Tent thread

BitterAndTwisted

felix-b wrote: »

Of the many, many things that don't stack up in this story is the 'school' thing. Initially, it was all about needing the money to go to Spain for a better life for her child. Now it turns out he starts school in Hove next week, which presumably has been planned for some time. If the tenant hadn't fallen behind with the rent which enabled the illegal eviction, where would Suzy have lived?

To be fair, I don't see anything sinister in SB not giving up her child's place at the school in Hove. She hadn't secured a property in Spain so had not yet needed to find a school place for him there. I would have done the same in her position, specially considering that schools in Hove are over-subscribed.

Pr1madonna

I wouldn't be surprised if the LEA got the Suzy Butler treatment aswell, she's shown what she can be like when she wants something...

tbs624

Pr1madonna wrote: »

The old thread got deleted because it was making too much work for the mods with the addition of people's personal addresses etc

As for factual errors, I think you need to do your research!
(All in the public domain) 20/10/2009 FINAL GAZETTE: DISSOLVED VIA VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF

This is veering OT but there we are.Thanks for your response.

I am aware of the situation with his Companies. Your post however does not make it clear that the "striking off" was *voluntary*. There is nothing specifically dodgy about companies applying for a voluntary strike off - it means their ideas weren't feasible or that they simply don't wish to continue with that company's existence.

I also fail to get your "dig" about working at Argos - the guy was probably at Uni at that time? Many students have temp jobs

As I said before, I don't think posts such as your previous one are helpful.

The real message of this thread is surely that LLs have to know the law and operate within it, it is absolutely wrong when they don't, and it's appalling when there appears to be collusion from a television company and a strange silence from some of those whose role it is to protect Ts from unlawful eviction and harassment.

tbs624

Pr1madonna wrote: »

Never said it was dodgy (your word, not mine), I just said it was wrapped up and struck off which is true. The public interest is that someone who sets themselves up as being a big "I am", a company director with delusions of success is in fact working for Argos, (and if you check you will see whilst Argos is given top of the list, if you interpret in time order it appears to be the most recent ie "until now")

Have absolutely no interest in trawling his FB, MySpace, Friends Reunited.......and I suspect it's probably a very limited percentage of the public as far as "public interest" in the particular subject of your delving goes.

Pr1madonna wrote: »

I think overall it is also indicative of Jezza's struggle with reality as experienced on the "Squatters" FB page but perhaps that's just me

I also thought it was funny and might inject a little levity but I hadn't allowed for you!

Indeed:D

Pr1madonna

tbs624 wrote: »

Have absolutely no interest in trawling his FB, MySpace, Friends Reunited.......and I suspect it's probably a very limited percentage of the public as far as "public interest" in the particular subject of your delving goes.

Indeed:D

You might be surprised.

But enough of all this - this thread has become like a favourite jumper, never worn for fear of damaging it and therefore has no point. If everyone on here is so scared of losing this thread that nothing remotely interesting or controversial gets posted on it then what is the point? You can only speculate for so long without facts to back it up.

sp1987

tbs624 wrote: »

Have absolutely no interest in trawling his FB, MySpace, Friends Reunited.......and I suspect it's probably a very limited percentage of the public as far as "public interest" in the particular subject of your delving goes.

Indeed:D

I don't really give a hoot what Jeremy is up to or if he is posting from his ipad, his car or his dog..but off topic discussions regarding SB I think are ripe for discussion as they do provide more of a picture of the person involved.

Invariably it will happen as she instigated 'off topic' right at the start of the first reports by bringing in how she works for a Peruvian charity etc. Her occupation has zilch to do with being a landlord, as does her provision of alternative accomodation (i.e. this elusive tent), but we must remember that it is her who felt these points were relevant. In fact all it serves to do is further undermine her stance on the matter (e.g. a homeless charity worker potentially causing homelessness). Almost an ironic situation where she is creating her own charity clients?

So I agree with you both, in different ways.

tbs624

sp1987 wrote: »

I don't really give a hoot what Jeremy is up to or if he is posting from his ipad, his car or his dog..but off topic discussions regarding SB I think are ripe for discussion as they do provide more of a picture of the person involved.

agreed I just don't see the need for what amounts to school gate gossip on people who are her mates/marketing gurus/neighbours etc

Pr1madonna

tbs624 wrote: »

agreed I just don't see the need for what amounts to school gate gossip on people who are her mates/marketing gurus/neighbours etc

Jezza is the self-appointed gate-keeper, the censorer of posts and destroyer (according to you) of the original thread. And let's not forget the not-biased much neighbour from thw GMTV footage - he's in it up to his neck, I would say he's fair game and he also put himself there but that's just my opinion and we've all got one of those.

sp1987

tbs624 wrote: »

agreed I just don't see the need for what amounts to school gate gossip on people who are her mates/marketing gurus/neighbours etc

But, on the flip side....it isn't so much gossip as facts he has posted himself. Just because it makes no odds to how I assess her actions (I even tried to not think she was as ignorant as I possibly could which lasted about 5 seconds until I realised she was actually a severely obnoxious, self centred and self righteous imbecile), doesn't mean knowing all the information available is undesirable.

As I say, comic relief at best for me...relevant to some, not relevant for you.

The facebook group itself is heavily moderated to exclude any comments from anyone who isn't in agreement. Everyone in agreement has made no legal argument, most of the deleted comments are concise and clear legal questions, which are swiftly deleted and posters described as abusive. So they have reduced the scope of discussion to the bare bones of gossip as they simply won't address queries. You have to accept that gossip is inevitable if you start stating possible arrears owed by a tenant to a previous landlord, total hearsay.

No sympathy whatsoever for her. She very much deserves all the negative commentary she is receiving.

She is herself, a little old to be only approving of the company of people who agree with her who are mostly, legally ignorant. So all this talk of 'school gossip' is really a self inflicted problem.

Take the IRD properties thread. That did not descend into rumour and off topic discussion as Sunil Dhown has never stepped forward and claimed to save the world or a portion of it. So people will concentrate solely on landlord/agent commentary and thoughts/opinions about if the service is positive or negative.

tbs624

Pr1madonna wrote: »

Jezza is the self-appointed gate-keeper, the censorer of posts and destroyer (according to you) of the original thread.

The contents of PMs should remain private - that is precisely why they are called *private* messages.

However

"I can't recall who it was who said that the deletion of the previous thread was in part due to personal complaints by JPD" does not mean that it was the case "according to" me.