Thursday, 8 August 2013

Comedy gold

Some days this feels like more hassle than it's worth.  Today is not one of them.  An eagle-eyed reader reminded me of a forum post I made some weeks ago on the excellent  It seems not everyone is a supporter.  I'm being trolled by someone with the user name "truthful and honest".
I believe that the action Avenger took has been confirmed as ILLEGAL and he now has a criminal record (if he didn't already have one before) People like you should just pay what is owed, rather than wasting your energies trying to wriggle out of paying what is fair and just. Shame on you
"Fair and just" would be a lawful charge for the liability order and fees as outlined in Schedule 5 of the The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Act  - that, and clamping with lawful authority.  Neither the council nor the bailiffs saw fit to obey the law as I have previously outlined here ad nauseum.

Our troll continues...
My only problem with Avenger would be that he is not putting the facts. Why should he be allowed to slander someone with no redress. I dont have a personal problem with him, just forums like this one and the lies he is spouting.
Of course, there is plenty of opportunity for redress.  If Rundle & Co believe this is slander, then they can either take me to small claims court for their fees or take civic action.  They would of course have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their charges were lawful and they had lawful authority to clamp.  Hold my breath I will not.  They continue...
Im not a Bailiffs biggest fan, believe me, and I am sure some can be corrupt, but this forum has just turned into a witch hunt. Its sickening.  I accept there are people out there who may have genuine points to make, but when you listen to idiots like Avenger, who HAS been proven in the wrong, you are only demeening (sic) yourself, and your point.
You can read my response on their forum.  This individual seems to know more than they are letting on. I wonder why that is?   I looked at this trolls posting history and they have only made five posts, all of which are on this specific thread.  

Course, being a programmer and a php forum administrator, I posses a certain degree of skill and was able to determine "Truthful and honest" is none other than "Nicky Spring" posting from her Hotmail account - AKA Nicola Spring, of Rundle & Co. - The phantom visitor herself! - and their main witness.

No doubt since she is "truthful and honest", she will return to the forum and outline exactly why she thinks persons such as I are "lying through their teeth"?  I'm only going off their case log file in the trial pack.  If I am in error, perhaps Ms Spring should take better care to take truthful notes.  I will be sure to press her on this the next time I cross examine her in the witness box.


  1. Nice bit of detective work! Messrs Rundle & Co don't seem to be covering themselves in glory, do they?

    BTW, I think it would really help me (and anyone else coming late to this saga) if you could post a timeline of the events, because trying to unpick it all from the various blog posts is confusing to someone with a small brain. Maybe you could put it up as a static page on the blog?

    Also, and FWIW, I think you may have let Rundles, plod and/or SGC wriggle off the hook on more than one occasion by covering more than one point at a time in your correspondence with them. Based on my own experience in dealing with similar people, what I mean is that if you write a letter where you talk about Subject A and also Subject B, they tend to respond to A or B (whichever is easiest for them) and ignore the other one. You, in your anger at their measly, weaselling reply, concentrate on that and it's easy to let the lack of a response to the other subject slip past. Better to write two letters, each covering one subject (in my humble).

    Apart from that, keep your spirits up and "non illigitimi carborundum".

    [I speak as one who has given up trying to get a new phone fixed under warranty by Carphone Warehouse and/or Samsung -- apparently I caused "water damage", or possibly "mechanical damage" (take your pick), thus voiding the warranty, but if I'm not happy with their conclusion I can send the phone back to them and they will have another technician look at it; wonder what the second technician would conclude?]

  2. Came across this today that might be worth a read as to why Council Tax is unlawful under current legislation. Your Dad may be interested as I know CT is one of his bugbears (regular EURef reader) and may also like to check it out when he isn't too busy with the Harrogate Agenda.