Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#71 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 21:36

Why does anyone want to question him? He's simply confirmed what we were saying and that is, that Jason was called in to help at the last minute.

The only issue that Mr Johnson had was with Sheila-Does anyone either here or on CAG really think that Sheila wouldn't have been desperate to get hold of anything that was written by Jason? At all costs?

I see nothing regrettable about that-In fact the only thing that I think is regrettable is Sheilas behaviour, her lies and the misinformation she leaked to her lackeys and general sheep. Talk about ending up with egg on their faces.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#72 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 21:44

Pote Snitkin wrote:And still the denials continue - Assneck continuing with the accusation that Jason wrote the post. This is despite Mr J posting with a CAG account he opened in 2010.

Still no comment on Ron's £1700 bill.
A few hours ago, he, along with all the other idiots were questioning the claim that Jason was called in at the last minute.

Now the Claimant himself comes in to confirm this and he is accused of allowing Jason to write the post for him-That is a pathetic and reprehensible statement Rob-You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Tex Johnson has fought this case alone for the past 3 years-He was prepared to fight and take on the system-A system that is far from fair or just. Do you really think that is the type of soppy man who allows others to write posts on his behalf? Why don't you just accept that Mr Johnson was correct and Sheila had been leading you all down the garden path?

And yes-How come you are protecting Ron, when he has fleeced this debtor to the tune of £1700?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#73 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 21:48

Mr Shifter has bitterly posted, as usual in his hairy fat-fisted manner leaving us to decipher it:
No he isn't that clever. Al they have done is distract interest awy from the fact that another person has been screwed by the court due to bad advice being given on there. Usually they just resort to silly name calling and emndless searches into people s personal history, this time they are doeing taht and this also, same ol same ole
Ummm..... Mr J did not take advice from here you pranny. How much further into denial can they sink?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#74 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 21:49

Right on cue Einstein pops up:
No he isn't that clever. Al they have done is distract interest awy from the fact that another person has been screwed by the court due to bad advice being given on there. Usually they just resort to silly name calling and emndless searches into people s personal history, this time they are doeing taht and this also, same ol same ole
As if anyone pays any interest in what the village idiot has to say. No doubt he'll point us to the "bad advice" Mr Johnson has been given? Maybe not though but as usual with this semi-literate cretin, the dramatized version makes better reading than the truth.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#75 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 21:51

:P Beat you to it :P
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: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#76 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 21:52

Pote Snitkin wrote: saying she has the judgement but refuses to post it.
Its in our members board. its not going to give anything new.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#77 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 21:55

emndless searches into people s personal history
Do you mean like Sheila does with us?

Don't you remember that thread on Legal All Sorts when she got you to name my wife, refer to my business, refer to my children and various other bits of personal stuff? Like an obedient lackey, you duly obliged didn't you?

How ironic that on one hand she was doing this and on the other hand, making veiled threats to admin there to remove identical references about herself.

You pair are the biggest hypocrites I've ever encountered.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#78 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 21:56

Pote Snitkin wrote:A final copy of the judgement. Once again, Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car is passing on information for her to post. His vendetta against Jason is only second to hers.
Im not convinced he has a vendetta against me anymore.

At court he never showed me any disrespect. The funny thing was it even crossed my mind that he might one day switch sides and represent my clients wronged by non-compliance with schedule 12.

Sleeping with the enemy is never impossible no matter how preposterous that may be.

My Newlyn clients are not wealthy but at least he gets paid win or lose. Its the HCEO clients, especially businesses and companies that are high value and don't mind paying.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#79 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 21:59

jasonDWB wrote: Sleeping with the enemy is never impossible no matter how preposterous that may be.
I look forward to the tales of you and Fenella from under the eiderdown.





On second thoughts, perhaps not. :shock:
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: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#80 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 22:00

Pote Snitkin wrote: It is further regrettable that his post from here has been reposted on another social media site but strangely, it has been posted by the McKenzie himself (as opposed to the claimant), Thereby of course blocking the claimant from answering any queries.
The only blocking the debate is Sheila. The CAG thread was deleted in its entirety and the debate moved elsewhere.

