Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
That’s a more serious point - I appreciate the small claims court is supposed to be about efficiency but here they seem to have missed the most basic checks… like the identity of the alleged debtor…
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
Indeed.
The County Court will have sent him letter(s) indicating an action against him if he did not respond. Presumably he ignored them, put up no defence and hence the judgement.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
That’s a more serious point - I appreciate the small claims court is supposed to be about efficiency but here they seem to have missed the most basic checks… like the identity of the alleged debtor…
Yes. If her claim was "Boris Johnson has lied and I value that lie at £535" then none of us are safe from spurious claims. Hence my "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd" gag - surely some creativity must have been needed? I would expect to have to show an unpaid invoice or similar.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct address ??? That's the worrying part of this
If a claim is made and the defendant either fails to acknowledge service or fails to file a defence, the claimant can apply for a default judgment. This will be granted automatically without without a hearing and without any consideration of the merits of the claim. It is effectively the same as a sports person forfeiting a competitive match if they fail to turn up.
Once default judgment has been granted, the defendant can apply to have it set aside. Such applications are almost invariably granted.
Curious what people think about the odds on the Greens topping the polls in Germany later this year. I put a little on them for most seats at 4.6. currently 3.25, with CSU/CDU at 1.33. Not really hedgeable, as yet.
Also, the Conservatives are out to 1.5 for Batley and Spen. Backed Labour at 3.8 or so. Might look at backing the blues next.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct address ??? That's the worrying part of this
If a claim is made and the defendant either fails to acknowledge service or fails to file a defence, the claimant can apply for a default judgment. This will be granted automatically without without a hearing and without any consideration of the merits of the claim. It is effectively the same as a sports person forfeiting a competitive match if they fail to turn up.
Once default judgment has been granted, the defendant can apply to have it set aside. Such applications are almost invariably granted.
I have heard from a disturbingly large number of people who've had CCJ's as a nasty shock without ever knowing there was an issue.
One friend only found out about one when he applied for a mortgage. Car Parking company had sent a parking ticket to a prior address of his, managed to secure a CCJ and it followed him and ended up on his file despite nothing ever having been sent to his actual address.
Its remarkable that Court documents don't even get sent Recorded Delivery to ensure people have received the documents before they can reach the judgment stage.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct address ??? That's the worrying part of this
If a claim is made and the defendant either fails to acknowledge service or fails to file a defence, the claimant can apply for a default judgment. This will be granted automatically without without a hearing and without any consideration of the merits of the claim. It is effectively the same as a sports person forfeiting a competitive match if they fail to turn up.
Once default judgment has been granted, the defendant can apply to have it set aside. Such applications are almost invariably granted.
I have heard from a disturbingly large number of people who've had CCJ's as a nasty shock without ever knowing there was an issue.
One friend only found out about one when he applied for a mortgage. Car Parking company had sent a parking ticket to a prior address of his, managed to secure a CCJ and it followed him and ended up on his file despite nothing ever having been sent to his actual address.
Its remarkable that Court documents don't even get sent Recorded Delivery to ensure people have received the documents before they can reach the judgment stage.
Ditto (although only one person, but absolutely nothing to do with him)
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
That’s a more serious point - I appreciate the small claims court is supposed to be about efficiency but here they seem to have missed the most basic checks… like the identity of the alleged debtor…
The line that he is not Boris, he is Alex does not wash. Send Boris Johnson a cheque for £58,000 and see if he cashes it (after absent-mindedly using it as a bookmark for six months).
You'd think Labour would have learned from the wallpaper story, but no, here we are again facing serious questions about the future of the economy, business investment cratered in the first quarter and some of the housing market indicators are flashing red and the opposition went for yet another non-story. This time without even doing any basic fact checking.
It's as if they're so ready to believe anything negative about Boris that they lose all sense of proportion because "it must be true, Boris is a c***". Now they just look like incompetents.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Ocean finance apr is 39.9% cheap when you consider there are scum firms advertising on the tele at99.9% which is worse iirc than Wonga.? In reality with interest rates at 0% ' 40% is daylight robbery IMHO.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
"On cultural issues, Labour is being backed into electorally off-putting positions... defined by the woke left." People "dislike prejudice; but they dislike extremism in combating prejudice."
Blair, Mandy & The Standard laying into Sir Keir today
Farage has been having fun as well:
"I believe the Labour Party is in much bigger trouble than anybody realises."
"Does Starmer realise that his traditional vote does not feel the need to apologise for everything this country has ever stood for? They are not ashamed of British history. They cannot relate to these gestures."
But I keep being told this is only an issue on Twitter?
‘Everyone’? I didn’t know that Blair, Mandelson, and Farage counted for ‘everyone.’
Even in terms of Farage’s comments, when did Starmer go round constantly apologising for everything in British history? Even in regard to the Blair critique, what catalogue of policy and or social positions does Labour have now that they were pushed into by the ‘woke left’?
