Jump to content

sailor sam

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sailor sam last won the day on August 28 2012

sailor sam had the most liked content!


1,457 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Some of you may be pleased to learn that I will be leaving CAG at the end of the month (being tomorrow). This is mainly due to a "disagreement" with the admin of the site to my style of recent contribution to a thread in the public transport section. Basically I apparently broke forum rules and thus some of my posts were removed to which I took exception to and also to some comments made to me by certain site team members. Needless to say, I stand by my posts and the reasons I made them. Despite having behind the scenes discussions, the matter has not reached an amicable conclusion so I have decided that I am perhaps no longer suited to the site and that I should bow out. Some of you may of also noticed that I am not on here as often as I normally have been anyway. This is due to a new business venture which is taking more of my spare time than will allow me to contribute to the levels as I have done in the past. This is another reason that has lead me to make this decision because I don't see what benefit it is to me to give my free time to help people who perhaps don't deserve to be helped. Unfortunately, those people seem to be growing in numbers, particularly in the public transport section and in other sections which deal with traffic contraventions. While I applaud sites like CAG in offering free advice to genuine people who have "lost their way" and fallen foul of the law simply through making a genuine mistake, I find it hard to show similar compassion to those people who deliberately and wilfully abuse rules which I myself (and no doubt all my fellow CAGGERS) fully adhere to. So to conclude, it's been an interesting almost 5 years and I havn't always seen eye to eye with some of you, but I do sincerely wish those few (and you know who you are) CAGGERS all the best but after 30th April, Sailor Sam will be sailing off on to waters new.
  2. In the light of the above response, I shall consider my position of continuing to be a member of this forum. Clearly despite my almost 5 years of membership and the many "thanks" I have received during that time counts for very little. I feel that I have bought a lot to the forum in certain areas of expertise and have always tried to give sincere advice. But currently it has become more difficult to find too much spare time to afford to the site due to a new business venture. I do not agree with the two members of the site team on this... . my posts were a little sarcastic, yes but they were designed to "shoot" the OP's argument down in flames because had he used the argument to TFL, t hen they will surely prosecute as quite frankly, his explanation and reasons for using his mother's freedom pass are quite ridiculous. If I am the only one who can see this, then clearly I am contributing to the wrong site.
  3. You didn't even have the courtesy to advise me before removing them and I do disagree with your view on them being in breach of the rules. They were not abusive but indicated and high-lighted dialogue that the OP was using which would of prejudiced his argument to either TFL or in court.
  4. I note some of my posts have been removed. I don't see them infringing on any rules so I take exception to this. More so, if you read them properly (and between the lines) you could be forgiven for detecting some text which I highlighted in a way to say the dialogue the OP was using as an "explanation" was unwise and inappropriate. Kindly re-instate them or give good reason for their removal.
  5. I've given him "advice" on what to expect. I doubt very much that TFL will settle out of court from what the OP has said. All he can do is wait for the letter and then possible seek legal advice.
  6. But your not.... your trying to avoid going to court and you've come here to ask advice about how to!
  7. Concessionary pass miss-use is treated very seriously (and quite rightly so) because it is currently a statutory benefit to those entitled to it (i.e. the over 60's and disabled) thus it is entirely funded by the public purse (paid for by tax-paying people like myself). By the sounds of it, you have abused this scheme many times as you say that you cannot remember how long you have been using it. Presumably the pass has been withdrawn and your Mom will have to report the pass as being lost or stolen to obtain a replacement. Should it come to light that she was aware and gave her consent to you using it, then it will more than likely be permanently withdrawn (and quite rightly so). If it also comes to light that you have been using it on a regular basis (and yes, they are able to and will check), then it is highly likely they will not want to settle out of court (and quite rightly so). I always ask the question when someone comes on here saying "I am very sorry for using something I know I am not entitled to" or it was just a "lapse of judgement", if you hadn't of been caught, how long would you have carried on using it for or are you only sorry for getting caught?