I can ask Tex to join the debate.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#81 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 22:05

Mark1960 wrote: I see nothing regrettable about that-In fact the only thing that I think is regrettable is Sheilas behaviour, her lies and the misinformation she leaked to her lackeys and general sheep. Talk about ending up with egg on their faces.
The ones that has posted on the thread before it was deleted were Dodgeball, josephbloggs, Renegade and Ploddertom. Sheila did her trademark runner. She must have been fretting every minute that post was on the CAG board.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#82 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Apr 2016 22:10

brass wrote:Which makes me feel the post was the work of the McKenzie, shame about the judgment not being posted.
brass wrote:Mr Johnson probably had the post part written as he named the Guru in it. Anyway might be better to let sleeping dogs lie, and we will have to search for the judgment.
Just for you soppy chops.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#83 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 22:18

Ah yes, but that's the version that Clemens tried to slip through stating Jason assisted. This got amended.
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: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#84 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 21 Apr 2016 22:37

Mark1960 wrote:
Amy wrote:
Sheila wrote:I desperately wanted to have the right to reply and had not realised until I started typing that the moderators had removed the entire thread. The timing was regrettable as I was in the process of uploading a copy of the final judgment.
I have a proposition for you Sheila, how about I give you the "right to reply" here?
Whats the point? All we'll get is more lies. She's a compulsive liar-I doubt she has an honest bone in her body.
I completely agree, but if her ladyship truly wants to put her side as she claims, the offer is there. Of course it is pie in the sky because she doesn't really want to tell her story. CAG pulling the whole thread was neither lucky or unexpected.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#85 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 21 Apr 2016 22:45

jasonDWB wrote:
Pote Snitkin wrote: It is further regrettable that his post from here has been reposted on another social media site but strangely, it has been posted by the McKenzie himself (as opposed to the claimant), Thereby of course blocking the claimant from answering any queries.
The only blocking the debate is Sheila. The CAG thread was deleted in its entirety and the debate moved elsewhere.

I can ask Tex to join the debate.
Of course, her Ladyship hasn't the brains to realise that her suggestion is a double edged sword. Having Tex on here would give us ample opportunity to find out more about exactly what her involvement was in this sorry affair. Also, more importantly, what exactly her friend/lackey Ron did to justify submitting a £1700 bill?

Remember, Tex was unemployed once that vehicle was taken-This pair both appear to have profited out of the mans situation-Sheila even to the extent of obtaining private documents as well.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#86 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 21 Apr 2016 22:54

Pathetic and rather child like that brassyneck doesn't believe that Tex wrote the post on CAG himself.

Goes to show Ms Harding's reach over them all.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#87 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Apr 2016 23:06

Assneck wrote:I would write a limerick about him but the Guru would probably try to sue me, or denigrate me in the Flame Pit of his benighted site..
There once was a scraggy old hardon,
Who's mansion was in a huge garden,
She sometimes was lax, forgetting her tax,
But was given a nice Royal Pardon.

A hairy old monkey called Pete,
Who ate his food with his feet,
A dodgy old fool, a certified tool,
On block or in his On Sweet.

A rotten old bailiff called Joe,
A woman he tried to elbow,
In her nightgown, she gave him the brown,
From his knee right down to his toe.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

tex001
Posts: 1
Joined: 22 Apr 2016 02:45

#88 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by tex001 » 22 Apr 2016 03:09

I would first like to say hello to everyone on the Forum.

I am Mr Johnson who lost my claim against L B Newham & Newlyn PLC. I am not really going to go into the reasons why I believe I lost my case which I thought was an extremley strong one. My reason for posting on this forum thread is because Ms Shelia Harding has posted some very misleading comments about Jason Bennison on the Consumer Action Group. I therefore posted a reply to the misleading remarks/comments which Shelia Harding made about Jason on the Consumer Action Group. Ms Harding had my reply deleted by the Moderator. I can no longer find the thread either. I am therefore posting the same post here for you all to read. You can see the reply I left regarding the misleading comments made by Ms Harding below the dotted line.

-----------

Dear Ms Sheila Harding,

I am the Mr Johnson who lost my claim against L B Newham and Newlyn PLC Bailiffs. Yes, I am the one you are having a good laugh at, but that is not a problem to me because I have very THICK skin :)

The fact that I lost my claim against your Bailiff friends is 100℅ MY fault and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jason Bennison.

This incident happened in October 2010. I found Jason's website shortly after and asked Jason to help me draft a letter of complaint to the London Borough of Newham. When Jason gave me the letter I changed 80% of its content. Had I used the letter as Jason had originally given it to me, I would have been much better off. The letter you have in your possession is NOT the original letter which Jason wrote for me, it is the letter I had amended by some 75% to 80%. Furthermore; you only have that letter in your possession because you tricked and deceived me into emailing it to you.

