BBC Blog Network

User Profile

rattleman

Listed below are comments made by rattleman between Wednesday, 30th April 2008 and Thursday, 5th February 2009.

«Newer
Older»

In the news today... 5:02pm on 05 Feb 2009 This is absurd. Firstly, the BBC undoubtedly has double standards, where it will continue to employ Jonathan Ross, whose behaviour was far worse on one occasion and broadcast live on air, and when he returned to his radio show, he does it again and no action is taken.

Also how can Adrian Child continue in his post, particularly as he seems to have appointed himself the 'keeper of morals' a position that I do not and cannot see he can hold.

OK, a comment was made, maybe it should not have been, but, it is wrong for the BBC to not only have such double-standards, but also keep presenters in roles which clearly he should not be in.

On the position of Jo Brand - why have you not taken any action with concerning he comments on BBC programme - Live from the Apollo?

BBC must clean up its act and stop these double standards. Also reinstate Ms Thatcher - NOW
Lowell - chasing debts 2:51pm on 27 Jan 2009 If you get a letter from any debt collector or DCA and it is not expected, you should challenge it and also if it has been sold on the authority of the DCA to collect.

If the debt has been 'sold on' then there must be a Deed of Assignment in place to allow the DCA to collect. Request a copy.

If no copy can be produced or none is in place and the debt is apparently sold on, the DCA cannot collect.

If you do not have a copy of your Credit Agreement under the Credit Consumer Act 1974 and cannot rememeber how you left it with the creditor, you can request one under S77-79 of the CCA 1974 (this is your legal right and not a delaying tactic) requesting it in writing and enclosing £1, ensuring that you point out in your letter that the fee is for a copy of the agreement and nothing else.

The creditor or DCA has 12+2 days to supply. Failing to supply is an offence, but more importantly stops the Creditor/DCA attempting to enforce the debt.

Most creditors try and palm you off with a copy of the agreement, sometimes made up of several pages of unattached agreement. The OFT have said that whilst a creditor doe not have to produce an exact copy, a copy made of many agreements is not acceptable as how can it be different from the original. It is therefore important the Creditor or DCA supplies you the original. They will try and resist.

If the creditor cannot supply the orginal agreement it has propbaly been lost, as many banks, credit card co's and other lenders seem to have by not looking after them. In this case your information has not been respected by the creditor.

If you are summoned, the creditor must produce the original signed agreement if you put this in the documents to be disclosed, this being the exact signed copy of your agreement.

Otherwise, no agreement in either of these means that the agreement cannot be enforced and if this is for the next six years the matter is statutory limited and cannot be enforced at the end of this period. Of course if the Creditor or DCA finds the agreement within that time, then he can attempt to enforce the debt.

Whilst a debt is under dispute, the Creditor cannot under OFT debt collection guidance collect on the debt. There are also other things that cannot be done and it is worth reviewing this document - its at the OFT site.
Back to the future again 11:25am on 03 Oct 2008 You can put lipstick on a pig! But it is still a pig!! And that's the problem here.

Whatever metaphore you want to apply to this desk-swap, the dressing changes but the core remains the same.

Brown has a problem - Brown. And Labour is exhausted after nearly 11 years of boom and now bust plus everything else they have done wrong.

This mess will only be sorted at the ballot box - the sooner - the better!

One final thing to remember is that eclipsed by the current economic problems are other items - for example the forthcoming hike in car tax!
Clarke's 'private chat' 10:21am on 04 Sep 2008 It is evident that Charles Clarke is now spelling out the story that almost nobody is willing or wants to hear.

After Brown is gone, who is there? None of the pretenders have the credentials to take on the role and out in opposition, Labur could well be there for at least two General Elections.

I am not a Labour supporter, so I do find it most amusing watching this party squirm on its long death in the lead-up to the next election which they are going to lose.

One final thought. Where is Alan Milburn in all of this. Is he going to be the knight on the charger that comes out from the shadows to take the lead when Labour is in such disarray?
Tipping point? 11:42am on 23 May 2008 Have just heard GB on BBC News saying that he is PM because he is the man to sort out the problems.

Can someone in the Labour party remind him that he was not elected by the people, he has no mandate, he has got this country into over £90 Billon in debt, the originator of high fuel prices (75p in every pound in duty) placed 10 Million in debt because of the abolition of the 10P tax rate and then cynically tricking some of the losers into thinking that they are getting a handout to be taken back in the next tax year, increased taxation on cars - another tax to hit the lowest paid, increased unnessary spending, e.g. ID cards, robing from one measure to feed another, i.e. closing down funding to support this dreadful war in Iraq and Afganistan - well I could go on.

And all GB can say is remember 1990 - 1997. I am really tired of the history lesson as really the true history lesson is how New Labour have plundered and squandered from 1997 to 2008!

The bye election was by labour voters saying 'we are fed up' - many who have just got the vote and not interested in GB's history lessons. The 100 Labour MPs in marginal seats including Jacqui Smith and Ed Balls must be considering new jobs.

GB says the people or worried about the economy. I think not. Its the shear misdirection of New Labour and a bad negligent PM.

Would the Conservatives be any better?

Well cannot be any worse than GB and his New Labour government. the problem is the poor state of things that will be inheritated from this lame labour party.
The stakes are high 4:23pm on 30 Apr 2008 It does make me wonder where this government is going on this. The issue here is that do we really need 42 days? The answer is a resounding NO!

Recent matters such as the recent cases in Bristol did not require the current 28 days. Nor has some of the other cases. The issue comes down to electronic records, either mobile phone or computer and the length of time to examine these. Well rather that use excessive powers, the Conservative suggestion of questioning after charge is the most legitimate methods around this, not detaining for a period of time.

There is also the comments from the MPS/MI5/MI6 that there are over 40 plus matters under investigation. So what of these?

Do we go back to the 70's where hundreds of Irishmen and women were detained under interment. Unfortunately, this can be only the way that this is going. Allowing the government 42 days is placing us on the road a very unreasonable state? Was Cameron right to bring this up? Yes. Will it cause a change or another U-Turn from Gordon - probably!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

rattleman