Re: Member Bluebells personal grudge (split thread)

[bluebells]

OMG even I ain't stupid enough to admit to cutting a wheel clamp off so they could do me for criminal damage and I've cut a fair few off even to the extent of one clamping company writing to me asking if they could please have there clamps back.
Can you not remember your mum ever saying if Pete said to jump in the river you wouldn't would you, after you done something wrong but tried to blame your mate for telling you to do it.

did you give them the clamp back?

i guess you was not stupid enough to admit to cutting the clamps off, but i guess you were stupid enough to be charged with theft lol

[Little D]

That seems a bit unfair to the 90k viewers then as you stated on 'Published on 10 Jun 2014' video that you had been studying 'bachelor of laws llb' for 'just over 2 years now' but here, you now say 'sep 2014 began law degree study llb, sep 2015 2nd year law degree study begins'.

Published on 10 Jun 2014

Bailiff Clamp returned

i uploaded this video in 2012 and again in 2014 after receiving advice regarding bailiffs and the law. the advice at that time sounded like the holy grail, i fell for it left right and centre. i searched for ways to get out of this mess due to being constantly visited by bailiffs for parking fines or council tax.
Today i am a little embarrassed about my conduct and the lies i told many who visited and commented. I did not receive any payment in fees for the clamping of my vehicle even though i sent a bill for thousands. I did however receive a criminal record for criminal damage to the clamp and fined £100 by the courts, and rightly so.
I was convinced that we were all being scammed by the authorities and that everything was corrupt, how wrong was i.
I eventually studied law to degree level (bachelor of laws llb) and have been at it for just over 2 years now. I have decided to write a book which is designed to explain the law as compared to Mark Ceylon and Jon Witterick.
If you are using such advice shared by these 2 individuals then i urge you to stop now, you will get nowhere. My book is full of information to help you understand the law and how it works. You will understand about what you can do when faced with bailiffs, debt collectors and mortgage arrears.

Even your book implies a grudge 'The Laws of Mark Ceylon & Jon Witterick: (A road to misery) Paperback  – 2 Sep 2017'

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1975991990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504446452&sr=8-1&keywords=laws+of+mark+ceylon

Mark Ceylon and Jon Witterick have become common figures in online social groups including youtube and facebook, while running their own online forum teaching and interpreting the law to vulnerable individuals who have found themselves in financial difficulty. Their lectures on law are dangerous and have no place in our society. This book is designed to help you the reader understand the law and how it works as compared to their version. The contents of the book does not attack them personally, it does however attack their knowledge of the law which is being used by many of their followers today and ending in misery and embarrassment which included myself. I decided to study the law and everything became clear. I will now share my learned subject with you.

I agree with your comment that you have 90k + views but, you haven't just re-uploaded that video, just made it public again. I know this as I had already found the private video earlier, before you made it public again.

bluebells, if you don't like Ceylon or, the ilk that come here to explore/discuss options then, you should possibly consider finding a group of like minded people to you.

If you have and, want to share 'your' perspective on topics discussed here then, no one is trying to stop you from doing that. We all make mistakes, construe things wrong etc etc. None of this needs to digress into a character assassination exercise.

I hope you 'fully' understand the law that you claim to be an expert in as, it may come back and kick you in the derriere.

Currently, I personally see, by your actions so far that, you are intentionally here to harass, cause alarm and distress to Ceylon and the general wider community as a whole.

[bluebells]

yes made it public again you are correct, i call it uploaded to the internet again and as you can see from these 2 interpretations yours is more correct than mine but understandably mean the same thing however small it may be.

harass, cause alarm and distress? where?

are you smillingalltheway by any chance?

and i have not claimed to be an expert in anything

[Guest]

Hi bluebells

Mate, what is up with you? This is a friendly community, are you here to befriend or sow discord?

If the former, then welcome brother.

If the latter, well - isn't that just trolling? What do you think is gonna happen if you continue to give that impression?

Cheers!

[Little D]

Offence of harassment

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/2

2   Offence of harassment.

(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of [F1section 1(1) or (1A)] is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

F2(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prohibition of harassment

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1

1   Prohibition of harassment.

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

[F1(1A)  A person must not pursue a course of conduct —

(a) which involves harassment of two or more persons, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and

(c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—

(i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or

(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.]

