http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/22/a...of-your-homes/

This has been on the cards for a little while but it now looks like the
crazy bastards are actually going to do it:

The government has been accused of trampling on individual
liberties by proposing wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break
into homes and to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to
protect their valuables.

So with soaring debt, rising unemployment, gas and electricity bills
still sky high we’re going allow bailiffs to kick doors in. Apparently
‘the new powers would be overseen by a robust industry watchdog’ but
will that be before or after some burly skinhead in a bomber jacket has
had you in a headlock?

‘Bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission
to restrain or pin down householders.’ Are they all going to be given
rigorous training in methods of restraint? The chokehold, maybe? Perhaps
the ‘nose distraction‘. Let’s hope so although, as the police and the
prison service can tell you, all the training in the world doesn’t
always mean a mutually satisfactory outcome.

You could call this another front in New Labour’s war on the poor but
the thing is, they way things are going right now, the number of people
who could end up on the receiving end of this is growing by the day.
It’ll probably take a nice, respectable white middle-class stockbroker,
who’s down on his luck and has photogenic children, to be killed or
seriously injured before people realise that this isn’t just about
keeping the underclass nervous.

It’s teaching all of us to never, ever, be poor. To never, ever, have a
run of bad luck. Keep your head down and keep kissing the boss’ arse.
Bite your tongue over your pay and conditions. Come in a bit earlier and
stay a bit later. Don’t forget you’re the smallest of cog in this
economy - a little fear should keep you lubricated and in good working
order a little while yet.

So, who’ll be the first to be killed, do you think? A bailiff
kitchen-knifed in self-defence or a householder strangled on his or her
lounge carpet? I would say place your bets but we’re really going to
have to be careful with the pennies from now on.

firemonkey wrote:

>[..]

Simply pay your bills like honest folk do then there is no problem.

Alister wrote:
> firemonkey wrote:
>
>> [..]
>
> Simply pay your bills like honest folk do then there is no problem.
>

You can have paid your bills and have them deny you have because the
greedy immoral bastards want more money.It's not always about bailiffs
being called in because you haven't paid or not paying, if you haven't
paid, due to dishonesty.

Getting into financial difficulties whereby you once had the ability to
pay for something and now, due to circumstances beyond your control, do
not, doesn't make a person dishonest except in the eyes of reactionary
half wits that think reading the Express or the Mail is the height of
sophistication.

Yes there are those who could pay their bills and choose not to but it's
not always a question of dishonesty ie could pay but won't or of
bailiffs being sent in on behalf of companies with genuine claims for
money owing.

x-no-archive: yes

Alister wrote:
> firemonkey wrote:
>>>[..]
>> Simply pay your bills like honest folk do then there is no problem.
>
And the bailiffs really do check whether they've been wrongly unleashed
upon you by a credit agency because you bear a similar name to one of
their debtors or one of their debtors used to live at your address.

There have been several cases of mistakes reported by the tabloids this
year and one thing is common to all the cases - it's bl**dy difficult to
get compensation for all the damage and distress caused to the innocent
victims. And now the right to thuggery and violence has been legalised.

This piece of stasi-nulab legislation is even more disgusting than Home
Information Packs (the market needs legally binding contracts to avoid
gazumping and gazundering but it gets more bureaucracy and taxes
instead) and on a par with stasi-nulab's anti-terrorism legislation
with its well-documented abuse by 'public servants'.

Evil Nigel

In article <494f7b47$0$511$bed64819>,
firemonkey <firemonkey> wrote:

> Alister wrote:
>> You can have paid your bills and have them deny you have because the
> greedy immoral bastards want more money.It's not always about bailiffs
> being called in because you haven't paid or not paying, if you haven't
> paid, due to dishonesty.
>
> Getting into financial difficulties whereby you once had the ability to
> pay for something and now, due to circumstances beyond your control, do
> not, doesn't make a person dishonest

What about those scum living off state benefits, who will not entertain
trying to earn part of their money, why can't you collect the errant
supermaket trolley and put it in line with all the others, surely even
you and Rowland could manage something so simple, although I suspect
it's a case of why shouldn't I get every penny I can without doing
anything.

