Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • “Variola may have been introduced to humans through such a cross-species transfer” “It is closest in DNA sequence to camelpox virus, which causes smallpox-like disease in camels; both viruses are apparently descended from a recent common ancestor.” https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/38/6/882/321153   To re-read. Frankly anyone who thinks the WHO, CDC and UK Gov recommendation of 14 days is anything other than a sensible minimum, is a dangerous idiot IMO, particularly given the apparent extremely fast mutation rate being reported ...  and ability to jump species         Mutation of Smallpox **********************   "Clinical descriptions indicate that smallpox always had a high case-fatality rate until around the end of the 19th Century, when a more benign form of the disease, with a similar rash but much lower mortality rate, appeared in the Western Hemisphere. Less lethal types of smallpox were also noted in Africa, where they may have existed for some time [5]. These milder variants are now designated “variola minor,” in contrast to the traditional “variola major.” The genetic changes responsible for attenuation have not been identified. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/38/6/882/321153   Interestingly cowpox was used as a relatively effective ‘vaccine’ against smallpox, and monkeypox seems to be ‘expanding’ to fill the nasty nitch that smallpox existed in. Note That although smallpox and monkeypox are often talked about in the same breath, and are often considered closely related, despite monkeypox, camelpox and Cowpox vaccines’ effectiveness against smallpox and each other, the genetics of smallpox and monkeypox have been examined and they are not believed to be actually genetically ‘related’. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox   … On the other hand Camelpox and Smallpox on more recent examination are believed to be VERY closely related: “Variola may have been introduced to humans through such a cross-species transfer” (like Coronavirus) It (smallpox) is closest in DNA sequence to camelpox virus, which causes smallpox-like disease in camels; ***** both viruses are apparently descended from a recent common ancestor.” "The appearance of variola minor may represent a stage in variola's adaptation to its human host." https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/38/6/882/321153       Possible sources of fresh smallpox outbreaks ************************************************ Lots of references say things like smallpox has been ‘entirely eliminated from the world’ when it clearly still exists. ‘Eradicated’ should be qualified as being ‘from the living human poplation. Even whether ‘carriers’ exist is unknown.   * ‘Officially’ (WHO approved) in 2 labs - which means little to weapons programs or nature itself - Accidents and misplacing links already supplied.   * Unofficially it is claimed to be held in other bio-weapons labs: Just two links of many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program https://www.news-medical.net/health/Smallpox-Biological-Warfare.aspx   * Animal hosts and species jumping of genetically similar Virus like Camelpox.   * thousands of Inuit infected bodies across the melting areas of the melting Northern ice and peat bogs and tar pits around the world. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/24/575974220/are-there-zombie-viruses-in-the-thawing-permafrost?t=1580114743932     in the summer of 2016 a large anthrax outbreak struck Siberia. "A heat wave in the Arctic thawed a thick layer of the permafrost, and a bunch of reindeer carcasses started to warm up. The animals had died of anthrax, and as their bodies thawed, so did the bacteria. Anthrax spores spread across the tundra. Dozens of people were hospitalized, and a 12-year-old boy died.   On the surface, it looked as if zombie anthrax had somehow come back to life after being frozen for 70 years. What pathogen would be next? Smallpox? The 1918 flu?"      
    • Alleged offence 28/07/2019 SJPN Posting Date 17/01/2020    
    • Thank you .. I will give them a chase today ..
    • What was the date of the alleged offence and what was the date on the SJPN? Nothing else matters.
    • The NIP was received on 7/08/2019 I returned it on 8/08/2018 along with GDPR. The prosecution witness statement was signed the 18/01/2020 papers received 24/01/2020 allowing for deemed service of 2 days each way id say there an about 6 months 
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 303 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

Just now, Dodgeball said:

As for the other silly remark, again BA is talking about continuing the enforcement you are talking about fee avoidance?

 

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council.

 

Has something changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

What are you talking about the words liability order are mentioned in the quote? That complaint has to be made via the authority, I think you will find and the criteria above still apply. IE not for just saying the bill is wrong, the authority has to agree and send the complaint. Wandering about again, typical.

 

Just to clarify - a LO can be set aside in a magistrate's court. I think Judge Burnton referenced it 4 times in the quote from the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can.

