Can they take my pet Tarantulas and Snake?

spidwoman

MrsTine wrote: »

I know - and I'm not saying I agree with it at all Just saying that might be the argument...
And as Fermi says... 53... I mean to me 53 spiders is an infestation not a pet collection :rotfl: Seriously OP no offence I just don't like them lol! But I can understand why they might not be seen as pets in that number...

Yes, 53 is alot, but when it's a collection, there is more than one. They are a hobby.

What about there only being one snake though?

fermi

spidwoman wrote: »

Yes, 53 is alot, but when it's a collection, there is more than one. They are a hobby.

The OR/examiners have been known to sell other private collections.

Someone before had several thousand CD's. Individually, not worth selling. But sold as a collection they were. Others have had modest (but still valued in the £100's) stamp collections sold.

Pets are slightly different due to emotional attachment and welfare, but where do you draw the line?

blind-as-a-bat_2

fermi wrote: »

The OR/examiners have been known to sell other private collections.

Someone before had several thousand CD's. Individually, not worth selling. But sold as a collection they were. Others have had modest (but still valued in the £100's) stamp collections sold.

Pets are slightly different due to emotional attachment and welfare, but where do you draw the line?

The line will be drawn when someone challenges it in court, as what is beneficial to the estate to warrent them taking and selling it.

Just as the guy who challenged the IPO the IP was trying to get.

Its not always what something is worth, its the justification of taking it, if its of no benefit to the creditors then it has already been proved that is not justified.

Trouble is you just cannot run a system like BR on guidlines, as we well know, it simply is not consitantly fair to both BR,s and creditors alike unless it has set boundarys to make it consistant

fermi

The IS is also meant to be self funding remember. It's not just benefit to the "estate".

But that debate is probably best for another thread; when it doesn't help with this anyway.

blind-as-a-bat_2

fermi wrote: »

The IS is also meant to be self funding remember. It's not just benefit to the "estate". Yes i know, but how is that differant to an IP covering his fees?

But that debate is probably best for another thread; when it doesn't help with this anyway.

That all depends if the OP wants to contest what the OR are trying to do;)

fermi

Yes i know, but how is that differant to an IP covering his fees?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Do you really need to ask? Civil service and government here. :rolleyes:

I'm refering to senior management and policy makers there. Not local staff.

I've worked with the Civil Service a lot and seen how it works.

blind-as-a-bat_2

fermi wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Do you really need to ask? Civil service and government here. :rolleyes:

I'm refering to senior management and policy makers there. Not local staff.

I've worked with the Civil Service a lot and seen how it works.

If they where not woried the principle of that judgement couldnt be applied to them because they are part of the Civil service, they wouldnt have bothered including it the OR Guide now would they;)

fermi

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

If they where not woried the principle of that judgement couldnt be applied to them because they are part of the Civil service, they wouldnt have bothered including it the OR Guide now would they;)

And how many times have we seen that guidance ignored or "misinterpreted". :cool:

If you can get away with it, then...................

blind-as-a-bat_2

fermi wrote: »

And how many times have we seen that guidance ignored or "misinterpreted". :cool:

If you can get away with it, then...................

My point in post#44 i believe:p

clairus99

spidwoman wrote: »

53 tarantulas,

please tell me where you live so i can avoid the whole city like a plague.

(btw best of luck, i hope they keep them safely within your four walls)