baliffs

cosmic-dust

DUTR wrote: »

Erm yes there were some un called for comments, and in my defence it did look early on as if it was a witch hunt on the nrp and still does to a good extent. It was only later when the OP came back on , I had cooled away from that line.

Earlier on that was the fifth comment on the thread and guess what it was only you and the OP so where you got this witch hunt idea from is anyone's guess.

marksoton

kelloggs36 wrote: »

What do you mean that they can't do anything with the vehicle? They can take it and sell it.

Not in the circumstance described.

DUTR

cosmic-dust wrote: »

No one can make you do anything regarding your child, i am sure your day will come. You think all pwc are bitter and twisted i beg to differ had your pwc not contacted the csa are you telling me that you would be part of your child's life. Somehow i really don't think so.

In the past I used to play chess, I can tell you one thing you learn from that game is never try to assume what the other person maybe thinking.
No I don't think all PWCs are bitter and twisted, however you should not assume all NRPs are looking to avoid or reduce their financial obligations either.
I have said in other posts, when a PWC comes along asking how to milk their ex, many of you all come running along with ideas and sanctions, so often I do think it is not to do with reducing child poverty but a vindictive practice.
But as for your assumption on whether I would be a part of the child's life who knows, at the time of regular contact though 60 mile round trip 3 or 4 times per week, paying for after school club, music lessons, horse riding and this that and the other, yes the pwc used the csa to try and spite me, so me paying is less than what it cost at the time, then the call comes in the past realising she had made a big mistake, but of course according to your logic, she is having the last laugh along with the child , I only have to pay until the 19th b/day , I wonder who is going to sponsor the university if that comes about? Oh and as for the estate heh heh , next of kin or not the will , suggests that only CS is continued to be paid until the 19th b/day the rest goes elsewhere :T

cosmic-dust

DUTR wrote: »

In the past I used to play chess, I can tell you one thing you learn from that game is never try to assume what the other person maybe thinking.
No I don't think all PWCs are bitter and twisted, however you should not assume all NRPs are looking to avoid or reduce their financial obligations either. Where did i say that.
I have said in other posts, when a PWC comes along asking how to milk their ex, many of you all come running along with ideas and sanctions, so often I do think it is not to do with reducing child poverty but a vindictive practice. I haven't posted on MSE for a while, so i cannot comment on these things.
But as for your assumption on whether I would be a part of the child's life who knows, at the time of regular contact though 60 mile round trip 3 or 4 times per week, paying for after school club, music lessons, horse riding and this that and the other, yes the pwc used the csa to try and spite me, so me paying is less than what it cost at the time, then the call comes in the past realising she had made a big mistake, but of course according to your logic, she is having the last laugh along with the child , Yes she made a big mistake getting pregnant by you. Did the pwc have a choice in the matter, only recently have we pwc been given a choice before we would get our benefits reduced. I only have to pay until the 19th b/day , I wonder who is going to sponsor the university if that comes about?Who say's the child is going onto uni? Oh and as for the estate heh heh , next of kin or not the will , suggests that only CS is continued to be paid until the 19th b/day the rest goes elsewhere :T

I would be careful about what you think regarding will's
My reply in blue.

kelloggs36

Which was Mark?

Sylvester

marksoton wrote: »

I am sorry im not getting involved in the arguments

I'm sure that will change when you get your friends from the arms and your other usernames involved, eh kid

marksoton

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Which was Mark?

The OP telling them the car was somewhere else. For a start they would have no right to enter the land it was on.

DUTR

Cosmic -dust
Just because you have not been on mse for a while does not mean that the comments are rare because you didn't see them. As for where did you say that? The same place I said all pwcs are B&T, as for making a mistake getting pregnat , I certainley didn't ask to start a family with her, do you know how many hookers I could get every week for what i'm paying out? But anyways it was the only way to get out of a 2 bed flat and get a 3 bed council house, you know the proceedure Well the child is bright and seems has the father's ability educationally , and as for expressions of wish, I think you will find the legal bods know best, lets not forget the case where the lady left a hefty sum to some restaurant owners in favour of her children and they lost the case for a claim to any of the estate

Browntoa

I've reported this thread because of the hijacking of the thread for a arguement, gone way off topic , suggest both parties go away and count to ten/calm down

cosmic-dust

Sylvester wrote: »

I'm sure that will change when you get your friends from the arms and your other usernames involved, eh kid

This is my biatching thread, now buggar off back to the arms :rotfl::p