Jump to content

BABYLON IS FALLEN


Recommended Posts

Interestingly the statement from court says corrosion was evident in various parts of the vehicle,but doesn't give any detail of how extensive or structurally weakening this was.

 

 

It wasn't a statement from the Court - it was a brief report from me. The vehicle examiner did go into technical details to show that the corrosion was dangerous, I just didn't note it down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I liked the part where he correctly identified himself with his real name when he required medical treatment at the hospital. Seems he is quite happy to acknowledge his real name when it comes to thin

Paul Joseph Doyle. Magistrates Court, Room 5, 2nd June 2015   Comment:   In my report from Mr Paul Doyle’s first hearing I commented, “I would have enjoyed seeing a better effort from Mr Doyle – t

Christianity has a place in all matters?   It's a pity they keep coming up on the wrong side of the debate then, Slavery, Scapegoating, age of consent, belief over action, interracial marriage, hom

Posted Images

 

If we were playing chess I would consider it to be a pawn down for a queen in the financial stakes...

You clearly as good at chess as you are at being a lawyer or at understanding the shape of the earth.

 

Contemptible - Tameelf is £800 down for what gain? 5 convictions, 3 points on his licence and under threat of 60 days in prison if he doesn't pay up. Oh yes definitely an awesome chess move.

 

My understanding is that he doesn't have to pay anything, they are taking £10 per week from something they were going to give him anyway, how can he default from that?

 

So whats the 60 day incarceration threat all about?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the part where he correctly identified himself with his real name when he required medical treatment at the hospital. Seems he is quite happy to acknowledge his real name when it comes to things from society that he can take such as Doctors, Benefit Cheques, etc.

 

Freeman? Freeloader more like.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that he doesn't have to pay anything, they are taking £10 per week from something they were going to give him anyway, how can he default from that?

 

 

 

So whats the 60 day incarceration threat all about?

 

 

Again, it's just a brief report. There was a lot more to it - regarding level of benefits and the ability of Treasury to deduct the payments from such benefits. TE was told that if Treasury were unable, for any reason, to pay the contribution from benefits then it would be TE's responsibility to ensure that payment was made. That's why there's a non-payment penalty. TE can't blame Treasury if the money isn't paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that he doesn't have to pay anything, they are taking £10 per week from something they were going to give him anyway, how can he default from that?

 

So whats the 60 day incarceration threat all about?

 

A basic understanding of Maths also seems to be alluding you.

 

Tameelf is entitled to get X from the government in benefits. As a result of his foolishness over licence plates etc he will now recieve X - £800.

 

The idea that Tameelf "doesn't have to pay anything" is frankly exactly the sort of nonsense I've come to expect from you but clearly explains why you think this is some sort of success. My goodness, you really are foolish.

 

Tameelf, be very careful if your benefits change. If the court isn't paid YOU and not the benefits office will be responsible. It is you who are paying this and will be responsible if your benefits circumstances change. Don't let Dandridge lie to you. You've lost £800 and if the court doesn't get it you risk prison. Don't let incompetence from the bureaucracy get you in more trouble. You've got to be responsible for making sure the deduction happens and that means being aware its happening every week. If they mess up, you could be in trouble. Take a care on this and make sure your fine is paid.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My understanding is that he doesn't have to pay anything, they are taking £10 per week from something they were going to give him anyway, how can he default from that?

 

 

 

So whats the 60 day incarceration threat all about?

 

 

Again, it's just a brief report. There was a lot more to it - regarding level of benefits and the ability of Treasury to deduct the payments from such benefits. TE was told that if Treasury were unable, for any reason, to pay the contribution from benefits then it would be TE's responsibility to ensure that payment was made. That's why there's a non-payment penalty. TE can't blame Treasury if the money isn't paid.

 

That is very interesting wording indeed..

Link to post
Share on other sites

A troll, like yourself ,taking up so much forum space is what I see as patently wrong.

Let me explain in terms that you just might understand.

 

If someone has opinions that do not represent the majority view or your view, even if on a regular basis, it does not make them a troll.

 

Attempting to undermine a persons opinion by attempting to undermine the person is only showing that you probably find the alternative view unassailable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My understanding is that he doesn't have to pay anything, they are taking £10 per week from something they were going to give him anyway, how can he default from that?