Ocean finance apr is 39.9% cheap when you consider there are scum firms advertising on the tele at99.9% which is worse iirc than Wonga.? In reality with interest rates at 0% ' 40% is daylight robbery IMHO.
Wonga went bust a few years ago.
It wasn't daylight robbery, it was usury.
They ripping off the people who could least afford it.
Now people defended them saying the APR was so high because it was annualised and the loan was for only 30-60 days, however they let people roll the loan over, and people often had loans for longer, sometimes for over a year.
I know of several people who took out loans for more a £1,000, after a year they still owed around £940 and had paid a lot of interest.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issued without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issued without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Good comparison with Alba.
Would probably get a similar number of seats.
Potentially. But as the Labour divorce is happening anyway, may as well do it quickly and positively. Alba could have made ground had handy Alex given himself sufficient time to grease enough shoulders. The Greens were the established Yes party on the list and switching to Alba meant risking that and having to associate yourself with *that*.
I doubt there's any incentive for anyone to divorce now following the shambolic TIG. That's scorched that earth.
Blair (or those like him) and the TIGgers and more moderates defecting directly to the Liberal Democrats while Corbyn was PM could have been transformative. Instead it was shambolic and now there's no real chance of real change.
The (well, one of the many...) problem with Labour is that while it surely wants the divorce, both sides are absolutely determined not to move out of the 'Labour' house. So both stay, hoping the other will leave.
This being, of course, due to both sides knowing that many people like/have nostalgia for the house, rather than the current occupants.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
American Sovereign Citizens like to do that kind of thing.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
If you want to correct records you nowadays have to fight your way past layers of automated systems that take no account of common sense (understandably since they're machines). When I discovered that a credit agency had recorded me as "never on the electoral register", I pointed out that I was a councillor and couldn't legally have been elected without being on the register. They didn't reply. So I tried again, providing a statement from the council that I was on the register. After 3 months, I finally heard from a human, who said that my previous letter was disregarded since it didn't have the appropriate form to satisfy the system. I expostulated that they should have let me know. He pointed out that they weren't customers of mine (in a sense I was a customer of theirs, since they were providing a free credit refernece system) and didn't owe me any particular service level. The problem is that you don't get to choose your credit agency.
The classic example was Tony Blair's neighbour when he was PM, who said that there was a soldier with a submachine gun on guard 24/7 next door, who would certainly notice any break-in, could be have a discount on his burglary insurance? The company said no, you have not given evidence of an approved neighbourhood watch scheme.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
If someone is being vexatious then the courts can put a stop to that and they do.
I work for a company that issues a lot of a CCJs, this I didn't receive the paperwork usually doesn't wash with the courts.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
Maybe the cut-backs in the Courts under previous Conservative governments have reduced the ability of the County Courts to carry out the the proper processes. Just saying.
Curious what people think about the odds on the Greens topping the polls in Germany later this year. I put a little on them for most seats at 4.6. currently 3.25, with CSU/CDU at 1.33. Not really hedgeable, as yet.
Also, the Conservatives are out to 1.5 for Batley and Spen. Backed Labour at 3.8 or so. Might look at backing the blues next.
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
Loyalist paramilitaries to David Frost: Protocol isn't gonna work. You need to change it. Later, Frost to EU: Protocol isn't gonna work, we need to change it.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
Not really true, voters in Hartlepool just wanted hard Brexit, especially an end to free movement, they would have been fine for NI to also get hard Brexit if Boris and the EU agreed.
However if there is a hung parliament in 2024 and the DUP have the balance of power then to preserve that hard Brexit it would have to be imposed on NI too and the border moved from the Irish Sea to Ireland or the DUP would refuse to keep the Tories in power.
In that case Labour would form a government with a UK more closely aligned to single market regulations, effectively removing the Irish Sea border anyway
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Why not? Because in 1983 Lab + SDP/LD got 16 million votes and 232 seats. Tories got 13 million votes and 397 seats.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
That’s a more serious point - I appreciate the small claims court is supposed to be about efficiency but here they seem to have missed the most basic checks… like the identity of the alleged debtor…
If true, that points up 2 things.
1 - The Online procedure has some problems. 2 - The person who created a fake case has committed some sort of offence.
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Good comparison with Alba.
Would probably get a similar number of seats.
Potentially. But as the Labour divorce is happening anyway, may as well do it quickly and positively. Alba could have made ground had handy Alex given himself sufficient time to grease enough shoulders. The Greens were the established Yes party on the list and switching to Alba meant risking that and having to associate yourself with *that*.
I doubt there's any incentive for anyone to divorce now following the shambolic TIG. That's scorched that earth.
Blair (or those like him) and the TIGgers and more moderates defecting directly to the Liberal Democrats while Corbyn was PM could have been transformative. Instead it was shambolic and now there's no real chance of real change.
The (well, one of the many...) problem with Labour is that while it surely wants the divorce, both sides are absolutely determined not to move out of the 'Labour' house. So both stay, hoping the other will leave.
