Should Some Groups Need to Pay to Vote? – politicalbetting.com

Scott_xP said:

rcs1000 said:

It's a shame that some former denizens as Louise Bagshaw and Yvette Cooper no longer post, and that Christopher Monckton is here so rarely.

Did you just dox someone?

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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?

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

rcs1000 said:

It's a shame that some former denizens as Louise Bagshaw and Yvette Cooper no longer post, and that Christopher Monckton is here so rarely.

Did you just dox someone?

I am Yvette Cooper!

prh47bridge said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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…

Scott_xP said:

rcs1000 said:

It's a shame that some former denizens as Louise Bagshaw and Yvette Cooper no longer post, and that Christopher Monckton is here so rarely.

Did you just dox someone?

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Blair hasn't lost it. He's got Woke in one:

"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."

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die

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."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/think-labour-bad-place-now-aint-seen-nothing-yet/

Hang on, everyone is agreeing this is a problem.

But I keep being told this is only an issue on Twitter?

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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?

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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.

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

True. So still a bit of a cock-up on their side.

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).

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

True. So still a bit of a cock-up on their side.

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).

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

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.

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/12/uk-ministers-meet-representatives-of-ni-paramilitaries-to-discuss-brexit

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?

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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…

Selebian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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.

MattW said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

True. So still a bit of a cock-up on their side.

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.

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

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.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/12/uk-ministers-meet-representatives-of-ni-paramilitaries-to-discuss-brexit

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.

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

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.

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

True. So still a bit of a cock-up on their side.

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.

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

True. So still a bit of a cock-up on their side.

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.

squareroot2 said:

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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"?

CarlottaVance said:

2023 GE?

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

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Fishing said:

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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"?

Doesn't work.

rcs1000 said:

It's a shame that some former denizens as Louise Bagshaw and Yvette Cooper no longer post, and that Christopher Monckton is here so rarely.

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

ozymandias said:

OldKingCole said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

True. So still a bit of a cock-up on their side.

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.

Nigelb said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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?

MrEd said:

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

It's a shame that some former denizens as Louise Bagshaw and Yvette Cooper no longer post, and that Christopher Monckton is here so rarely.

Is it such a bad thing that visits from the former UKIP climate change spokesperson are rare ?

Yes. Diversity of views is good. You learn things even if you disagree violently.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

MattW said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MarqueeMark said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

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.

MattW said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

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.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

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.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

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.

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

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.

CarlottaVance said:

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.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

Fishing said:

squareroot2 said:

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.