Jump to content

Annoying Twit

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


63 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. I would guess that her condition had been keeping her slimmer than she would otherwise be. Once the infection was cured, her energy intake:energy expenditure ratio took over resulting in the weight gain. That her daughter is also overweight and heading towards obese suggests to me that there is a culture of overeating in her family.
  2. I didn't realise that this thread had continued on for three years after I started it! We received another one this morning. Use of a high powered LED torch revealed it as coming from the Halifax bank. Googling P.O. Box 140 gave me this thread, which I had completely forgotten about a few months after I started it in 2009! I'll phone Halifax next week and ask them to fix it.
  3. I've just read the whole thread bit by bit over days. I see that I posted in this thread over a year ago! Can I just say congratulations for sticking your ground. Too many times the average person is run roughshod over by companies, and I'm pleased to see you on what seems to be the winning straight. (Depending on Supreme Court judgements). I'm not sure I could have kept up the fight like you did over years.
  4. I admire you for your tenacity. There are times in my life where I let myself be trodden on because it was too much effort to do something about it. However, having read through this thread, and followed some other ones, my personal opinion is that there is something seriously wrong with the culture in our legal system. Particularly where litigants in person are concerned. It seems to me that judges will pass down verdicts which make no sense whatsoever, but in looking back over the history of the case, it's almost as if the "other side" know that they don't have to bother creating a proper case as they're just going to win anyhow. In your case, my reading of the matter is that the judge's pronouncements that S92 doesn't apply to hire purchase agreements (if I remember this all correctly) is just insanely wrong. How and why did this judge make this decision? That confusion is why I was googling things when I came up with the link in my previous post.
  5. I don't know, but wonder if the material in this link is relevant: http://trialandappeal.blogspot.com/2005/11/good-judgesbad-judges.html
  6. In this case I believe that the OP was given a fair and reasonable fine for a transgression he admits that he did, and should pay the fine and get on with his life.
  7. If the OP is feeling particularly bloody minded, he could try complaining to trading standards that the retailer is applying bait and switch tactics by advertising goods for sale with no intention of honouring the stated price. Whether Trading Standards would consider the described events as bait and switch is another question, and depends on things we don't know. E.g. did the shop only just realise that they couldn't supply the cooker and immediately remove the price card/mark out of stock. Or, are they continuing to advertise the cooker in their window even though they can't supply. I believe that in law it is illegal to advertise goods and services at prices if there are hidden compulsory extras which mean that it is impossible to buy the goods at the advertised prices. Travel agents have run foul of this law a lot.
  8. Well, if I never hear what happened in the end, that would be slightly frustrating. But, the bottom line is that it isn't me that's primarily involved, and hence I don't feel that I have a right to know. All I do is send best wishes to those involved, and hope that those in the right (which I sincerely believe to be Fred) win out in the long run.
  9. I'm prepared to help in any way I can. But I don't have court experience. So, I'm not sure about how helpful I'd be. The last thing I'd want to do is send you in the wrong direction on something.
  10. This is the kind of problem I look at, and think that there must be case history of this sort of thing. People will have sued the water companies due to sewage entering their home. And these cases may give the best indication of who can claim what from who of anything. I've read that a big difference nowdays compared to the past is that the internet has opened up information that only a lawyer would have had, to the public. People can, I've read, look up past cases electronically. The obvious exception to this is, as has been mentioned in other cases, if the companies cave in before the case goes to court to avoid creating precedents. In which case, I'd guess that less of a trail is left. Is this correct? I did a google search on various terms such as "sewage" "sued water company", but can't find anything. For both this question and many others, how do you go about searching through past legal verdicts? Where can you find the information? It's useful to know what happened to someone or other. Particularly if the water companies are avoiding verdicts by caving in. But in a case like this, if we could go off and then post links to various past legal verdicts, it would IMHO help considerably.
  11. It would be interesting to know precisely how often TVL actually apply for search warrants. I've searched, and haven't yet found any cases. I'm sure there are some, but it appears rare. This page has useful information however. Philip Dean: withdrawal of implied right of access
  12. The first thing I think of when reading this is, "who knows what else the fraudster has done that hasn't been noticed yet". Isn't there something that can be done where people who are potentially the victims of ID fraud get a special flag put on their credit report warning borrowers to take extra care with applications? Or something like that.
  13. Telemarketer Crime Scene - Prank Calls, Funny Audio Clips, Celebrity Prank Calls, Crank Calls
  14. I'm no lawyer, and this is just a random guess. At the time the children eat the food, ownership of the food has not passed to the parent. It is by no means guaranteed that the store will accept the customer's offer at the checkout. But I believe that for theft to occur, there must be an intention to permanently deprive the owners of the goods/whatever. Since the food has been eaten, it clearly cannot be returned. If the children ate the food and then left the store without paying for it, then there is clear intention to deprive the store of the goods - clear theft IMHO. I've seen empty packets lying around a supermarket, and guess that this has happened. But, up until the time that the goods are paid for, while the parent and kids are still in the store, then surely there is a legal grey area. It's quite common for kids to graze on food before purchase, and for the food to be paid for at the till. In accepting payment for consumed goods in the past, surely the supermarket has created a precedent where they have accepted this style of shopping, and created a policy of sorts. Such that it might be difficult for them to suddenly start treating such people as criminals. Not unless they, for some time, advertised that they were changing their policy. Returning to Ms E Blackadder's question, I'd guess that if the store allowed the parent to pay for the consumed goods, then they couldn't then try and do "anything" to them. If they wanted to be arsey about things, they'd have to refuse the customer's offer of money for the goods.
  • Create New...