(2) For the purposes of this section [F2or section 2A(2)(c)], the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [F3 or involves] harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3) Subsection (1) [F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Offence of stalking

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/2A

[F12A Offence of stalking

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1), and

(b) the course of conduct amounts to stalking.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) (and section 4A(1)(a)) a person's course of conduct amounts to stalking of another person if—

(a) it amounts to harassment of that person,

(b) the acts or omissions involved are ones associated with stalking, and

(c) the person whose course of conduct it is knows or ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment of the other person.

(3) The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—

(a) following a person,

(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,

(c) publishing any statement or other material—

(i) relating or purporting to relate to a person, or

(ii) purporting to originate from a person,

(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,

(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),

(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,

(g) watching or spying on a person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

(5) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to six months.

(6) This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 2.]

Where are you studying law?.

[Jinxer]

OMG even I ain't stupid enough to admit to cutting a wheel clamp off so they could do me for criminal damage and I've cut a fair few off even to the extent of one clamping company writing to me asking if they could please have there clamps back.
Can you not remember your mum ever saying if Pete said to jump in the river you wouldn't would you, after you done something wrong but tried to blame your mate for telling you to do it.

did you give them the clamp back?

i guess you was not stupid enough to admit to cutting the clamps off, but i guess you were stupid enough to be charged with theft lol

I've never been charged with theft ever and for removing clamps I've never even been arrested. I wouldn't be stupid enough (and I'm a real idiot) to give one back either. Why you need to make a point of it when you've took it off is beyond me and to blame someone else well that's low.

[bluebells]

by Lopsum on Mon May 15, 2017 3:31 am

1/ We do not tolerate trolling or abuse of any of our members , mods or admin ! If you cannot make constructive criticism without being offensive or take constructive criticism without being offensive we ask you not to make the post at all !

2/ We do not allow alt accounts unless there is a problem with your normal account , in which case the faulty account should be deleted and a new one made . (contact admin if you have any issues with your account!)

3/ We dont like spam or junk links , if you have a website and want people to know about it we allow you to put this info in your profile where members can go if they chose ! Please dont make posts to advertise your websites or business but if it is relevant to an ongoing topic you can simply point people to your profile and link !

4/ We do not allow members to conduct secretive advice or help via personal message only . If anyone contacts you offering help in private only then you should report it to admin/mods !

Thank you ! We hope you can benefit from this site and become an active member and part of the community !

TO ALL GUESTS VIEWING THIS SITE

Post by assassin Today at 5:22 pm
TO ALL GUESTS

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ENTER THE SITE AND REGISTER, DO NOT BE AFRAID TO JOIN IN TO ANY DEBATE AND GIVE YOUR POINT OF VIEW AS IT IS AS VALID AS ANYONE ELSES.

IF YOU FEEL YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE SITE IN ANY WAY THEN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ENTER AND ADD YOUR CONTRIBUTION.

WE ARE GENERALLY A FRIENDLY LOT UNLESS YOU ARE A TROLL OR PAID SHILL, SO IF YOU ARE GENERALLY INTERESTED IN THE DISINFORMATION BEING BANDIED ABOUT TO CONTROL YOU AND TAKE YOUR MONEY, OR YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A BETTER WAY OF LIVING THEN PLEASE JOIN US AND NEVER FEEL EMBARASED.


i am here to help by alerting members to my book, i have answered questions from particular members including jinxer, iaman and yourself. constructive criticism is part of the rules of the forum, the forum does not like spam, i gathered that earlier when my book advert was removed with a warning.

you were saying?

[Guest]

Hi bluebells

.......suit yourself fella - keep digging that hole.

Cheers!

[bluebells]

OMG even I ain't stupid enough to admit to cutting a wheel clamp off so they could do me for criminal damage and I've cut a fair few off even to the extent of one clamping company writing to me asking if they could please have there clamps back.
Can you not remember your mum ever saying if Pete said to jump in the river you wouldn't would you, after you done something wrong but tried to blame your mate for telling you to do it.

did you give them the clamp back?

i guess you was not stupid enough to admit to cutting the clamps off, but i guess you were stupid enough to be charged with theft lol

I've never been charged with theft ever and for removing clamps I've never even been arrested. I wouldn't be stupid enough (and I'm a real idiot) to give one back either. Why you need to make a point of it when you've took it off is beyond me and to blame someone else well that's low.

well from your statement there you are lying or you have been charged with theft schedule 12 (68) Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

Offences

68(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to—
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or
(c)both.
(4)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in sub-paragraph (3)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

you stated they asked for their clamps back, did they beg you? just need to know not being rude. acts and statutes are not law then if you are being truthful

[Guest]

Hi bluebells

OK, do YOU believe acts and statutes are the law?