 

 

 

So whats the 60 day incarceration threat all about?

 

 

Again, it's just a brief report. There was a lot more to it - regarding level of benefits and the ability of Treasury to deduct the payments from such benefits. TE was told that if Treasury were unable, for any reason, to pay the contribution from benefits then it would be TE's responsibility to ensure that payment was made. That's why there's a non-payment penalty. TE can't blame Treasury if the money isn't paid.

 

That is very interesting wording indeed..

 

It's also bang on the button.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A troll, like yourself ,taking up so much forum space is what I see as patently wrong.

Let me explain in terms that you just might understand.

 

If someone has opinions that do not represent the majority view or your view, even if on a regular basis, it does not make them a troll.

 

Attempting to undermine a persons opinion by attempting to undermine the person is only showing that you probably find the alternative view unassailable.

 

I thought he was referring to me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My understanding is that he doesn't have to pay anything, they are taking £10 per week from something they were going to give him anyway, how can he default from that?

 

So whats the 60 day incarceration threat all about?

 

A basic understanding of Maths also seems to be alluding you.

 

Tameelf is entitled to get X from the government in benefits. As a result of his foolishness over licence plates etc he will now recieve X - £800.

 

The idea that Tameelf "doesn't have to pay anything" is frankly exactly the sort of nonsense I've come to expect from you but clearly explains why you think this is some sort of success. My goodness, you really are foolish.

 

Tameelf, be very careful if your benefits change. If the court isn't paid YOU and not the benefits office will be responsible. It is you who are paying this and will be responsible if your benefits circumstances change. Don't let Dandridge lie to you. You've lost £800 and if the court doesn't get it you risk prison. Don't let incompetence from the bureaucracy get you in more trouble. You've got to be responsible for making sure the deduction happens and that means being aware its happening every week. If they mess up, you could be in trouble. Take a care on this and make sure your fine is paid.

 

 

So if the Treasury is unable (I wonder how that could happen) to take £10 pw of apparently its own money and give it to itself (a different department of the corporation) as a CONTRIBUTION towards a court "fine" and the said person does not offer it up willingly then its 60 days in Jurby for said person.

 

Since you all seem to worry about the costs to the tax payer, I wonder what 60 days in Jurby would cost the CORPORATION...Anyone else getting a sense of the insanity here?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being made is that if TE's benefits change he still has to pay the fine. Why might TE's benefits change? Well because his circumstances change - health improves, gets a job etc or yes if there is a change to the benefits regime. None of these are inconceivably and so the court makes sure the person being fined is fully aware they are personally responsible for the full amount.

 

It is perfectly sensible and only the likes of you Dandridge wouldn't see that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My understanding is that he doesn't have to pay anything, they are taking £10 per week from something they were going to give him anyway, how can he default from that?

 

So whats the 60 day incarceration threat all about?

 

A basic understanding of Maths also seems to be alluding you.

 

Tameelf is entitled to get X from the government in benefits. As a result of his foolishness over licence plates etc he will now recieve X - £800.

 

The idea that Tameelf "doesn't have to pay anything" is frankly exactly the sort of nonsense I've come to expect from you but clearly explains why you think this is some sort of success. My goodness, you really are foolish.

 

Tameelf, be very careful if your benefits change. If the court isn't paid YOU and not the benefits office will be responsible. It is you who are paying this and will be responsible if your benefits circumstances change. Don't let Dandridge lie to you. You've lost £800 and if the court doesn't get it you risk prison. Don't let incompetence from the bureaucracy get you in more trouble. You've got to be responsible for making sure the deduction happens and that means being aware its happening every week. If they mess up, you could be in trouble. Take a care on this and make sure your fine is paid.

 

 

So if the Treasury is unable (I wonder how that could happen) to take £10 pw of apparently its own money and give it to itself (a different department of the corporation) as a CONTRIBUTION towards a court "fine" and the said person does not offer it up willingly then its 60 days in Jurby for said person.

 

Since you all seem to worry about the costs to the tax payer, I wonder what 60 days in Jurby would cost the CORPORATION...Anyone else getting a sense of the insanity here?

 

No, at least only that he got off so lightly.

 

The vehicle might well have been insured but if the idiot had been involved in an accident then with the vehicle being in such as awful and unroadworthy state the insurance company might (would?) have refused to pay out on that basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...