Quatloos!

Bungle wrote: So we have Tuco and now Droopy. Just one more, and we will have the whole trio from the Bailiff Help Forum.

Well let's hope Oddy Greengrass shows up to even things out.

BTW Sheila, what with your constant posting on here, CAG, MSE, LB and the myriad of other fora you frequent, plus emailing senior law partners, John Kruse, travelling on the train to attend various advisory groups, scouring 'Scoop' and local papers for bailiff stories, reporting every cough and fart on the BTB Facebook page, trawling through all of Outlaw's posts and sending DL nasty emails, I don't understand how you manage to deal with the 'hundreds' of enquiries from your own website. Do you work a 90 hour day?

You lot are all way too worrily obsessed with each other, following each other around all over the internet so you can have your pety squabbles....

In my own view you are all as bad as each other

Can you please do me and the rest of the real quatloos a favour and either get a hotel room and get your freaks on together, or go and find another forum to have your pissing contest in...

It is windy here and having a pissing contest only results in you getting wet

Is this going to become another pissing contest?
Leave your jealousy behind when you log on.
As Bones has quite rightly said, you are each as bad as each other.

Flipper wrote:Bungle. Droopy and Tuco are not the worry, ask Bungle what she's done with info from here. Funny how her posting style changes when she thinks her clients won't see it. She's obsessed and only uses BTBATB to drum up some business to fund her £1 million mansion paid for from money earned from vulnerable debtors.

Evidence? Without it, it just yet another unsubstantiated allegation. Droopy is good at those to.

You saying it is not evidence, nor is the GOODF/DWB habit of repeating your claim.

Evidence please Flipper............

rumpelstilzchen wrote:Is this going to become another pissing contest?
Leave your jealousy behind when you log on.

I can piss higher than all of them, I tell you

Skeleton wrote: Evidence? Without it, it just yet another unsubstantiated allegation. Droopy is good at those to.

Am I? What do you need?

Droopy wrote:

Skeleton wrote: Evidence? Without it, it just yet another unsubstantiated allegation. Droopy is good at those to.

Am I? What do you need?

You and the rest to stay focused on the topic of the thread would be a good start

Your problem if I may say Mark is that like everyone else on the self styled expert forums, is you have any depth of knowledge.
You read a book on bailiffs and you think you understand what it says. Often you are wrong because you are basing your understanding on your previous misconceptions of how the law works.
Previous to the new legislation the bailiff enforced using the distress for rent rules and supported by a great deal of ancient common law. You will of course remember a little while ago, a court case which said implied rights under that system were not appropriate.
I am sure Bungle will supply the case for us as I dont have it to hand. Basically because you were claiming a tort of trespass, and there are no damages to support such a claim. Also there is a term(or was) in the council tax enforcement regs which said no that bailiff can be considered a trespasser. But even then a bailiff was enforcing a legal process, so there is no implied right in any case.

Currently as shown the right to attend is in the legislation. If a boundary is secured then the bailiff cannot force entry, neither can the milk man or the post man so not a very practical solution.

Bones wrote:

Droopy wrote:

Skeleton wrote: Evidence? Without it, it just yet another unsubstantiated allegation. Droopy is good at those to.

Am I? What do you need?

You and the rest to stay focused on the topic of the thread would be a good start

Not going to happen, to busy chucking their handbags at each other.

Droopy why do you feel the need to mention names on these forums are you so bankrupt in anything useful to say, that you have to attempt to intimidate in order to win your point.

I am not Peter ? However i would appreciate it if the admin removed the comment or edit , as it as a bad precedent.

Worzel Gummidge wrote:Droopy why do you feel the need to mention names on these forums are you so bankrupt in anything useful to say, that you have to attempt to intimidate in order to win your point.

I am not Peter ? However i would appreciate it if the admin removed the comment or edit , as it as a bad precedent.

Priceless.

On Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:49 pm, Worzel wrote:

Mark I cannot think you really believe this. Firstly a council tax debt is not a private debt......

Droopy wrote:

Skeleton wrote: Evidence? Without it, it just yet another unsubstantiated allegation. Droopy is good at those to.

Am I? What do you need?

Evidence to back up almost all the drivel you post would be good. Like Flipper and Tuco your very good at marching into a thread and totally ignoring the thread title and heading off in your own peculiar direction. This is Quatloos, not GOODF or the BHF, stick to the thread and when you state a bailiff cant do this etc, point us in the direction of the law that says he can not, and by that i do not mean sdtick a BTBATB sticker in the window. This thread by the way is about BTBATB, not personal attacks on Bungle.

Anyway, any possibility of a reasoned discussion has vanished now, so i will likewise disappear and come back when the likes of mark and droopy have returned under their bridge.