Cheers!

[bluebells]

Hi bluebells

OK,  do YOU believe acts and statutes are the law?

Cheers!

yes they are 100% fact unless of course there is another law

[Guest]

Hi bluebells

For real? Oh man, where do i start?

i'm beginning to suspect you don't know half as much as you think you do bluebells.

......REALLY? Unless there is another law?

That's a joke, right? You nearly had me you scoundrel - good one!

Cheers!

[bluebells]

Hi bluebells

For real? Oh man, where do i start?

i'm beginning to suspect you don't know half as much as you think you do bluebells.

......REALLY?  Unless there is another law?

That's a joke, right? You nearly had me you scoundrel  -  good one!

Cheers!

not quite sure what your answer is here but i am assuming your attempting to say statute and acts are not laws in which case there must be another law, right?

[Jinxer]

OMG even I ain't stupid enough to admit to cutting a wheel clamp off so they could do me for criminal damage and I've cut a fair few off even to the extent of one clamping company writing to me asking if they could please have there clamps back.
Can you not remember your mum ever saying if Pete said to jump in the river you wouldn't would you, after you done something wrong but tried to blame your mate for telling you to do it.

did you give them the clamp back?

i guess you was not stupid enough to admit to cutting the clamps off, but i guess you were stupid enough to be charged with theft lol

I've never been charged with theft ever and for removing clamps I've never even been arrested. I wouldn't be stupid enough (and I'm a real idiot) to give one back either. Why you need to make a point of it when you've took it off is beyond me and to blame someone else well that's low.

well from your statement there you are lying or you have been charged with theft schedule 12 (68) Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

Offences

68(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to—
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or
(c)both.
(4)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in sub-paragraph (3)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

you stated they asked for their clamps back, did they beg you? just need to know not being rude. acts and statutes are not law then if you are being truthful

I will explain it a little better just for you. I said one company even sent a letter asking for there clamps back. The letter was sent to business address which we still own. The three cars that were clamped were registered in trade with the yellow bit on the logbook at the business address. So if you really know your law you will also know that doesn't make me the registered keeper. The letter sent to the business was ignored as is any other letters we get that we don't like. Now tell me with your law degree how the Police would know who to arrest. By the way the business isn't a registered business but I'm sure somewhere with lot's of digging my name could get tied to it somehow but not anyway a bailiff could find out.

[bluebells]

so the 3 cars were clamped and registered as trade on the log book (not sure what that means), the letters were sent to your business address that you still own. that makes you responsible for the 3 cars that you were selling as a trader for profit. it wouldn't be upto a bailiff to find out who owns the unregistered business and your right it would be harder for a bailiff to actually find out. thats why they would call police in a criminal offence of theft.

[Jinxer]

so the 3 cars were clamped and registered as trade on the log book (not sure what that means), the letters were sent to your business address that you still own. that makes you responsible for the 3 cars that you were selling as a trader for profit.

Yes exactly. So now you know the same as what they knew, so you tell me who they send the Police to arrest. The company name is scrap your car if that helps.

[bluebells]

i just explained, they would arrest you or all of the persons that owned the business who is responsible for the 3 cars that you were selling for profit. the bailiffs took control by clamping probably for a debt that is unpaid. that debt is now part paid or fully paid depending on the value of the debt and the 3 cars. but you took the clamps off and they contacted you for them back but you never gave them back so that is theft of someone else's property. no harm loss or injury, 2 people are suffering loss due to you which are the creditor and the bailiff company.

[bluebells]

so if statutes and acts are not laws then please tell me what law helped you here?

