Disgusted at the sale of jo and ron wood's house in richmond on at £13million!

sp1987

Fang wrote: »

Lol. You don't watch films or television then? Or read?

I don't think books or other media are readily available under the rock or indeed in the century this poster is living in. :undecided

breadlinebetty

Fang wrote: »

Oh dear, another account I see. Another one that can't read.



It also doesn't matter what he said, the judge that had access to all the facts decided that he did wrong and had to return the deposit. A deposit that should have been kept secured. Instead the poster decided to spend it and then didn't have any friends or family who could lend him the money to pay it back.

It always amazes me how many people who attack can't take it back and need to use another account to back themselves up. Still, let's hope he finds a job and some friends soon, eh?:)

You're wrong, Fang. That post of uptomyeyesinit clearly states he had a LODGER. Lodgers deposits do not need to be secured. I'd have thought you'd know that, living in in lodgings yourself.

Fang_3

breadlinebetty wrote: »

You're wrong, Fang. That post of uptomyeyesinit clearly states he had a LODGER. Lodgers deposits do not need to be secured. I'd have thought you'd know that, living in in lodgings yourself.

No I'm not. Any deposit should be kept secured. A lodger's deposit does not need to be kept in one of the three government schemes, but it still needs to be secured. It's not extra income for the landlord.

And I've never been a lodger. Yet another poster/account that cannot read. It's reaching epidemic levels.

breadlinebetty

Fang,

You must have one hell of a sad lonely friendless life. You've just spent the last hour stalking me and my posts on here! You can't deny it - because I've been sent proof by PM!

If you continue to stalk you'll be banned.

Now go and get a life you pathetic little nonentity.

Fang_3

breadlinebetty wrote: »

Fang,

You must have one hell of a sad lonely friendless life. You've just spent the last hour stalking me and my posts on here! You can't deny it - because I've been sent proof by PM!

If you continue to stalk you'll be banned.

Now go and get a life you pathetic little nonentity.

Please do post this proof! I'd be thrilled to see it. Especially as you only posted 15 minutes ago and brought that account to my attention. Is there a spare TARDIS somewhere or something?

breadlinebetty

Fang wrote: »

No I'm not. Any deposit should be kept secured. A lodger's deposit does not need to be kept in one of the three government schemes, but it still needs to be secured. It's not extra income for the landlord.

And I've never been a lodger. Yet another poster/account that cannot read. It's reaching epidemic levels.

And STILL you're wrong! A lodgers deposit does NOT need to be secured. A lodger has absolutely no rights either. Oh, and a lodgers deposit is not extra income for a landlord - it's a holding deposit to make sure some scraggy lodger doesn't damage the place or steal something.

Now BORE OFF! No-one asked for your comments on here. You're not liked - on any of the forums. Go away - before you're PUSHED. OK?

Fang_3

breadlinebetty wrote: »

And STILL you're wrong! A lodgers deposit does NOT need to be secured. A lodger has absolutely no rights either. Oh, and a lodgers deposit is not extra income for a landlord - it's a holding deposit to make sure some scraggy lodger doesn't damage the place or steal something.

Now BORE OFF! No-one asked for your comments on here. You're not liked - on any of the forums. Go away - before you're PUSHED. OK?

Which is exactly what I said. If you're going to troll at least attempt to be intelligent about it. Speaking of stalking, are you having fun reading through my threads?

Who's going to push me? You? Lolz. Anything else?:rotfl:

Fang_3

In fact, this is quite worrying. Proof that this demented poster is stalking me -










All threads of mine. That's not healthy behaviour. I hope breadlinebetty gets the help that she needs.:(

sp1987

breadlinebetty wrote: »

If you continue to stalk you'll be banned.

Now go and get a life you pathetic little nonentity.

Gosh. What a charmer.

It seems quite ironic to think that somebody who accuses another of stalking and being pathetic, would bother threatening to get someone banned from an internet forum? Some text arranged into boxes? I'm sure if Fang is that 'pathetic' they would know plenty of other forums to join to offend plenty of other generic users.

Besides, I think your deep desire to find fault with anyone but yourself prevented you reading in Fang's post that which was absolutely obvious to me. Someone took a claim to court as the person they were lodging with didn't give their money back. A simple small claim. You seemed far too hung up on Fang's use of 'secure' as if they (unsure of gender) were implying there was an obligation to a means of security as opposed to a general legal obligation to not cause another person financial loss without cause. Why are you trying to find fault in something absolutely anyone else could read without trying to (poorly) decipher coded messages that weren't there?

There really is a puss filled mire of hypocrisy on the internet and you seem to have parked your flag right at it's peak.

Good grief.

Zazen999

breadlinebetty wrote: »

Now BORE OFF! No-one asked for your comments on here. You're not liked - on any of the forums. Go away - before you're PUSHED. OK?

Actually, you're wrong. I quite like Fang. :beer: