Outed.... again

[Syd Snitkin]

Hot on the heels of my outing as Syd Thompson ( ) , I've apparently been outed once more..... Manish Gupta. A bit left field, but I'll run with it.

Now, I'm not sure if that's the Professor in Business in Nottingham, the Bollywood director, or the Indian politician as Google has produced several results. So keep watching for the full reveal some time soon.

[Michelle]

This one: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/researc ... e/gmanish/

I must say that, on top of being a hunk, you are also extremely well educated!

[Syd Snitkin]

Bit chubby round the chops for my liking, but I'll take the education. Ah well, off to bed I go.

شب بخیر سب کو.

[delta157]

It's almost as boring as Corrie' but leaving it hanging for the next episode is ... going to annoy certain parties.

Why is it so important to find out so many personal details of everyone then post it?

Oh well...

[John The Baptist]

Someone needs to explain to the silly old Ma what exactly a CFA is. She seems to think it means that Nominet wouldn't be liable for fees on a successful outcome. She also seems to think that litigation is exclusive to civil claims and doesn't seem to realise that there is criminal litigation as well.

I mean seriously - Susan Oddy is a foul mouthed, rough old diamond. She is also not very bright at all. If I were her, I'd stick to being Harding's parrot. It's about the only thing she's good at.

[Syd Snitkin]

Strange...... my latest outing seems to have been deleted.

[Syd Snitkin]

He's off again. Will he ever check before posting?

Well no, actually there isn’t, the word litigate only applies to civil cases.

Criminal cases are prosecuted.

Who’s thick now?

The word litigation means the process of taking a legal action. In civil cases the litigant is called 'the plaintiff', in criminal cases the litigant is called 'the prosecution'.

Let's see how much fun we can have in watching him spin on this one. Who's thick now Chimpy?

[John The Baptist]

Well no, actually there isn’t, the word litigate only applies to civil cases.

Oh dear. That's me fcuked then. I've just paid around 2.5 grand for next years' course which includes criminal litigation. I'll have to write in and ask for a refund because Peter Bardsley claims that there is no such thing.

http://www.cilexlawschool.ac.uk/CILEx_L ... Litigation

Bardsley really ought to re-read my previous post as well. He seems to think that I'm claiming that costs will not be awarded to successful parties. No Bardsley - That is not what I'm saying you cretin. I'm saying that a (successful) party would still be liable to pay costs even if a CFA was in place. The rough old diamond seems to think that a CFA means that the successful party is not liable for his/her legal fees. WRONG AGAIN Oddy - The party will be liable for them at an enhanced rate.

Oh and please don't call me a bricklayer on the internet, you pathetic, childish moron - It really bothers me.

[Syd Snitkin]

I'm getting a new signature.

[Syd Snitkin]

Well, the first attempt is in and as expected it's a mish-mash of twists and turns and irrelevant arguments.

You cannot take an action for a sum of money under a criminal prosecution. Unless you are a member of the CPS you cannot litigate, because you cannot be a litigant in criminal law.

countable noun
A litigant is a person who is involved in a civil legal case, either because they are making a formal complaint about someone, or because a complaint is being made about them. Collins

Not sure why he's going on about money claims in a criminal case as no-one had made mention of this - something his illiteracy has no doubt decided was written somewhere.

He seems to think that only the CPS can litigate in a criminal case despite the provisions for private criminal litigation. He then provides a definition from a dictionary. Tell you what, let's ask the lawyers:

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/for-the-pu ... itigation/
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/servic ... litigation
http://www.brettwilson.co.uk/criminal-d ... itigation/
https://www.lawteacher.net/law-help/lpc ... itigation/

And obviously these job are all made up:

https://www.indeed.co.uk/Criminal-Litig ... in-England

Let's remind ourselves of what he asserts:

the word litigate only applies to civil cases.

We await the next attempt.

[Syd Snitkin]

Comes from Bennison I suppose, he never got the hang of differentiating between civil and criminal.

Do we need a reminder who was quoting CrimPR for a civil case? Dear oh dear. Reminds me of that Beatles song where they sang about 4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire..... I wonder how many he's dug 30 miles down the road?

[Syd Snitkin]

You know when he knows that he's been shown up when he starts spitting bile and bitterness. The realisation of his idiocy and low standing really hits him hard.

[Syd Snitkin]

Another hole to add to his collection. Let's try to unravel another unholy mess.

Now he is going on about a private prosecution. Now that really is a FMoTL fantasy.

Whenever he's losing, he resorts to the FMOTL accusations. Please can he explain how a private prosecution is a FMOTL action?

Even then, they are not for reclaiming or claiming damages as you seem to think.

Nobody on here has said anything of the sort - this is your David Blunkett eyesight and single cell brain making you believe we have. You are the only one that has linked criminal litigation with someone seeking damages. Why on earth would you think this?

Pote aren’t you the one who said you had seen thousands of Criminal Suspense orders.

Er... a criminal what order? Are you an imbecile? Please tell me where I've claimed to have seen thousands of any sort of order. Why would I have? FFS, criminal suspense order.... is that something to do with Silent Witness?

Also I never said anything of the sort about CPR. I said the function regarding enforcement of a warrant is the same( they all just confer the enforcement power, and thet do it under the same section 62 TCE.

No you didn't Petey lad. I doubt if you recall, but you were posting on a thread about a civil case and the need for an address on the writ. You posted this:

• CPR JUst for interests sake
  
  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.

Firstly that is from the Criminal Procedure Rules. Secondly, it's from the outdated 2012 rules rather than the 2015 rules. The rule you were hoping to rely on is 30.7. Thirdly, as the discussion was regarding a civil case, even the 2015 CrimPRs were irrelevant.

You've been shown time and time again where the CivPRs require an address and have even had a copy of a writ neatly placed before you to show the section where the address is needed, yet still you show yourself up as a complete ignoramus. Why do you torture yourself?

[Syd Snitkin]

Pote being proven wrong is not “hitting someone hard” it is an opportunity to learn. Everyone makes errors Po, it really is no Biggy.

So why don't you actually try to learn from yours? Notice he says everyone makes mistakes, then conversely posts:

Po I never make mistakes, nor does Sheila

Sorry Petey lad, methinks it's time for your Tubby-Bye-Byes.

[Syd Snitkin]

Aye-oop, my outing as Manish Gupta has reappeared. Still not sure which Manish Gupta they mean - if they let me know I'll drop him a line and let him know that he's me. So come on, which one is it?

[John The Baptist]

Yep, seems that Pote (or Syd) Snitkin on the Bailiff Help Forum is non other then Mr Manish Gupta.

Duuuuurrr! Why does it seem so oh informed one? Pray tell us mere mortals your reasons why Pote is non (you mean None, duuuuurrrr) other than Manish Gupta.

[John The Baptist]

I wonder if the Stephen Lawrence family were conducting a Fmotl fantasy when they took out a private prosecution in order to try to get justice for their son?

Private prosecutions are actually not as rare as one might think and certainly not Fmotl fantasies, as the internet's resident buffoon claims. In commercial situations especially, private prosecutions are often favoured ahead of civil action. Of course it is possible to claim damages or losses by way of a victims order upon a conviction. To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense.

[Syd Snitkin]

Apparently the chimp just received an email from Peter. What an odd world he inhabits.

[John The Baptist]

Apparently the chimp just received an email from Peter. What an odd world he inhabits.

Especially as he was calling others cowards the other day.

The chimp is the biggest coward of all - He even denied himself in person when Nigel telephoned him.

Mind you, it is quite funny watching a semi-literate buffoon trying to pretend that he is not the semi-literate buffoon in question.

[Syd Snitkin]

Seeing as they've given me a choice, the one in Oxford sounds good.

[John The Baptist]

Yet another tell tale sign of her autism - A failure to detect and understand irony:

This comment is a bit rich coming from an individual who has spent the past 4 years.....

It was sarcastic you idiot. Do you not understand that? As if I or anyone else would be bothered by silly name calling from an imbecile on the internet. I actually enjoy it when he gets all bitter and starts spitting his bile. It shows his total lack of class and also confirms to me that I've done a job on him.

So the tell tale signs she has displayed:

1. A failure to understand jokes and general lack of sense of humour.
2. A failure to understand sarcasm/irony
3. Repetitive behaviour patterns
4. Repetition of certain words and phrases.
5. Inability to distinguish between the real world and the internet.
6. Inability to have feelings for others.
7. Inability to respect others personal space. (constant harassing of them).

I am in no way mocking this disability. However, it goes a long way to explaining why this terrible situation has been going on for so long and why so many others have been dragged into it. Moving forward, I believe the best policy is to ignore her completely. It is obvious that she isn't capable of stopping so the best thing to do is let her carry on over there until her heart is content. Unlike Bardsley's buffoonery, her comments and essays are rarely funny in any case - They are just tedious.

[Syd Snitkin]

It's a bit like if I said "Oh no, they've realised I'm Manish Gupta and I'm really scared".

As you allude to - autistics don't do humour.

[Syd Snitkin]

Wow, who would've thought that the Stephen Lawrence muder was 35 years ago..... oh, hang on, it wasn't. Ignoramus.

Don't forget that the Hillsborough victims also brought a private prosecution, as does the RSPCA many times every year. He seems to think that a right to bring one is FMOTL nonsense (or nonesense as he says), so clearly the families of the 96 Liverpool fans are all FMOTL.

I feel he's going to need another shovel.

• Private prosecutions grow as state bodies retreat in face of dwindling resources
  
  https://www.ft.com/content/0e0368e0-11b ... 144feabdc0

• The Rise of Private Prosecutions
  
  https://www.blasermills.co.uk/the-rise- ... secutions/

[John The Baptist]

He the goes on to cite the Stephen Lawrence case from 35 years ago

This year: 2018

The Lawrence private prosecution: 1996

2018 - 1996 = 22 NOT 35. How can somebody who claims to have been an accountant make such a basic error?

Besides - The reference to the Lawrence case was to highlight the stupidity of a claim that it was "Fmotl fantasies", not that it shows regular private prosecutions ocurr. Bardsley knows nothing about the law and what is going on, other than what he reads on CAG. Clearly, lower profile prosecutions don't make the headlines - That doesn't mean that they are not taking place.

Unlike Bardsley, I have actually recently worked on a private prosecution so it is something I know a bit about and have a bit of experience in.

As stated, private prosecutions are becoming more popular, especially for the commercial sector. The advantages of taking out a private prosecution far outweigh the disadvantages, ie;

The prosecution will be paid for out of central funds
If the decision to prosecute has been reasonable, there would not be the risk of costs if the prosecution failed (unlike in a civil claim)
If the defendant is convicted, the victims can apply for a victims order - This is the equivalent of damages in a civil matter. The advantage with a victims order is that the authorities will enforce it, the victims do not have to (as is the case in civil matters). If the convicted person fails to adhere to the order, the court has the power to impose further punishment which could result in additional prison time. A victims order is far more powerful than a judgement. The authorities will also investigate the convicted person's financial affairs and WILL find money if it is hidden away. In Nigel's case, having money in a trust would not save him. He would still be faced with having to pay or face further punishment from the court.

The disadvantages of a private prosecution are:

The CPS are at liberty to drop the case when they wish - They do not have to consult or agree with the person/persons who instigated the prosecution.
The burden of proof is at the higher "beyond reasonable doubt" level.

As stated, these type of prosecutions are on the increase and in commercial situations, they are regularly favoured over a civil claim for deceit.

For anybody who is interested, the above is the true situation. No doubt Bardsley will respond with his usual uneducated, childish drivel but the position above is the correct one.

[Syd Snitkin]

He's now saying that a judge cannot order the convicted to pay compensation to the victim. Goodness gracious me.

[John The Baptist]

Quality from Old Ma Oddy:

What is more, I hope you can see that the only reason you have been dragged into this scenario is due to the lies Nigel has continually put in the public domain and his greed to take money from those that can least afford to be parted from it.

If you are ‘D’ I hope you can rebuild your life and wish you and your son well in the future.

Susan Oddy is a nasty piece of work. A rough old diamond who doesn't know the first thing about bailiffs except that they will visit if her husband Clive fails to adhere to judgements made against him.

In the few occasions that Susan Oddy's head was out of Sheila Harding's backside, she would frequently name "D", as did Sheila Harding, ensuring that it was known that "D's" paypal account was being used by Nigel (as if that mattered). Now the lying, hypocritical Old Ma is pretending that she is bothered whether "D's" name is posted or not.

As for this comment:

I also think you deserve a medal the size of a frying pan for putting up with Nigel for as long as you did..

What size medal would Tony Harding or Clive Oddy need?

[Syd Snitkin]

Complete opposite to how they treated the other 'D'.

[Michelle]

In the few occasions that Susan Oddy's head was out of Sheila Harding's backside, she would frequently name "D", as did Sheila Harding, ensuring that it was known that "D's" paypal account was being used by Nigel (as if that mattered). Now the lying, hypocritical Old Ma is pretending that she is bothered whether "D's" name is posted or not.

I got to hear a lot about that 'D' as well as the infamous PayPal account many years ago, and it wasn't from any of the above, who, at the time, I hadn't even heard of. It was from a well-known source who got a relative to purchase some templates online just for the purpose of finding out where the payments went. No doubt this is how the rest of them would also have found out.

Complete opposite to how they treated the other 'D'.

If the other 'D' in question is connected with the above, then hardly surprising, as she is also a liar...

[Syd Snitkin]

All of these Ds is so confusing.

[delta157]

Nothing wrong with a double D lol

[Syd Snitkin]

Why do I now fancy some Belgian buns?