples websites and making repeated malicious complaints to public authorities. I accept that is the work of Clive Oddy, but he used personal data and factual inaccuracies about my private life that had previously been published on the internet by Sheila.

Clive and Susan Oddy had no business loss. They did not charge £75 to appeal a parking ticket - something offered here for free! Yet became so angry they devoted their lives as internet trolls targeting DWB and me personally. Likewise, Peter Bardsley, he is state supported, so nothing to lose from Sheila's demise.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#348 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 21 Aug 2017 14:44

Until you understand his mind set. You will be going around in circles with this,

He clearly has no feelings for the debtors whose threads he disrupts on CAG & LB so he certainly won't have any feelings for you. He is scum who cares only for himself.

You are not dealing with someone who possesses morals, standards or ethics so you are wasting your time trying to negotiate with him.
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:

#349 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Aug 2017 15:13

Jim, I already know.

He gives wrong advice because he knows it starts a flame war. The casualty is the customer. We have dozens of victims on this board whose cases we have solved and recovered money.

It's why he is banned.

LB banned him and Sheila for the same reason. LB has not seen a single flame war since.

That leaves CAG. It's still blighted by flame wars. The latest was the "sgtbush" thread when Peter used his "Dodgeball" name (Post #66) as the aggravator.
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

#350 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Aug 2017 20:47

Once again the vile chimp joins a thread solely to create conflict and argument. Never a single word of helpful advice only mudslinging, insults and interpretations he knows are wrong. When will CAG learn?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Post Reply