Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Complete joke, trying to access the Moneyclaim online using the case number and password which is on the court papers and unable due to case number or password wrong. They are 100% same as on paperwork, we accessed to submit AOS now unable to submit defence,     
    • Hello, Some might remember me I put up a post about buying a seat leon,   Anyway it has caused me hell!!   So I had a new dual mass flywheel and clutch fitted by   Formula one auto center    A couple of days later my clutch is slipping and making noises and smells, so I took it back to the garage and they have offered repair it free of charge under Warranty,   I have told them I had trouble getting the car into them for the whole day the first time they fixed it and I need my car,   I have asked them to provide a courtesy car but they refuse to provide it.   Under consumer rights act 2015    Page 23   paragraph 2   (A) do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer and,    (B) bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials and postage)   They must cover the cost of this?   Thanks again    
    • images/posts removed . please do not post jpg picture images directly to a post . read upload and redact in jpg then convert using on of the listed websites there to convert to one multipage pdf only . that way only logged-in,registered and approved caggers are the only ones that can download and see them . else anyone can see them caggers or not. dx
    • OK, I will do now.   I did look to black out certain things, but I was not sure what I should and should not redact and there was nothing on there that was personal enough for me to be concerned with being made public. So I am happy for all to view, but if you are kind enough to redact what is needed as per the forum rules, that would be amazing.     I was planning on collecting up other court cases they have lost, to refer to as part of my evidence, I'm not sure if this is worth doing or could just confuse matters?   But there seem to be many where the judge has ruled against them because of confusing and not clearly displayed signage, trespass, as well as their charge being £100, which is more than the Bevis case said was reasonable.    A quick search found this article as one example KBT cornwall lose case article.pdf   Lastly, I will go to the site to get updated images, but from google earth, you can see from the pictures the entrance states it is for the hotel parking, which I follwed instructions and gave my details to the hotel. Where I think my car was parked (it was that long ago I'm not exactly sure) there are signs on the opposite wall, but it was 12.30am, pitch black and they could not be seen.           Claimants_WS.pdf
    • yes but have the landowner paid this years contract fee. no evidence they have in the ws. pop it back up now if you wish. the forum is quiet i'll redact it for you so we have the info.   dx  
  • Our picks


Lib Dems Back Islamic Radicalisation

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1732 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Nick Clegg has blocked tough new laws intended to stop extremist speakers brainwashing university students for terrorism, raising fears that Britain will be left more vulnerable to attack.


The Deputy Prime Minister personally vetoed the plan during private talks with David Cameron, after one of the worst Cabinet rows in the Coalition’s five-year rule.




Mr Clegg said he could not support moves to require university bosses to vet visiting speakers and prevent impressionable students from falling under the spell of extremists – because Liberal Democrats feared the move would erode “free speech”.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

And?..It's never going to happen. It will take place behind closed doors. Vetting is an impossible task and if you have views that include beheading innocent people and aid workers in Syria then *ISIS will just find another way.


Of course they should be vetted. But we haven't yet found a solution to the sex scandals we have here and Hillsborough is still being discussed! It's an open door to ask questions decades later, turn a blind eye and deny it until forced to make someone a scapegoat.


There are already enough laws in place. It's how they are used. That's the problem and how the bloomin' CPS and judges work!


* other extremist groups are available.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...