This being, of course, due to both sides knowing that many people like/have nostalgia for the house, rather than the current occupants.
Labour can’t really divorce because neither side can actually win without the other. A left wing party wouldn’t have anywhere near the kind of mass appeal to win an election, and none of those who are notable left wing, older figures in the party are going to be taken seriously by voters anyway. No one is voting for Richard Burgon to be PM.
Quite frankly, a breakaway from the right leaning fraction wouldn’t either. We’ve seen it happen twice now. Tony Blair leading it wouldn’t change things either - Blair is an unpopular figure in the country now, this isn’t the 1990s anymore.
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Good comparison with Alba.
Would probably get a similar number of seats.
Potentially. But as the Labour divorce is happening anyway, may as well do it quickly and positively. Alba could have made ground had handy Alex given himself sufficient time to grease enough shoulders. The Greens were the established Yes party on the list and switching to Alba meant risking that and having to associate yourself with *that*.
I doubt there's any incentive for anyone to divorce now following the shambolic TIG. That's scorched that earth.
Blair (or those like him) and the TIGgers and more moderates defecting directly to the Liberal Democrats while Corbyn was PM could have been transformative. Instead it was shambolic and now there's no real chance of real change.
The (well, one of the many...) problem with Labour is that while it surely wants the divorce, both sides are absolutely determined not to move out of the 'Labour' house. So both stay, hoping the other will leave.
This being, of course, due to both sides knowing that many people like/have nostalgia for the house, rather than the current occupants.
Is it even that- the SDP experience surely makes it clear that a Labour split would hand the other lot a decade or more of election wins on a silver platter.
If Labour is a couple (and from the outside, that seems a reasonable image), it seems like the kind of couple who are happy to make the marriage work, as long as the other one is making all the changes. That dynamic can lead to a long- lived but miserable stasis. Does that make Starmer (of the left but not loony, acknowledging Brexit without embracing it) the hapless and probably doomed marriage guidance counsellor?
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I read that too - the guy appears reliable and not a sensationalist - I wonder if some of the comments down thread - that the NHS is catching up setting up the infrastructure for Pfizer is accurate? The Welsh seem to have the right idea "as many jabs in as many arms as quickly as possible".
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
That’s a more serious point - I appreciate the small claims court is supposed to be about efficiency but here they seem to have missed the most basic checks… like the identity of the alleged debtor…
If true, that points up 2 things.
1 - The Online procedure has some problems. 2 - The person who created a fake case has committed some sort of offence.
BoJo will make the application to discharge judgment in default, and that will be that.
Of course people can commit an offence by alleging facts which are not true, but I am not aware of them ever leading to a prosecution even if the case is thrown out.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
If someone is being vexatious then the courts can put a stop to that and they do.
I work for a company that issues a lot of a CCJs, this I didn't receive the paperwork usually doesn't wash with the courts.
Bloke on the radio (LBC) said it usually did. A genuine reason for not having received it - say it was in a pile of letters on the PMs desk with a "will get round to" or "not important" label; the PM isn't expected to open his own letters - is a good enough reason to have it set aside.
Loyalist paramilitaries to David Frost: Protocol isn't gonna work. You need to change it. Later, Frost to EU: Protocol isn't gonna work, we need to change it.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
Not really true, voters in Hartlepool just wanted hard Brexit, especially an end to free movement, they would have been fine for NI to also get hard Brexit if Boris and the EU agreed.
However if there is a hung parliament in 2024 and the DUP have the balance of power then to preserve that hard Brexit it would have to be imposed on NI too and the border moved from the Irish Sea to Ireland or the DUP would refuse to keep the Tories in power.
In that case Labour would form a government with a UK more closely aligned to single market regulations, effectively removing the Irish Sea border anyway
Remain would have won with a reasonable brake on FoM, which a fundamentalist EU would not grant. The good people of Hartlepool can hardly be blamed for voting the way they felt was right for them. Bankers, city types and Londoners did so as well. As did all sides in NI. Treating people from places like Hartlepool as if they matter less or are marginal is the problem not the solution.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
Loyalist paramilitaries to David Frost: Protocol isn't gonna work. You need to change it. Later, Frost to EU: Protocol isn't gonna work, we need to change it.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
Not really true, voters in Hartlepool just wanted hard Brexit, especially an end to free movement, they would have been fine for NI to also get hard Brexit if Boris and the EU agreed.
However if there is a hung parliament in 2024 and the DUP have the balance of power then to preserve that hard Brexit it would have to be imposed on NI too and the border moved from the Irish Sea to Ireland or the DUP would refuse to keep the Tories in power.
In that case Labour would form a government with a UK more closely aligned to single market regulations, effectively removing the Irish Sea border anyway
What I don't understand with this analysis is thinking somehow that Brexit voters wanted a hard Brexit and an end to free movement.
I am constantly assured on here that people voted Brexit so that more people from India could come here to work.
