Abuse Thread Born Again despite name changes
A thread entitled “Consumer Action Group Wrong Again” ran for several years on the Bailiff Help Forum. Despite its name, it was not dedicated to criticise the advice given on the CAG forum as such, but to personally abuse a number of people whom they consistently referred to as “dinosaurs”, “cretins”, etc. and to post up information of a very personal nature, including photos of their homes and details about their financial situation: secured debts, judgments, convictions, the status of their businesses, etc. None of this had anything to do with the Consumer Action Group, nor was it relevant to any advice given on there.
Now you see it, now you don’t
The BHF crowd seem unaware of the boundaries between what you post online and your personal life. Disagreeing with what people say is legitimate, but they can’t do so without quickly descending into personal abuse, like the playground bullies they are. The “Consumer Action Group Wrong Again” thread was finally removed a few months ago, after the bullies were exposed on this little blog. As stated on the home page, the reason this site was set up was precisely to be able to respond to the relentless abuse dished out on the BHF board, largely on that thread. While the removal of the thread was a significant achievement, it didn’t last long. Shortly afterwards, a number of threads emerged, dedicated to various people who had been abused and attacked on the removed thread. Other threads were also used for that purpose.
Having removed all that abuse from public view, they just couldn’t resist and a new thread was started, called “Really?” Although not naming names as such, this thread is a born again version of the old Consumer Action Group Wrong again, dedicated exclusively to hurl abuse at the same people who were the focus of the old thread. Significantly, Mark Bowley no longer seems to post on any of the other threads on BHF, but he still finds plenty of time to post on this one, alongside Mushroom Pote, who just loves to play along with Mark and Jason. The attacks are pretty much the same as they were on the old threads, using every possible excuse to go back to the usual name calling and insults.
What’s in a name?
If you look at BHF today, you’ll find an assortment of weird and wonderful names cropping up. “Saturn Five”, “the crank”, “the Pleb”, “Watkins”, etc. These have all been attempts to disguise the abuse by replacing people’s real names with cryptic references, presumably with the intention of avoiding legal action for defamation or harassment. It won’t work, the original versions of the threads have all been turned into PDFs and some are still available on the Wayback Machine, in their original form. Just because you remove something, it doesn’t mean it never existed, and, for all intents and purposes, the hate campaign continues on this new thread, where “dinosaurs” and “the chimp” are pretty much in evidence.
Jason has also rebranded himself as “Schedule12”, presumably so none of his potential clients becomes aware of the fact he is the same person who has been responsible for people’s debts escalating and their bailiff issues getting worse as opposed to being solved. Not long ago, he was using the pseudonym “Bailey” to refer to himself, maybe he now calls himself something totally different. Calling himself Schedule12 isn’t going to make much difference, there is a mile high mountain of evidence linking him to “Schedule12”, showing he is one and the same.
Leave a Reply
56 Comments on "Abuse Thread Born Again despite name changes"
Mark Bowley unqualified brickies mate and bully liar says
I mean, how many times have people attempted to train him to insert a question mark at the end of a sentence in which he asks a question? If he can’t be taught that simple and basic task, how can he possibly expect people to take anything he proclaims regarding the law seriously? It’s absolute lunacy.
I find it hard to think any intelligent person could reach this conclusion, it is so childish and bizarre. I suppose that anyone who always use a question mark is automatically a legal expert by this logic.
I should keep this to yourself, not that everyone doesn’t already know what A mentally challenged Nesbit you are already.
Six months on, and we have another abuse thread. Despite recent disagreements seen here Mutiny on the Bounty, Bennison and Bowley will always agree on one thing, and that is to hurl abuse and insults at the same people, time and time again. Here we see the two Love Birds kiss and make up, isn’t it sweet?
Mark seems to imagine things and then embarks on rants about them.
He is a damaged puppy
He should now be addressed as no-Mark as partly single handedly he has destroyed BHF with his refusal to help people there – in case he has to correct other advice from the other two. He has no where else to go and has become embittered towards everyone on CAG and anywhere else. He thought he would become the ruling authority on anything to do with enforcement but really has little experience. The auld fool should just retire and let the other two stumble around.
I notice the . EAC2 thread on there, “The Facts” he calls it. No marks for that I am afraid as it is mainly incorrect.
A judge will not look at a complaint and dismiss it therefore avoiding any possible costs order.
The judge cannot consider a complaint until the other side has responded and costs are incurred and claimable from the receipt of that response.
Basically idiot , you don’t write a complaint to a court unless it is relation to an action. If you want to just sound off write to the bailiff, the creditor , the LGO etc.
If you write to the court, you know full well what happens, as does the poor soul who followed your advice about this.
Mark Bowley, he of send a letter to the court to be considered but not considered. Says this.
If a liability order is obtained and then the debtor subsequently obtains a discount/reduction etc, the amount of the order remains. However, (and this is the important bit so read it carefully) The debtor or is only expected to pay the revised, reduced amount. The remaining balance is then deemed to be paid
You would think he would understand that a judgment sums cant be altered without another hearing.
I cant remember ever seeing a court order which said the debtor should “deem to pay “the judgment sum unless we change our mind.
Then there is the usual tired ramblings about BA, CAG, Dodge, Gander, the world, the system, why is everyone picking on me, why wont anyone employ me, sorry drifted off a bit there.
That’s cos he’s a tosser.