Some 5 years after the letter was written, the matter finally came to trial in April 2016. I was in court by myself as a Litigant in Person. It was a 3 day trial and at the end of the 1st day of the trial I felt a bit overwhelmed as I was up against a very good Barrister (And your criminal Solicitor friend Mr Peter Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car of Newlyn PLC Bailiffs). At the end of the 1st day of trial I went back online to search for Jason's website again because I could not remember it.

When I managed to get hold of Jason, I told him that I was in court in the midst of a 3 day trial. This was some 4 to 5 years after writing that letter for me, and Jason did not even remember who I was. He eventually did remember me and I asked him if he could pop down to the court and take notes as a McKenzie Friend (i.e. if he was not doing anything). I also felt he was much more knowledgeable than me and I may have been able to refer to him regarding the old Bailiff points of law whilst in court.

For absolutely NO money whatsoever, Jason agreed to come down for the 2 days. Throughout the whole 2 days that Jason was there I only referred to Jason twice on a couple of legal points I did not understand. The Judge appreciated him being there to take notes. How many people do you know (Who is not a friend) that would come down to a court, at the drop of a hat, at such short notice, for NO money? NOT VERY MANY I can assure you. Jason felt that win or lose, the issues were going to be of interest to him, and therefore he decided to pop down on the 2nd day of the trial to provide some moral support. It is rare that you find people of Jason’s calibre and although I lost my claim, I value and appreciate the fact that Jason was there in court providing that moral support when I had nobody else there with me.

Let me repeat myself to you again Ms Sheila Harding.......Apart from the initial letter of complaint to L B Newham (80% of which I REWROTE, i.e. the letter you managed to trick and deceive me into sending you), Jason played NO ROLE in helping me draft, process or execute my claim. In fact, there was a point in the trial where Jason advised me NOT to say something, but because thought I knew best and I had heard this thing said by one of the Defendant’s; I went ahead and told the Judge what I had heard. That did not go in my favour

So I say again.........The work done on my claim was 100% MY work and the fact that my case failed at trial is 100% my fault and no one else’s!

If I have ever felt cheated by anyone throughout this whole matter then it was being cheated, tricked and deceived by YOU Ms Shelia Harding and the money I wasted and was conned out of when using your premium rate phone line.

Yes, Newlyn PLC claims that they are going to hit me with £30K in legal costs. The only problem is…….I am UNEMPLOYED!!! I therefore do not have any money to pay your friends and further; I have NO assets for your friend Mr Peter Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car of Newlyn PLC Bailiffs to seize. So you can tell your criminal Bailiff friends (Whom you quietly work with behind the scenes) to stick that in their pipe and smoke it!

PS – in closing Ms Harding, should you dare to post any of my private details online then you are going to pity the day you ever do that!

PPS – Please do not expect me to respond to any further posts by you or your other associates because I have better things to do.

Mr Johnson

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#89 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Apr 2016 08:49

Hi Tex, thanks for joining and putting the record straight. Ms Harding has a vendetta against this site and in particular with Jason and does all she can to rubbish the work he does. Yes there has been some that have lost but you can count these on one hand and usually involve the debtor not disclosing everything to Jason or, as seen in one case, the judge making an extraordinary ruling. Ms Harding grabs hold of these cases, then begins to embellish and twist them to make them seem worse.

Take the judge with the strange ruling - he ruled that a car on HP could, in theory, be taken control of (ie clamped). Ms Harding twisted this into saying the judge ruled a car on HP can be sold. The judge said nothing of the sort, but even to this day she repeats the lie and lies that this has affected tens of thousands of people. Silly woman. She also fails to mention that the ruling is not binding on other cases as it was decided in the lower court.

As you can see, she used your case to attack this site once more and also called your integrity into question. She has made no comment on the £1700 Ron Clarke charged you instead stating that it was Jason that had charged you and had been assisting you for the past 3 years. Her group of lackeys immediately jumped on the bandwagon taking her every word as gospel, as they always do. She also fails to mention that it cost you to contact her for advice - at the time I believe she was charging £10 per question via email or 61p per minute to phone her.

Once she had been rumbled with her lies, the thread was removed by one of the mods under her control. We see this behaviour time and time again, and it can at times be quite entertaining, but beneath it all, it is very sinister. Her and her lackeys seem to spend all their time in looking for arguments that benefit the bailiff, interpreting legislation in a way that ensures fees are added. We on the other hand will look for ways to legitimately get fees removed, making sure bailiff's comply with the letter of the law. Most debtors we see are the 'can't pay' ones - single mums, the unemployed, the vulnerable, and we will try as hard as we can to make things easier for them.