Loyalist paramilitaries to David Frost: Protocol isn't gonna work. You need to change it. Later, Frost to EU: Protocol isn't gonna work, we need to change it.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
Not really true, voters in Hartlepool just wanted hard Brexit, especially an end to free movement, they would have been fine for NI to also get hard Brexit if Boris and the EU agreed.
However if there is a hung parliament in 2024 and the DUP have the balance of power then to preserve that hard Brexit it would have to be imposed on NI too and the border moved from the Irish Sea to Ireland or the DUP would refuse to keep the Tories in power.
In that case Labour would form a government with a UK more closely aligned to single market regulations, effectively removing the Irish Sea border anyway
What I don't understand with this analysis is thinking somehow that Brexit voters wanted a hard Brexit and an end to free movement.
I am constantly assured on here that people voted Brexit so that more people from India could come here to work.
Probably it is wrong to generalise about what 17.4 million voters wanted. The only thing we can say is that they put a cross in the same box five years ago.
Loyalist paramilitaries to David Frost: Protocol isn't gonna work. You need to change it. Later, Frost to EU: Protocol isn't gonna work, we need to change it.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
Not really true, voters in Hartlepool just wanted hard Brexit, especially an end to free movement, they would have been fine for NI to also get hard Brexit if Boris and the EU agreed.
However if there is a hung parliament in 2024 and the DUP have the balance of power then to preserve that hard Brexit it would have to be imposed on NI too and the border moved from the Irish Sea to Ireland or the DUP would refuse to keep the Tories in power.
In that case Labour would form a government with a UK more closely aligned to single market regulations, effectively removing the Irish Sea border anyway
What I don't understand with this analysis is thinking somehow that Brexit voters wanted a hard Brexit and an end to free movement.
I am constantly assured on here that people voted Brexit so that more people from India could come here to work.
People from India now just come to work here on the same terms and under the same points system as people from the EU, before there was free movement from the EU but not India
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
I would suspect there's even fewer than that first doses needed in reality by now for AZ. We must be extremely close to not having any AZ first doses left at all.
The rollout effectively already seems to be into the 30-somethings and while some (including myself) were recently jabbed with AZ, given the advice has now changed who does that leave to jab with AZ anymore? I'm presuming the over-40s in my area at least and probably many other areas had already been offered their first dose which is why I was called and other 30-somethings have been.
Loyalist paramilitaries to David Frost: Protocol isn't gonna work. You need to change it. Later, Frost to EU: Protocol isn't gonna work, we need to change it.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
Not really true, voters in Hartlepool just wanted hard Brexit, especially an end to free movement, they would have been fine for NI to also get hard Brexit if Boris and the EU agreed.
However if there is a hung parliament in 2024 and the DUP have the balance of power then to preserve that hard Brexit it would have to be imposed on NI too and the border moved from the Irish Sea to Ireland or the DUP would refuse to keep the Tories in power.
In that case Labour would form a government with a UK more closely aligned to single market regulations, effectively removing the Irish Sea border anyway
What I don't understand with this analysis is thinking somehow that Brexit voters wanted a hard Brexit and an end to free movement.
I am constantly assured on here that people voted Brexit so that more people from India could come here to work.
Not all voted for the same reason but both those claims are true for some voters. Indeed both are related.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
If someone is being vexatious then the courts can put a stop to that and they do.
I work for a company that issues a lot of a CCJs, this I didn't receive the paperwork usually doesn't wash with the courts.
Bloke on the radio (LBC) said it usually did. A genuine reason for not having received it - say it was in a pile of letters on the PMs desk with a "will get round to" or "not important" label; the PM isn't expected to open his own letters - is a good enough reason to have it set aside.
Having in the long dead past received such letters I wish I'd known I could have told the Court that. Quite frankly I don't believe the Court would have accepted that excuse.
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
If someone is being vexatious then the courts can put a stop to that and they do.
I work for a company that issues a lot of a CCJs, this I didn't receive the paperwork usually doesn't wash with the courts.
Bloke on the radio (LBC) said it usually did. A genuine reason for not having received it - say it was in a pile of letters on the PMs desk with a "will get round to" or "not important" label; the PM isn't expected to open his own letters - is a good enough reason to have it set aside.
Having in the long dead past received such letters I wish I'd known I could have told the Court that. Quite frankly I don't believe the Court would have accepted that excuse.
It must have been around 8.30-ish on LBC Nick Ferrari - quite an interesting segment.
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
Ocean finance apr is 39.9% cheap when you consider there are scum firms advertising on the tele at99.9% which is worse iirc than Wonga.? In reality with interest rates at 0% ' 40% is daylight robbery IMHO.
You'd almost think that they had overheads and high default rates to cover, or something.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
If someone is being vexatious then the courts can put a stop to that and they do.
I work for a company that issues a lot of a CCJs, this I didn't receive the paperwork usually doesn't wash with the courts.
Bloke on the radio (LBC) said it usually did. A genuine reason for not having received it - say it was in a pile of letters on the PMs desk with a "will get round to" or "not important" label; the PM isn't expected to open his own letters - is a good enough reason to have it set aside.
