Bennison and his two lap dogs descend to new depths
Just when you think Bennison (a.k.a. Schedule12) and his two lackeys, Mark (currently posting as John the Baptist) and his anonymous sidekick Pote, couldn’t go any lower, they dig an even deep hole and sink further down into that swamp of steaming hot manure known as BHF!
Really? If you can just look at a website and establish that someone has mental health problems, then Bennison should be very worried, if a psychiatrist looks at his, he will be sectioned under the Mental Health Act!
As for not sitting O Levels, well, actually, a lot of people with mental health problems are very intelligent and can go way beyond O Levels. Unless of course he is mistaking mental health issues with learning difficulties! Everyone knows the difference except him!
Someone who does appear to have mental health issues (NOT learning difficulties, therefore nothing to do with O Levels), is Mark Bowley. He is the rantaholic who can’t stop, and, as soon as his Master finished his rather incoherent post, he stepped in to do what he does best:
So, in addition to being an expert in council tax and enforcement, as well as a wannabe paralegal, he is also a Doctor in Psychology! And one of the best, as he can just look at some forum posts and come up with a full diagnosis of “special needs”, as well as establishing the educational level of the “patient”, all without so much as a Skype meeting or a online test! WOW! As if that wasn’t enough, he is also a gifted psychic, he can see how people live and what they do all day.
This post is swiftly followed by a response by Bennison, who now questions his own perception and, instead, chooses to turn to his favourite target and declare that “they” (whoever *they* may be) *know* she had “delayed learning difficulties”. Really? And just how would “they” *know* that? And what the heck are “delayed learning difficulties”? Does that mean the difficulties started late, i.e. after finishing education? Who knows!
Bennison then goes on to issue yet another one of his threats to visit people, even though he KNOWS (and this time he is more on the right track) that the police will be called. He then comes up with a stupid idea of an “entrapment” video. Only question is, what is there to video if someone doesn’t answer the door and instead rings the police? The only person who is going to get “entrapped” is Bennison himself, when the police turn up and ask him to leave. Now that would make an amusing video!
He then ended the discussion with a rather odd ramble about 999 calls. As for being a lunatic, only Bennison would be prepared to travel half way across the country merely to film someone hiding behind their curtains! In fact, three years ago he travelled to Wales for that same purpose! WHO is the lunatic?
Leave a Reply
40 Comments on "Bennison and his two lap dogs descend to new depths"
Oh my god, this thread is before my time, but what a load of wazzocks they are. Vicious abusive, there would never be anything posted on here like this. How do they sleep at night?
Surely they are mentally disturbed?
Also this is the requirement where writs may be served, it is the same as warrants, I thought you would know this.
Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—
(a)
usually lives, or
(b)
carries on a trade or business.
Nothing about writs here. Oh and nothing has been “repealed” .
THe sentence you are straggling with refers to the previous paragraph, of which it is a part. of course, your out of context again.
I don’t think you know what a writ does, it is not dependant on the debtors address ,that is why there is no provision for it. You abd your bosses claims that it “fails” because it is missing is indeed more nonesense.
You are so funny and its hilarious witnessing Bennison’s lapdogs running around in circles making even bigger fools of themselves.
Keep up the good work.
Re: I fell off my chair when I saw this…
Quote
Post
by Syd Snitkin » 26 Jun 2018 14:47
Despite being told that he is quoting from the Criminal Procedure Rules rather than the Civil Procedure Rules…
and despite being told that he’s even quoting from the wrong version of the Criminal Procedure Rules as rule 52 no longer exists…
and despite being told that he is referring to a rule regarding warrants rather than writs….
….he is still reproducing rule 52.7 of the 2012 Criminal Procedure Rules regarding warrants as evidence that he’s correct regarding a writ for a civil debt. And he has the gall to say we just want to cause embarrassment?
It is the same for civil of course, as the same rules under section 4 apply and there is nothing on a writ which demands the debtors address just the claimants. From writ;
THIS WRIT WAS ISSUED by the Central Office [the District Registry] of the High Court on (date) on the application of (name) of (address) [agent for (name) of (address)] legal representative of [the claimant] [or the claimant (name) in person] who resides at (address).
WITNESS (name) Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, the (date)
The address[es] for enforcement are (address[es] including county and postcode).
As for copies of your posts over there, yes that would be me,
I have them all. So what?
Here is a few of Marks comments. Nothing more need be said about him really.
Marrk says
Re: I fell off my chair when I saw this…
Quote
Post
by John The Baptist » 22 Jun 2018 06:07
No Pote – It’s him being a buffoon again. He stated:
There is nothing on the writ or warrant about any address for the debtor
That’s not CURRENT address, the buffoon stated ANY address.
What the CPR actually require on the writ:
The address[es] for enforcement
He then suggested that the address may be included as an “aid” I think this is something he just made up to try to look like he is informed and knows what he is on about.
Like Jason, I had a good chuckle when I read the post last night.
no, like Jason your an idiot
So Mark where would that be mark????
Information to be included in a warrant of control
52.7.—(1) A warrant must identify— (a) each person to whom it is directed; (b) the defendant against whom it was issued; (c) the sum for which it was issued and the reason that sum is owed; (d) the court or fines officer who issued it, unless that is otherwise recorded by the court officer; and (e) the court office for the court or fines officer who issued it. (2) A person to whom a warrant is directed must record on it the date and time at which it is received. (3) A warrant that contains an error is not invalid, as long as— (a) it was issued in respect of a lawful decision by the court or fines officer; and (b) it contains enough information to identify that decision.
You people do know the warrant is sent to the bailiff not the debtor ? Pote, no mentions of the address in the definition, nor could there be, think about it.
This really is beyond belief! We have Mark Bowley welcoming the idea that someone may have “popped their clogs”, and his Sidekick Syd Snitkin going along with it and continuing with abuse. Nasty bastards the lot of them!