Again, thank you for making that post - I hope you will update us if anything else happens.
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: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#90 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 Apr 2016 08:49

Tex, I'm very pleased you have come to this board, and firstly I can just say that you put up probably the most gallant fight against this injustice. It all stems from 2 PCN's and Newlyn selling a £12,000 car for £4001, and landing themselves a whopping big bill for nearly £40K.

Before anyone starts about Newlyn footing the bill, I am privy to knowledge the costs order has no prospect of ever being paid. The moment enforcement starts, the game will be over within 6 weeks and you can start with a clean sheet.

I'd like to add that I was not happy the way the court handled your delivery. During your delivery, I could see that you had painstaking planned this with utmost meticulousy. I was sitting behind you (next to PF) taking notes, and on four occasions you were interrupted by Mr Clements. He should have allowed you to complete your delivery and raised questions afterwards in the same manner the judge made you wait until Mr Clements had finished addressing the court.

I was equally unhappy with the surreptitiousness that Mr Clements after being instructed by the Judge before retiring, to write the draft minutes and secretly add a factual error into it hoping you would not spot it. It was only when I intervened and asked him to change that he reacted explosively. That said to me he knew I had caught him out, and he knew full well that solicitors are struck off for that kind of thing.

You put in a lot of hard work to your case, many years of it, and all off your own back. What is more, is that when you approached the CAG board, you were lambasted by the resident trolls. I think it is fair that since Sheila was deceptive in the manner she obtained documents from you, I am going to make available the names and addresses of the CAG trolls who posted in ridicule of you. Sheila did it to me, so I think its is fair the shoe is on the other foot. You can call it karma and you can judge for yourselves by looking at the homes on Google streetview and their credit reports. They are nobodies without a life outside the internet and no doubt you will work that out for yourself next time you read their comments.

I still stand by you. I would still say bring your claim. You had an audience of a QC, a barrister taken silk placing him elite of his class. It is unfortunate that he disagreed with your claim, or felt it was not substantive enough to compensate you for what you have been put through and the six years of your life that you sought for a remedy.

You will no longer have any burden of costs in 6 weeks time. You can stand with your head held high knowing that you fought the battle in the name of justice, and knowing that you will never have to pay a penny of that costs order. You got your day in court, and its only going to get a lot worse for Newlyn all over a car and overzealous obsession with fees.

That is why I engineered the endgame to hit them right where it hurts. In the pocket. I didn't want to tell you that unless you lost your claim so I held that card back hoping I wouldn't need it. That is unless PF and his barrister takes the hit and agrees to forgo their money and pay their own £8000 VAT bill on their fees knowing it does not qualify for bad debt relief under the VAT Act. The moment they put in their bill and apply the costs order, the VAT will have to be paid to HMRC in that VAT accounting period.

I also want to say I did not charge a fee. I attended voluntarily. In London almost everyone has an Oyster card and a Starbucks on nearly every street. I helped you because I knew you needed it most and I knew of the enormous effort you have put into your case. Sheila went out of her way to deceive you. I even considered cross examining Grundlingh while he was on Oath whether Sheila had communicated anything to him.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#91 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Apr 2016 09:00

They sold the car for 4k yet Tex did not see one penny of that. What happened to the other 3k? It cannot have been swallowed by storage and auction fees. Again, no mention from Sheila or her crew regarding this matter - as one of them said, it's better to let sleeping dogs lie.

And what of the equipment in the car? That would've been worth a pretty penny, yet it too seems to have vanished.
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: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#92 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 Apr 2016 09:09

It wasn't worth anything to anyone else because its mostly intellectual property, which cannot be transferred by enforcement. Only the Patents Court can do that.

It was never explained where the money went, however Judge Avents N24 Order last month did require identification of who is in possession of it.

It appears that when bailiffs sell cars, there no excess from the proceeds paid back to the debtor. Every time a detailed assessment is filed, the excuses start rolling in. It used to be storage, but since Anderson, that all ended and storage is £0 unless the storer can prove he has been disbursed. There are lots of A1 Environmental Ltd assessments coming up. Their fee is currently £48 a day, so I can see a lot of money being paid back with the costs of bringing the detailed assessment. Part 85 has very exacting requirements.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#93 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Apr 2016 09:17

jasonDWB wrote:It wasn't worth anything to anyone else because its mostly intellectual property, which cannot be transferred by enforcement. Only the Patents Court can do that.
Wasn't there a mixing desk in the car? A good one doesn't come cheap.
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: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#94 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Apr 2016 09:22

Oh dear, Ron has jumped back in - still no mention of his £1700 invoice, which he overcharged on (5 hours @ £35 per hour does not equal £210 Ron). Plus charging for 0.2 of an hour? That's 12 minutes!