Having in the long dead past received such letters I wish I'd known I could have told the Court that. Quite frankly I don't believe the Court would have accepted that excuse.
It must have been around 8.30-ish on LBC Nick Ferrari - quite an interesting segment.
How did you feel it finished; did it sound a likely excuse or not?
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
I am off to get my second jab today. It is AZ as I have a history of reaction to iodine so couldn’t take the Pfizer one. The first one left me sick as a dog with recurrent flu-like symptoms so I am not overly enthusiastic about the prospect.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I can see some merit in rotten boroughs… hear me out before you all pile on…
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
The House of Lords in an embarrassing anachronism that should have been abolished in 1911, if not earlier. I do not want Ministers appointed to it just so they could serve but I would not want them in the Commons without being elected either.
What is required is a mechanism by which an appointed Minister can be held to account by the Commons without being in Parliament. Lots of other countries seem to manage this without problems. So, members of Biden's cabinet appear before Congress without being a member of either House, for example.
Why can't we do the same even although our constitution is built around the executive being in Parliament rather than merely accountable to it? Clearly there has to be limits on this and I do not think that such appointed Ministers could hold cabinet rank, for example. But if someone is appointed because they actually know something about the area that they are to be a Minister in I would have thought select committees are the answer in terms of accountability.
Excellent post
Yes the obvious answer is to replace the Lords with a beefed-up committee system through which ministers are interrogated more thoroughly and regularly than at present. Or just insist that ministers are MPs.
If we must have a second chamber (and New Zealand is ranked as more democratic than we are in most rankings without one) let's get rid of all the political appointees and priests from religions that fewer and fewer people actually follow.
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
What's wrong with "I don't want to"?
You are clearly neither Moslem nor Catholic.
Atheist. TSE could give it a go, would never need to go to a Mosque again. 😉
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
Maybe the cut-backs in the Courts under previous Conservative governments have reduced the ability of the County Courts to carry out the the proper processes. Just saying.
Are you seriously saying the more civil servants are employed the more efficient and accurate the civil service becomes?
Yes the obvious answer is to replace the Lords with a beefed-up committee system through which ministers are interrogated more thoroughly and regularly than at present. Or just insist that ministers are MPs.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
That’s a more serious point - I appreciate the small claims court is supposed to be about efficiency but here they seem to have missed the most basic checks… like the identity of the alleged debtor…
The line that he is not Boris, he is Alex does not wash. Send Boris Johnson a cheque for £58,000 and see if he cashes it (after absent-mindedly using it as a bookmark for six months).
It's not a line - it's a serious point. Legal judgements should be served in the legal name of the person (although in this specific case I think you would have an argument that Alexander Johnson was trading as "Boris Johnson). However, it looks like there were no checks done - my point is the court system needs more investment in order to ensure justice is done
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
If the stockpile is AZ then I'm not surprised the people in charge weren't rushing to donate the vaccines to Covax or anywhere. AZ has suffered from unique attacks, so I'm fairly sure the UK disposing of AZ would have been seen as evidence that even the UK doesn't want it.
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
If you want to correct records you nowadays have to fight your way past layers of automated systems that take no account of common sense (understandably since they're machines). When I discovered that a credit agency had recorded me as "never on the electoral register", I pointed out that I was a councillor and couldn't legally have been elected without being on the register. They didn't reply. So I tried again, providing a statement from the council that I was on the register. After 3 months, I finally heard from a human, who said that my previous letter was disregarded since it didn't have the appropriate form to satisfy the system. I expostulated that they should have let me know. He pointed out that they weren't customers of mine (in a sense I was a customer of theirs, since they were providing a free credit refernece system) and didn't owe me any particular service level. The problem is that you don't get to choose your credit agency.
The classic example was Tony Blair's neighbour when he was PM, who said that there was a soldier with a submachine gun on guard 24/7 next door, who would certainly notice any break-in, could be have a discount on his burglary insurance? The company said no, you have not given evidence of an approved neighbourhood watch scheme.
We got a discount when Michael Howard lived opposite us - perhaps we were more persuasive with our insurance broker?
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
If the stockpile is AZ then I'm not surprised the people in charge weren't rushing to donate the vaccines to Covax or anywhere. AZ has suffered from unique attacks, so I'm fairly sure the UK disposing of AZ would have been seen as evidence that even the UK doesn't want it.
Apparently AZ is now popular in Germany to the point where there are supply issues.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
Maybe the cut-backs in the Courts under previous Conservative governments have reduced the ability of the County Courts to carry out the the proper processes. Just saying.
Are you seriously saying the more civil servants are employed the more the efficient and accurate the civil service becomes?
Lol.
I'm saying that the fewer such people are employed the greater the workload on those left, the more likely corners are cut and the more likely delays are experienced. Finding the optimum staffing level for any organisation to ensure efficient operation is tricky. Look at the experience of a fellow Pb-er yesterday with the private enterprise and apparently grossly inefficient E.on.
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
What's wrong with "I don't want to"?
You are clearly neither Moslem nor Catholic.
Or subject to any family influence.
Families should respect that people can make different choices and have different beliefs. Family should be stronger than cults.
Cults that insist people must believe and must do x, y and z or be cut out of the family are contemptible.
I have family that have beliefs very different to my own. I have family that are religious, I even have family that campaigned for Corbyn - I still love them, they're family!
Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ??? That's the worrying part of this
If you want to correct records you nowadays have to fight your way past layers of automated systems that take no account of common sense (understandably since they're machines). When I discovered that a credit agency had recorded me as "never on the electoral register", I pointed out that I was a councillor and couldn't legally have been elected without being on the register. They didn't reply. So I tried again, providing a statement from the council that I was on the register. After 3 months, I finally heard from a human, who said that my previous letter was disregarded since it didn't have the appropriate form to satisfy the system. I expostulated that they should have let me know. He pointed out that they weren't customers of mine (in a sense I was a customer of theirs, since they were providing a free credit refernece system) and didn't owe me any particular service level. The problem is that you don't get to choose your credit agency.
The classic example was Tony Blair's neighbour when he was PM, who said that there was a soldier with a submachine gun on guard 24/7 next door, who would certainly notice any break-in, could be have a discount on his burglary insurance? The company said no, you have not given evidence of an approved neighbourhood watch scheme.
We got a discount when Michael Howard lived opposite us - perhaps we were more persuasive with our insurance broker?
I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.
What's wrong with "I don't want to"?
You are clearly neither Moslem nor Catholic.
Or subject to any family influence.
I remember Warren Mitchell commenting something along the lines of how strange it was that Catholic parents had Catholic children and Muslim parents had Muslim children.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
Do they have to be timed to 12 weeks? I had mine after 10.
I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
That’s a more serious point - I appreciate the small claims court is supposed to be about efficiency but here they seem to have missed the most basic checks… like the identity of the alleged debtor…
If true, that points up 2 things.
1 - The Online procedure has some problems. 2 - The person who created a fake case has committed some sort of offence.
BoJo will make the application to discharge judgment in default, and that will be that.
Of course people can commit an offence by alleging facts which are not true, but I am not aware of them ever leading to a prosecution even if the case is thrown out.
Yes - all it needs is a Statement of Truth saying "I never received it".
Two things that do interest me is that all these journos ran with the story without checking that the CCJ was not from a fruitloop. But as it has come out now so quickly, the information must be easy to get.
And that Angela Rayner has tweeted about it 6 times now. She doesn't do subtle or reflective.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
If the stockpile is AZ then I'm not surprised the people in charge weren't rushing to donate the vaccines to Covax or anywhere. AZ has suffered from unique attacks, so I'm fairly sure the UK disposing of AZ would have been seen as evidence that even the UK doesn't want it.
Apparently AZ is now popular in Germany to the point where there are supply issues.
Or there are AZ supply issues in Germany to the point where AZ appears popular?
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I can see some merit in rotten boroughs… hear me out before you all pile on…
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
The House of Lords in an embarrassing anachronism that should have been abolished in 1911, if not earlier. I do not want Ministers appointed to it just so they could serve but I would not want them in the Commons without being elected either.
What is required is a mechanism by which an appointed Minister can be held to account by the Commons without being in Parliament. Lots of other countries seem to manage this without problems. So, members of Biden's cabinet appear before Congress without being a member of either House, for example.
Why can't we do the same even although our constitution is built around the executive being in Parliament rather than merely accountable to it? Clearly there has to be limits on this and I do not think that such appointed Ministers could hold cabinet rank, for example. But if someone is appointed because they actually know something about the area that they are to be a Minister in I would have thought select committees are the answer in terms of accountability.
Excellent post
Yes the obvious answer is to replace the Lords with a beefed-up committee system through which ministers are interrogated more thoroughly and regularly than at present. Or just insist that ministers are MPs.
If we must have a second chamber (and New Zealand is ranked as more democratic than we are in most rankings without one) let's get rid of all the political appointees and priests from religions that fewer and fewer people actually follow.
Re your first para I agree completely with the first sentence. Re the 2nd sentence I would like to see appointed ministers without them being MPs or Lords, appointed based upon their knowledge and expertise. They would be accountable to the Government and given direction on policy by the Government and scrutinized by proper committees. Ministers from parliament are usually inexperienced in their brief and usually serve for periods that are far too short. I am aware of 2 ministers who were experts in their field, whether they were any good is another matter, but it was clear they were viewed differently to MPs appointed with no experience.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
Do they have to be timed to 12 weeks? I had mine after 10.
I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.
Agree that there is no issue, however.
My mum was told that if you didn't get your second AZ within 12 weeks, you had to start over.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
It may be that in quiet discussions, we agreed to slow down vaxxing the sub-40 year olds - to stop making the EU look so shit in comparison? It has certainly allowed France and Germany to appear as if they have put on a sprint.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
Do they have to be timed to 12 weeks? I had mine after 10.
I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.
Agree that there is no issue, however.
My mum was told that if you didn't get your second AZ within 12 weeks, you had to start over.
Yep - so they can speed it up, but not slow it down.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
Do they have to be timed to 12 weeks? I had mine after 10.
I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.
Agree that there is no issue, however.
My mum was told that if you didn't get your second AZ within 12 weeks, you had to start over.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
Do they have to be timed to 12 weeks? I had mine after 10.
I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.
Agree that there is no issue, however.
My mum was told that if you didn't get your second AZ within 12 weeks, you had to start over.
Eek, mine was perilously close to 12 weeks and I only got it because I chased. Having chased mind you the response was immediate.
BBC: "France has had a low uptake of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is creating stockpiles of the drug.
Since yesterday anyone under 50 can book an appointment to take the unused vaccines, but this won't help the AstraZeneca problems as in France anyone under 55 is not approved for the drug."
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
Do they have to be timed to 12 weeks? I had mine after 10.
I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.
Agree that there is no issue, however.
My mum was told that if you didn't get your second AZ within 12 weeks, you had to start over.
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Good comparison with Alba.
Would probably get a similar number of seats.
Potentially. But as the Labour divorce is happening anyway, may as well do it quickly and positively. Alba could have made ground had handy Alex given himself sufficient time to grease enough shoulders. The Greens were the established Yes party on the list and switching to Alba meant risking that and having to associate yourself with *that*.
I doubt there's any incentive for anyone to divorce now following the shambolic TIG. That's scorched that earth.
Blair (or those like him) and the TIGgers and more moderates defecting directly to the Liberal Democrats while Corbyn was PM could have been transformative. Instead it was shambolic and now there's no real chance of real change.
The (well, one of the many...) problem with Labour is that while it surely wants the divorce, both sides are absolutely determined not to move out of the 'Labour' house. So both stay, hoping the other will leave.
This being, of course, due to both sides knowing that many people like/have nostalgia for the house, rather than the current occupants.
Labour can’t really divorce because neither side can actually win without the other. A left wing party wouldn’t have anywhere near the kind of mass appeal to win an election, and none of those who are notable left wing, older figures in the party are going to be taken seriously by voters anyway. No one is voting for Richard Burgon to be PM.
Quite frankly, a breakaway from the right leaning fraction wouldn’t either. We’ve seen it happen twice now. Tony Blair leading it wouldn’t change things either - Blair is an unpopular figure in the country now, this isn’t the 1990s anymore.
It could work as a semi-detached coalition for PR. A split is only of any use whatsoever to both the left and centre-left if it isn't uncontrolledly acrimonious and terms are agreed beforehand. Both the Blairites and the Corbynites need to transcend their mentality of purging the impurities for that happen, first, though, which is still a long way off down the path of realisation yet.
MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.
This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before. If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it? https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.
Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.
The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
Do they have to be timed to 12 weeks? I had mine after 10.
I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.
Agree that there is no issue, however.
My mum was told that if you didn't get your second AZ within 12 weeks, you had to start over.
Who said that? Professor Peston, FRS, DipShit?
Someone at Epsom Racecourse. Whether they knew what they were talking about, I don't know.
Ocean finance apr is 39.9% cheap when you consider there are scum firms advertising on the tele at99.9% which is worse iirc than Wonga.? In reality with interest rates at 0% ' 40% is daylight robbery IMHO.
You'd almost think that they had overheads and high default rates to cover, or something.
Comments
The County Court will have sent him letter(s) indicating an action against him if he did not respond. Presumably he ignored them, put up no defence and hence the judgement.
Once default judgment has been granted, the defendant can apply to have it set aside. Such applications are almost invariably granted.
Curious what people think about the odds on the Greens topping the polls in Germany later this year. I put a little on them for most seats at 4.6. currently 3.25, with CSU/CDU at 1.33. Not really hedgeable, as yet.
Also, the Conservatives are out to 1.5 for Batley and Spen. Backed Labour at 3.8 or so. Might look at backing the blues next.
One friend only found out about one when he applied for a mortgage. Car Parking company had sent a parking ticket to a prior address of his, managed to secure a CCJ and it followed him and ended up on his file despite nothing ever having been sent to his actual address.
Its remarkable that Court documents don't even get sent Recorded Delivery to ensure people have received the documents before they can reach the judgment stage.
It's as if they're so ready to believe anything negative about Boris that they lose all sense of proportion because "it must be true, Boris is a c***". Now they just look like incompetents.
If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it?
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19
Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.
For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).
Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.
It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.
Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)
Even in terms of Farage’s comments, when did Starmer go round constantly apologising for everything in British history? Even in regard to the Blair critique, what catalogue of policy and or social positions does Labour have now that they were pushed into by the ‘woke left’?
It wasn't daylight robbery, it was usury.
They ripping off the people who could least afford it.
Now people defended them saying the APR was so high because it was annualised and the loan was for only 30-60 days, however they let people roll the loan over, and people often had loans for longer, sometimes for over a year.
I know of several people who took out loans for more a £1,000, after a year they still owed around £940 and had paid a lot of interest.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/05/13/dominic-cummings-research-baby-likely-crushed-blob/
It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issued without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?
Good morning, everyone.
Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf
This being, of course, due to both sides knowing that many people like/have nostalgia for the house, rather than the current occupants.
I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).
And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.
Still seems odd. And not entirely on.
You know a failure to follow it doesn't invalidate the claim?
What evidence of service is there?
If you want to correct records you nowadays have to fight your way past layers of automated systems that take no account of common sense (understandably since they're machines). When I discovered that a credit agency had recorded me as "never on the electoral register", I pointed out that I was a councillor and couldn't legally have been elected without being on the register. They didn't reply. So I tried again, providing a statement from the council that I was on the register. After 3 months, I finally heard from a human, who said that my previous letter was disregarded since it didn't have the appropriate form to satisfy the system. I expostulated that they should have let me know. He pointed out that they weren't customers of mine (in a sense I was a customer of theirs, since they were providing a free credit refernece system) and didn't owe me any particular service level. The problem is that you don't get to choose your credit agency.
The classic example was Tony Blair's neighbour when he was PM, who said that there was a soldier with a submachine gun on guard 24/7 next door, who would certainly notice any break-in, could be have a discount on his burglary insurance? The company said no, you have not given evidence of an approved neighbourhood watch scheme.
I work for a company that issues a lot of a CCJs, this I didn't receive the paperwork usually doesn't wash with the courts.
Just saying.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1392492504675725314?s=20
In Batley and Spen Jo Cox's sister is considering standing as Labour candidate
https://news.sky.com/story/jo-cox-murdered-mps-sister-kim-leadbeater-aims-to-be-labour-candidate-in-batley-and-spen-by-election-12304737
However if there is a hung parliament in 2024 and the DUP have the balance of power then to preserve that hard Brexit it would have to be imposed on NI too and the border moved from the Irish Sea to Ireland or the DUP would refuse to keep the Tories in power.
In that case Labour would form a government with a UK more closely aligned to single market regulations, effectively removing the Irish Sea border anyway
1 - The Online procedure has some problems.
2 - The person who created a fake case has committed some sort of offence.
Quite frankly, a breakaway from the right leaning fraction wouldn’t either. We’ve seen it happen twice now. Tony Blair leading it wouldn’t change things either - Blair is an unpopular figure in the country now, this isn’t the 1990s anymore.
If Labour is a couple (and from the outside, that seems a reasonable image), it seems like the kind of couple who are happy to make the marriage work, as long as the other one is making all the changes. That dynamic can lead to a long- lived but miserable stasis.
Does that make Starmer (of the left but not loony, acknowledging Brexit without embracing it) the hapless and probably doomed marriage guidance counsellor?
Of course people can commit an offence by alleging facts which are not true, but I am not aware of them ever leading to a prosecution even if the case is thrown out.
There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.
I am constantly assured on here that people voted Brexit so that more people from India could come here to work.
The rollout effectively already seems to be into the 30-somethings and while some (including myself) were recently jabbed with AZ, given the advice has now changed who does that leave to jab with AZ anymore? I'm presuming the over-40s in my area at least and probably many other areas had already been offered their first dose which is why I was called and other 30-somethings have been.
Quite frankly I don't believe the Court would have accepted that excuse.
James Forsyth: We are 101 weeks away from what Tory MPs consider the most likely date of the next election.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-isn-t-labour-s-biggest-problem
Considering the new boundaries come in by July 2023, surely a summer election would make more sense?
If we must have a second chamber (and New Zealand is ranked as more democratic than we are in most rankings without one) let's get rid of all the political appointees and priests from religions that fewer and fewer people actually follow.
Lol.
Oh, wait...
Finding the optimum staffing level for any organisation to ensure efficient operation is tricky. Look at the experience of a fellow Pb-er yesterday with the private enterprise and apparently grossly inefficient E.on.
Cults that insist people must believe and must do x, y and z or be cut out of the family are contemptible.
I have family that have beliefs very different to my own. I have family that are religious, I even have family that campaigned for Corbyn - I still love them, they're family!
I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.
Agree that there is no issue, however.
Two things that do interest me is that all these journos ran with the story without checking that the CCJ was not from a fruitloop. But as it has come out now so quickly, the information must be easy to get.
And that Angela Rayner has tweeted about it 6 times now. She doesn't do subtle or reflective.
(C) Bucks Fizz.
Since yesterday anyone under 50 can book an appointment to take the unused vaccines, but this won't help the AstraZeneca problems as in France anyone under 55 is not approved for the drug."
I will no longer be a Labour member in 15 days (although I understand I will still be counted as a member for a further 7 months)
I might not even know the middle name of the person who has purchased a widget and the cheque bounced.
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20
What happens re: the Presiding Officer in those circs?