[Little D]

Archive thread page one := https://web.archive.org/web/20170903230313/https://goodf.forumotion.com/t912-are-you-ready-for-a-september-surprise

Archive thread page two := https://web.archive.org/web/20170903230424/https://goodf.forumotion.com/t912p25-are-you-ready-for-a-september-surprise

Archive thread page three := https://web.archive.org/web/20170903230527/https://goodf.forumotion.com/t912p50-are-you-ready-for-a-september-surprise

Archive thread page four := https://web.archive.org/web/20170903230607/https://goodf.forumotion.com/t912p75-are-you-ready-for-a-september-surprise

http://www.vidinfo.org/video/4788160/bailiffs-clamp-returned archive := https://web.archive.org/web/20170903173734/http://www.vidinfo.org/video/4788160/bailiffs-clamp-returned

https://plus.google.com/u/0/110285210389952412299 archive := https://web.archive.org/web/20170903174203/https://plus.google.com/110285210389952412299

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWiY8KU-u3U&feature=autoshare archive := https://web.archive.org/save/_embed/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWiY8KU-u3U&feature=autoshare

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1975991990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504446452&sr=8-1&keywords=laws+of+mark+ceylon  archive := https://web.archive.org/web/20170903231332/https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1975991990/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504446452&sr=8-1&keywords=laws+of+mark+ceylon

[bluebells]

thanks banker but could you stop interfering please while i debate with iaman

make another thread mate with your links

[Guest]

Hi guys

bluebells - all law stems from 'gods' law. 'God' being the ultimate arbiter, the source no-one could gain-say. It doesn't even matter if God exists or not. The point is some influential man or men decided and agreed on some basic rules that could be nether challenged nor changed - an anchor in the sea of commerce that has held for however long man has been around.

For law is, was and ever will be about commerce. There was the concept of commerce possibly before the concept of god, and if not before then not long after!

Your 'law', as all here know, is nothing but 'rules given the force of law by the consent of the governed'.

Rules, code, regulations - but not law.

What we are being subjected to is various forms of Law Merchant/commercial code. Again, erroneously named to give the impression of divine authority.

Closest we have to god's law is common-law. As it is mostly fixed and unchanging and relates to dealings between men rather than 'persons' it is rightly termed as law - it doesn't need the consent of the governed.

Fancy a bit of Oleron? (That's NOT chocolate btw).

Cheers!

[Jinxer]

i just explained, they would arrest you or all of the persons that owned the business who is responsible for the 3 cars that you were selling for profit. the bailiffs took control by clamping probably for a debt that is unpaid. that debt is now part paid or fully paid depending on the value of the debt and the 3 cars. but you took the clamps off and they contacted you for them back but you never gave them back so that is theft of someone else's property. no harm loss or injury, 2 people are suffering loss due to you which are the creditor and the bailiff company.

We don't live in China where they could just make you disappear for no reason, we have laws here to protect us as well as to enslave us. It's how you use them that matters, and I use them to my advantage. And I can tell you now that even if the bailiff made a complaint to the police that his clamp had been stolen that wouldn't give the Police just cause to arrest me and I ain't even got a gcse let alone a law degree.

[Guest]

Hi bluebells

Why be dissing actinglikeabanker? His links have helped many and are usually quite interesting, you should try them.

Why so intense?

Cheers!

[Jinxer]

Hi bluebells

Why be dissing actinglikeabanker? His links have helped many and are usually quite interesting,  you should try them.

Why so intense?

Cheers!

I think he may be having trouble multi tasking.

[bluebells]

Hi guys

bluebells  -  all law stems from 'gods' law. 'God' being the ultimate arbiter, the source no-one could gain-say. It doesn't even matter if God exists or not. The point is some influential man or men decided and agreed on some basic rules that could be nether challenged nor changed  -  an anchor in the sea of commerce that has held for however long man has been around.

For law is, was and ever will be about commerce. There was the concept of commerce possibly before the concept of god, and if not before then not long after!

Your 'law', as all here know, is nothing but 'rules given the force of law by the consent of the governed'.

Rules, code, regulations  -  but not law.

What we are being subjected to is various forms of  Law Merchant/commercial code. Again, erroneously named to give the impression of divine authority.

Closest we have to god's law is common-law. As it is mostly fixed and unchanging and relates to dealings between men rather than 'persons' it is rightly termed as law  -  it doesn't need the consent of the governed.

Fancy a bit of Oleron? (That's NOT chocolate btw).

Cheers!

you are speaking in an historical concept, life has evolved since then. gods law is natural law deriving from god and it is man made law that is reflected as gods law or natural law. these are natural law principles, just as in no harm loss or injury is natural. laws are interpreted today as meaning for the greater good of the greatest number of people and to minimise suffering. the moral and religious values have played a big part in influencing law as it is today. look at schedule 12 i posted above, in a nutshell, A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent. theft act s7 A person guilty of theft shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F1 seven years].

do you think that is natural and do you think god would agree?

[Sponsored content]