> except in the eyes of reactionary
> half wits that think reading the Express or the Mail is the height of
> sophistication.

Yes, gay nige does seem to be in love with his tabloids, how else would
he ready made rants?
>
> Yes there are those who could pay their bills and choose not to but it's
> not always a question of dishonesty ie could pay but won't or of
> bailiffs being sent in on behalf of companies with genuine claims for
> money owing.


Always someone else's fault, eh Tim?

In article <494f68e8$0$508$bed64819>,
firemonkey <firemonkey> wrote:

[..]
> run of bad luck. Keep your head down and keep kissing the boss¹ arse.
> Bite your tongue over your pay and conditions. Come in a bit earlier and
> stay a bit later. Don¹t forget you¹re the smallest of cog in this
> economy - a little fear should keep you lubricated and in good working
> order a little while yet.
>
> So, who¹ll be the first to be killed, do you think? A bailiff
> kitchen-knifed in self-defence or a householder strangled on his or her
> lounge carpet? I would say place your bets but we¹re really going to
> have to be careful with the pennies from now on.

Does that mean you may have to take a job?

John DoH wrote:
[..]
> it's a case of why shouldn't I get every penny I can without doing
> anything.
>> Yes, gay nige does seem to be in love with his tabloids, how else would
> he ready made rants?
>> Always someone else's fault, eh Tim?
>

oh the neurotypical returns

John DoH wrote:
[..]
>> lounge carpet? I would say place your bets but we¹re really going to
>> have to be careful with the pennies from now on.
>
> Does that mean you may have to take a job?
>8$bed64819>,
> firemonkey <firemonkey> wrote:
>> Does that mean you may have to take a job?
>

lord knows, it's from a blog, the guy who wrote it is employed

humble.life wrote:

>
> lord knows, it's from a blog, the guy who wrote it is employed

That is pitched way above John Duh's powers of reasoning.

firemonkey wrote:
> humble.life wrote:
>
>>
>> lord knows, it's from a blog, the guy who wrote it is employed
>
> That is pitched way above John Duh's powers of reasoning.

the experience of rejection forms a singular belief model of mental
health for that lot.

imagine if being dumped was the worst it could get?

now that WOULD be utopia.

In article <6raa1pF9jhdU1>, "humble.life" <gn>
wrote:

> John DoH wrote:
>
> oh the neurotypical returns

hi, wannabe. obviously they have upped your meds, is it christmas or
something?

In article <6raaccF91qiU1>, "humble.life" <gn>
wrote:

> John DoH wrote:
>
> lord knows, it's from a blog, the guy who wrote it is employed

you mean tiny tim didn't post it, it was the employed guy what done it?

In article <494ff588$0$507$bed64819>,
firemonkey <firemonkey> wrote:

> humble.life wrote:
>
> >
> > lord knows, it's from a blog, the guy who wrote it is employed
>
> That is pitched way above John Duh's powers of reasoning.

tiny tim, wasn't it you what posted it?

Are you in the market for a job, couldn't you earn money being a
spammer, you know, send useless shit to people, you don't need to think
for yourself, just regurgitate what you are told, I think you may be a
natural :-)

In article <6rabboFa4j8U1>, "humble.life" <gn>
wrote:

> firemonkey wrote:
> > humble.life wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> lord knows, it's from a blog, the guy who wrote it is employed
> >
> > That is pitched way above John Duh's powers of reasoning.
>
> the experience of rejection forms a singular belief model of mental
> health for that lot.
>
> imagine if being dumped was the worst it could get?
>
> now that WOULD be utopia.

umble stop thinking grief no one has died it is only usenet if you could
only focus you might get better what are you doing for christmas the
turkey or the sprouts

John DoH wrote:
> In article <6rabboFa4j8U1>, "humble.life" <gn>
> wrote:
>> umble stop thinking grief no one has died it is only usenet if you could
> only focus you might get better what are you doing for christmas the
> turkey or the sprouts
>

hi dimboy