HELP baillifs threatening letter

rog2

Bossyboots wrote:

Regardless of anyone's personal views on the matter, I was pointing out an inaccuracy in someone else's post. It doesn't matter whether you or I believe in the charge, the OP needs assitance with their current problem and there was information posted which is not backed up by the congestion charge website.

Sorry - No offence meant or intended - There are many other personal views expressed in this thread, and, sometimes the subject matter can evoke slightly tangential reaction in those who read it. Tangential reactions can also stimulate thought which can bring about alternative solutions to a problem. However, if, in any way, the OP finds my comment objectionable, or abusive, then I will personally apologise to OP.
Nevertheless - I will consider myself justifiably rebuked.

Bossyboots

rog2 wrote:

Sorry - No offence meant or intended - There are many other personal views expressed in this thread, and, sometimes the subject matter can evoke slightly tangential reaction in those who read it. Tangential reactions can also stimulate thought which can bring about alternative solutions to a problem. However, if, in any way, the OP finds my comment objectionable, or abusive, then I will personally apologise to OP.
Nevertheless - I will consider myself justifiably rebuked.

Actually I thought you were getting at me for not instantly leaping to the defence of the OP but by posting something which reading back I can see might have seemed like indirectly supporting the congestion charge.