  8. Exactly what I predicted would happen. These links may help you; http://www.alternativefamilylaw.co.uk/en/children/ http://www.separateddads.co.uk/how-write-your-statement-for-court.html Obviously I cannot tell you what to put in your statement as I haven't seen the CAFCASS report (it's confidential anyway). But all I can advise is to stick to the facts, keep it brief as possible (don't 'waffle') and number each point/paragraph so it can be easily referred to in court. When the statements have been filed, you should get a copy of the applicant's statement prior to the hearing and vice-versa.
  9. Well as I've pointed out many times on the thread, the Father's argument needs to have some substance to convince the court not to make an order. So far, I haven't seen anything that will do the trick with or without a solicitor i'm afraid. I think I've contributed as far as I can and I am sorry that I cannot provide any good news for the OP. But I would be interested in what happens and would be happy to advise further if necessary.
  10. I'm sorry DD, but you have lost me now. How has the "Father has only just heard that he is in a position to get legal representation"? A free consultation with a solicitor isn't really "legal representation". One side not having a solicitor dosn't necessarily mean that they are disadvantaged by the side which has a solicitor. In my last case (as the respondent) I represented myself while my ex partner had legal representation. I successfully had her application thrown out. It has nothing to do with being 'disadvantaged', the court will no doubt assist the respondent (if they are un-represented) where necessary and will understand that they are totally un-familiar with the process. The court's sole objective is to make a decision purely on the facts presented to it and that fair play is offered to both parties.
  11. Well yes, you could do that but if the other side knows that the Father isn't in a position to get legal representation or legal funding, they may put an argument forward that an adjournment would be non-productive and thus a waste of time. The respondent (Father) would of been advised to seek legal advice in the original application documents so it could be argued he was "trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted" and simply playing a delay tactic. But who knows... it maybe granted but then what does this change? I would almost guarantee that a decent solicitor will simply echo what I have said although I suppose hearing it face to face would better qualify what is what.
  12. Unfortunately you will have to 'go with the flow' tomorrow then. I can only suggest what I've already suggested which I know isn't what you want to do. But if you get in there first with some kind of compromise, at least you have a chance of keeping some control over the situation. The applicant is seeking quite a lot of contact it seems but given the child's age, i'm sure that the court will most likely agree to supervised contact on a less frequent basis. I would expect the applicant's solicitor will approach the Father prior to the hearing to test the water with him and see if there is any movement in his stance. He would be best advised not to say no to any contact at all because the court will see that as being unreasonable and more than likely make an order not to your liking anyway. I know this sin't what you want to hear but at least I have fore-warned you of what to expect. I don't see (from what you have posted) that you have a valid reason for point blank refusing contact, especially as there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant poses a threat to the child either emotionally or physically.
  13. They are not judges, they are magistrates. To have it heard by a judge, the case would need to be transferred to the county court. In the OP's position, this would not do them any favours although it would favour the applicant if the case becomes complex. Has the OP attempted to seek a solicitor who would give a free initial consultation?
  14. I'm basically with you all the way DD... but that is exactly what I tried myself and was continuously knocked back by my ex and her family. I cant help detecting "more to this than meets the eye" kind of scenario and we have to remember that CAFCASS have produced a favourable report in respect of the grand mother. It is not easy to pull the wool over these people's eyes so you have to wonder why the report supports the application. In any event, the CAFCASS report is crucial to the outcome of the case, especially as there appears to be no other evidence. However, the CAFCASS reporter can be asked to attend the court to answer any further questions. They don't normally attend a directions hearing unless requested by the court but they will almost certainly attend a contested hearing. As I have previously said, moving away will not stop an order being made or being enforced. However, as the order will most likely be worded "to make the child available for contact", that dosn't compel the Father to "deliver" the child to the applicant. My only concern there would be that due to the child's age, it is most likely that a supervised order will be made and that will (by de-fault) mean that the Father will be expected to take the child to the contact venue. I think it maybe useful if the Father does get some free advice (if possible today) from a family solicitor. Most will give an initial free appointment but my money would be on the fact that they will confirm what I have said.
  • Create New...