Not sure why he wants to say it's imaginary - we have all seen the invoice.
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: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#95 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 Apr 2016 09:31

I see that opinion on CAG censorship is split.

Sheila would have undoubtedly organised the thread to be deleted no matter the cost. She was silent the moment Tex posted it, and that silence said it all. It was not the troll posts that followed.

It will be interesting to find whether Tex has been censored.

They might blame bankfodder, but only the admin log will name the guilty moderator. None will grow a pair of balls and admit it. Lets not forget, Sheila has a history of getting a moderator to edit posts to order - and on one occasion, it was two years after she had made that post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#96 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 Apr 2016 09:33

Pote Snitkin wrote: Wasn't there a mixing desk in the car? A good one doesn't come cheap.
There was, but I don't know much about it. It was the CD masters that were irreplaceable, and have no value to a bailiff.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#97 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 22 Apr 2016 10:05

In fairness, the majority of mods on CAG are silly jobsworths with no real idea about what is going on.

That Andy character appears to be the main one in the bailiff section at present and whilst he clearly hasn't got a clue, I can't see him being in the bag for Sheila to manipulate, maybe I'm wrong but I think it more likely to be the over zealous behaviour of a jobsworth

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13070
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#98 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 Apr 2016 10:07

My vote is Sheila got the thread deleted.

It fits her conniving ways and she has done it before. I think the mod was being naive.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#99 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 22 Apr 2016 10:13

I agree, it would have been Sheila. She sits here almost 24 hours a day, she'd never have left CAG for even 5 minutes while that thread was ongoing. So for her to claim it was removed just as she was about to post, is ridiculous.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#100 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 22 Apr 2016 10:31

I Suppose it's unusual for them to delete threads for no reason-They normally just lock them.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#101 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 22 Apr 2016 10:32

Pote Snitkin wrote:Oh dear, Ron has jumped back in - still no mention of his £1700 invoice, which he overcharged on (5 hours @ £35 per hour does not equal £210 Ron). Plus charging for 0.2 of an hour? That's 12 minutes!

Not sure why he wants to say it's imaginary - we have all seen the invoice.
Imagine the uproar if Jason or anyone else associated with this forum had charged for 12 minutes work!

You need a new calculator Ron and I hope you will be offering a refund of the overcharges.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#102 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 22 Apr 2016 10:36

Mark1960 wrote:I Suppose it's unusual for them to delete threads for no reason-They normally just lock them.
It won't be deleted, it will be in the mod forum, what they used to call the Pink Palace and they will all be wringing their hands about it all being "potentially libellous".

What a ridiculous and completely nonsensical phrase that is.
As Littlejohn says, "give someone a little bit of power and they will always, always abuse it."

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#103 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 22 Apr 2016 10:44

Looks like "Fair Parking" has folded. His hilarious website has been down for some time now and he mentioned recently that he'd deleted his old emails in March.

Another old dinosaur bites the dust. It's nice that they bring him out to post now and again, second to Peter, he is my favourite poster.

You Have to feel a soft spot for Ron, unlike the other two dinosaurs, he actually tried to fight for debtors, even if his ideas ranged from the ridiculous to the insane. I Cannot condone his aiding and abetting debtors to evade fees either.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#104 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 22 Apr 2016 10:48

Amy wrote:
Mark1960 wrote:I Suppose it's unusual for them to delete threads for no reason-They normally just lock them.
It won't be deleted, it will be in the mod forum, what they used to call the Pink Palace and they will all be wringing their hands about it all being "potentially libellous".

What a ridiculous and completely nonsensical phrase that is.

As Littlejohn says, "give someone a little bit of power and they will always, always abuse it."
That's fair enough but what seperates it from the other Newlyn cases that Sheila has leaked information on?

Why are they not libellous?

Why was the thread allowed to remain all day and only removed once the Claimant posted to dispel the false allegations?

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4052
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#105 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 22 Apr 2016 10:52

Presumably the other threads didn't result in the claimant rocking up and naming and shaming Sheila and her lies.

Post Reply