 

The choice is yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it cannot, at least not in any way which would assist a anyone on here. Not in the way you initially thought


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, otterlyendo said:

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can.

 

The choice is yours.

The judges of course were discussing a different scenario completely as you well know.

The point is that no one can get a liability order set aside just because they dispute it. your judges agree there also.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

No it cannot, at least not in any way which would assist a anyone on here. Not in the way you initially thought

 

All I did was correct you by saying that a LO can be set aside. I made no mention of how - that was just your assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

The judges of course were discussing a different scenario completely as you well know.

The point is that no one can get a liability order set aside just because they dispute it. your judges agree there also.

 

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/01/2019 at 15:56, ericsbrother said:

you need to know when it went to court to give the council the liability order.

 

being at an old address they probably did this but that also means they may still be chasing the debt at the old address rather than asking the court to change the paperwork.

 

This menas that you are likely to get a set aside if you apply for one and then you can pay what you owe rather than the fees as well.

 

Also a poke in the eye for the councl if they knew they were chasing you at the wrong address

Just to try and get back to earth, this is the sett aside I was referring to.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council.

 

Has something changed?

My position on paying the council direct once an account has been passed to an enforcement agent has always remained the same. It does not work. However, in this particular case...and this case ONLY, the enforcement company appear to be unwilling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement in line with the regulations.

 

Accordingly, I would argue that the ONLY amount that the OP is liable to pay is the council tax arrears. The problem is, if the OP paid this sum to the enforcement agent, then common sense would dictate that the 'Compliance fee' of £75 would be deducted etc, etc. In order to avoid this happening, then in this case ONLY, I have suggested that consideration could be given to paying the arrears direct to the council. 

 

I hope that I have clarified the position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bailiff Advice said:

My position on paying the council direct once an account has been passed to an enforcement agent has always remained the same. It does not work. However, in this particular case...and this case ONLY, the enforcement company appear to be unwilling to issue a fresh Notice of Enforcement in line with the regulations.

 

So what's different about this particular case from the tens of dozens of other similar cases? In all those other cases you advise to not pay the council direct? Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

Just to try and get back to earth, this is the sett aside I was referring to.

 

You stated:

 

Quote

You cannot set aside a liability order, it is made at a Magistrates court.

 

That has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps you need to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

 

I think you would probably have to think the judgement was wrong, ie dispute it, wouldn't you?

Not just arguing for the sake of it by any chance little troll.

However the procedure you have fallen over speaks of other factors, like fraud or actionable incompetence.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dodgeball said:

 

I think you would probably have to think the judgement was wrong, ie dispute it, wouldn't you?

Not just arguing for the sake of it by any chance little troll.

However the procedure you have fallen over speaks of other factors, like fraud or actionable incompetence.

 

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie they thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

You said the above, which as shown is incorrect, an LO which has just been mistakenly imposed cannot just be set aside

 

Care to clarify?


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, otterlyendo said:

 

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie Nthey thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

 

I Not meaning to insult, but the requirement for evidence to support your case is not a new concept, not to me at least.

 

Night all

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one or two EGOs need deflating.People come on this forum for help and not be part of the arguments between two supposedly knowledgeable people. The original OP must be well and truly pi..issed off and has switched off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dodgeball said:

You said the above, which as shown is incorrect, an LO which has just been mistakenly imposed cannot just be set aside

 

Care to clarify?

 

How is it incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have made the mistake that thier were two supposed expert and will amend that to thier being no experts as far as I can see its just one big EGO trip for both of you and suggest that the  Site team close the post

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, basildonbond1946 said:

I may have made the mistake that thier were two supposed expert and will amend that to thier being no experts as far as I can see its just one big EGO trip for both of you and suggest that the  Site team close the post

 

Not agreeing with this though, not on my part anyway, :)


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As BA points out, as Busted & Stupid seem not to reissue the NOE to the correct address, in this case I concur with BA that OP pays council direct and puts in a Formal Complaint as Council are liable for act, omissions, and any wrongdoing by their agent Bristols & Stupor.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread now locked and will remain so until advised by the OP to reopen.

 

Regards

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 303 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...